Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9057 total)
434 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 430 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,841 Year: 953/6,534 Month: 953/682 Week: 6/182 Day: 6/27 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 66 of 452 (875961)
05-10-2020 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tangle
05-10-2020 12:52 PM


now he's spamming the proposal thread rather than answer us. He's just another creationist pillock.

But what is your question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2020 12:52 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2020 5:41 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 74 of 452 (875972)
05-10-2020 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2020 2:56 PM


RAZD writes:

The supernatural cannot be studied by scientific methods, and therefor supernatural is not considered in sciences. Whether or not “God does not exist” is not considered because the supernatural is not testable, being supernatural.

We study the natural world to see how we can explain it through natural processes, because that is what we can do, not because of belief.

Fine. This is basically the same thing that RichardWang is saying naturalism is but in a negative/opposite manner.

As indicated, supernatural is not-natural. If science is limited to the testing and observation of natural things (matter and energy), then by that definition, the testing and observational techniques cannot be used to validate or negate anything supernatural, or anything else beyond nature including those things mentioned like "Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena."

You still have it backwards.
It's not an a priori belief.

I'm surprised at this assessment, cause it is contradicted by just about everything else that follows these statements.

Science doesn't start with a belief, it starts with observations, then it develops theories to explain those observations, using known processes. To be science these theories must be testable, and that means we need to be able to discern cause and effect, and be able to repeat them. That limits us to natural processes.

Of course science starts with a belief. It has to, unless you are saying that scientific processes validate scientific processes, which would be a tautology (circular reasoning). What you are referring to in these statements is all a position held (a belief) before you have made any observations or tests. You have a priori ruled out anything supernatural because you cannot observe, test, such things.

Not having any means known to test metaphysical or supernatural processes, we are left with testing what we can with natural processes. In other words we are limited to the natural world and natural processes because we don't have any known tools to consistently test metaphysical or supernatural processes,...

So again, you are here showing the limits of what can be considered by science, and this is again a position that is in place before you even start any observations or tests. In other words, an a priori stance.

... and it is only when/if such tools become available that testing can include metaphysical or supernatural processes.

This phrase is left hanging out there like like an escape hatch. But it is a self-contradiction. The problem is that any "testing" that is acceptable by your scientific standards must be related to observations of natural things. So if anything is observed, it must be due to a natural process. It could not ever observe a supernatural thing because supernatural things are a priori not allowed.

Again, it's not an a priori belief, it's a result of our limited ability to test the theories with natural processes.

This statement is shocking just by itself. If you limit the ability to testing only by natural processes, you can only have results that conform to nature. The limited ability is the a priori belief.

Dr Adequate writes:

Well, we have noticed that whenever we know the explanation for a biological phenomenon, that explanation is always natural and never supernatural.


Not surprising when "whatever we know" is only allowed to be a natural explanation. You don't allow any other explanation.

So it's not a premise in biology. It's a conclusion

But it is a premise. You limit your testing to natural things only, do not have any tests outside of natural processes, and thus you cannot, by definition, have any other conclusions beyond something natural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2020 2:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2020 9:46 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 83 by AZPaul3, posted 05-10-2020 10:54 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 87 by Admin, posted 05-11-2020 4:36 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 88 of 452 (876015)
05-11-2020 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by dwise1
05-10-2020 11:26 PM


The standard creationist argument is that both camps are dealing with the same data, but just interpreting it differently.

But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that the creationists are claiming to have different data. Supernaturalistic data.

In that case, then fine! Let them present their supernaturalistic data!

We welcome it! Put up or shut up!

And this, dear reader, is the perfect example of a strawman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by dwise1, posted 05-10-2020 11:26 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 89 of 452 (876016)
05-11-2020 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Admin
05-11-2020 4:36 PM


Admin writes:

I don't know if you realized it, but you replied to Dr Adequate's Message 65 but quoted from RAZD's Message 11.

I hope you realize I was responding to both. I quoted from both and initially put their names in the quoted sections.

Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Admin, posted 05-11-2020 4:36 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Admin, posted 05-31-2020 7:51 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 99 of 452 (876108)
05-12-2020 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2020 9:46 PM


Re: Identifying the supernatural
Dr Adequate writes:

But this isn't so. Think of any miracle in the Bible — let's say the bush in Exodus that "burned with fire, and was not consumed". Scientifically we could verify that there were indeed flames, and that the bush was not being consumed. And science would tell us that this was a miracle, being a local violation of the laws of nature.

No,it would not occur like this. For one, a miracle usually is a one-time event, so you usually would not have the opportunity to scientifically test anything.

Secondly, even if you could test something, your tests/observations are limited to physical things and processes. So, at best, in the burning bush scenario science could perhaps determine what the fire was or what the bush was in a physical sense. And there might be a physical explanation for why the bush isn't burning (e.g. the fire is regular fire, but the bush has oil and asbestos interwoven in the wood). If looking only* at the physicality of the situation gives you a physical explanation, no matter how fantastic it may seem, you are talking about a natural thing and not a supernatural thing,

But it isn't the physicality of the situation that only determines it is a supernatural event or not. There is also the component of intentionality. Even if you can describe a burning bush in physical (natural) terms, it does not explain how or why that situation was occurring. If a non-material agent causes that particular scenario, your scientific tests have no way of determining that. There are NO TESTS for the supernatural. So even if given the opportunity, science might be able to explain the physical nature of what is being observed (i.e. an observed burning bush was actually a bush (made of matter) that was on fire (matter and energy) but wasn't being consumed because of some physical (matter) properties. But why that particular arrangement of matter and energy came about could not ever be determined by science if the acting agent that caused that particular arrangement of matter was a supernatural agent.

A third reason why science deferring to a supernatural explanation would likely not ever occur are the scenarios described by dwise1 Message 82 and AZPaul3 Message 83 in the posts following yours.

quote:
Rather, we must first thoroughly exhaust all possible natural explanations.

quote:
There is nothing in this universe, nothing that can impact this universe, nothing that can in any way be a part of this universe that, given the opportunity to study, we can not science the hell out of.

Admitting "all possible natural explanations" are exhausted would never occur. Or, in other words, there is "nothing" that "we can not science the hell out of."

Thus, one may verbally say the premise of a materialistic viewpoint is 'tentatively held', the reality in practice is that a non-materialistic viewpoint is never allowed.

Do you honestly believe that the burning bush scenario could have been a supernatural event?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2020 9:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2020 5:45 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 113 of 452 (876164)
05-13-2020 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Richard L. Wang
05-13-2020 11:50 AM


Re: Re-RLW(105): Richard, you made a big mistake
ALL Naturalists will say "Yes, science can", not "No, science can." Would you please improve your English first, then join in this forum to ...

I am sympathetic with you RichardLWang, but that was just funny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 11:50 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 116 of 452 (876173)
05-13-2020 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by AZPaul3
05-12-2020 9:26 AM


AZPaul3 writes:

Information has no independent existence outside the physics of the human mind.

And the same status can be said of SCIENCE.

If society would allow me to dissect a few dozen human brains at precisely the moment the word was read I could most definitely tell you the exact measures, weights and matter/energy constituents of the idea of “cat”. I would need a few thousand victims to get the full matter/energy constituents of a good sized kitten gif but it certainly could be done as long as I’m not caught before I finish.

Merely an assertion. Scientifically, identifying specific brain activity that accounts for sensory and motor skill operations does have some validity. But also scientifically, that does NOT appear to be the case for other states of mind like consciousness, sense of self, intellect, or abstract thinking. Some tests have been done, and tests are still being done on people without the need for a dissection. And the data suggests so far that you cannot define every mental thought by means of a particular matter pattern.

Chemical reactions have no meaning, they just are what they are as defined and predicted by QED. We can see that specific reactions repeatedly have specific natural effects throughout a complex system. DNA, mRNA, tRNA and amino acids make proteins in very specific complex natural processes.

These are emergent properties of complex chemistry with no purpose or goal. They are cascades of chemistry that have no option but to perform as the universe requires.

