Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 230 of 452 (876634)
05-24-2020 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Ben!
05-24-2020 2:36 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
Sorry, is this correct?
Science did not assume the conclusion that everything in matter/energy before its studies.
Science concluded that everything is matter/energy after observing a whole big bunch of things and never finding anything that is not matter/energy.
That conclusion is still only tentatively held pending any further observations to the contrary. However, our confidence in that conclusion is now so high that we can logically legitimately, tentatively consider it to be true in any further study until given a strong, a very strong, reason to question it.
Science works because we assume nothing and follow the data, and only the data, wherever it goes.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Ben!, posted 05-24-2020 2:36 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Ben!, posted 05-24-2020 3:02 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 237 by Ben!, posted 05-24-2020 4:11 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 235 of 452 (876641)
05-24-2020 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Ben!
05-24-2020 3:02 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
Science did not assume the conclusion that everything is matter/energy before its studies.
Hate to be pedantic, but could you provide some support for this?
The early scientists/alchemists like Galileo and Newton made no such assumptions but only followed their data, right? After hundreds of years study we now accept naturalism as the default but not as a dogma.
Scientific method:
quote:
First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.
--Richard Feynman
In science, we have to start with a hypothesis. I believe the underlying hypothesis of science is: we can explain the observable universe via empirical laws.
We start with a hypothesis of the problem not any hypothesis of Science.
There is no underlying hypothesis to science. I find nowhere in Popper, Hume, Feynman or any other philosopher were any "underlying hypothesis to science" is assumed.
Yes, we are quite confident that naturalism is the default but science, by its very nature, eschews any such absolute dogma.
Easy counter-example: consciousness. No physical theories, sorry.
You mean consciousness (mind) as an emergent property of the complex electro-chemical operations of a brain? That sounds pretty physical to me. See Gerald Edelman, Antonio Damasio and Daniel Dennett.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Ben!, posted 05-24-2020 3:02 PM Ben! has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 236 of 452 (876642)
05-24-2020 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Richard L. Wang
05-24-2020 3:30 PM


Re: Re-AZPaul3(217): what you quoted is different from what I wrote
Have you found the difference?
Sorry. I'm being dense. Please explain.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-24-2020 3:30 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 239 of 452 (876645)
05-24-2020 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Ben!
05-24-2020 4:11 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 1)
my general feeling is that you're not only getting my point, you don't want to get my point.
Sorry you feel that way. If I don't get your point it is not for the lack of trying. And, on such subjects, I have my own points to make.
I find good conversations steel-man each other's arguments before finding counter-examples. It's not happening here ...
Did you do this prior to your quick countering with "consciousness" to begin with?
Besides, the discussions here are not all that complex where steel-manning is more useful.
Unless you didn't express yourself properly.
You did mean to say science assumes naturalism as dogma, right? The "underlying hypothesis", yes?
Again, appreciate the efforts, and will look elsewhere for more collaborative conversations.
And I appreciate your candor. If you tire of collaborative and want more challenge then please come back and I'll see if I am up to it.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Ben!, posted 05-24-2020 4:11 PM Ben! has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 240 of 452 (876646)
05-24-2020 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by GDR
05-24-2020 4:21 PM


Are you saying then that we require a non-physical consciousness to create data/information?
I'm saying data/information are human constructs and exist in the mind not in the object.
And I very much doubt there is such a thing as a non-physical consciousness.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by GDR, posted 05-24-2020 4:21 PM GDR has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 246 of 452 (876694)
05-26-2020 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by WookieeB
05-25-2020 4:30 PM


