Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
55 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,376 Year: 1,022/14,102 Month: 14/411 Week: 35/168 Day: 14/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 4 of 452 (875779)
05-05-2020 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-05-2020 4:07 PM


From your Message 11 in the initial thread where you later declared an agreement that didn't exist:

quote:
I’m going to propose a series of topics. The answer for each topic is YES or NO.

So in this topic what is your YES/NO question? I don't see one.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-05-2020 4:07 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(5)
Message 12 of 452 (875789)
05-06-2020 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Stile
05-06-2020 9:11 AM


Re: Wrong angle
Hushshsh. Listen carefully.

You can hear it rumbling from below. Soon it will try to erupt by poking its little voice tentatively into the air. Hear, again, the voice from the past; from debates decades old and long since settled.

“But what is evidence?”

Brush off your epistemology, locate your thesaurus. Be ready for yet another round of dueling dictionaries and creationist word games. The trope is about to arrive.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 05-06-2020 9:11 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 23 of 452 (875811)
05-06-2020 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Richard L. Wang
05-06-2020 4:07 PM


Re: The DN’s premise – Life consists of matter only
Why this assertion - life consists of matter only - is the DN’s premise?

Where is this assertion being made? Quote us chapter and verse.

You say you are a (theoretical) physicist. Have you never heard of bosons or the Standard Model of Particles?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-06-2020 4:07 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Larni, posted 05-07-2020 7:41 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 39 of 452 (875846)
05-07-2020 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Richard L. Wang
05-07-2020 4:27 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
The first point that life consists only of matter is the fundamental premise of Darwinian-Naturalism.

No it isn't. The point that life (the universe and everything) consists only of matter (the Standard Model of Elementary Particles) is not the fundamental premise but is *a* premise based on observation.

The second point explains that the information contained in life does not need to be considered, because information is either supervenes upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account, so life consists only of matter.

The only viable definition of information in any physical sense are the quantum numbers of the various standard model particles present in any specific physical object or system of objects.

Dick and Jane going up the hill admiring the pretty colors on their bucket containing 5 red marbles and 3 blue marbles as told in your third grade reader is not information and is of no consequence to any model of the universe.

The third point that life operates by the laws of physics is a direct inference of the first point that life consists only of matter.

Again, this is an observation, not any type of inference from some other source.

It moves because a force was applied is an observation not some inference assumed based upon an object's material make up.

This leads directly to the fourth point, that is, there is no supernatural power, no God.

While I agree with the conclusion that the supernatural is bumpkis hokum delusion, "Naturalism" ascribes to no such conclusion.

For now supernatural/gods are ignored by "Naturalism" not because of some artificially conjectured philosophical restriction but because there is no evidentiary reason they be considered.

So what you have left for a definition is that "Naturalism" is the result of the observation that life, the universe and everything is made of natural materials and acts in natural ways.

Notice no need to mention anything else in that definition.

Obviously, the first point - life consists only of matter – is the premise or theoretical foundation of Darwinian-Naturalism. Its correctness determines the correctness of Darwinian-Naturalism.

The question is that is it correct?

So naturalism (Darwinian or any other kind) is the observation that life, the universe and everything is made of natural stuff moving and reacting in natural ways.

Do you have any observations to the contrary?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-07-2020 4:27 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-22-2020 4:07 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 78 of 452 (875977)
05-10-2020 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Richard L. Wang
05-10-2020 4:48 PM


Re: Re-GDR(64): The opposite of materialism is idealism, I don’t …
I don’t think it’s a good idea to introduce my creationism all around at once.

Unless we know what we are talking about there is no utility in this discussion.

You say evolution is wrong because you have your own pet definition of evolution.

What bullshit!

We are not the simpletons you creationists are used to associating with in your own communities. We know how to handle complexity and your insult is rejected. If you insist on a custom definition of a concept with an already well established definition then you damn well better put it up here ... all of it ... now.

If we can swamp through a RAZD post on age correlation we can handle anything.

*** Admin: This is too much crap. I suggest Richard's pending thread on his information BS be held in abeyance until the questions raised in this present thread are addressed.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 4:48 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 83 of 452 (875983)
05-10-2020 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by WookieeB
05-10-2020 4:42 PM


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,

Naturalism deals with natural materials operated by natural processes but SCIENCE is not so limited. Except those things that have no effect on anything in this universe, those things that cannot interact or move or change anything in this universe, there is nothing outside the grasp of science.

