Information Complication (General)
I am bringing various posts and threads together here in order to keep the argument more focused.-dhw; Just to remind you of our starting point: I have suggested that cellular intelligence is the driving force behind evolution. DAVID: To remind you, It is cellular information provided by intelligence.-BBELLA: [wrongly attributed to dhw under “...how evolution works”]: David, for me, the above sentence is the whole crux of the matter in this discussion. Why so adamant to say "provided by"? Is it not more probable intelligence and information are two sides of the same coin always existing together being what IS? "Provided by" makes it sound as if at some point in time information didn't exist. That makes no sense. What is intelligence without information? In my view - nothing. DAVID: I agree intelligence and information are intertwined. To create anything that survives the requirements of nature requires planning, which requires intelligence. Therefore intelligence creates the planning information for the new development. -In response to BBella: David needs “provided by” because he believes in a single mind that created everything. “Planning information” used to be known in Davespeak as intelligent information, and his 38-billion-year programme was also known as intelligent information, which meant that intelligent information created intelligent information. Some of us would be content to say that to create something that can survive requires intelligence and planning. I don't think anyone would have the slightest difficulty understanding us. However, although clearly ALL THAT IS brings intelligence, information and everything else together in a great oneness, and although I agree that intelligence is nothing without information, I don't think this observation works the other way round. For me, intelligence has to have some degree of awareness, but you and I have agreed that neither the stone nor the water is conscious. I would argue that information means what stone and water are, can do, can be made to do, and these properties would still be there even if there were no minds to observe them, find names for them, and use them. Even though I can't share David's faith in a single intelligence that somehow planned all the information in the universe even before the universe existed (David believes it started with the Big Bang - whereas I reserve judgement, as usual), I still share his scepticism that all the information required for life could assemble itself by chance. Hence my dalliance with various concepts of panpsychism and multiple intelligences that use information to further their evolution. So I still want to draw a distinction between intelligence and information. (See also below) Dhw: You say “information runs life.” I don't know what runs life, but I'm pretty sure that it entails a mechanism that processes and uses information. DAVID: Then we agree, life runs on information.-That is not the same as “information runs life”! My car runs on petrol, but petrol does not run my car, which also has various indispensable mechanisms and needs me to drive it. What runs life is a mechanism that processes information, and we don't know what that mechanism is, either in running life itself or in engendering intelligence.-DAVID: Information and matter are two different domains:-http://edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/h-Ch.1.html-QUOTE: "Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter." -I could not agree more. As I keep saying, information tells us what matter is, does and can be used for.-QUOTE: "The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution."(David's bold)-David's comment: That is the point: information is not material and life operates on information contained in material.-That is also my point, but there is something missing here, and that something is the reason why I am constantly complaining about your use of the word “information”. Evolution entails changes in materials. If we agree that those changes do not come about by chance, we have THREE elements: 1) materials, 2) the information contained in those materials, and 3) the something that collects, processes and uses that information. Now you are calling that something “life”! Generally, you like to refer to it as “intelligent/planning/ dynamic information”, which gives us information processing information, but in fact you recognize only two “operators”: a dabbling God, or a 3.8-billion-year programme for all the changes. That, according to you, is what USES the information to create the innovation or the “message” of the quote. In my alternative, it is an autonomous intelligence that does this. My point is that not only the distinction between matter and information but also that between what is processed (information) and what does the processing (intelligence of whatever sort) is “absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution”. xxxxxxx-I may have difficulty responding to posts during the next two or three days. Apologies in advance.
Information Complication
by David Turell 
, Friday, October 30, 2015, 20:27 (3310 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Some of us would be content to say that to create something that can survive requires intelligence and planning. I don't think anyone would have the slightest difficulty understanding us.-Perfectly logical. > > dhw: However, although clearly ALL THAT IS brings intelligence, information and everything else together in a great oneness, and although I agree that intelligence is nothing without information, ... Even though I can't share David's faith in a single intelligence that somehow planned all the information in the universe even before the universe existed (David believes it started with the Big Bang - whereas I reserve judgement, as usual), I still share his scepticism that all the information required for life could assemble itself by chance.-Fine so far.- > Dhw: You say “information runs life.” I don't know what runs life, but I'm pretty sure that it entails a mechanism that processes and uses information.-> DAVID: Then we agree, life runs on information. > > dhw: That is not the same as “information runs life”! What runs life is a mechanism that processes information, and we don't know what that mechanism is, either in running life itself or in engendering intelligence.-We are currently exploring the genome and its modifying layers of control. That endeavor is defining a stupendous degree of complexity. And there is no question the genome uses information to run life.-> dhw: As I keep saying, information tells us what matter is, does and can be used for.-Shortsighted definition. Information runs all biological forms, when it is interpreted by the genome mechanisms. > > David's comment: That is the point: information is not material and life operates on information contained in material. > > dhw: That is also my point, but there is something missing here, and that something is the reason why I am constantly complaining about your use of the word “information”. Evolution entails changes in materials. If we agree that those changes do not come about by chance, we have THREE elements: 1) materials, 2) the information contained in those materials, and 3) the something that collects, processes and uses that information.-'3' is the genome reading the coded information and the modifications of that information taken from the material code DNA that carries the information.-> dhw: Generally, you like to refer to it as “intelligent/planning/ dynamic information”, which gives us information processing information, but in fact you recognize only two “operators”: a dabbling God, or a 3.8-billion-year programme for all the changes.-I guess I am not clear or a presume too much in discussion: The information at the start of life is what you refer to as the 3.8 byo program. What is so unclear to you about life having to start with an operational program? If God guided evolution, then He may have modified it along the way. If God made the universe then He is capable of a start program lasting 3.8 billion years. Life runs on instructional information. Speciation must also have an operational program.- .dhw: My point is that not only the distinction between matter and information but also that between what is processed (information) and what does the processing (intelligence of whatever sort) is “absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution”.-Fully agree, except that seems to be your stopping point in thought. I've brought you kicking and screaming to recognizing the importance of information to the functioning of life. Functional dynamic information runs life and how life interprets and uses that information is now under discovery. And it may all be automatic at the autonomic level (bodily functions)and free floating at the cerebral level which is where real intelligence sits.
