AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

This concept of the central role of information, a non-material entity, is the key to my thinking about life, evolution and a non-materialist approach to our discussions. Read all four parts:-http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo29/data-basic-IV.php

1853 views

DAVID: This concept of the central role of information, a non-material entity, is the key to my thinking about life, evolution and a non-materialist approach to our discussions. Read all four parts:-http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo29/data-basic-IV.php-QUOTE: The informational realist starts with the fact that intelligences create information. As Dembski puts it, "That's what intelligences do for a living. In fact, that's all they do for a living." -There is a kind of mystique being created around the word "information", which in my view requires a more concrete definition than it is given here ("a relational notion"..."created by ruling out possibilities"). I understand it as meaning facts, data, details about a given subject. And although intelligence(s) may create it (as in man-made inventions), they also observe it (as in Nature) and put the bits and pieces together in coherent patterns (which the article makes clear elsewhere). That is not creation but interpretation, and crucially all the examples concern material things (see below).
 
QUOTE (continued): Human intelligence is seen as natural but not -material. It is, however, instantiated in a human being, who has a -material body (including a brain). Materialists, by contrast, see intelligence as a byproduct of unintelligent material nature. The reason they tend to be intensely attached to Darwinian evolutionary theory is that they consider the evolutionary process to be a blind mechanism that acts like an intelligence and can even create intelligences (the Blind Watchmaker). The evidence for this, however, is in the same category as the evidence for the alchemists' Philosopher's Stone, which was said to be able to turn dross into gold. From an informational realist point of view, nature could be material or more than material. Or it could consist entirely of relationships (information) and therefore not be material at all. -I agree that there's no evidence of a blind mechanism, but how does this lead to what follows? Relationships between what? Information about what? The author seems to have forgotten her own earlier examples. Most of the time, we're establishing relationships between material things, and getting information about material things, so how does that make nature possibly non-material? Of course the process by which we do this is mental, but whether human intelligence has its source in materials or in something immaterial is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with the fact that thought in the form of information or relationships is immaterial.-QUOTE (concluded): Materialist assumptions come unbidden to us because materialism is an accepted frame of reference. In the same way, for millennia, people supposed that the earth was the dull, heavy planet sitting in the center of the solar system while glorious heavenly bodies soared all around. Maybe we are in for as big a surprise as they were.-Maybe, but we shan't get it by arguing that mental concepts are immaterial and therefore everything else including human intelligence may or may not be immaterial.

1906 views


> dhw:There is a kind of mystique being created around the word "information", which in my view requires a more concrete definition than it is given here ("a relational notion"..."created by ruling out possibilities"). I understand it as meaning facts, data, details about a given subject. -Information is immaterial. That is the main point and why Shannon information theory was developed which then lead to software coding etc. DNA and all the layers of the genome contain information which is used to create and run life. There is no mystique. 
> 
> dhw: I agree that there's no evidence of a blind mechanism, but how does this lead to what follows? Relationships between what? Information about what? The author seems to have forgotten her own earlier examples. Most of the time, we're establishing relationships between material things, and getting information about material things, so how does that make nature possibly non-material? Of course the process by which we do this is mental, but whether human intelligence has its source in materials or in something immaterial is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with the fact that thought in the form of information or relationships is immaterial.-I frankly don't know how to answer your objections. Information that we discover in life's processes is immaterial by definition. We understand it through consciousness. DNA codes transmit information, but how that information developed is not known to us. Darwin and the rest of us have made theoretical guesses, which don't explain at all the first living cell.
> 
> dhw: Maybe, but we shan't get it by arguing that mental concepts are immaterial and therefore everything else including human intelligence may or may not be immaterial.-We are back to the problem of consciousness, which upset Nagel so much. You read 2 +2= 4 in a book. That book is material but the concept is not. It is information in/for your consciousness. Is life at the cellular level conscious is one of our debates. My approach is that the information in the cell is interpreted biochemically to auotmatically create reactions and processes the cell needs to perform under its informational instructions. It may help you to view the information as instructional guides.