There is no information in DNA.
Oh really? I guess we need to inform the doctors of the National Institute of Health ...
For human understanding it is almost universally accepted to speak of DNA as symbolic characters like letters in a book. Because the abstract meaning of those molecules and the chemical cascades they initiate are agreed to by us humans (information we developed by observation) we say that, symbolically, DNA carries the information with it. This has become so ubiquitous in our culture that far too many people, even in the scientific community, take the symbolic carrying as literal carrying.
A DNA codon does not carry any more information on genetics than a rock sitting on the ground carries the equations of General Relativity or a lecture on silicate chemistry.
Knowledge/data/information is determined only by experience derived from our physical senses and perceptions and our creative abstract thinking. It is all in our brains and only in our brains.
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's because DNA is not one molecule but is quite an arrangement of different specific molecules which causes quite an arrangement of different specific cascades depending upon quite an arrangement of different specific sets of molecules.
The arrangement of Adenine-Guanine-Cytosine on the mRNA molecule has no choice but to bind with the tRNA holding the amino acid Serine. This is part of the chemical cascade from DNA transcription to mRNA to tRNA to serine to protein. Each molecule is involved in many very specific cascades. And when a very specific set of molecules is present then a very specific cascade of reactions follows.
Do I really need to get this pedantic with you?
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’s right. And every time that specific arrangement of molecules occurs under the proper conditions in the cell the same very specific interactions, the chemical cascade, must and will take place.
That the arrangment is the result of mindless physics is still yet to be demonstrated.
Bullshit. It's physics all the way down. Do your research.
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.
No, the cellular machinery that does the transcription and translation and building of proteins is blindly following the reaction requirements of its chemical constituents. It no more understands the symbology of information than a corn cob understands a score of Chopin.
Yes, I agree. But as matter is "allowed" to be, or "constrained" by physics, the arrangement is not necessarily determined by physics.
Of course it is. Physics is the only force known in the universe that can determine, down to the subatomic constituents, the very form, function, position, action, reaction, existence and arrangement of anything/everything matter/energy.
But it is not physics that is determining the information
Of course it is. The mind is an emergent property of the brain and the brain is a physical object of complex physical interconnections and complex electro-chemical interactions. Data/information are human constructs, products of the mind. Data/information is determined only by experience derived from our physical senses and perceptions and the creative abstract thinking of which our minds are capable.
External copies symbolizing some information (marks pressed into clay, electrical impulses in crystals) are not dependent on the form of the matter used as a carrier for its symbolic meaning. It merely carries markings.
The data/information rests in the form of the matter within the human mind that agrees to the symbology of the markings and their meaning. The physical matter of the mind is the only place where the information resides. Not in the markings on the clay nor in the book nor in the double helix of the cell.
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.
So in your world emergent properties leading to creative abstract thinking do not exist. How dull.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
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 243 by WookieeB, posted 05-25-2020 4:30 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 2:35 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 252 of 452 (876715)
05-26-2020 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Admin
05-26-2020 9:59 AM


Re: Moderator Suggestion Regarding Information
Shannon’s definition of information is actually quite simple: binary.
The rest of his paper deals with converting the original message to a symbolic representation then sampling that representation at periodic intervals to determine what will be placed on the channel to be transmitted in yet another symbolic form to a receiver that must be in agreement with the symbologies used in order to accurately reverse the process. The real heavy math in his work is not about defining information (which he uses interchangeably with message) but in sampling, symbol probability and entropy, channel throughput and error under the various transmission modalities he outlines.
A second issue with Shannon is that he had no concern for the meaningful content of the message, its origin or its use. His concerns were limited to the symbology used and the technology of faithfully transmitting that symbology point-to-point.
This discussion, however, is heavily concerned with the meaningful content of the information especially as to its origination and use.
If this is the definition of information you suggest we use then I have no issue as long as everyone understands that Shannon information is a chopped-up, sliced and diced, facsimile of the original information, devoid of content, that was originally created in the mind and is in no way to be taken as originating from the facsimile.
I will call DNA a code and I will call the DNA code information as long it is understood that the DNA code is a symbolic representation of the information that originated via observation by, and was put to measure in, the human mind.
I will imagine that in the cell above each codon is a cartoon speech bubble detailing the A, C, G, T, U molecules involved and the molecular cascade they are meant to represent down to the amino acid. And they’ll be color coded. With emojis.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Admin, posted 05-26-2020 9:59 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Admin, posted 05-31-2020 9:06 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 283 of 452 (876818)
05-29-2020 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by WookieeB
05-27-2020 2:35 PM


What accounts for that "arrangement" or 'specificity' is the question
But where that code symbol system comes from is what has to be explained
Appealing to just "physics" is not an explanatory answer.
Appealing to just "physics" is not just *an* explanation, it is *the* explanation, and is the only explanation with any explanatory power at all in this universe.
Where did the various nucleotides and amino acids come from?
How did the various groupings of 3 nucleobases achieve their connections to the various amino acids?
How did any millions of molecules and their reactions to others come to exist?
Physics. Specifically, quantum field theory. More specifically, chemistry. And a good deal of evolution which is even more physics piled on that.
When we look out into space we find thousands of molecules just floating around naturally formed in the interstellar medium. Of the thousands of molecules we have detected out there the vast majority of them are organic molecules, and include a couple simple amino acids, partial ribo- and dioxyribo- phosphate groups and amino and nucleotide precursors.
From our lab experiments we KNOW with certainty that these molecules on an early earth could combine into ever more complex molecular structures by the force of chemistry alone.
If you want specific atom-by-atom bond-by-bond details of these experiments and their results then consult a chemist.
List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules - Wikipedia
We do not know, yet, how the first replicators came to be. I certainly don’t and neither do you. Since every solved we don’t know, yet problem that humans have ever come across was resolved by a physical system there is no reason to pre-suppose otherwise for all our remaining ignorance.
But we do know how evolution works. We understand the physics of replication and selection. We understand the power of trillions upon trillions of trials and failures each moment over billions of years of evolution. All naturally achieved. All by the natural processes of chemistry. All by nothing but physics.
Other than the personal incredulity of the ignorant there is no reason to conclude that the aminos, nucleobases and all the chemistry cascades associated with each that we have been talking about came to be by any other than natural physical means.
Of all the trillions upon trillions of trials and failures each moment over billions of years of evolution, finding a few dozen chemical cascades that grew to work well and consistently in the complex life systems we see on this planet is not difficult to justify. Evolution works. So does physics.
Once the chemical processes are in place and operating consistently in every cell in every living thing it should be no surprise that some smart monkeys would come along with test tubes and pipettes and charts and graphs to document each of the molecules, their interactions and the consistent nature of their operations.
Bobo make’t information.
It may be more difficult than rocket surgery owning to the complexity involved but we really are super smart monkeys.
Once all the monkeys stopped arguing over the forms, names and numbering of the charts and graphs, the consistent repetitious pattern of nucleobase codons and their chemistry became clear.
quote:
What accounts for that "arrangement" or 'specificity' is the question
But where that code symbol system comes from is what has to be explained
At Percy's request I accept the word code and accept that information has more popular connotations than it should.
In the end what Bobo found was a genetic code, information that symbolically reduces to specific chemical results.
The chemistry did not create the code. The code is mere description of the chemistry as perceived by Bobo.
That code was born from the charts and graphs Bobo made observing the physical chemistry in action. And that chemistry in action was born from the physics of evolution. Nowhere else.
quote:
Where did the various nucleotides and amino acids come from?
How did the various groupings of 3 nucleobases achieve their connections to the various amino acids?
How did any millions of molecules and their reactions to others come to exist?
Physics. Only physics. Exclusively physics. Nothing more. There is no reason to suggest otherwise.
But the symbol system is integral to the process ...
No, it is not.
Adenine came from natural chemical processes. The codon AUG results in a methionine amino added to the protein chain. The symbology of the code means nothing. The process is purely rote chemistry and came about from trillions of trials over billions of years.
... and for answering the "why", and physics doesnt explain the symbol system, nor where the configuration of x came from
The "why" is because after trillions of trials over billions of years *that* is what worked.
Physics doesn't need to explain the the symbol system. The symbol system is a direct picture of the physics. The symbol system explains the physics.
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.
I never denied symbology external to the mind. But I insist that symbology be embedded in a physical system. And while I will allow such symbology to be popularly called "information" I further insist that all symbology can only represent and be copied from that which originates in the mind.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by WookieeB, posted 05-27-2020 2:35 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 309 of 452 (877087)
06-03-2020 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Richard L. Wang
06-03-2020 4:47 PM


Re: Re-PaulK(304)&Taq(305): Natural laws don’t govern info-content
Abstract reasoning like math, language, art and all other symbolic representations are creations born of the human mind. That human mind is an emergent property of the physics of the brain.
Of course everything you mentioned is the product of, is controlled by and is ultimately subject to all physical laws. There are no exceptions anyone can show without reaching into the absurd.
Your arguments are becoming absurd, Richard. This is not working for you.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-03-2020 4:47 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-04-2020 12:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 317 of 452 (877115)
06-04-2020 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Richard L. Wang
06-04-2020 12:51 PM


Re: Re-AZPaul3(309): natural laws cannot govern and produce info-content
English vocabulary and grammar, and has nothing to do with Maxwell equation of electromagnetic field. Information and information-carrier obey different rules.
As an external physical *copy* your Hamlet cannot be made of anything but the matter/energy that is this universe and is, therefore, subject to the whims and fancies of any and all physical laws.
The original story, Hamlet the play, *only* manifests in the mind. It was determined by the physical embellishments and the limitations of the physics of Shakespeare's physical mind. Physics, as the base of Shakespeare's emergent mind and creativity, created Hamlet. No one can show there was any other force involved.
Both the information and its carrier are made of the same stuff and obey the same rules.
Like any other abstraction Hamlet or "Ride of the Valkyries" or the DNA code all are symbolic creations born of the human mind. That human mind is an emergent property of the physics of the brain and as such is created by and must bow to the dictates of physics.
Yes, Richard, English vocabulary, grammar, syntax, creativity, as well as the original content of all information are indeed subject to Maxwell’s equations and to Einstein’s and to Schrdinger’s.
Physics does in fact determine and govern, not just the existence, but the very content of all information.
The original content of any and every *bit* of information is in the mind. All the info-content of the entire universe is indeed dependent on and is governed by the natural laws. Even as powerful as imagination is, no matter how creative we may be, no one can show where information or ideas or content of any kind can exist beyond the limits imposed by the physics of this universe.
Organisms live on purpose due to that they contain non-material elements.
No they don't. They just are, like Taq's rocks, physical structures following physical laws. One just happens to be a bit more active at neighborhood parties than the other.
There is no such thing as a non-material element. Your genetic code may be a symbolic abstraction, a symbolic representation of an underlying physical phenomenon, but it is embodied in the physics of the mind. Ideas, abstractions, symbols are *not* non-material. Their materiality is in the physics of the mind.

Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-04-2020 12:51 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-05-2020 3:07 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 325 of 452 (877166)
06-05-2020 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Richard L. Wang
06-05-2020 3:07 PM


Re: Re-AZPaul3(317): Do info-carrier and info-content follow the same rules: natural laws
Come on, Richard, that's just a copy. And that copy is deteriorating. Hamlet is in your head ... which is also deteriorating.
No help for you there.
Physics is everything. Physics always rules.

Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-05-2020 3:07 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-08-2020 4:11 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 330 of 452 (877227)
06-08-2020 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Richard L. Wang
06-08-2020 4:11 PM


Re: Re-PaulK, Taq, AZPaul3: What physics can do, what physics cannot do
Well this is easy. Taq and PaulK have already answered and did so well. I'll take the lazy way out and leave you with their Message 327 and Message 328.

Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-08-2020 4:11 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 346 of 452 (877314)
06-11-2020 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Richard L. Wang
06-11-2020 4:34 PM


Re: Re-PaulK(338): Logic is a powerful tool in science
... this is not a chemical or physical process, but an information process. There is no need to discover the detail of how the mind operates, people can make the judgement ...
In other words, the reality of the full process does not matter when that level of detail counters my concerted attempt to fell natural processes in favor of the anti-science woo that underpins my faith in my blood thirsty sky daddy.

Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-11-2020 4:34 PM Richard L. Wang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-12-2020 3:55 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 350 of 452 (877330)
06-12-2020 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Richard L. Wang
06-12-2020 3:55 PM


On to the Mutations!
we’ve posted over 80 messages. I have put all my cards on the table, and you guys still insist that only natural laws play a role in the world.
That should tell you two things. First, your presentations toward your non-natural woo-woo processes have not been compelling enough to be given serious consideration. Second, that your contention that anything other than natural processes operating in this universe may be wrong.
I suggest we change a topic, for example, mutations...
If you must. Just keep in mind that any processes you may suggest that do not adhere to strictly natural processes and functions will require the most compelling evidence be presented. Something no one else in this decades long debate has ever been able to do. Good luck.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-12-2020 3:55 PM Richard L. Wang has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 356 of 452 (877348)
06-13-2020 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Kleinman
06-13-2020 10:38 AM


Re: Mutations can add information
Information like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In other words your definition can be whatever you need it to be to fit your pre-conceived conclusion. Such a scientist you are, Richard.
Nail it down hard.
In talking about genetic mutations, information is defined as the sequence of nucleobases present in any specific nucleic acid portion.
By convention, a human construct, the bases are labeled A, C, T, G in a DNA strand.
As a starting initial sequence a short strand of DNA (double helix) may be represented as:
ATCCATAGCAAAGCGCTTGAGATCCGGTTATACG
GCTTGCGATGGGATATCCAGAGCTTAACCGCGTA
As our example, this sequence of bases, in this specific order, is the information contained in this DNA segment.
By convention, any change in this sequence of bases, by whatever means, is called a mutation of the starting initial sequence. *ANY* change to the initial sequence of bases in a DNA segment is a mutation.
As a result, *ANY* mutation is a change in information.
Richard, do you agree with these definitions? If not, where/why would you differ?

Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Kleinman, posted 06-13-2020 10:38 AM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Kleinman, posted 06-13-2020 1:07 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 361 by Richard L. Wang, posted 06-15-2020 12:42 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024