Information Complication
DAVID: We are currently exploring the genome and its modifying layers of control. That endeavor is defining a stupendous degree of complexity. And there is no question the genome uses information to run life.-I have not questioned that. I have questioned your claim that “information runs life”. You agree that the information has to be processed and used, and my point is that the mechanism which processes and uses it runs life.-dhw: As I keep saying, information tells us what matter is, does and can be used for. DAVID: Shortsighted definition. Information runs all biological forms, when it is interpreted by the genome mechanisms.-You are simply trying to twist my statement around. It is not the information that runs life, but the “genome mechanisms” that process and use the information. You are merely adding “genome” and changing processing to interpreting. Information on its own serves no purpose until it is used!-dhw: Evolution entails changes in materials. If we agree that those changes do not come about by chance, we have THREE elements: 1) materials, 2) the information contained in those materials, and 3) the something that collects, processes and uses that information. DAVID: '3' is the genome reading the coded information and the modifications of that information taken from the material code DNA that carries the information.-We have had this discussion before, and I am quite happy to place the “intelligence” of the cell within the genome. You would no doubt place your divine 3.8-billion-year programme there as well. -DAVID: I guess I am not clear or a presume too much in discussion: The information at the start of life is what you refer to as the 3.8 byo program. What is so unclear to you about life having to start with an operational program?-If evolution is to happen, of course life has to start with a mechanism that produces life itself, reproduction, and the ability to change. That is not the issue between us. You are asking us to believe that the “information at the start of life” included the whole preprogrammed history of evolution, with the following exception
AVID: If God guided evolution, then He may have modified it along the way. -“Guided” is another of your weasel words. He could only “guide” it by programming all the innovations etc. in advance (which is total control, not guidance), or - as you say - modifying/dabbling as he went along.-DAVID: If God made the universe then He is capable of a start program lasting 3.8 billion years. Life runs on instructional information. Speciation must also have an operational program.-Once again, your “start program” covers the whole of evolution, and you claim that God built the instructions for every step into the first cells. Why must you call the instructions “instructional information”? (You have also called them intelligent, planning and dynamic information.) You agree with me that it is “(genome) mechanisms” that interpret and use information in order to “run life”, so why this continued obfuscation with different types of “information”? Your next comment is a prime example of the utter confusion caused by your terminology: -DAVID: I've brought you kicking and screaming to recognizing the importance of information to the functioning of life. Functional dynamic information runs life and how life interprets and uses that information is now under discovery. -I have never questioned the importance of information to the functioning of life; what makes me kick and scream is statements like the above. Please reread what you have written. Suddenly we have functional dynamic information (which used to be the processing or interpreting mechanism, also known as intelligent, planning, dynamic or instructional information) running life, while “life” is the mechanism that interprets and uses the information that runs life! You are tying yourself and us in knots. Why not stick to plain English? Once more, I'll try to summarize the whole argument, including all the details you are trying so hard to gloss over under cover of “information”:-Life functions by means of a mechanism that processes and uses information. In your evolutionary hypothesis, the mechanism is a programme which your God devised 3.8 billion years ago to be passed down through countless organisms and environmental changes. This programme automatically processes and uses the information available at different times and in different organisms to create every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder from bacteria to humans (apart from when God dabbles). In my evolutionary hypothesis the mechanism (perhaps invented by your God) is organisms' autonomous intelligence, which processes and uses the available information for the same purposes.-Feel free to pop in “genome” if you want to, and please let me know your objections.
Information Complication
by David Turell , Monday, November 02, 2015, 14:25 (3307 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have not questioned that. I have questioned your claim that “information runs life”. You agree that the information has to be processed and used, and my point is that the mechanism which processes and uses it runs life.-*** > > You are simply trying to twist my statement around. It is not the information that runs life, but the “genome mechanisms” that process and use the information. You are merely adding “genome” and changing processing to interpreting. Information on its own serves no purpose until it is used!-My English was not clear. You are correct. The information to run life exists and life has a mechanism to use that information. At least I've got you to recognize that life runs on information, a word you recently rejected.-> > dhw:If evolution is to happen, of course life has to start with a mechanism that produces life itself, reproduction, and the ability to change. That is not the issue between us. You are asking us to believe that the “information at the start of life” included the whole preprogrammed history of evolution, with the following exception: > > DAVID: If God guided evolution, then He may have modified it along the way. > > “Guided” is another of your weasel words. He could only “guide” it by programming all the innovations etc. in advance (which is total control, not guidance), or - as you say - modifying/dabbling as he went along.-I've admitted I can't tell which. At least you are now admitting that life started with information on board to provide the ability to change.-> > DAVID: I've brought you kicking and screaming to recognizing the importance of information to the functioning of life. Functional dynamic information runs life and how life interprets and uses that information is now under discovery. > > dhw: I have never questioned the importance of information to the functioning of life> > Life functions by means of a mechanism that processes and uses information. In your evolutionary hypothesis, the mechanism is a programme which your God devised 3.8 billion years ago to be passed down through countless organisms and environmental changes. This programme automatically processes and uses the information available at different times and in different organisms to create every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder from bacteria to humans (apart from when God dabbles). In my evolutionary hypothesis the mechanism (perhaps invented by your God) is organisms' autonomous intelligence, which processes and uses the available information for the same purposes. > > Feel free to pop in “genome” if you want to, and please let me know your objections.-Generally a good summary of where we stand. I would change 'autonomous intelligence' to 'explicit information'.
