NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?

I suppose that is true, it is an assumption. But it is also an assumption by you that it is determined by the matter.I suppose I'm taking a more parsimonious position based on the lack of evidence that information is determined by the matter. As my position is a negative one, falsifying that depends on proving the positive antithesis.Get to work.

You're logic is failing.
From the discussion, the "it", information, exists. That is not being disputed.
What is in question is what "it is determined by. In other words, where does information come from?
You, and others, have inferred that it comes solely from the laws of matter. That is the unicorn. I am taking the default position that there is no evidence of your unicorn.
Show me the unicorn. Ahh, but you are now trying to change the game. That 'matter is arranged as it is' is a tautology. That matter can carry information should be undisputed. Otherwise, there is no reason for you to be looking at a computer screen, as you could never get my reply (information) from looking at it.
So, back to the real game. What law of matter determines the information? Parsimony is that I'm not buying the unicorn till I see it.

Sorry, I have to break this down. So, a letters in a book can convey information, and that is almost universally accepted. That DNA acts in the same manner, that is is able to convey information, is also almost universally accepted. Can we agree this is the normal understanding and usage of language to describe it? You used an important word in there - "symbolically". A symbol represents something, but it itself is not that something. The DNA, in its particular configuration, represents the information. The DNA itself is not the information. And I think most people realize that. Thus, I then disagree with this statement. I do not think most people are referring to a "literal" carrying. A literal carry means that the information is physical, but if it is abstract, then it is not physical. Most people realize that the information is not the matter, and thus think that the matter is doing a "symbolic" carrying. You're equivocating here. Nobody is saying, either literally or symbolically, a rock sitting on the ground carries the equations or a lecture. [The only exception would be if someone happened to inscribe the equations or lecture on the rock in some symbol form, and then it might be said to "symbolically" be carrying it, but not "literally". But I doubt that is the picture you are painting here]. But I would say, and probably most people, that the DNA codon does "symbolically" carry genetic information. So, if we assume for a moment this is true, that information is only in the mind, then what do you call the particular arrangement of matter that leads to specific results that is apart from the mind? If not information/data, then what is that thing apart from the mind called?But I don't really think that information is really only in the mind. I do think that a mind is responsible for creating meaningful information, but that information is not restricted to the matter of the mind only. I think it is quite obvious, through various types of symbolism, that information can be transferred via non-mind matter. You may want to call it something else when it is outside of the mind, but I think it's almost universally accepted by everyone else to still call it: information. Yes, we all know this. But you mention "arrangement" 4 times, and refer to "specific" molecules or cascades 3 times. What accounts for that "arrangement" or 'specificity' is the question. Per your a priori materialistic philosophy, you have no choice but to rely on the magik of "physics".A codon of three nucleotides, that is part of a symbol system, that interacts with a different set of molecules that also involve a distinctly separate symbol system is all chemistry. But where that code symbol system comes from is what has to be explained. Appealing to just "physics" is not an explanatory answer. Again, it is not the chemistry that is in question. Nobody is making the claim that the cellular machinery understands anything. That x reacts with y is trivial. That x understands y is not a claim anyone is making. That x even understands x is not a claim anyone is making.But why x? Why that particular arrangement of matter? There is nothing in the properties of the matter itself that account for that arrangment. And if you extend it out, noting that specifically x via a symbol system makes specifically y which then via a different symbol system makes specifically z, which then goes on to do more specific stuff, you can chalk up all the chemical reactions to physics. But the symbol system is integral to the process and for answering the "why", and physics doesnt explain the symbol system, nor where the configuration of x came from. So you are here at least admitting that there are external copies of something (form matters not) that carries a symbolic meaning. This is all external to the mind.Yet you then equivocate a definition of information that is not normal. If the information is only in the mind, yet externally there is something symbolizing that mind-only information, what do you call that external set of symbols that carry meaning? And frankly, what is it about the supposed matter of the mind that holds a symbolic meaning any different than other matter that also holds the symbolic meaning? Is it just some move-the-goalposts other emergent property of the brain?When people speak of information, they are not only referring to whatever understanding is in the mind. Information is not limited to just the mind, otherwise no learning could be done. You yourself advised me to "Do your research". If supposedly that information that you want me to seek is only allowed in my mind, then it only makes sense that there is some other arrangement of symbols external to my mind that my senses can convey to my mind to 'create' information. What you call that external stuff you have yet to define. For most other people, they call it "information".

You are moving the goal-posts. We are not discussing what you refer to as 'my unicorn': the source of independent information, (though I have already indicated what that is in my posts).Matter exists. Information exists. I think we both agree on that.
But that information is independent of the matter is the question. Your claim is that information depends on matter (physics). Being that information is an abstract thing that can be symbolized on matter (yes even outside the brain), I do not see any evidence (unicorn) that it is determined by the matter. Since your claim is dependent on evidence, and my claim is dependent on no evidence, the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Show me your unicorn.