Except the pattern of information encoded by the DNA, mRNA, and even in tRNA is not determined by the QED or any known chemical affinities. Since you are invoking a philosophy of methodological naturalism (MN), I suppose you're logical conclusion is that everything in the end boils down to matter and energy, which you have insinuated is what thought is as well. But since that is merely an assertion, and MN is an arbitrary standard for science, I guess I won't have to point out how MN as a corollary also undermines any concept that science is a valid process.

We call parts of these processes a “code” because we can see great consistency with these specific molecules reacting with other molecules cascading into a consistent predictable end product. The reactions we see have no more meaning than the reaction of water and potassium exploding through that natural simple process also defined and predicted by QED.

This is how we have chosen to define and organize these complex sets of natural molecular cascades we observe. Like the symbology in a written book the DNA/RNA “codes” have no “meaning” outside the brain of the human studying them.

No, we call it a "code" because the arrangement of molecules corresponds to a symbol system that is independent from and conveys information independent from any physical properties of the molecules themselves. Just like a language is not merely a set of random sounds or a grouping of random markings on some medium, but instead those sets/groupings have a meaning to them that is independent of the physical devices causing or the receiving the input. And in our experience, when the origin is known, codes are always the result of the activity of an intelligence.

The 'message' is not based on any QED nor is a predictable end product, unless you are again taking a MN stance to it's logical conclusion..... which would mean that no only is any message or information invalid as being nothing more than molecules in motion, but so is rationality, morality, thought and,..... science.

The “code” exists only in our minds. And given enough victims to dissect we can discern the precise physical makeup of each symbol, idea and concept.

The hypothesis thus develops that in the hundreds of millions of years and the countless billions upon billions of reaction cascades experienced, the ones we see today in the operations of protein synthesis are the few that survived the rigors of natural selection because they were beneficial to the reproduction of organisms. Countless trillions of organisms did not survive to reproduce because the chemical cascades, the codes in their systems, were not conducive to their reproduction.

You contradict yourself here. If the "“code” exists only in our minds", then there cannot also be "codes in their systems" that affect reproduction. See, you cannot avoid the concept of information even when you want to.

I also find it interesting that your assertions also rely completely on the existence of at least 2 independent molecular defined "codes" acted on by devices that would logically have to be built by code-independent means, all of which just happen to be present via some unknown origin. Oh wait, I forgot.... it's just the snap your it's-all-is-just-molecules-in-motion-fingers that explains it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by AZPaul3, posted 05-12-2020 9:26 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2020 2:10 AM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 123 by ringo, posted 05-14-2020 4:17 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 178 of 452 (876515)
05-21-2020 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ringo
05-21-2020 12:40 PM


Of course not. I'm saying that prior to human existence no information existed. Just like no limericks existed.

Why humans only? Are you saying that for other non-human minds there is nothing akin to information?

It's the same argument as saying that DNA contains no mystical* code. All it is is an arrangement of atoms that behaves in certain ways depending on the arrangement. "Information" is just the spin that humans put on it.

* - unnecessary word

"depending on the arrangement" is another way of saying "information".

"information" happens to be the word humans speaking English refer to it, but if humans were not around to think it, the effect that "information" has would still have a specific effect. The parts/matter is still there, but the (purposeful) arrangement of those parts has an effect independent of the properties of the matter itself. That is why information is said to be independent from the matter it is transmitted on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ringo, posted 05-21-2020 12:40 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 05-21-2020 4:11 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 190 of 452 (876536)
05-21-2020 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ringo
05-21-2020 4:11 PM


ringo writes:

ringo writes:

I'm saying that prior to human existence no information existed. Just like no limericks existed.

WookieeB writes:

Are you saying that for other non-human minds there is nothing akin to information?


There may be dolphin information and even ant information. When you learn to read it you can compare it to human information.

I was responding to your claim that if humans didnt exist, then information didnt exist. I think it is obvious that information would exist for other minds, be it a dolphin or ant or whatever. Limericks might not exist if humans didnt, but limericks is just a part of information, while information can exist apart from limericks.

ringo writes:

In any case, it's still just a dolphin interpretation or an ant interpretation of dolphin reality or ant reality. It has no inherent existence.

