Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8972 total)
176 online now:
LionFluit, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 173 visitors)
Newest Member: LionFluit
Post Volume: Total: 875,377 Year: 7,125/23,288 Month: 1,031/1,214 Week: 43/303 Day: 4/39 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12682
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


(2)
Message 151 of 240 (876451)
05-20-2020 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Richard L. Wang
05-20-2020 9:27 AM


Re: Re-Admin(114): Still, we need a new topic and NvC-3 is a good topic
Hi Richard,

There are no time requirements for replying. Take your time.

With regard to opening a new thread, is it your view that this thread has reached a consensus about naturalism in biology? If so could you state that consensus?

I'm gaining the strong impression that you do not want to engage with most of the feedback people are providing you. You've responded to only 16 of 60 replies to you, about 25%. I'm not inclined toward opening a new thread for you to repeat that performance.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-20-2020 9:27 AM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-22-2020 3:49 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16184
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 152 of 240 (876453)
05-20-2020 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Richard L. Wang
05-20-2020 9:27 AM


Re: Re-Admin(114): Still, we need a new topic and NvC-3 is a good topic
quote:
So far, our discussion on the two topics – “The Opponent of Creationism …” and this NvC-1 topic – concluded that “Life consists only of matter” is the premise of Neo-Darwinian-Naturalism...

We have NOT concluded any such thing. We certainly have not concluded that it is a premise. Indeed if it is taken as the rejection of genetic information “in every cell” (or the fact that humans have “language, memory, knowledge etc.”) as you would have it in your NvC-3 topic then it has not even been discussed and would be firmly rejected if it was.

Let us note, for instance that Richard Dawkins is noted as a champion of the “gene-centric” view of evolution, which is hardly compatible with rejecting the concept of genetic information.

So at this point I must oppose the promotion of NvC-3 as it stands because it rests on an appalling equivocation. Either the claims must be discussed here or NvC-3 must be replaced by something that deals with real differences between the positions under discussion.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-20-2020 9:27 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 153 of 240 (876455)
05-20-2020 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Tangle
05-20-2020 2:33 AM


Tangle writes:

So suppose the physicist was the one who counted the onions in the field and now he's dead how can the information about how many onions are in the field exist? The onions are still there but the information isn't. To find the information about how many onions, the onions needs to be recounted.

The information was still there. It was just unknown.

Tangle writes:

Quantum information is a different kettle of ferrets. If you want to talk about that, you need someone else (and about 20 years of impossible study first.)

20 wouldn't be enough for me. The article appears to me to indicate that information continued to exist even when it was unknown.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Tangle, posted 05-20-2020 2:33 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Tangle, posted 05-20-2020 1:22 PM GDR has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3943
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 154 of 240 (876464)
05-20-2020 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Tangle
05-20-2020 2:33 AM


Tangle writes:

GDR writes:

I believe either you or Stile…

Stile.

I don't remember commenting on dying physicists.

But to me... it seems like the word "information" is being abused all over the place.
Trying to define the term in one context, and then use it in another is only confusing, not any sort of "gotcha" moment.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Tangle, posted 05-20-2020 2:33 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by AZPaul3, posted 05-20-2020 2:02 PM Stile has responded
 Message 158 by dwise1, posted 05-20-2020 3:41 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7614
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 155 of 240 (876466)
05-20-2020 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by GDR
05-20-2020 11:57 AM


GDR writes:

The information was still there. It was just unknown.

Nope. The onions are there, but the information that there is 1,000 onions is not. Something or somebody has to create that information, else it is not information; it simply doesn't exist.

If you see a yellow flower that you've never seen before, all you know about it is that it's a yellow flower. You don't know that it's a daffodil. The object itself does not contain or create that information. That information was created and transmitted by a human not the daffodil.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by GDR, posted 05-20-2020 11:57 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by GDR, posted 05-20-2020 3:40 PM Tangle has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4977
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 156 of 240 (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 not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 157 of 240 (876470)
05-20-2020 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Tangle
05-20-2020 1:22 PM


Tangle writes:

If you see a yellow flower that you've never seen before, all you know about it is that it's a yellow flower. You don't know that it's a daffodil. The object itself does not contain or create that information. That information was created and transmitted by a human not the daffodil.


The information was discovered by humans and transmitted by humans.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Tangle, posted 05-20-2020 1:22 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Tangle, posted 05-20-2020 4:06 PM GDR has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4163
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 158 of 240 (876471)
05-20-2020 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Stile
05-20-2020 1:02 PM


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

Trying to define the term in one context, and then use it in another is only confusing, not any sort of "gotcha" moment.

Quite correct, as I remarked in Message 126 of this very topic but 5 days ago. Shifting between different definitions of a term is called semantic shifting and it has been a very common creationist tactic since long before I started studying "creation science" in 1981. Its purposes are to deceive and to generate confusion, since deception and confusion are essential for the survival and propagation of creationism whereas truthfulness and clarity can only lead to its eradication.

From my Message 126:

DWise1 writes:

The big problem is that appeals to information and to information theory is a basic tool in ID to generate BS claims and arguments and to baffle their audiences. Under the mask of esoteric mathematics, they can freely redefine it to mean whatever they want and to misapply it wherever they wish -- if we can't follow what they're doing, then how can we call them on it?

Remember that every discipline has its own terminology often using the same words as many other disciplines (as well as common usages) but redefined to fit the specific needs of that particular discipline. ... { further development of this idea plus a couple examples deleted for brevity } ...

One of the oldest creationist deceptive practices has been called "semantic shifting" wherein they take a scientific term and replace its proper definition with a street definition. That way, they can misquote a scientific source without having to change a single word, just by applying the wrong definitions.

So whenever a creationist starts using the word, "information", your BS detector should start flashing red before it pegs its needle. Same as whenever a creationist says anything about "evolution".

We have seen Richard L. Wang deploy his misuse of the word, "information", here as a red herring to mislead us and to generate confusion. And he has succeeded in that endeavor.

Instead, he needs to answer for his misrepresentation of evolution (as being nothing more than point mutations), his total misrepresentation of neo-Darwinism as being something entirely different from what it actually is, and his implying that information must be supernatural in origin.


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

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7614
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 159 of 240 (876472)
05-20-2020 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by GDR
05-20-2020 3:40 PM


GDR writes:

The information was discovered by humans and transmitted by humans.

How can a plant give humans the information that it's called a daffodil?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by GDR, posted 05-20-2020 3:40 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by GDR, posted 05-20-2020 6:00 PM Tangle has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 160 of 240 (876477)
05-20-2020 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Tangle
05-20-2020 4:06 PM


Tangle writes:

How can a plant give humans the information that it's called a daffodil?

Humans can distinguish that the daffodil is different than the rose. Humans have that information, and then assign a name to the plants. Humans are simply naming the uniqueness of the daffodil.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Tangle, posted 05-20-2020 4:06 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by AZPaul3, posted 05-20-2020 7:52 PM GDR has responded
 Message 166 by Tangle, posted 05-21-2020 2:55 AM GDR has responded
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 05-21-2020 11:37 AM GDR has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4977
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 161 of 240 (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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32504
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 162 of 240 (876482)
05-20-2020 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by AZPaul3
05-20-2020 7:52 PM


Language in Though and Action
Back in, IIRC the 8th or 9th grade, back in the late 1950s, we were introduced to SI Hayakawa's textbook, Language in Thought and Action.

One of the concepts that has always served me well is "The Map is not the Territory". We like to place things in somewhat neat boxes and we call that stuff "knowledge", but the daffodil we know is not the actual item "daffodil". One is our map, the other is the territory.

Maps change. Not every place is yet mapped. And not one of the maps really is the territory. And even when we actually visit the territory what we bring away, what we call knowledge is still not the territory.

Knowledge is a critter creation. The knowledge we are most concerned with is simply a human creation. It is never the territory and exists only as long as there is someone that holds that particular map. And if the map gets burned that knowledge no longer exists. There may well be other "maps" that still exist but the one that burned no longer exists. And none of the maps will ever actually be the territory.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by AZPaul3, posted 05-20-2020 7:52 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by AZPaul3, posted 05-20-2020 8:27 PM jar has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4977
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 163 of 240 (876483)
05-20-2020 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by jar
05-20-2020 8:13 PM


Re: Language in Though and Action
You're right there on the edge, jar. Now follow through.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jar, posted 05-20-2020 8:13 PM jar has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 164 of 240 (876485)
05-20-2020 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by AZPaul3
05-20-2020 7:52 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

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

It's in the uniqueness of the flower. It has it's own specific dna code etc.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by AZPaul3, posted 05-20-2020 7:52 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by AZPaul3, posted 05-21-2020 12:21 AM GDR has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4977
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 165 of 240 (876486)
05-21-2020 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by GDR
05-20-2020 10:31 PM


It's in the uniqueness of the flower. It has it's own specific dna code etc.

That DNA is in and manipulates the structure, the relationships, of the matter/energy. But the stem, the petals, the color, the scent, the leaves, the recognition of the structure, all the "information" our senses have created in our minds that result from that DNA manipulation, are human constructs and are in fact, the very essence of what we call "daffodil".

We say we gather information from the world. In reality our senses create the information as streams of particles to be perceived within our minds. The world doesn't know the information of petal, stem, yellow, DNA, physics, forces. Our minds do.

The matter/energy relationships may operate and react in accord with the natural order but those structures and relationships are not information until they are perceived.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by GDR, posted 05-20-2020 10:31 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by GDR, posted 05-21-2020 11:46 AM 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 © 2020