... like "Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena."

These are all natural human constructs with many overlapping fields of scientific study dedicated to them. You have a problem with Claude Shannon and John Conway? Do you seriously believe that complex chaotic systems like psychology, economics and sociology are not scrutinized in their studies and conclusions in the most classical scientific ways under peer review by those in the field?

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.

Since all our science has ever seen is natural things doing natural things Naturalism is a conclusion of science not its limits. Show us your "supernatural" dog and we will bring him to heel.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by WookieeB, posted 05-10-2020 4:42 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by dwise1, posted 05-10-2020 11:26 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 96 of 452 (876048)
05-12-2020 9:26 AM


The symbols on a printed page, codes representing repeatable natural molecular cascades, images from a meme, have no meaning outside the minds of the humans that agreed on them. That agreement, that symbolic “meaning”, only exists in the form of specific synapses rippling electromagnetic and chemical cascades through the complex physical structure we call the brain.

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

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.

Chemicals have no choice but to react in accord with QED. Guanine has no option but to bind with Cytosine in set situations. Further, the arrangement of Adenine-Guanine-Cytosine on the mRNA molecule has no choice but to bind with the tRNA holding the amino acid Serine.

It is a natural predicted process defined by QED requiring no outside intellect to direct or achieve.

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.

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.

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.

Evolution, natural selection, chose which hundreds of billions of codes to discard and which few to keep.

And the molecules we speak of above, just like those in our brains together with all the symbolic “information content” we care to assign to them, certainly do follow, and are constructively and destructively dependent upon, the same natural physical operations as all matter/energy in this universe.

This information content, like the cats in a gif, are powerful symbolic human constructs for our understanding and intellect, but have no reality outside the human mind and do not exist independent of the other processes of this universe.

All this with natural materials acted upon by natural processes - nothing more.

Information is not immaterial and only exists because of the physical properties and rules of nature.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by WookieeB, posted 05-13-2020 7:18 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 117 by GDR, posted 05-13-2020 8:00 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 100 of 452 (876111)
05-12-2020 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by WookieeB
05-12-2020 4:36 PM


Re: Identifying the supernatural
For one, a miracle usually is a one-time event, so you usually would not have the opportunity to scientifically test anything.

So no one can ever say that the miracle actually occurred. We all know eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, photos and videos are regularly faked and mass hysteria on the order of Fatima are documented.

If you have a report of a miracle without the ability to repeat it then you have nothing.

Secondly, even if you could test something, your tests/observations are limited to physical things and processes.

If a non-material agent causes that particular scenario, your scientific tests have no way of determining that.

Of course we could. All we need do is to look at what was *not* there.

Actual physical processes leave evidence of their action. If such evidence *is not* there that could be a pretty strong hint.

Again, we can science anything, anytime, anywhere.

A third reason why science deferring to a supernatural explanation would likely not ever occur ...

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."

Such is the force of a history where so many miracles are touted yet all of them, as in each and every such claim ever, has eventually been shown to be natural.

We have learned that despite the heat and ferocity of the initial lies by the miracle proponents, patience and additional scrutiny have always yielded results.

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.

Not without the most extraordinary evidence given the most extraordinary claim.

Put up or shut up.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by WookieeB, posted 05-12-2020 4:36 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 05-12-2020 5:53 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 119 of 452 (876183)
05-14-2020 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by WookieeB
05-13-2020 7:18 PM


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

And the same status can be said of SCIENCE.

You think you said something profound, don’t you. But you are right. All abstract concepts, like your god and talking snake, are solely conjures of the human mind.

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.

You’re behind on the state of the art. The sensitivity of EEGs can “see” abstract concepts flow through the brain.

Scientists invent mind-reading machine that turns your thoughts into words

Brain-reading - Wikipedia

You do know those electrical signals are generated by good old physical processes, right? Fortunately I’m not a republican. I don’t believe in dissecting and killing lots of innocent people just to further my goals, economic or otherwise. Still, if I could dissect the brains at just the right time do you doubt I can catch the impulse generation in the act?

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.

We see these molecular cascades. We chart them, quantify them, document them, label, number and name them. The only reason they exist is because they enhance the survival/reproduction of the organism. And evolution determines which few cascades of the billions tried are useful enough to survive. The only reason they are a “code” is because *we* call them a code. They have no more meaning as a code or anything else outside the human brain than the blood-clot cascade or the effects of a HOX gene. They are chemistry. They do useful chemistry stuff.