1898 views

dhw: I agree that there's no evidence of a blind mechanism, but how does this lead to what follows? Relationships between what? Information about what? The author seems to have forgotten her own earlier examples. Most of the time, we're establishing relationships between material things, and getting information about material things, so how does that make nature possibly non-material? Of course the process by which we do this is mental, but whether human intelligence has its source in materials or in something immaterial is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with the fact that thought in the form of information or relationships is immaterial.-DAVID: I frankly don't know how to answer your objections. Information that we discover in life's processes is immaterial by definition. We understand it through consciousness. DNA codes transmit information, but how that information developed is not known to us. Darwin and the rest of us have made theoretical guesses, which don't explain at all the first living cell.-You would only be able to answer my objections if you could find the logical thread that binds the sections together. You recommended the article, but I found the thinking disjointed. The author appears to be arguing that because information is immaterial, somehow that provides evidence that the source of consciousness is also immaterial, nature may be immaterial, Darwinian evolution is wrong, and the watchmaker is not blind. What you yourself have written makes perfect sense, and there are powerful arguments in support of your own views, but in my opinion this author, by taking the immateriality of information as her basis, has not provided any. Maybe other readers will be able to follow her logic better than I can.

1927 views


> dhw: You would only be able to answer my objections if you could find the logical thread that binds the sections together. -Information is immaterial. That is the key point. Think of your plays as your intellectual property, stated that way because they are not material. To me the information in DNA is the same. Your brain made up your plays. What did it for DNA, which is a code, and codes come from brains. It is Nagel's philosophic point. Perhaps I have done it better than the writer I referred you to.

1902 views

DAVID: Information is immaterial. That is the key point. Think of your plays as your intellectual property, stated that way because they are not material. To me the information in DNA is the same. Your brain made up your plays. What did it for DNA, which is a code, and codes come from brains. It is Nagel's philosophic point. Perhaps I have done it better than the writer I referred you to.-I have no problem understanding that information is immaterial. So is all thought. I don't know of anyone who thinks that thought is a material substance. My objection is to the fact that the author somehow thinks this is evidence that the source of consciousness is also immaterial, that nature may be "non-material", that Darwinian evolution is wrong, and that the watchmaker is not blind. Presumably you can't find a link either, so let's forget the article and discuss what you have written, which encapsulates a major problem for those of us who are interested in the nature of consciousness.-You say that my brain made up my plays. My brain is a material substance (some might say that mine is particularly thick!). The implication of your statement is that my plays are the product of chemical interactions between the cells that make up my brain. Terms like "code" and "information" won't help us, and if anything tend to obfuscate the issue. The question in this case would be how material substances can produce thoughts. However, on past threads we've discussed whether the brain is a producer or a receiver. In other words, whether the chemical interactions within the brain create the immaterial thoughts, or there is an immaterial energy which does the thinking and sets the brain in motion. Of course the latter brings us to dualism, but it also links up with your God hypothesis and my panpsychist hypothesis. Your first cause is conscious energy which makes matter and is within all matter; in my hypothesis, energy makes matter and becomes conscious both of and within the matter it has made. In both hypotheses, the source of consciousness is energy (immaterial), not matter, and so the material brain is not the producer of thought but the receiver, which opens the door to psychic experiences and even the possibility of life after death.
 
So does matter produce conscious energy (making consciousness an "emergent" property), or does conscious energy control matter (dualism)? Or, intriguingly, does matter produce conscious energy which in turn controls matter? Unfortunately, even if we knew the answers to these questions, we still wouldn't know HOW consciousness arises from materials or from energy. Same old brick wall.

1929 views

dhw: Your first cause is conscious energy which makes matter and is within all matter; in my hypothesis, energy makes matter and becomes conscious both of and within the matter it has made. In both hypotheses, the source of consciousness is energy (immaterial), not matter, and so the material brain is not the producer of thought but the receiver, which opens the door to psychic experiences and even the possibility of life after death.-
 You have taken a side turn to my intent in the discussion. Your statement above summarized that aspect of the debate, but my point is still the same. If we cannot define consciousness and conscious minds create information and impart it into codes, where did the information, that runs and controls the processes of life, come from? How did it evolve in the evolutionary process, or is it posible it was in the first living cells? They were certainly complex enough to require lots of underlying information.