Of course it would still exist as information for whatever creature mind is thinking it. If by "inherent existence" you are referring to it not being tied to matter, I would agree with you. Information is an abstract thing and not tied to matter, just like we've been saying. It is also the same for consciousness, mathematics, science, and any other concept of intentional thought. But if matter is all there is, and there really is no information, then there is also no consciousness, mathematics, science, and any other concept.

First, there is no "purposeful arrangement". DNA does not have a purpose.

Well, I think that is the greater question, isn't it? But I would disagree. DNA has a purpose to store and transmit information. If it does not as you ascribe, then by the same reasoning, there is no such thing as DNA.

Second, how is it even possible for some mystical message to be written on the atoms themselves, independent of the atoms themselves? What is the ink?

The message is instantiated on matter of course. But the message itself, the information, is independent of the atoms, or the molecules, or whatever physical medium is used to store and transmit the message. Shakespeare's Macbeth is information that can be written with ink on paper, chiseled into rock, heard audibly via sound waves, be communicated via points of light in a fiber optic cables, transmitted via radio waves throughout our planet and into space, and countless other manners. But no matter what different forms of matter are used to transmit it, be they ink, paper, rock, vibrating molecules in a pressurized space, photons, radio waves, the four base molecules of DNA, or many other types of media - Macbeth, the information, is the same. The information itself is not dependent on the matter.

I use the word "mystical" very deliberately because there is no real message other than the arrangement of the atoms.

And yet, there still is a message!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 05-21-2020 4:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by AZPaul3, posted 05-21-2020 9:41 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 197 by ringo, posted 05-22-2020 11:52 AM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 207 by WookieeB, posted 05-23-2020 4:18 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 191 of 452 (876537)
05-21-2020 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by AZPaul3
05-21-2020 5:09 PM


For math, we know where it exists - in the mind.

But you dont believe the mind exists. You cant have one without the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by AZPaul3, posted 05-21-2020 5:09 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by AZPaul3, posted 05-21-2020 9:08 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 194 of 452 (876542)
05-22-2020 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by AZPaul3
05-21-2020 9:41 PM


f every copy of Macbeth on whatever medium, even the ones in our minds, were destroyed then Macbeth would cease to exist. There would be no idea, there would be no information, about any Macbeth.

So what? If X didn't exist, then X doesn't exist.

But Macbeth does exist. And the content of that information does not depend on the physical medium.

The content of the information may not be dependent on the physical matter/energy media used...

Yes, that is my point.

.... but its very existence in this universe most definitely is. Without being embodied in some form of physical system information does not exist.

There are some key words in there.... but again, so what? The point is, information exists, and the information itself, is independent of the matter media. The reverse order is also true: the matter media is not dependent on the information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by AZPaul3, posted 05-21-2020 9:41 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by AZPaul3, posted 05-22-2020 2:52 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 207 of 452 (876576)
05-23-2020 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by WookieeB
05-21-2020 7:11 PM


ringo writes:

It would exist only IN the mind of whatever was thinking it. Information is a product of mind. The same reality becomes very different information in the mind of a human and the mind of an ant.

The bolded part is basically what I am saying. Information exists. Maybe you should define what you think information is. I agree, information is a product of mind. But whether that mind is in an ant, dolphin or human, it is still information. And whether or not it is different for an ant vs a human is not relevant. Probably, information as it is imprinted on a human mind is different from human to human. Much like a fingerprint on any finger is unique from person to person, yet it is still a fingerprint.

Consciousness, mathematics, science, etc. are STATES of the matter within the mind.

Merely an assertion you make with no evidence. It is an a priori philosophy. Nonetheless, it is an irrational position. Those things are abstract concepts that are not defined by the matter they may reside on.

Like water has a purpose to run downhill? That's a function, a behaviour. What you imagine as a "purpose" is just the result it happens to have.

No. Water runs downhill because it is following the physical laws of matter and gravity. The information in DNA is not there due to any physical laws of the matter of DNA. There is nothing about the makeup of nucleotides and laws of matter that dictate what information is in the DNA. A function and purpose relate to teleology, but they are not the same thing as behavior.

But how? What is the medium? What is the message made of?