And QED controls and predicts *all* of chemistry.

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.

No, we call it a code because *we* built a symbolic system in our minds to represent the physical actions we observed and to facilitate communication with other human brains. Outside the human mind the cascades are just, as GDR likes to say, mindless particles. Just chemistry. Really long complex chemistry. Really long complex chemistry operated by the strict rules of nature we observe as quantum electrodynamics.

And in our experience, when the origin is known, codes are always the result of the activity of an intelligence.

That’s right. Only intellect can devise a system of symbolic codes to describe disparate physical processes. The physical processes themselves can’t. But the minds that study, classify and communicate those processes certainly can. Then the twisted tarnished minds of the religiously-motivated illiteratii try to credit some sky spook for the “code” instead of crediting the real creator, the human mind.

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.

Now you begin to understand. One piece you miss in this almost accurate summation of yours is that we can make valid any “meaning” to the molecules in motion by agreeing among ourselves what that validity entails, what symbol is to convey what meaning.

In fact we *MUST* do this specifically because rationality, morality, thought, science, meaning, information and all other symbolic concepts are human constructs without any reality or manifestation outside the human brain. There can only be information and meaning when we humans agree on the concepts.

You contradict yourself here. If the "“code” exists only in our minds", then there cannot also be "codes in their systems" that affect reproduction.

No, not a contradiction. It was an error.

I thought I was speaking with someone who had the intellect to understand the nuances of language well enough to grasp the tongue-in-cheek meaning being conveyed. My bad.

that would logically have to be built by code-independent means

“logically”? In biological systems? Really?

Almost all biology is adaptive systems built on adaptive systems glommed on other adaptive systems. The only thing that matters is whether it works. Logic has nothing to do with it. Reminds me of old COBOL programs before Y2K forced everyone to clean up their shit.

Plus, after hundreds of millions of years and billions upon billions of molecular cascades to test, mix and match, coming up with a few that actually work for us is not beyond the powers of evolution except within the religious illiteratii crowd.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by WookieeB, posted 05-13-2020 7:18 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 120 of 452 (876188)
05-14-2020 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by GDR
05-13-2020 8:00 PM


Did the information that E=mc2 exist as information before Einstein discovered it?

Depends on how one defines information.

Were matter and energy interchangeable at this large constant rate before Einstein wrote it down? Yes. The sun worked.

But, until it entered the symbolic world of awareness no one knew the relationship existed.

Does this mean the "information" existed in the universe independant of human symbolic awareness? No. Information *is* symbolic awareness of an underlying relationship.

Since no one can show any awareness outside the human mind (give or take a dolphin or so) information is the sole purview of the human. Before a human devised the formula the information did not exist. What existed prior was only the mass/energy relationship, but not any awareness of the thing, ie. no information.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by GDR, posted 05-13-2020 8:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by GDR, posted 05-18-2020 6:55 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 133 of 452 (876400)
05-18-2020 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by GDR
05-18-2020 6:55 PM


IMHO it was information waiting to be discovered.

We will probably disagree. Knowledge is information. Lost knowledge is destroyed information - information no more.

All information needs to be embodied in some form of physical system. Read up on Maxwell’s demon. It establishes the intricate connection between information and energy and leads to the Landauer limit on the minimum energy required to erase a bit of information. All information must have a physical embodiment and must obey all physical laws. No exceptions.

A long time ago in a land far, far away, there was a field that had been plowed and planted with onion. We’re talking pre-Sumerian more than 5000 years ago. How many onions were harvested from that field? Someone used to know. They had to give a share to the temple as tax. That knowledge was once known. The information was recorded, if not on a clay tablet, then at least in a farmer’s and a priest’s minds. There was a physical manifestation (clay tablet or minds) of the symbolic relationship (number of onions). That is information. That symbolic relationship and its physical manifestation no longer exist. Do you claim the information still exists?

Don’t fall into the quantum trap of “information cannot be destroyed” because that definition of information has to do with the quantum properties, like spin and charge, associated with fundamental particles. That kind of information, per QFT, must always be conserved. QFT couldn’t care less about onions.

The information about the onions has been lost. Destroyed by time. It exists no more just as if it had never existed in this universe.

However, a symbolic relationship may exist without the physical embodiment of information. Your star-crossed physicist was the first to understand a symbolic relationship creating information in the physical – his mind. But, before that symbolic relationship could find another physical manifestation it vanished. The information no longer existed.

The relationship your physicist discovered still exists but, my contention, open to your disagreement, is that unless there is a physical manifestation of that symbolic relationship able to be communicated there is no information. And once all physical manifestations of a symbolic relationship no longer exist the information can no longer exist - the information has been destroyed.

I cannot say there is any "information" on the onions or on your physicist’s discovery. Maxwell's demon had to erase both.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by GDR, posted 05-18-2020 6:55 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by GDR, posted 05-18-2020 11:11 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 138 of 452 (876406)
05-19-2020 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by GDR
05-18-2020 11:11 PM


However, information like the law of gravity existed long before there were minds able to conceive it.

Another point of the philosophy of science: The laws of physics are mathematical equations borne from observation and as such are approximations of what we observe in nature. They may be accurate to some greater degree or other dependent on circumstance but they are approximations none the less. Is that apple really falling at 32/ft/sec2? Probably not but close enough to target New Horizons onto Pluto.

The relationship between mass, energy and spacetime is, as far as we can tell, reality. The mathematical expression of that relationship is our best approximation of how it works. It is the useful communicable information of the relationship, the physical embodiment of an underlying symbology approximating that relationship. The information, the equation, the approximation, is not the reality itself but stands as a surrogate in our understanding. That understanding will become more accurate as our information grows more accurate.

If it wasn't for Einstein's GR we would have only Newtonian gravity to go by and we know Newton is incomplete ... in the same way we're finding Einstein is (very very accurate and yet) incomplete.

Your definition of information is too broad in speculating levels of knowledge not viable in the reality we see in this universe. According to your idealized definition information can never be wrong and we already know that any approximations we have from our observations can never be completely right. We can never know any information in this universe. In your world "information" is non-existent to us and cannot inform our reality.

This idealist information cannot be. I reject your reality and substitute my own in its place.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by GDR, posted 05-18-2020 11:11 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 2:25 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 147 of 452 (876435)
05-19-2020 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by GDR
05-19-2020 7:21 PM


I believe either you or Stile claimed that when my hypothetical physicist died without passing on the information that he had gleaned then that information ceased to exist as it wasn't recorded anywhere and wasn't in anyone's memory.

I quoted an article in post Message 134.

quote:
The no-hiding theorem[1] proves that if information is lost from a system via decoherence, then it moves to the subspace of the environment and it cannot remain in the correlation between the system and the environment.

The no-hiding theorem is robust to imperfection in the physical process that seemingly destroys the original information.

This experiment for the first time demonstrated the conservation of quantum information.


The claim that information wasn't lost but was waiting to be rediscovered.

From my Message 133

quote:
Don’t fall into the quantum trap of “information cannot be destroyed” because that definition of information has to do with the quantum properties, like spin and charge, associated with fundamental particles. That kind of information, per QFT, must always be conserved. QFT couldn’t care less about onions.

What kind of quantum spin does a physicist have?

Crash! Burn! You didn't fall in, you jumped with both left feet!


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by GDR, posted 05-19-2020 7:21 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 156 of 452 (876468)
05-20-2020 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Stile
05-20-2020 1:02 PM


I don't remember commenting on dying physicists.

That was some idiot named AZPaul3.

... it seems like the word "information" is being abused all over the place.

Agreed. And guilty as charged.

If one can't be clear without relying on their preferred terms - then maybe they don't really understand what they're discussing in the first place.

The concepts seem so intuitive yet they become so ephemeral when you try to define them. The hard physics says one thing but each person has their own intuition that can be difficult to overcome.

Even physicists themselves still have disagreements on the definition. There is a small faction of which push the concept that information, in the form of mathematics, is the true underlying reality of the universe and that matter/energy/time are emergent properties of the math.

Try explaining that to your grandmother.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Stile, posted 05-20-2020 1:02 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Stile, posted 05-21-2020 3:49 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 161 of 452 (876481)
05-20-2020 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by GDR
05-20-2020 6:00 PM


Humans are simply naming the uniqueness of the daffodil.

So where is the information? Is it in the uniqueness of the flower or in the recognition of that uniqueness?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by GDR, posted 05-20-2020 6:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jar, posted 05-20-2020 8:13 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 164 by GDR, posted 05-20-2020 10:31 PM AZPaul3 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 © 2021