Information Complication
dhw: It is not the information that runs life, but the “genome mechanisms” that process and use the information. You are merely adding “genome” and changing processing to interpreting. Information on its own serves no purpose until it is used! DAVID: My English was not clear. You are correct. The information to run life exists and life has a mechanism to use that information. At least I've got you to recognize that life runs on information, a word you recently rejected.-Thank you. Two small corrections. Life does not have a mechanism: it is living things that have the mechanism. That is the essence of our discussion: what is the mechanism in organisms that enables them to change? You say it's a computer programme, and my alternative is intelligence, or a form of “mind”. And I do not reject the word information; I reject your obfuscating use of it, as in “information runs life”.-DAVID: If God guided evolution, then He may have modified it along the way. dhw: “Guided” is another of your weasel words. He could only “guide” it by programming all the innovations etc. in advance (which is total control, not guidance), or - as you say - modifying/dabbling as he went along. DAVID: I've admitted I can't tell which. At least you are now admitting that life started with information on board to provide the ability to change.-I would like to be nice to you because you are being so nice to me, but my point is that the first cells must have had a mechanism on board that enabled them to process information. I do not like this conflation of the mechanism that does the processing and the information that is processed.-dhw: In your evolutionary hypothesis, the mechanism is a programme which your God devised 3.8 billion years ago to be passed down through countless organisms and environmental changes. This programme automatically processes and uses the information available at different times and in different organisms to create every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder from bacteria to humans (apart from when God dabbles). In my evolutionary hypothesis the mechanism (perhaps invented by your God) is organisms' autonomous intelligence, which processes and uses the available information for the same purposes. DAVID: Generally a good summary of where we stand. I would change 'autonomous intelligence' to 'explicit information'.-It is my hypothesis, and you would like to change my hypothesis back to yours. You have now tried to replace the mechanism that processes information - what I call “autonomous intelligence” or “mind” - with “information” described as intelligent, planning, dynamic, instructional, functional and now explicit. How many more adjectives can you find? You have even argued that “life” is the mechanism that processes the information that “runs” life. Life functions by means of a mechanism that processes and uses information. All the confusion is caused by your attempts to describe the mechanism as “information”.
Information Complication
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 03, 2015, 12:33 (3306 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:And I do not reject the word information; I reject your obfuscating use of it, as in “information runs life”.-I'll form it slightly differently: living matter uses information to run its processes. it cannot exist in a living form without that information. > > dhw: I do not like this conflation of the mechanism that does the processing and the information that is processed.-Sorry you don't like it, but the information at the foundation of the living process and the mechanism for reading that information are all contained in each cell. > > dhw: Life functions by means of a mechanism that processes and uses information. All the confusion is caused by your attempts to describe the mechanism as “information”.-I've admitted that my short-cut English confused you. Information and the mechanism to read the information and use it are two separate but inseparable parts of living matter. Which brings me to the other consideration: what gave first life the initial information to use?
Information Complication
dhw: And I do not reject the word information; I reject your obfuscating use of it, as in “information runs life”. DAVID: I'll form it slightly differently: living matter uses information to run its processes. it cannot exist in a living form without that information.-That's more like it. Thank you.-dhw: I do not like this conflation of the mechanism that does the processing and the information that is processed. DAVID: Sorry you don't like it, but the information at the foundation of the living process and the mechanism for reading that information are all contained in each cell.-Yes indeed. Thank you for at last ceasing to conflate the mechanism and the information. However, I'd like to add that the mechanism at the foundation of the living process also reads information that comes from outside the living cell. The cell/cell community would not survive or evolve if its reading mechanism could not process and use the information it absorbs from the environment. -dhw: Life functions by means of a mechanism that processes and uses information. All the confusion is caused by your attempts to describe the mechanism as “information”. DAVID: I've admitted that my short-cut English confused you. Information and the mechanism to read the information and use it are two separate but inseparable parts of living matter. Which brings me to the other consideration: what gave first life the initial information to use?-By describing the mechanism as information that processes information, you did indeed confuse me, and I am delighted that you now agree to draw a distinction between the two. What gave first life the initial information to use? Shouldn't you also ask what gave first life the mechanism with which to use the initial information? You know the answers perfectly well! Some people say it was an unknown supernatural intelligence they call God or Allah or Jehovah or Yahweh or Mbombo or Unkulunkulu or Nanabozho (real names by the way). Others say it all came about by chance. Some of us admit we don't know.
Information Complication
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 04, 2015, 23:06 (3305 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Thank you for at last ceasing to conflate the mechanism and the information. However, I'd like to add that the mechanism at the foundation of the living process also reads information that comes from outside the living cell. The cell/cell community would not survive or evolve if its reading mechanism could not process and use the information it absorbs from the environment.-Different kind of information, informative, but not functional as the information is within the cell. > > dhw: What gave first life the initial information to use? Shouldn't you also ask what gave first life the mechanism with which to use the initial information? You know the answers perfectly well! Some people say it was an unknown supernatural intelligence they call God or Allah or Jehovah or Yahweh or Mbombo or Unkulunkulu or Nanabozho (real names by the way). Others say it all came about by chance. Some of us admit we don't know.-Don't you want to know? Do you care to know?
Information Complication
dhw: Thank you for at last ceasing to conflate the mechanism and the information. However, I'd like to add that the mechanism at the foundation of the living process also reads information that comes from outside the living cell. The cell/cell community would not survive or evolve if its reading mechanism could not process and use the information it absorbs from the environment.-DAVID: Different kind of information, informative, but not functional as the information is within the cell.-“Informative information” is a delightful new category in your long and ever changing list. Whether the cell's “brain” is your 3.8-billion-year computer programme or my “intelligence”, it will still have to process information about the rest of the cell, about its colleagues within the organism, and about the environmental conditions it has to deal with. As I see it, that is how it all functions. What other information does your computer programme or my cellular "intelligence" have to process?-dhw: What gave first life the initial information to use? Shouldn't you also ask what gave first life the mechanism with which to use the initial information? You know the answers perfectly well! Some people say it was an unknown supernatural intelligence they call God or Allah or Jehovah or Yahweh or Mbombo or Unkulunkulu or Nanabozho (real names by the way). Others say it all came about by chance. Some of us admit we don't know.-DAVID: Don't you want to know? Do you care to know?-If I didn't want or care to know, do you think I would have written the “brief guide” and opened up this website? The quest for knowledge is endlessly fascinating and thanks to you and others who have contributed so much to our discussions, I can honestly say that I have learnt an enormous amount. But even you have admitted over and over again that ultimately a conclusion rests on faith and not on reason, and that remains a leap too far for me. Fortunately, I can still happily go on wanting and caring without claiming to know...