1894 views

DHW: You would only be able to answer my objections if you could find the logical thread that binds the sections together. You recommended the article, but I found the thinking disjointed. The author appears to be arguing that because information is immaterial, somehow that provides evidence that the source of consciousness is also immaterial, nature may be immaterial, Darwinian evolution is wrong, and the watchmaker is not blind. What you yourself have written makes perfect sense, and there are powerful arguments in support of your own views, but in my opinion this author, by taking the immateriality of information as her basis, has not provided any. Maybe other readers will be able to follow her logic better than I can.--I think the logic can be summed up quite neat by one simple fact:-We are able to distinguish the signal from the noise.-Signal within the noise implies purpose, the stronger the signal, the stronger the purpose. The signal, (read informational organization) within life and the universe, is immensely strong. So strong, in fact, that there are incontrovertible laws, rules, and organized structures. Strong, clear, immaterial patterns that can be easily distinguished from the noise. -What's more, those signals had to be in place from the earliest beginnings. That purpose had to exist before anything else, because if it did not, nothing else would have worked. The very fact that we can look back to the 'Big Bang' and model events is evidence of this. If my assertion were not true, then the further back in time we went the weaker the signal would would be until it dissolved into utter chaos. But that is not what happens. The rules hold all the way to the first milliseconds of the beginnings of the universe, where our understanding of them breaks down.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

1901 views


> 
> 
> dhw: I think the logic can be summed up quite neat by one simple fact:
> 
> Tony: We are able to distinguish the signal from the noise.
> 
> Signal within the noise implies purpose, the stronger the signal, the stronger the purpose..... Strong, clear, immaterial patterns that can be easily distinguished from the noise. 
> 
> What's more, those signals had to be in place from the earliest beginnings. That purpose had to exist before anything else, because if it did not, nothing else would have worked. ... The rules hold all the way to the first milliseconds of the beginnings of the universe, where our understanding of them breaks down.-Excellent way of putting it. Planned events from information, and we have the ability to find and interpret it. That also is highly significant in implying purpose.

1903 views

DHW: (to David)You would only be able to answer my objections if you could find the logical thread that binds the sections together. You recommended the article, but I found the thinking disjointed. The author appears to be arguing that because information is immaterial, somehow that provides evidence that the source of consciousness is also immaterial, nature may be immaterial, Darwinian evolution is wrong, and the watchmaker is not blind. What you yourself have written makes perfect sense, and there are powerful arguments in support of your own views, but in my opinion this author, by taking the immateriality of information as her basis, has not provided any. Maybe other readers will be able to follow her logic better than I can.-TONY: I think the logic can be summed up quite neat by one simple fact:
We are able to distinguish the signal from the noise.-Signal within the noise implies purpose, the stronger the signal, the stronger the purpose. The signal, (read informational organization) within life and the universe, is immensely strong. So strong, in fact, that there are incontrovertible laws, rules, and organized structures. Strong, clear, immaterial patterns that can be easily distinguished from the noise. -I have no idea how you have managed to extrapolate this from the article, which tries to use the immateriality of information as evidence that consciousness has an immaterial source, that Darwinian evolution is wrong etc. (see above). -Your argument that the universe is purpose driven ... beautifully expressed, as usual ... sounds convincing to a layman. Unfortunately folk like Hawking, who also know a thing or two about physics, are equally eloquent and have come to the opposite conclusion. So who is the layman to believe? Let's face it, purpose/non-purpose has nothing to do with science and everything to do with faith.

1927 views

DNA is a code. A code transmits information, and a code is created by a conscious mind. Watch mathematician John Lennox from Oxford:-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw-How does one answer his point? I see no way around it. Reductionism cannot answer it

1744 views

Another discussion of the importance of information from the beginning of the universe and of life:-http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-etc/-"Kurt Gödel's logical objection to Darwinian evolution:-"The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].
 As quoted in H. Wang. On `computabilism' and physicalism: Some Problems. in Nature's Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).-"Gödel's argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start - and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough. In other words, either information must be added later, or some currently invisible front-loading would be necessary. The one mathematical impossibility, he says, is the spontaneous generation of the (specified) complexity of life simply by random variation and selection from nothing.-
"Conservation of Information entails that as we regress biological information back in time, the amount of information to be accounted for never diminishes and may actually increase.-"Accordingly, ateleological views of evolution (and come to that, of the whole history of the universe, of which life is just the most troubling example) require that all the information we see has to be present in embryonic form, at the Big Bang and at every moment thereafter. That sounds congruent with some TE and ID frontloaded views of evolution, but where in the Big Bang could such information be found?-
"So where is it? How is it represented? How does it unfold? The environment is sure to figure into any answer to these questions. Yet, merely invoking the environment as evolution's information source is, without further elaboration, empty talk, on the order of invoking the interstate highway system as the reason for Walmart's business success.-"As an example he pictures a robotic machine that lifts Scrabble pieces out of the box to spell out Richard Dawkins' celebrated phrase, METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL. That machine is part of the Scrabble set's environment, but that does not make environment in any sense a scientific explanation."