I already gave an example of how with the Macbeth scenario. A medium is the carrier, but the medium is not the message, because you can have a different medium to represent the same message. So the message itself is not made of anything, it is abstract.

To put it in other words, the message is a particular arrangement of matter (or energy), but that arrangement of matter is not dependent on any law relative to that matter. The arrangement of the matter, how the matter got to be in whatever position it is, is not determined by any law of matter.

How would you distinguish matter that carries a message from matter that does not?
The information is dependent on the matter in the medium in which it is stored, minds, paper and ink, etc. Erase every copy from the matter and the information is gone with no way to get it back.

If you are alluding to a mind being required to be able to distinguish what a message is, I agree. But I would only agree with the second statement if you replaced the word "mind" with "brain". A brain is the matter, but I don't think that a mind is the same thing as a brain (and that probably is the crux of our disagreement). For the sake of discussion, in our natural world a mind is dependent on matter (the brain), but a mind is not the brain. And a message is not dependent on the matter it is written on. So yes, if you got rid of all the matter the message was riding on (including the brains), then the information goes away to.

ringo writes:

WookieeB writes:

And yet, there still is a message!

You remind me of my brother when he was young. You could show him six ways from Sunday that something wasn't true and his response would be, "But I think it is."

Cute story, but I'm not your brother, and apparently you are not aware of your own writing.

You said: "I use the word "mystical" very deliberately because there is no real message other than the arrangement of the atoms."

Now let's focus.
".....there is no real message other than the arrangement of the atoms."
"no...message" . "other" . "than" . ?????????
*whispers* "the arrangement of atoms" < - which is a message.

And yet, as you said, there still is a message!

Edited by WookieeB, : punctuation and sentence structure cleanup


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by WookieeB, posted 05-21-2020 7:11 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by AZPaul3, posted 05-23-2020 8:00 AM WookieeB has responded
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 05-23-2020 1:13 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 242 of 452 (876685)
05-25-2020 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by ringo
05-23-2020 1:13 PM


Exactly. Because it is CREATED within the individual mind based on the unique set of inputs received by that mind.

Your logic is circular. The thing created in the mind can not be the same thing that is input. If there are a "unique set of inputs" (which is the information) that are received by the mind, then the mind cannot then also create that information.

In the case I am referring to, the information is external, imprinted on matter in whatever form it is (which can by many). You can take that information and imprint it differently on other matter, and the information stays the same. The same goes for inputing to mind(s). Each mind may now imprint it in the brain in a different material form from another mind, but the information is still the same. For each mind, there may be a unique mental state that accounts for the information, but between minds the information would still be the same.

Your example doesn't answer the question. If every copy of Macbeth was erased from every mind and every medium, how would it be rebuilt? You claim that the information in Macbeth is floating around out there somewhere in the cosmos. So if Shakespeare managed to figure it out once, somebody else should be able to figure it out again. How? Be specific.

If every copy of Macbeth was erased from every mind and every medium, then the information would be gone too.

I never made the claim that information is "floating around out there". If Shakespeare created Macbeth, but then all copies of Macbeth materially and all minds that knew Macbeth were deleted, Macbeth would be deleted too. I never indicated that someone else should be able to "figure it out" again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 05-23-2020 1:13 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by ringo, posted 05-25-2020 4:45 PM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 243 of 452 (876686)
05-25-2020 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by AZPaul3
05-23-2020 8:00 AM


There is no information in DNA.

Oh really? I guess we need to inform the doctors of the National Institute of Health, one of the most prestigious schools in America, all the scientists that read and/or publish to Nature, the all-wise (LOL) Wikipedia that is so popular on this forum, and probably every other scientist and student that has even had brief instruction in biology.

DNA is a series of molecules that cause a specific chemical cascade. Those molecules, in accord with the laws of physics, have no option but to react as required.

And what "specific" cascade would that be? From what I've learned, DNA will cause quite a different arrangement of matter based upon the arrangement of the nucleotide sequence as it interacts with other matter according to the laws of physics. That the arrangment is the result of mindless physics is still yet to be demonstrated.

The information is in the mind observing the regularity, the repeatability, of that cascade.

Hardly. No mind has to observe the DNA doing it's thing in making a specific thing according to specific instructions. The information is still there whether a mind sees it or not.

That symbology only has meaning as agreed by those using the symbology and that meaning, abstract as it may seem, is embodied in the physical media of the mind.

The cellular machinary that does the transcription and translation and building of protiens certainly is using the symbology and meaning of the information in DNA to produce different products. They are not minds.

Of course the arrangement of matter/energy must and can only be as allowed and constrained by physics.

Yes, I agree. But as matter is "allowed" to be, or "constrained" by physics, the arrangement is not necessarily determined by physics.

Information is created in the mind, and then it can be transmitted to matter within the constraints of physics. But it is not physics that is determining the information, physics only is governing the media matter the information is on. Now other matter, via a mind, can be arranged to react to the initial information in specific ways, thus becoming a form of non-mind form acting on the "symbology". Take away the original minds and you still have information that causes a specific outcome, one that though constrained by physics was not created by physics.

There is no other known power in the universe that can order/form/constrain particles and forces other than the laws of physics.

If you mean to apply that all the way down to the workings of a mind, then there is no such thing as consciousness, mathematics, science, laws of physics, rationality, or a mind. And if there is none of those things, you have no argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by AZPaul3, posted 05-23-2020 8:00 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by AZPaul3, posted 05-26-2020 1:10 AM WookieeB has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 245 of 452 (876692)
05-25-2020 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by ringo
05-25-2020 4:45 PM


I didn't say it was. I said that the information is created IN the mind FROM the inputs.

I think you are confusing information, the message, with the information media, or what it is stored/transported on.

The information is abstract, not determined by the matter. So, for example, Macbeth on paper is an arrangement of ink and paper matter. But Macbeth is not the ink and paper. It can be copied to another media, like chiselled in rock. Macbeth is not the rock or lack of rock in a space. A human can read (input) the information, and it will be impressed on the brain in a form of electromagnetic charges upon neurons. Macbeth is not the electromagnetic charges or neurons. Macbeth the information is the same throughout each example even though each information media is completely different from the others.

No, the inputs are not information. Information is what the mind creates from the inputs

It doesn't matter how you phrase it. You cannot create something new that is received externally. You're violating the rules of logic. If the pattern of input that is coming from an external source is considered information, you cannot bring it in and say that you just created it. It existed before you input it.

But you seem to be saying that the information exists independent of any mind or any medium. How is that possible?

Because you are not understanding what information is. I'm using a definition of information that is commonly understood and used by a majority of people when they refer to it: “the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects.” So, information does require a "something" (in our experience matter/energy) to be arranged, but it is not the something that is the information. The information is the 'attribute in the arrangement that produces a specific effect'. Yes, something (matter/energy) needs to be involved, but merely the matter/energy is not the arrangement itself. There is also an aspect of time that is involved, which I think is understood implicitly if something is being produced.

You said in this very post that "the information is external, imprinted on matter". If Shakespeare could somehow interpret that information from the matter, why can't somebody else do the same thing?

In the example given that we were both using, the information already existed in some form (matter) before it was "input" to a mind. The 'attribute inherent in the arrangement of something' existed prior to the input into a mind which ended up being the same 'attribute inherent in the arrangement of something else'. I was not speaking of when the information that is Macbeth was originally created by the mind of Shakespeare.

But if we want to go back to Shakespeare, we can. Before Shakespeare thought up the information of Macbeth, the information of Macbeth didn't exist. Shakespeare didn't interpret the information from matter. He created the information which was then initially on matter (his brain), and then he copied that information to a new something (ink and paper) using a symbol system that could be understood by other minds. If Shakespeare had been deleted before anyone saw what he wrote down, his mind would be gone but the information would still be there - on the ink and paper. If somebody had subsequently destroyed the ink and paper before it was 'input' to another form of matter (media matter, brain, energy), then Macbeth would cease to exist as information.

Somebody else could then conceivably come up with Macbeth, but it would be a novel creation and highly unlikely to occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by ringo, posted 05-25-2020 4:45 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by ringo, posted 05-26-2020 4:56 PM WookieeB has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022