Information Complication
by David Turell , Friday, November 06, 2015, 01:17 (3304 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The cell/cell community would not survive or evolve if its reading mechanism could not process and use the information it absorbs from the environment.-> DAVID: Different kind of information, informative, but not functional as the information is within the cell. > > dhw: “Informative information” is a delightful new category in your long and ever changing list. -You are discussing outside the cell stimuli. It is a different kind of information that that which runs the cell. External information is descriptive. Internal information is both descriptive (how a process is working to produce something) and functional (how to run the process).-> dhw: Whether the cell's “brain” is your 3.8-billion-year computer programme or my “intelligence”, it will still have to process information about the rest of the cell, about its colleagues within the organism, and about the environmental conditions it has to deal with. As I see it, that is how it all functions. What other information does your computer programme or my cellular "intelligence" have to process?-I'm still struggling to find the right way to put my concept of what DNA offers. As I see it contains the information that provides for the construction of the organism and for running its functions. I agree that there is a mechanism to read this information and the incoming changing information both from within and without the organism, as described above.
Information Complication
dhw: Whether the cell's “brain” is your 3.8-billion-year computer programme or my “intelligence”, it will still have to process information about the rest of the cell, about its colleagues within the organism, and about the environmental conditions it has to deal with. As I see it, that is how it all functions. What other information does your computer programme or my cellular "intelligence" have to process?-DAVID: I'm still struggling to find the right way to put my concept of what DNA offers. As I see it contains the information that provides for the construction of the organism and for running its functions. I agree that there is a mechanism to read this information and the incoming changing information both from within and without the organism, as described above.-Then we have reached agreement. Thank you.
Information Complication
by David Turell , Friday, November 06, 2015, 21:14 (3303 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Then we have reached agreement. Thank you.-Great! At least now you recognize the importance of all sorts of information for living organisms to function. That is what I wished to achieve.
Information Complication
by BBella , Thursday, November 19, 2015, 07:05 (3291 days ago) @ dhw
dhw; Just to remind you of our starting point: I have suggested that cellular intelligence is the driving force behind evolution.-> In response to BBella: David needs “provided by” because he believes in a single mind that created everything. “Planning information” used to be known in Davespeak as intelligent information, and his 38-billion-year programme was also known as intelligent information, which meant that intelligent information created intelligent information. Some of us would be content to say that to create something that can survive requires intelligence and planning. I don't think anyone would have the slightest difficulty understanding us. > > However, although clearly ALL THAT IS brings intelligence, information and everything else together in a great oneness,-The way you state it above, dhw, "ALL THAT IS brings... make it sound as though ALL THAT IS is what brings and so is separate from intelligence, information and everything else, so ATI brings those 3 into a great oneness. Not sure you meant it that way. I see it that ATI is intelligence, information and everything else in a great oneness and cannot be separated from itself.->and although I agree that intelligence is nothing without information, I don't think this observation works the other way round. For me, intelligence has to have some degree of awareness,-I do not see how intelligence has to have a degree of awareness, in the sense of self awareness, although it can produce awareness as well as self awareness. I have been trying to come up with another word that more embodies how I imagine intelligence...but haven't arrived at a better suited word yet.->but you and I have agreed that neither the stone nor the water is conscious.-Yes, I agree neither has a degree of consciousness that I am aware of, although I can see how both the stone and the water is intelligence - at work, being what they are.->I would argue that information means what stone and water are, can do, can be made to do, and these properties would still be there even if there were no minds to observe them, find names for them, and use them. Even though I can't share David's faith in a single intelligence that somehow planned all the information in the universe even before the universe existed (David believes it started with the Big Bang - whereas I reserve judgement, as usual), I still share his scepticism that all the information required for life could assemble itself by chance. Hence my dalliance with various concepts of panpsychism and multiple intelligences that use information to further their evolution. So I still want to draw a distinction between intelligence and information. (See also below)-Im not sure what you mean by "multiple intelligences"? I just see intelligence. ->Dhw: You say “information runs life.” I don't know what runs life, but I'm pretty sure that it entails a mechanism that processes and uses information. >DAVID: Then we agree, life runs on information.->That is not the same as “information runs life”! My car runs on petrol, but petrol does not run my car, which also has various indispensable mechanisms and needs me to drive it. What runs life is a mechanism that processes information, and we don't know what that mechanism is, either in running life itself or in engendering intelligence.-I would argue, or as I see it, the mechanism that processes information and runs life is intelligence. Although I do not see intelligence engendering intelligence. Can intelligence create intelligence? I can't see how. ->DAVID: Information and matter are two different domains:->http://edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/h-Ch.1.html->QUOTE: "Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter."->[dhw]I could not agree more. As I keep saying, information tells us what matter is, does and can be used for.->David's comment: That is the point: information is not material and life operates on information contained in material.->That is also my point, but there is something missing here, and that something is the reason why I am constantly complaining about your use of the word “information”. Evolution entails changes in materials. If we agree that those changes do not come about by chance, we have THREE elements: 1) materials, 2) the information contained in those materials, and 3) the something that collects, processes and uses that information. Now you are calling that something “life”! Generally, you like to refer to it as “intelligent/planning/ dynamic information”, which gives us information processing information, but in fact you recognize only two “operators”: a dabbling God, or a 3.8-billion-year programme for all the changes. That, according to you, is what USES the information to create the innovation or the “message” of the quote. In my alternative, it is an autonomous intelligence that does this. My point is that not only the distinction between matter and information but also that between what is processed (information) and what does the processing (intelligence of whatever sort) is “absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution”.-I agree there is three distinct: matter, information and intelligence. But as I see it, no three can be without the other.
Information Complication
by David Turell , Thursday, November 19, 2015, 15:35 (3290 days ago) @ BBella
edited by David Turell, Thursday, November 19, 2015, 15:46
Bbella: I agree there is three distinct: matter, information and intelligence. But as I see it, no three can be without the other.-Yes, but! Matter can contain information (instructions), as in a code such as DNA. However, it takes intelligence to understand the code and to use its directives to accomplish the purpose of those instructions. In life all three work together as you observe.-What is the start of this? There must always have been energy/matter. Dynamic information cannot appear de novo, because it is instructions for process, not descriptive of static material, alive or dead or originally inanimate. Only an intellect can create or understand dynamic information. (Static also, but beside the point.) Therefore intelligence was present from the beginning. Note, dhw, this is not theology.
Information Complication
dhw: However, although clearly ALL THAT IS brings intelligence, information and everything else together in a great oneness... BBELLA: The way you state it above, dhw, "ALL THAT IS brings... make it sound as though ALL THAT IS is what brings and so is separate from intelligence, information and everything else, so ATI brings those 3 into a great oneness. [...]-Badly phrased by me. I meant what you meant: the concept of ALL THAT IS combines intelligence, information etc. I did not mean the ATI is separate from these.-dhw...and although I agree that intelligence is nothing without information, I don't think this observation works the other way round. For me, intelligence has to have some degree of awareness... BBELLA: I do not see how intelligence has to have a degree of awareness, in the sense of self awareness.... -I see self awareness as the most advanced form of awareness, but a degree of awareness is integral to my concept of intelligence. (I'm not talking here about artificial intelligence.) I think ants are aware of their environment and can take decisions and devise strategies, but I do not believe they ask themselves how or why they came to be here on Earth.-BBELLA: I have been trying to come up with another word that more embodies how I imagine intelligence...-I have similar problems, but so long as we explain what we mean, we can reach an understanding. Dhw: ....but you and I have agreed that neither the stone nor the water is conscious. BBELLA: Yes, I agree neither has a degree of consciousness that I am aware of, although I can see how both the stone and the water is intelligence - at work, being what they are.-That is where we differ. I do not see existence as “being” intelligence - it is only being, precisely because (as far as we can tell) the stone has no awareness even of its surroundings.-Dhw: Hence my dalliance with various concepts of panpsychism and multiple intelligences that use information to further their evolution. BBELLA: Im not sure what you mean by "multiple intelligences"? I just see intelligence. -I mean the ALL THAT IS contains zillions of separate, individual units, only some of which are intelligent. You and I are two separate intelligences, but I do not think the sun is aware of its environment, takes decisions etc. And we are not all one because although you and I depend on the sun, it does not depend on us. Dhw: What runs life is a mechanism that processes information, and we don't know what that mechanism is, either in running life itself or in engendering intelligence.-BBELLA: ...as I see it, the mechanism that processes information and runs life is intelligence. Although I do not see intelligence engendering intelligence. Can intelligence create intelligence? I can't see how.-David believes intelligence in the form of his God has created intelligence in the form of living organisms which include ourselves, but that is not what I meant. In my terms, intelligence entails awareness as described earlier, and the mechanism for it and for life has to be within each living organism, but I do not believe it is within a stone or within the sun...We haven't identified this mechanism, and how it originated elicits nothing but vague, speculative answers: David's single, intelligent God; your universal, sourceless intelligence integral to ALL THAT IS (a form of panpsychism); the materialist's chance combination of non-intelligent materials which has somehow engendered both life and intelligence. What we're really asking is how did ALL THAT IS arise out of ALL THAT WAS? But we don't know ALL THAT WAS, and we don't even know ALL THAT IS.-DHW: My point is that not only the distinction between matter and information but also that between what is processed (information) and what does the processing (intelligence of whatever sort) is “absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution”. BBELLA: I agree there is three distinct: matter, information and intelligence. But as I see it, no three can be without the other.-I think you mean no one can be without the others, but that depends on our definition of intelligence. I would not like to discount panpsychism (the theory that all materials have some kind of mental aspect), but if we go back to the stone, I find it easy to imagine a barren, lifeless lump of rock floating around in space, epitomizing my concept of non-intelligence. It naturally contains information (composition, history, geography, movement etc.) but intelligence would be required to extract that, and if it collided with another rock, I would not for one moment imagine it had a purpose, had processed information, had taken a decision. It exists and acts without intelligence. Multiply this example a zillion times, and you have a universe doing the same. Matter in my view can therefore exist without intelligence. In the context of billions of existing solar systems and a possible eternity and an infinite number of no longer existing solar systems, the orderliness of our own life-giving solar system might just as well be the product of mindless chance as of a sourceless intelligence, either “divine” or integral to energy and matter.
Information Complication
by David Turell , Friday, November 20, 2015, 01:34 (3290 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It exists and acts without intelligence. Multiply this example a zillion times, and you have a universe doing the same.-Can't let this pass. This universe exists as a precisely organized construct which evolved finely tuned to allow life.-> dhw: Matter in my view can therefore exist without intelligence. -Like your stone above.-> dhw:In the context of billions of existing solar systems and a possible eternity and an infinite number of no longer existing solar systems, the orderliness of our own life-giving solar system might just as well be the product of mindless chance as of a sourceless intelligence, either “divine” or integral to energy and matter.-A good agnostic appeal to infinities! Nice refuge.
Information Complication
dhw: It exists and acts without intelligence. Multiply this example a zillion times, and you have a universe doing the same.-DAVID: Can't let this pass. This universe exists as a precisely organized construct which evolved finely tuned to allow life.-The universe obviously allows life on this planet in this solar system. I don't know how you can tell that all the other solar systems that have come and gone over the last 13,800,000,000 years - not to mention the eternity that may have preceded the Big Bang (if it ever happened) - were also finely tuned to allow for the one and only life we know, which is ours.-dhw: In the context of billions of existing solar systems and a possible eternity and an infinite number of no longer existing solar systems, the orderliness of our own life-giving solar system might just as well be the product of mindless chance as of a sourceless intelligence, either “divine” or integral to energy and matter.-DAVID: A good agnostic appeal to infinities! Nice refuge.-A refuge from what? There is no default position here. “Just as well”...denotes equal degrees of improbability.
Information Complication
by David Turell , Friday, November 20, 2015, 22:17 (3289 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The universe obviously allows life on this planet in this solar system. I don't know how you can tell that all the other solar systems that have come and gone over the last 13,800,000,000 years - not to mention the eternity that may have preceded the Big Bang (if it ever happened) - were also finely tuned to allow for the one and only life we know, which is ours.-Hard to imagine this is the only time it happened.-> DAVID: A good agnostic appeal to infinities! Nice refuge. > > dhw; A refuge from what? There is no default position here. “Just as well”...denotes equal degrees of improbability.-But you just introduced an infinity of possibilities.
Information Complication
dhw: The universe obviously allows life on this planet in this solar system. I don't know how you can tell that all the other solar systems that have come and gone over the last 13,800,000,000 years - not to mention the eternity that may have preceded the Big Bang (if it ever happened) - were also finely tuned to allow for the one and only life we know, which is ours.-DAVID: Hard to imagine this is the only time it happened.-Agreed, given eternity, but that hardly proves that every single solar system in the whole history of the universe has been finely tuned to allow for life. -DAVID: A good agnostic appeal to infinities! Nice refuge.-dhw; A refuge from what? There is no default position here. “Just as well”...denotes equal degrees of improbability.-DAVID: But you just introduced an infinity of possibilities.-Wrong reference. The choice was between mindless chance, and “a sourceless intelligence, either ‘divine' or integral to energy and matter”.
Information Complication
by David Turell , Saturday, November 21, 2015, 15:49 (3288 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The universe obviously allows life on this planet in this solar system. I don't know how you can tell that all the other solar systems that have come and gone over the last 13,800,000,000 years - not to mention the eternity that may have preceded the Big Bang (if it ever happened) - were also finely tuned to allow for the one and only life we know, which is ours. > > DAVID: Hard to imagine this is the only time it happened.-> > dhw: Agreed, given eternity, but that hardly proves that every single solar system in the whole history of the universe has been finely tuned to allow for life. -I was referring to the past universes. In this universe our solar system may well be the only one with life.-> DAVID: But you just introduced an infinity of possibilities. > > dhw: Wrong reference. The choice was between mindless chance, and “a sourceless intelligence, either ‘divine' or integral to energy and matter”.-And the information that runs the universe and life can arise by chance? No choice to me.
Information Complication
dhw: The universe obviously allows life on this planet in this solar system. I don't know how you can tell that all the other solar systems that have come and gone over the last 13,800,000,000 years - not to mention the eternity that may have preceded the Big Bang (if it ever happened) - were also finely tuned to allow for the one and only life we know, which is ours.-DAVID: Hard to imagine this is the only time it happened.-dhw: Agreed, given eternity, but that hardly proves that every single solar system in the whole history of the universe has been finely tuned to allow for life. DAVID: I was referring to the past universes. In this universe our solar system may well be the only one with life.-But you are still trying to make out that the billions of solar systems past and present in THIS universe have been finely tuned to allow for life on Earth. How do you know?-DAVID: But you just introduced an infinity of possibilities.-dhw: Wrong reference. The choice was between mindless chance, and “a sourceless intelligence, either ‘divine' or integral to energy and matter”.-DAVID: And the information that runs the universe and life can arise by chance? No choice to me.-I know your opinion. I was only correcting your reference.
Information Complication
by David Turell , Sunday, November 22, 2015, 15:52 (3287 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Hard to imagine this is the only time it happened. > > dhw: Agreed, given eternity, but that hardly proves that every single solar system in the whole history of the universe has been finely tuned to allow for life. > > DAVID: I was referring to the past universes. In this universe our solar system may well be the only one with life. > > dhw: But you are still trying to make out that the billions of solar systems past and present in THIS universe have been finely tuned to allow for life on Earth. How do you know?-I believe in purpose. Things appearing for no reason implies chance. We are too special for chance. We are sentient beings trying to explain why and how we are here. There is only chance or design.
Information Complication
dhw: [...a lump of rock floating around in space] exists and acts without intelligence. Multiply this example a zillion times, and you have a universe doing the same.-DAVID: Can't let this pass. This universe exists as a precisely organized construct which evolved finely tuned to allow life.-dhw: The universe obviously allows life on this planet in this solar system. I don't know how you can tell that all the other solar systems that have come and gone over the last 13,800,000,000 years [...] were also finely tuned to allow for the one and only life we know, which is ours.[...]-DAVID: I believe in purpose. Things appearing for no reason implies chance. We are too special for chance. We are sentient beings trying to explain why and how we are here. There is only chance or design.-In the context of life of Earth, I have always understood and appreciated your argument for design. Is it then part of your belief that every single solar system, past and present, in the history of our universe was and is finely tuned to allow for life on Earth?
Information Complication
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 24, 2015, 04:24 (3286 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:In the context of life of Earth, I have always understood and appreciated your argument for design. Is it then part of your belief that every single solar system, past and present, in the history of our universe was and is finely tuned to allow for life on Earth?-No. There are a zillion solar systems in this universe, and only ours has life. In past universes there may or may not have been life. We only know ours.
Information Complication
(I am reproducing the relevant sections of this exchange in order to illustrate the problems that emerge from David's anthropocentric version of God's thinking.) -dhw: (a lump of rock floating around in space) exists and acts without intelligence. Multiply this example a zillion times, and you have a universe doing the same.-DAVID: Can't let this pass. This universe exists as a precisely organized construct which evolved finely tuned to allow life. -Dhw: Is it then part of your belief that every single solar system, past and present, in the history of our universe was and is finely tuned to allow for life on Earth?-DAVID: No. There are a zillion solar systems in this universe, and only ours has life. In past universes there may or may not have been life. We only know ours. -Thank you. If the rest of the zillion solar systems were not finely tuned to allow for life on Earth, we are left with the problem of why your God created them, when apparently his aim in creating the universe was to produce us. It's a similar problem to that of the vast variety of earthly species, lifestyles and wonders (mainly extinct) which he apparently created in order to produce humans. It really doesn't seem logical to me. Your response to that on Sunday was: “God and Occam are not compatible. Human reasoning and Occam are compatible. Why do you think God thinks like you do?” Is it not possible, in your view, that your God and Occam ARE compatible, and that these inexplicable inconsistencies are due to the fact that your reading of your God's mind might be wrong?
Information Complication
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 24, 2015, 15:23 (3285 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Thank you. If the rest of the zillion solar systems were not finely tuned to allow for life on Earth, we are left with the problem of why your God created them, when apparently his aim in creating the universe was to produce us. It's a similar problem to that of the vast variety of earthly species, lifestyles and wonders (mainly extinct) which he apparently created in order to produce humans. It really doesn't seem logical to me.-Is God logical or purposeful? This universe is fine tuned for life. We are here. We are discussing. You are questioning how God did it, and I'm content with seeing why God did it. We come from two completely different viewpoints in the discussion.- > dhw: Your response to that on Sunday was: “God and Occam are not compatible. Human reasoning and Occam are compatible. Why do you think God thinks like you do?” Is it not possible, in your view, that your God and Occam ARE compatible, and that these inexplicable inconsistencies are due to the fact that your reading of your God's mind might be wrong?-My only reading of God's mind is looking at His purpose. I frankly don't understand his methodology.
Information Complication
by BBella , Friday, November 20, 2015, 05:39 (3290 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: However, although clearly ALL THAT IS brings intelligence, information and everything else together in a great oneness... > BBELLA: The way you state it above, dhw, "ALL THAT IS brings... make it sound as though ALL THAT IS is what brings and so is separate from intelligence, information and everything else, so ATI brings those 3 into a great oneness. [...] > > Badly phrased by me. I meant what you meant: the concept of ALL THAT IS combines intelligence, information etc. I did not mean the ATI is separate from these.-Yes, though I still think it's even clearer said - intelligence, information and matter is ALL THAT IS. ->I see self awareness as the most advanced form of awareness, but a degree of awareness is integral to my concept of intelligence....I do not see existence as “being” intelligence - it is only being...-Yes, this is where we differ. I cannot envision any existence without intelligence. Not meaning the intelligence you envision (awareness) but a kind of intelligence that can be present in ATI. As I mentioned before, a rock is a rock, it is not no-thing. Since it is a rock and not no-thing, to me, that constitutes the presence of intelligence - intelligence at work, busy, in the process of being a rock. Over time, the rock will become something else, just as ATI does as well. ATI is THE process of intelligence busy creating WHAT IS.->You and I are two separate intelligences, -Or, for me, better said, you and I are two separate expressions/creations/examples of intelligence.->but I do not think the sun is aware of its environment, takes decisions etc. -My limited intelligence does completely agree with you for what we can see and know, though I will admit I am not absolutely sure, without any shadow of doubt, that the sun is not aware of it's environment or takes decisions. ->And we are not all one. -I agree. We are not all one, we (ATI) are all three: intelligence, energy (force) & matter. -> Dhw: What runs life is a mechanism that processes information, and we don't know what that mechanism is, either in running life itself or in engendering intelligence.-I prefer to think we do (in a sense) know what IT is; this mechanism that processes information and runs life and ATI. It is intelligence - it is the processor. ->What we're really asking is how did ALL THAT IS arise out of ALL THAT WAS? But we don't know ALL THAT WAS, and we don't even know ALL THAT IS.-As I see it, ATW and ATI is the same thing. Intelligence at work. Everything that was is now everything that is. Everything that will be, will be created from everything that now is. It is all a constant process by intelligent re-creation or recreation (lol) of matter & energy. ATI is never static and is always changing what IS. This is the work of intelligence.->Matter in my view can therefore exist without intelligence.-On that note, I decided to search the internet for information that could possibly express (if even remotely) my view of how I imagine universal intelligence. I felt fortunate to find this website below which is philosophical in nature (not a surprise), and in the chiropractic field at that, but does express my view fairly close. Though take into consideration I've never read these 33 principles before now and they do not express how I view ATI fully, but does a fair job of it. You and/or David may be familiar with these principles already.- http://www.epicenterofchiropractic.com/Philosophy.html
Information Complication
by David Turell , Friday, November 20, 2015, 15:17 (3289 days ago) @ BBella
> Bbella: As I see it, ATW and ATI is the same thing. Intelligence at work. Everything that was is now everything that is. Everything that will be, will be created from everything that now is. It is all a constant process by intelligent re-creation or recreation (lol) of matter & energy. ATI is never static and is always changing what IS. This is the work of intelligence. > > >Matter in my view can therefore exist without intelligence. > > On that note, I decided to search the internet for information that could possibly express (if even remotely) my view of how I imagine universal intelligence. I felt fortunate to find this website below which is philosophical in nature (not a surprise), and in the chiropractic field at that, but does express my view fairly close. Though take into consideration I've never read these 33 principles before now and they do not express how I view ATI fully, but does a fair job of it. You and/or David may be familiar with these principles already. > > http://www.epicenterofchiropractic.com/Philosophy.html-This list is a justification for chiropractic adjustments to the spine. With my background I would fully disagree with the final three statements, which are not to your point of view. However, I completely agree with you that intelligence runs our reality.
Information Complication
I am going to telescope some of the exchanges here in order to avoid too much repetition and to try and keep the arguments clearer.-Dhw: I see self awareness as the most advanced form of awareness, but a degree of awareness is integral to my concept of intelligence....I do not see existence as “being” intelligence - it is only being... BBELLA: Yes, this is where we differ. I cannot envision any existence without intelligence. Not meaning the intelligence you envision (awareness) but a kind of intelligence that can be present in ATI. As I mentioned before, a rock is a rock, it is not no-thing. Since it is a rock and not no-thing, to me, that constitutes the presence of intelligence - intelligence at work, busy, in the process of being a rock. Over time, the rock will become something else, just as ATI does as well. ATI is THE process of intelligence busy creating WHAT IS.-I see intelligence as varying in degrees from our own down to that of, say, bacteria, but you seem to be saying that the intelligence of ATI is uniform - just the quality of being, which is shared by all things. The website you have referred us to appears to do the same: http://www.epicenterofchiropractic.com/Philosophy.html-1 “There is a universal intelligence in all matter, continuously giving to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence, and giving this intelligence its expression.” This is panpsychism, and some would call the universal intelligence God, an eternally conscious being that created the mechanisms for life. But that is not your concept. Instead “the mechanism that processes information and runs life and ATI” is intelligence. For me, without a definition, the word becomes as meaningless as “information” when applied indiscriminately. Information runs life. Intelligence runs life. Energy runs life. God runs life. In one of his posts, David even had life running life. As I see it, we might just as well say an indescribable something runs life, and it will have the same meaning.-Dhw: You and I are two separate intelligences, but I do not think the sun is aware of its environment, takes decisions etc. BBELLA: My limited intelligence does completely agree with you for what we can see and know... -This is the conventional concept of “intelligence” that we can define in terms of awareness, learning, reasoning etc., and with my own limited intelligence it is the form that I understand! Dhw: What we're really asking is how did ALL THAT IS arise out of ALL THAT WAS? But we don't know ALL THAT WAS, and we don't even know ALL THAT IS. BBELLA: As I see it, ATW and ATI is the same thing. Intelligence at work. Everything that was is now everything that is. Everything that will be, will be created from everything that now is. It is all a constant process by intelligent re-creation or recreation (lol) of matter & energy. ATI is never static and is always changing what IS. This is the work of intelligence.-I agree that everything that is came from everything that was, but as I see it, ATW and ATI are not the same thing at all, since “ATI is never static and is always changing what IS”. If something changes, it is not the same, and the great mystery of life is a prime example. At one time there was no life on earth. Now there's you and me. Perhaps this is the result of intelligent (deliberate, conscious, cognitive) design by David's God. But I can't bracket us together with a lump of rock in the middle of nowhere as if that too required the same intelligence or evinced the same intelligence as us. Dhw: Matter in my view can therefore exist without intelligence.-This is where you refer us to the website, and I would like to pick out two entries which illustrate the difficulty I have with the terminology and the logic:-8 “The function of intelligence is to create force to make order out of chaos. (Chaos is the disordered state of uniformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe.)”-“Supposed” leaves it open. So if there was no chaos, did intelligence exist without a function? If there was chaos, does this mean that matter (I don't understand “uniformed”) existed without intelligence? That contradicts everything you have said about the oneness of ALL THAT IS/WAS. 14 “Force is manifested by motion in matter, all matter has motion, therefore there is universal life in all matter.” -Who says that motion is synonymous with life? I know it is impossible to define life, but in every discourse most of us would agree that a dog has life and a lump of rock does not. It's the same as with intelligence. A live, intelligent rock presents enormous problems of comprehension for me, and the concept of ALL THAT IS does not solve them. This may well be due to my lack of intelligence (conventional form), but perhaps you can shine a bit more light into my darkness?
Information Complication
by David Turell , Friday, November 20, 2015, 22:22 (3289 days ago) @ dhw
14 “Force is manifested by motion in matter, all matter has motion, therefore there is universal life in all matter.” > > dhw: Who says that motion is synonymous with life? I know it is impossible to define life, but in every discourse most of us would agree that a dog has life and a lump of rock does not. It's the same as with intelligence. A live, intelligent rock presents enormous problems of comprehension for me, and the concept of ALL THAT IS does not solve them. This may well be due to my lack of intelligence (conventional form), but perhaps you can shine a bit more light into my darkness?-Theoretically the molecules in solid matter (as we know it) has some of the electrons in its atoms in motion. The solids we know are all really rather hollow.
Information Complication
by BBella , Wednesday, December 02, 2015, 08:16 (3278 days ago) @ dhw
I see intelligence as varying in degrees from our own down to that of, say, bacteria, but you seem to be saying that the intelligence of ATI is uniform - just the quality of being, which is shared by all things. The website you have referred us to appears to do the same: > http://www.epicenterofchiropractic.com/Philosophy.html > > 1 “There is a universal intelligence in all matter, continuously giving to it all its properties and actions, thus maintaining it in existence, and giving this intelligence its expression.” This is panpsychism, and some would call the universal intelligence God, an eternally conscious being that created the mechanisms for life. But that is not your concept. Instead “the mechanism that processes information and runs life and ATI” is intelligence. For me, without a definition, the word becomes as meaningless as “information” when applied indiscriminately. Information runs life. Intelligence runs life. Energy runs life. God runs life. In one of his posts, David even had life running life. As I see it, we might just as well say an indescribable something runs life, and it will have the same meaning.-I assume, if intelligence (in the sense I am using it) was so easily describable or detectable, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Science works very hard at trying to capture intelligence at work and naming it, as an idea of specific words. And even the dictionary seems to find it hard to pin-point it's meaning exactly. But for me, that which maintains ATI in existence seems as close as I can imagine the meaning of intelligence to be in a universal way (the main reason I gave the link is because it expresses that several times). -As for differing degrees of intelligence or pin-pointing intelligence here or there, is where the lines become fuzzy. In a similar way to me pointing to the ocean and saying, there is the ocean, then placing drops of the ocean in a jar and saying, and still be correct by some standards, the ocean is in the jar. But if I pour drops of the ocean onto the sand I would not point to the sand and say there is the ocean (altho in some sense I would still be correct), because what was ocean is now hidden in the sand and it would take science to try and distinguish the ocean water from the sand. Of course I am not saying intelligence and ocean water are comparable. I am saying ATI is being maintained in it's place, and in that very act of maintenance, I see intelligence - altho it may not always be obvious - it is there nonetheless. Not meaning one conscious, self aware intelligent being - just intelligence maintaining ATI. > I agree that everything that is came from everything that was, but as I see it, ATW and ATI are not the same thing at all, since “ATI is never static and is always changing what IS”. If something changes, it is not the same, and the great mystery of life is a prime example. At one time there was no life on earth. Now there's you and me. Perhaps this is the result of intelligent (deliberate, conscious, cognitive) design by David's God. But I can't bracket us together with a lump of rock in the middle of nowhere as if that too required the same intelligence or evinced the same intelligence as us.-As well you shouldn't bracket humans with rocks. But when you get right down to it and name our informational parts, we are made of what already has been and what will always be. Nothing is ever brand spanking new since everything is made out of available resources. >So if there was no chaos, did intelligence exist without a function? If there was chaos, does this mean that matter (I don't understand “uniformed”) existed without intelligence? That contradicts everything you have said about the oneness of ALL THAT IS/WAS.-As I said before, I see nothing existing without intelligence. > 14 “Force is manifested by motion in matter, all matter has motion, therefore there is universal life in all matter.” > > Who says that motion is synonymous with life?-Not me. Only a few thoughts on that link expressed how I see things.