1744 views

The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].
As quoted in H. Wang. On `computabilism' and physicalism: Some Problems. in Nature's Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).--This reminds me of the statement "There is nothing new under the sun."

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

1718 views

Read the following review by David J. Kreiter. I explains a lot of the new and current thinking:-http://www.amazon.com/Information-Nature-Reality-Metaphysics-Classics/dp/1107684536/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0XDX71BDF36XMEAS34FN-"Paul Davies says that most physicists now believe that information and not particles and fields are the ground of all being. Beginning with the ancient Greeks up until recent times it has been assumed that the laws of physics, and their mathematically descriptive counterpart were objective aspects of the universe cast in stone, and it was the job of the physicist to uncover these objective truths. This idea was furthered by monotheistic thinking which suggested that the discovery of these objective truths were a window into the mind of God, an idea that has gone unchallenged for three centuries. Davis states: "The fusion of Platonism and Monotheism created the powerful orthodox scientific concept of the laws of physics as ideal, perfect infinitely precise, immutable, eternal unchanging mathematical forms that reside in an abstract platonic heaven beyond space and time. All of these assumptions must be jettisoned to come to an understanding that the laws and states of the universe co-evolve."-"There can be no separation between the information processing nature of the universe and the information processing revolution of life itself. Both the syntactic and the semantic concept of information are involved in the interplay between organisms and their environment in the sense that far from equilibrium system (organisms) need to be associated with an environment that supports the organisms condition. Both the environment (the signal medium) and the organism (the message) are needed for the co-evolution of the organism/environmental system.-" According to Keith Ward and Arthur Peacocke, the information contained in DNA is not semantic information because no understanding is required for the translation and transcription processes that code for proteins. This kind of information belongs to a third category he calls "Shaping" or coded information and it requires no sentience. The functioning of the parts can only be explained by how they contribute to the organism as a whole, and this is true whether we are speaking of the universe as a whole or a living organism. Since consciousness is primordial and contains all possible states, we should not look to the simple to explain the complex, but rather the complex to explain the simple." (My bold and I agree as I have held, no true sentience is needed! They act as if they are sentient. show me how you can tell the difference.)

1779 views

Just some points I picked up on:->Davis states: "The fusion of Platonism and Monotheism created the powerful orthodox scientific concept of the laws of physics as ideal, perfect infinitely precise, immutable, eternal unchanging mathematical forms that reside in an abstract platonic heaven beyond space and time. All of these assumptions must be jettisoned to come to an understanding that the laws and states of the universe co-evolve."-We discard 2000 years of science in order to get rid of monotheism? So that we can understand how the universe "evolved"? (Presumably through natural selection, which makes no sense in a universal sense)-> The laws of physics, and their mathematically descriptive counterpart were objective aspects of the universe cast in stone, and it was the job of the physicist to uncover these objective truths. -Part of the problem has always been that mathematics was conflated with reality, instead of being kept in its proper place as a language used to describe observations.-
> "There can be no separation between the information processing nature of the universe and the information processing revolution of life itself. -This almost implies that the universe has a consciousness of sorts, or some force acting to 'process' the information. God?->Both the syntactic and the semantic concept of information are involved in the interplay between organisms and their environment in the sense that far from equilibrium system (organisms) need to be associated with an environment that supports the organisms condition. Both the environment (the signal medium) and the organism (the message) are needed for the co-evolution of the organism/environmental system.-This implies that it is a one-way communication instead of the feedback loop that it truly is. Environment informs organism which alters environment which informs organism etc.- 
> " According to Keith Ward and Arthur Peacocke, the information contained in DNA is not semantic information because no understanding is required for the translation and transcription processes that code for proteins. -These guys are playing with words here. Translation, Transcription, and Expression all require some level of understanding of the information. ->This kind of information belongs to a third category he calls "Shaping" or coded information and it requires no sentience. The functioning of the parts can only be explained by how they contribute to the organism as a whole, and this is true whether we are speaking of the universe as a whole or a living organism. -This again is playing with words. If DNA does not contain facts, i.e. is not semantic, then It could not really function. If it required no sentience, then it should be able to function outside of living organism. Since it can only be read BY something sentient, or by something designed by something sentient (i.e. living creatures/computers) then this statement becomes rather meaningless. How is the universe supposed to work with all this information if it contains no process to manipulate it? If it does contain a process to manipulate the information, who designed it? -
Cells may be little automatons, or semi-automatons, but something had to program them to be so first.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