First a point of order. You are again switching the subject that is under question. Whereas your last prior post stated the subject was about the source of independent information, as I pointed out the subject wasn't about the source, but that independent information exists. So, now that you are back to talking about the existence of it.... Good, stay there.As for evidence, I have already provided it, with numerous examples. The information that distinctly makes up Macbeth, did exist in the mind of Shakespeare. When he wrote it down the information, it existed on (not as) ink and paper. When it was spoken and acted in a play, it was embedded in the sound waves. Today we can take a written record, have it scanned into some electronic equipment that will then audibly read the play, which can then be heard by yet another device that converts the sound waves to be represented by electromagnetic and/or light symbols and transmitted to yet another device that can receive those signals and convert them to a form that literally imprints the symbols onto a 3D form of matter (via 3d printer) in a language completely different than English. So from Shakespeare's mind to the last iteration, there are at least 8 different symbol systems and just as many different types of matter/energy involved even before another mind "reads" it. There is nothing about the matter in the entire chain that itself defined the symbol system nor the arrangement of matter that conformed to a symbol system. Information, the message, was represented on matter, but it was not the matter that determined the message. That is how information is independent of matter.And that is how almost universally information is understood. In none of the normal definitions of information used, is information restricted to the mind. It is referred to, all over the place, by being an abstract message that is carried on matter but not the matter itself.So if you think it is not information when found on non-brain matter, you are using some hyper-restrictive definition of information that is not used or understood by most people. You, like AZPAUL3, will also have to define a term for the specific arrangement of matter apart from a brain that produces specific effects. Cause I assure you, it undoubtedly is not a term that most people use. Fair point. So to re-word it. There is no evidence that meaningful information is dependent on matter. I cannot produce anything less than no evidence, so the only other direction is to prove positive evidence that information is dependent on matter. That's your job. Here's a little help. Independent means 'not dependent'. So, if your claim is that there is no evidence that information is 'not dependent' on matter, that means there is evidence that information is not 'not dependent' on matter, or that there is evidence that information is dependent on matter. Onus on you. Have fun.

That is true, but it is not much of an argument. Take all matter and energy away and the information is gone too. But so is the matter and energy. So you're basically saying that if there is nothing, there is nothing.The fact is we have matter, and we have energy, and we have information. Meaningful information is not dependent on matter or energy. Information may need the physical structure of the brain for it to reside on. But the physical structure of the brain does not determine the information. A message on a piece of paper needs the physical structure of the paper and ink to reside on, but the physical structure of the paper or ink does not determine the message. Ok, then someone should be able to demonstrate how matter and energy form an abstraction. Until that is done, it is merely an assertion.But what about non-human abstractions. Like mathematics or logic. Are those determined by matter and energy too?

It basically comes down to an ontology. Information has two attributes, an arrangement (that is not determined by matter) and something (99.999--% of the time matter) that it is instantiated on. So no, if a particular arrangement is of matter, and the matter goes away, then the information does not remain.Some examples of information not relying on matter - mathematics, rationalityYou should probably define information. Or use the Shannon definition, though it also doesnt rely on matter. Either way, it is the arrangement attribute of information that needs explaining. You misunderstand or are changing the context. When speaking of the physical structure, we're talking about the physics of each compound. How the compounds are arranged to make a message is not determined by those physics.How ink reacts on paper may be chemical, but where ink is concentrated on paper (to do it's chemistry) is not chemically determined. Yes, that chemistry works is not due to a code. But that a particular chemistry is invoked is due to a code. That a specific tRNA binds to a specific mRNA is due to chemistry. But why that specific tRNA, why that specific mRNA. For the chemistry to occur you have to assume that the specific chemicals, not just any chemicals, are present. Why those specific chemicals? If you go to the DNA, the specific arrangement is not due to any known chemistry. The symbol convention that DNA is following cannot logically be due to the DNA itself. It's easy to point to the chemistry doing it all when you assume all the parts are there. But the parts themselves need to be explained, as that is the root of the information for the whole genetic process. (and we're not even touching epigenetic items which adds on layers of different information processing systems to the whole system of life)That information is not like water, or even water crystals. Even if we assume the law of physics, water forming from oxygen and hydrogen and then water crystals is easy to explain as the result of a necessary (lawlike) process. That the DNA ((A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T)) bind together in a dual fashion and react with the sugar backbone of the DNA is all due to lawlike chemistry. But the arrangment of the nucleotides is not due to lawlike chemistry. The same could be said for the makeup of tRNA, the tRNA synthetase, RNA polymerase, and the ribosome.