1765 views

Tony: Cells may be little automatons, or semi-automatons, but something had to program them to be so first.-Exactly.

1717 views

DAVID: "According to Keith Ward and Arthur Peacocke, the information contained in DNA is not semantic information because no understanding is required for the translation and transcription processes that code for proteins. This kind of information belongs to a third category he calls "Shaping" or coded information and it requires no sentience. The functioning of the parts can only be explained by how they contribute to the organism as a whole, and this is true whether we are speaking of the universe as a whole or a living organism. Since consciousness is primordial and contains all possible states, we should not look to the simple to explain the complex, but rather the complex to explain the simple." (My bold and I agree as I have held, no true sentience is needed! They act as if they are sentient. show me how you can tell the difference.)-For organisms to cope with their environment, and to adapt to change, they must in some way absorb the information contained in the environment and use it. Absorbing information from and about the environment is the sentience part of the process, and I suggest that the IM is the mechanism that uses the information, i.e. the organism's brain or its equivalent. Many experts in the field tell us that bacteria, as single-celled organisms that respond and adapt to the environment, are sentient, cognitive beings. I argue that this gives plausibility to the theory of an autonomous IM. At one time you were adamant that cell/cell communities were automatons, but more recently, even you have accepted the possibility of what you call semi-autonomy. How would that be possible without sentience? You are quite right that, as with humans, so with bacteria and all cells/cell communities, we have no way of knowing whether what appears to be sentience and freedom of action is not in fact dictated by mechanisms already preprogrammed. Since we cannot know, we should remain open-minded.-The authors say consciousness is primordial and contains all possible states. By what authority can they make such a statement?

1758 views

DAVID: "According to Keith Ward and Arthur Peacocke, the information contained in DNA is not semantic information because no understanding is required for the translation and transcription processes that code for proteins. This kind of information belongs to a third category he calls "Shaping" or coded information and it requires no sentience...... They act as if they are sentient. show me how you can tell the difference.)
> 
> dhw: For organisms to cope with their environment, and to adapt to change, they must in some way absorb the information contained in the environment and use it. Absorbing information from and about the environment is the sentience part of the process, and I suggest that the IM is the mechanism that uses the information, i.e. the organism's brain or its equivalent. Many experts in the field tell us that bacteria, as single-celled organisms that respond and adapt to the environment, are sentient, cognitive beings.-The point of articles in the book ( and I've only read reviews)is that consciousness plays a role from the beginning of the universe, and implies possibly before. One cannot tell the difference between acting in a sentient manner and actually being sentient. No 'thinking organ' point has been demonstrated in single-celled organisms, only chemical reactions.-> dhw: I argue that this gives plausibility to the theory of an autonomous IM. At one time you were adamant that cell/cell communities were automatons, but more recently, even you have accepted the possibility of what you call semi-autonomy. How would that be possible without sentience?-I don't know where you get the idea that I think organisms are semi-autonomous. I have referred to a possible IM as being semiautonomous, but cells are specifically automatons with their controlled chemical reactions, and simply look sentient.->dhw: You are quite right that, as with humans, so with bacteria and all cells/cell communities, we have no way of knowing whether what appears to be sentience and freedom of action is not in fact dictated by mechanisms already preprogrammed. Since we cannot know, we should remain open-minded.-You can be open minded as it suits your worldview, but I know the chemistry, and in the book they discuss biochemists recognizing the automatic responses. This is where Darwin is getting in more and more trouble, as he biochemistry of life is unfolded.
> 
> dhw: The authors say consciousness is primordial and contains all possible states. By what authority can they make such a statement?-The book appears to be filled with references of the connection between consciousness
and quantum mechanics and therefore our reality.

1805 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum