Information as the source of life (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, November 24, 2015, 18:50 (3286 days ago)
There is more and more comment about information as the basis of life. Thiss guy thinks it came about by chance:-https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151119-life-is-information-adami/-besides prior life. Which presents a quandary.-"Christoph Adami does not know how life got started, but he knows a lot of other things. His main expertise is in information theory, a branch of applied mathematics developed in the 1940s for understanding information transmissions over a wire. Since then, the field has found wide application, and few researchers have done more in that regard than Adami, who is a professor of physics and astronomy and also microbiology and molecular genetics at Michigan State University. He takes the analytical perspective provided by information theory and transplants it into a great range of disciplines, including microbiology, genetics, physics, astronomy and neuroscience. Lately, he's been using it to pry open a statistical window onto the circumstances that might have existed at the moment life first clicked into place.-"To do this, he begins with a mental leap: Life, he argues, should not be thought of as a chemical event. Instead, it should be thought of as information. The shift in perspective provides a tidy way in which to begin tackling a messy question. In the following interview, Adami defines information as “the ability to make predictions with a likelihood better than chance,” and he says we should think of the human genome — or the genome of any organism — as a repository of information about the world gathered in small bits over time through the process of evolution. The repository includes information on everything we could possibly need to know, such as how to convert sugar into energy, how to evade a predator on the savannah, and, most critically for evolution, how to reproduce or self-replicate.-"This reconceptualization doesn't by itself resolve the issue of how life got started, but it does provide a framework in which we can start to calculate the odds of life developing in the first place. Adami explains that a precondition for information is the existence of an alphabet, a set of pieces that, when assembled in the right order, expresses something meaningful. No one knows what that alphabet was at the time that inanimate molecules coupled up to produce the first bits of information. Using information theory, though, Adami tries to help chemists think about the distribution of molecules that would have had to be present at the beginning in order to make it even statistically plausible for life to arise by chance.-*** "Life is information stored in a symbolic language. It's self-referential, which is necessary because any piece of information is rare, and the only way you make it stop being rare is by copying the sequence with instructions given within the sequence. The secret of all life is that through the copying process, we take something that is extraordinarily rare and make it extraordinarily abundant.-***-"We of course know that all life on Earth has enormous amounts of information that comes from evolution, which allows information to grow slowly. Before evolution, you couldn't have this process. As a consequence, the first piece of information has to have arisen by chance."-Comment: It's either chance or design by a mind. ?Third way?
Information as the source of life
DAVID: There is more and more comment about information as the basis of life. This guy thinks it came about by chance:-https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151119-life-is-information-adami/-At least this article uses vocabulary I think I understand. However, there is a great deal else that I do not understand, and so as usual I will put my head on the block and pinpoint what does not make sense to me. Perhaps David (or someone else) can put me right (if I am wrong). -QUOTE: In the following interview, Adami defines information as “the ability to make predictions with a likelihood better than chance...” -However, “he says we should think of the human genome — or the genome of any organism — as a repository of information about the world gathered in small bits over time through the process of evolution.”-The repository contains information collected from the past, but information is the ability to make predictions? So we have a repository of abilities to make predictions? May I suggest that the genome contains information about what has worked in the past, and it contains a mechanism that is able to use that past information to deal with current situations. Therefore, information is not the ability to make predictions, but it is the material which some form of intelligence (more anon) uses, among other things, to make predictions. If information IS that intelligence, we have information using information, which seems to me confusing rather than enlightening.-QUOTE: “The repository includes information on everything we could possibly need to know, such as how to convert sugar into energy, how to evade a predator on the savannah, and, most critically for evolution, how to reproduce or self-replicate.”-In other words, nothing to do with prediction, and everything to do with knowledge gained from past experience. How to reproduce or self-replicate is not in itself critical for evolution, since bacteria reproduce but have not evolved. What is critical is the intelligence needed to use existing information in order to innovate. Innovation will be based on the use of past and current information, and I agree that it also entails prediction (how something will work), and then, as I understand the terms, it provides new information. QUOTE: “Adami explains that a precondition for information is the existence of an alphabet, a set of pieces that, when assembled in the right order, expresses something meaningful. No one knows what that alphabet was at the time that inanimate molecules coupled up to produce the first bits of information.”-He later says “the first piece of information has to have arisen by chance.” I would argue that those molecules were the letters of the alphabet which, when assembled in the right order, gave us life. Once they were in the right order, they contained all the information necessary to give (and reproduce) life. But information did not put them together. It is not clear to me, then, what he means by “the first piece of information”. (See also my final comment.)-QUOTE: "We of course know that all life on Earth has enormous amounts of information that comes from evolution, which allows information to grow slowly. Before evolution, you couldn't have this process. As a consequence, the first piece of information has to have arisen by chance."-Yes indeed, information COMES FROM evolution. And it has accumulated from single-celled organisms to vastly complex ones like humans through some kind of mechanism that USES the information already accumulated to create new information. Information by itself is as useless as random letters in the alphabet. It is the product of evolution, not the driving force, and it is not the ability to make predictions, and it doesn't run life or make life evolve. That is the intelligence that uses the information, or that puts the letters together in a meaningful form. I agree that the process of accumulating information would not be possible without evolution, but that does not tell us what it is within the genome that actually does the accumulating and uses the information. To conclude that “the first piece of information” has to have arisen by chance seems to me a complete non sequitur. If he means how to get life from non-life, the focal point for chance v design is not information but what put the letters of the alphabet into meaningful form (information) and continues to expand the range of meanings (information). I agree with David: “It's either chance or design by a mind.” 50/50. And not “has to have” - either way.-xxxxxx-Thank you, David, for your gallant attempt to explain the quantum weirdness article. I will stick with your beautifully honest and quite reassuring statement: “Your confusion is shared by all of us.”
Information as the source of life
by David Turell , Thursday, November 26, 2015, 00:11 (3285 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The repository contains information collected from the past, but information is the ability to make predictions? So we have a repository of abilities to make predictions? May I suggest that the genome contains information about what has worked in the past, and it contains a mechanism that is able to use that past information to deal with current situations. Therefore, information is not the ability to make predictions, but it is the material which some form of intelligence (more anon) uses, among other things, to make predictions.-However the information appeared. it MUST have developed from intelligence and some sort of living intelligence must use and/or follow the information to maintain living organisms.-> dhw: What is critical is the intelligence needed to use existing information in order to innovate. Innovation will be based on the use of past and current information, and I agree that it also entails prediction (how something will work), and then, as I understand the terms, it provides new information.-This has been the point all along, when you were questioning the introduction of the concept of 'information' into our discussion of how life and evolution work.- > dhw: Yes indeed, information COMES FROM evolution. And it has accumulated from single-celled organisms to vastly complex ones like humans through some kind of mechanism that USES the information already accumulated to create new information. Information by itself is as useless as random letters in the alphabet. It is the product of evolution, not the driving force, and it is not the ability to make predictions, and it doesn't run life or make life evolve. That is the intelligence that uses the information, or that puts the letters together in a meaningful form. I agree that the process of accumulating information would not be possible without evolution, but that does not tell us what it is within the genome that actually does the accumulating and uses the information.-You are right. But life had to start with available dynamic useful information, which inorganic material does not have. It has static, descriptive information.-> > dhw: To conclude that “the first piece of information” has to have arisen by chance seems to me a complete non sequitur..... I agree with David: “It's either chance or design by a mind.” 50/50. And not “has to have” - either way.-Yes.
Information as the source of life
dhw: The repository contains information collected from the past, but information is the ability to make predictions? So we have a repository of abilities to make predictions? May I suggest that the genome contains information about what has worked in the past, and it contains a mechanism that is able to use that past information to deal with current situations. Therefore, information is not the ability to make predictions, but it is the material which some form of intelligence (more anon) uses, among other things, to make predictions.-DAVID: However the information appeared. it MUST have developed from intelligence and some sort of living intelligence must use and/or follow the information to maintain living organisms.-Thank you for repeating and emphasizing the point I have made repeatedly and emphatically in my post: that there is a difference between information and the intelligence that uses it. That is what is missing from the article you recommended.-dhw: What is critical is the intelligence needed to use existing information in order to innovate. Innovation will be based on the use of past and current information, and I agree that it also entails prediction (how something will work), and then, as I understand the terms, it provides new information. DAVID: This has been the point all along, when you were questioning the introduction of the concept of 'information' into our discussion of how life and evolution work.-I have not questioned the concept of ‘information', but only the way in which it has been used so indiscriminately as to blur its meaning: specifically, in order to conflate the information that is used and the intelligence that uses it. A vivid illustration of that was your earlier claim that “information runs life” (later corrected to the very different “life runs on information”), whereas you are now confirming that the intelligence which uses information is what runs life (“maintain(s) living organisms”). See also below for the same confusion.-dhw: It is the product of evolution, not the driving force, and it is not the ability to make predictions, and it doesn't run life or make life evolve. That is the intelligence that uses the information, or that puts the letters together in a meaningful form. I agree that the process of accumulating information would not be possible without evolution, but that does not tell us what it is within the genome that actually does the accumulating and uses the information.-DAVID: You are right. But life had to start with available dynamic useful information, which inorganic material does not have. It has static, descriptive information.-And once again you are blurring the dividing line between intelligence and information. My point is that what you call static, descriptive information is what intelligence uses. Inorganic material is full of useful information, but it does not have the intelligence to use it. So what is this “dynamic” information? You have made the distinction above: “...some sort of living intelligence must use and/or follow the information to maintain living organisms”. As I understand it, your argument relating to the origin of life is not that “dynamic information was needed”, but that intelligence was needed - namely, that of your God, who assembled the meaningless letters (static information) into something meaningful (dynamic), i.e. life. Neither intelligence nor life IS information. Information does not use information in order to maintain information. Intelligence uses information to maintain life. Your very own words. What could be clearer? dhw: To conclude that “the first piece of information” has to have arisen by chance seems to me a complete non sequitur..... I agree with David: “It's either chance or design by a mind.” 50/50. And not “has to have” - either way. DAVID: Yes.-And design by a mind is design by intelligence, not by information.
Information as the source of life
by David Turell , Thursday, November 26, 2015, 15:08 (3284 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Thank you for repeating and emphasizing the point I have made repeatedly and emphatically in my post: that there is a difference between information and the intelligence that uses it. -I've been unclear in my discussions. Your comment is what I have always thought.-> DAVID: You are right. But life had to start with available dynamic useful information, which inorganic material does not have. It has static, descriptive information.-> dhw: As I understand it, your argument relating to the origin of life is not that “dynamic information was needed”, but that intelligence was needed - namely, that of your God, who assembled the meaningless letters (static information) into something meaningful (dynamic), i.e. life. Neither intelligence nor life IS information. Information does not use information in order to maintain information. Intelligence uses information to maintain life. Your very own words. What could be clearer?-This is why you are the editor and I am the writer. Information and intelligence are two separate items. > > dhw: And design by a mind is design by intelligence, not by information.-But intelligence uses information in the design procedss.
Information as the source of life
dhw: Thank you for repeating and emphasizing the point I have made repeatedly and emphatically in my post: that there is a difference between information and the intelligence that uses it. -DAVID: I've been unclear in my discussions. Your comment is what I have always thought.-Thank you again. It's not just you. The article you posted in the hope of clarifying the concept indulged in the same obfuscations, and I am reassured by your agreement. “Information” has become the buzzword of the moment, and in my view it is used so indiscriminately that the result is confusion masquerading as some sort of science.-DAVID: This is why you are the editor and I am the writer. Information and intelligence are two separate items.-I am also a writer, and you have done a good job “editing” my reference to extinction on the EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE thread. We're all here to help one another solve the magical mysteries of life!-dhw: And design by a mind is design by intelligence, not by information.-DAVID: But intelligence uses information in the design process.-Yes indeed, no matter who or what does the designing.
Information as the source of life
by David Turell , Friday, November 27, 2015, 14:55 (3283 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Thank you again. It's not just you. The article you posted in the hope of clarifying the concept indulged in the same obfuscations, and I am reassured by your agreement. “Information” has become the buzzword of the moment, and in my view it is used so indiscriminately that the result is confusion masquerading as some sort of science.-Once again you use 'buzzword'. This indicates to me your reluctance to dig into the latest area of thought. Remember Crick declaring DNA was the 'code of life' and implied our search into the control of life's processes was almost over. Instead a half century later we are still trying to unravel all the intricacies of the layers of control over gene expression, and we find that as a result only 20,000+ genes create the most complicated organism on Earth, humans. There is a very deep layer of information in those codes and modifiers. It is specified, complex information. It leads to a very specific conclusion: only a very superior complex intelligence could have created it.
Information as the source of life
dhw: Thank you again. It's not just you. The article you posted in the hope of clarifying the concept indulged in the same obfuscations, and I am reassured by your agreement. “Information” has become the buzzword of the moment, and in my view it is used so indiscriminately that the result is confusion masquerading as some sort of science.-DAVID: Once again you use 'buzzword'. This indicates to me your reluctance to dig into the latest area of thought. Remember Crick declaring DNA was the 'code of life' and implied our search into the control of life's processes was almost over. Instead a half century later we are still trying to unravel all the intricacies of the layers of control over gene expression, and we find that as a result only 20,000+ genes create the most complicated organism on Earth, humans. There is a very deep layer of information in those codes and modifiers. It is specified, complex information. It leads to a very specific conclusion: only a very superior complex intelligence could have created it.-A buzzword is a word “from one special area of knowledge that people suddenly think is very important” (Longman) I have never denied the importance of information, or that DNA is full of it! I have simply complained about its indiscriminate and confusing use by yourself and other commentators. In the course of our discussion you have treated us to processing information, interpreting information, intelligent information, planning information, static information, dynamic information, functional information, useful information, useless information, instructional information, and even informative information. On Thursday, however, you acknowledged: “I have been unclear in my discussion. [...] This is why you are the editor and I am the writer. Information and intelligence are two separate items.” It should have been champagne all round.-And yet today, under “Theoretical origin of life”, discussing the difficulty of understanding how the first cells “emerged”, you have commented: “No mention of information. Without it how are all those molecules organized?” How would information organize molecules? According to yourself: “Intelligence uses information in the design process.” Information doesn't use information in the design process. But you did not comment: ”No mention of intelligence. Without it how are all those molecules organized?” Even the heading of this thread contradicts your own beliefs, since you insist that the source of life is intelligence which uses information. Or are you now defining your God as universal information instead of universal intelligence? -After your acknowledgement that you had been “unclear”, I pointed out that others have been just as unclear, including the author of the article you thought would clarify the whole concept. I am not unwilling to “dig into the latest areas of thought”, but I am not willing to swallow what even you appeared on Thursday to have recognized as a confusing concoction arising out of indiscriminate use of a particular term. We have agreed that ”information and intelligence are two separate items.” Why don't we leave it at that?
Information as the source of life
by David Turell , Saturday, November 28, 2015, 15:00 (3282 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have never denied the importance of information, or that DNA is full of it! I have simply complained about its indiscriminate and confusing use by yourself and other commentators.-Your problem and mine is my assumption ( and those of the folks I read), that when useful information is mentioned as a source of life's organization and controls of its activities, it is obvious that there must be an interpretation mechanism for that information. And it is also important to recognize that the mechanism may well be automatic, as a computer reads input information. It can also be an intelligent reader as a human reading plans. And it must be recognized that functional specified complex information is usually the product of intelligence. Perhaps you have not thought of information and its relationship to intelligence in this way.-> dhw: On Thursday, however, you acknowledged: “I have been unclear in my discussion. [...] This is why you are the editor and I am the writer. Information and intelligence are two separate items.” It should have been champagne all round.-No champagne. I now see all the ramifications of information and intelligence in my mind were not made clear on Thursday.-> dhw: Or are you now defining your God as universal information instead of universal intelligence? -This is why I realized you have not thought thru the implications. Things were assumed by writers that you were not assuming. > > dhw: We have agreed that ”information and intelligence are two separate items.” Why don't we leave it at that?-Separate terms but the two are totally inter-twined, as above.
Information as the source of life
dhw: I have never denied the importance of information, or that DNA is full of it! I have simply complained about its indiscriminate and confusing use by yourself and other commentators. DAVID: Your problem and mine is my assumption ( and those of the folks I read), that when useful information is mentioned as a source of life's organization and controls of its activities, it is obvious that there must be an interpretation mechanism for that information. And it is also important to recognize that the mechanism may well be automatic, as a computer reads input information. It can also be an intelligent reader as a human reading plans. And it must be recognized that functional specified complex information is usually the product of intelligence. Perhaps you have not thought of information and its relationship to intelligence in this way.-My problem is when you and the folks you read try to conflate the interpretive and/or creative mechanism with the information it interprets and/or creates. One of the articles you referred us to emphasized the distinction between matter and information, which is “absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution”. I maintain that the distinction between information and intelligence is equally indispensable, which is why I object to “information as the source of life”, “information runs life”, “information is the ability to make predictions with a likelihood better than chance”. And that is also why I pointed out that your statement “life had to start with available dynamic useful information” contradicted your whole philosophy, which is based on the belief that life started when the necessary information was created and used by a universal intelligence. Information, in my view, is not “dynamic” or “useful” (or “functional”) until intelligence makes it so. I am fully aware of the existence of automatic intelligence: this has been at the heart of our never-ending discussion concerning your automatic versus my autonomous intelligence of cells in their use of information. As regards intelligence producing information, I have suggested again and again that intelligence processes information in order to create the innovations that drive evolution, and every innovation provides new information which can then be used by other intelligences to create more innovations. That is how, in my hypothesis, intelligence uses and produces information to drive evolution forward, but thank you for confirming the very points I have been trying to emphasize in my description of the relationship between intelligence and information. I am delighted to see that you are now taking more care to distinguish between the two. I wish some other writers would do the same instead of using the word “information” indiscriminately and confusingly. I think I've said that before somewhere.-dhw: We have agreed that ”information and intelligence are two separate items.” Why don't we leave it at that? DAVID: Separate terms but the two are totally inter-twined, as above.-They are only “totally” intertwined if the universe and life were created by your universal intelligence. As I have said before, inanimate matter is full of information, but the information is useless without intelligence to extract it, process it, and use it. And nobody knows the origin of intelligence.
Information as the source of life
by David Turell , Sunday, November 29, 2015, 15:38 (3281 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: My problem is when you and the folks you read try to conflate the interpretive and/or creative mechanism with the information it interprets and/or creates...... And that is also why I pointed out that your statement “life had to start with available dynamic useful information” contradicted your whole philosophy, which is based on the belief that life started when the necessary information was created and used by a universal intelligence. Information, in my view, is not “dynamic” or “useful” (or “functional”) until intelligence makes it so.-Your point is obvious to me and exists behind all my thoughts. Our difference is I assume the inference is understood, and you want exactness in the written matter about it. I've been writing in a shorthand of ideas. I'll try better.-> > dhw: We have agreed that ”information and intelligence are two separate items.” Why don't we leave it at that? > DAVID: Separate terms but the two are totally inter-twined, as above. > > dhw: They are only “totally” intertwined if the universe and life were created by your universal intelligence. As I have said before, inanimate matter is full of information, but the information is useless without intelligence to extract it, process it, and use it. And nobody knows the origin of intelligence.-In your reference to inanimate matter 'the information it is full of' is descriptive. It describes nothing else. Life is process, and requires specialized information to run that process, interpreted automatically or by active intellect.
Information as the source of life
dhw: My problem is when you and the folks you read try to conflate the interpretive and/or creative mechanism with the information it interprets and/or creates...... Information, in my view, is not “dynamic” or “useful” (or “functional”) until intelligence makes it so.-DAVID: Your point is obvious to me and exists behind all my thoughts. Our difference is I assume the inference is understood, and you want exactness in the written matter about it. I've been writing in a shorthand of ideas. I'll try better. I should have mentioned last time that I doubt if Adami would assume from your statement “life had to start with available dynamic useful information” that this means creation and interpretation by an intelligent mind. He concludes that “the first piece of information has to have arisen by chance”. That shows just how essential it is state explicitly the distinction which you consider to be obvious to yourself and others, so thank you for your gracious acceptance of the need for more precision.-dhw: We have agreed that ”information and intelligence are two separate items.” Why don't we leave it at that? DAVID: Separate terms but the two are totally inter-twined, as above. dhw: They are only “totally” intertwined if the universe and life were created by your universal intelligence. As I have said before, inanimate matter is full of information, but the information is useless without intelligence to extract it, process it, and use it. And nobody knows the origin of intelligence.-DAVID: In your reference to inanimate matter 'the information it is full of' is descriptive. It describes nothing else. Life is process, and requires specialized information to run that process, interpreted automatically or by active intellect.-Why do you have to distinguish between “descriptive” and “specialized” (not to mention “intelligent”, “functional”, “static”, “dynamic”, “informative” etc.) information? According to your philosophy, the information within inanimate matter required intelligence to create, select and combine it into a concoction that produced life. The formula then contained all the information required to “run” life, and evolution is the process whereby intelligence (automatic in your hypothesis, autonomous in mine) uses that information plus information from the environment to innovate, thereby creating new information. All your different “categories” of information explain nothing and add to the confusion vividly illustrated by the diametrically opposite conclusions drawn by you and Adami from the same premise. As I see it, all the arguments are far clearer if we simply distinguish between internal information (stored in the genome) and external (from the world outside the organism).
Information as the source of life
by David Turell , Monday, November 30, 2015, 15:12 (3280 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: In your reference to inanimate matter 'the information it is full of' is descriptive. It describes nothing else. Life is process, and requires specialized information to run that process, interpreted automatically or by active intellect. > > dhw: Why do you have to distinguish between “descriptive” and “specialized” (not to mention “intelligent”, “functional”, “static”, “dynamic”, “informative” etc.) information? According to your philosophy, the information within inanimate matter required intelligence to create, select and combine it into a concoction that produced life. .... As I see it, all the arguments are far clearer if we simply distinguish between internal information (stored in the genome) and external (from the world outside the organism).-Your intent to simplify only confuses the issue. I assume God created the universe, That required physical processes outlined by our discoveries of the Standard Model, particle physics, etc. The universe and its inanimate objects contain inactive descriptive information we humans create. Animate matter, living organisms, contain an active form of information that contains the instructions for a continuous process interpreted by parts of the living organism that are programmed for just that purpose. If automatic, intelligence planned it. If evolved by chance, mind is not required. These distinctions are the nub of our debate. You are trying to gloss it over.
Information as the source of life; semiotics afterthought
by David Turell , Monday, November 30, 2015, 18:47 (3280 days ago) @ David Turell
I fell into this article on semiotics in cells and thought it would contribute to our discussion. Basically DNA is a code of signs and must be interpreted by the cell, since the cell conducts its processes according to the instructions in DNA and its modifying layers
efinition of semiotics:-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semiotics-Article:-http://complexitycafe.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30:irreducible-complexity-the-primordial-condition-of-biology-2&catid=10&Itemid=101-"But the fact remains that semiosis is a process that simply does not occur without (a minimum of) two objects operating in a very specific system. And the function that is lost by not having this system is the very capacity to organize biology in the first place. The living cell does not happen without it.-"Semiosis ultimately refers to the physical process whereby meaningful information is exchanged and translated in the living kingdom. The translation of an informational medium is a primordial condition of biology because it creates the physical means to specify objects and place them under temporal control. This is a universal reality inside the living cell. The capacity to specify something is the utility that enables living things to be organized in a far-from-equilibrium state, and sustains them there. But the capacity to specify something is itself a product of organization -- a unique organization unlike any other. It has clear organizational requirements that must be fulfilled in order to function.-"Foremost, it requires the arrangement of a medium to serve as a representation - an object that is foreign to all other (non-semiotic) physical systems. This arrangement is used to specify the thing being represented within the system, but no material object (regardless of its arrangement) inherently specifies or represents any other material object, so a second arrangement of matter is required to establish what is being specified by the representation. This is a fundamental organizational requirement involving two critical objects, and is required to accomplish what the system can do. It is this architecture that allows nucleic representations to specify amino acid effects in a deterministic material system. But there is a third critical requirement -- the system only functions by establishing the medium as a genuine formal representation. This is accomplished by preserving the natural discontinuity between the arrangement of the representation and the determination of its effect. In the origin of the autonomous self-replicating cell, many of these representational relationships must simultaneously exist in order to have the informational capacity to record itself into memory, and begin the cycle of life. This also implies the additional requirements that the patterns of these individual representations be independent of their dynamic properties, and that the constraints of a reading frame code be instantiated in the system and recorded in the information encoded by it."-Comment: Obviously there must be an intelligently designed decoder, or onboard intelligence to follow the instructions. All we know now is the DNA instructions are used and followed appropriately or there would be no life.
Information as the source of life
DAVID: In your reference to inanimate matter 'the information it is full of' is descriptive. It describes nothing else. Life is process, and requires specialized information to run that process, interpreted automatically or by active intellect. dhw: Why do you have to distinguish between “descriptive” and “specialized” (not to mention “intelligent”, “functional”, “static”, “dynamic”, “informative” etc.) information? According to your philosophy, the information within inanimate matter required intelligence to create, select and combine it into a concoction that produced life. .... As I see it, all the arguments are far clearer if we simply distinguish between internal information (stored in the genome) and external (from the world outside the organism).-DAVID: Your intent to simplify only confuses the issue. I assume God created the universe, That required physical processes outlined by our discoveries of the Standard Model, particle physics, etc.-I do not think anyone would disagree that the creation/origin of the universe required physical processes. DAVID: The universe and its inanimate objects contain inactive descriptive information we humans create.-I'm afraid I already find this confusing. How do humans “create” the information? It is already there within the object (and I thought you thought your God created it). We humans analyse the objects and invent words to describe what we find. The results of our analysis and translation into words are what we call information, i.e. data, facts, knowledge about what the objects consist of and do. Inventing words is not the same as inventing what they describe.-DAVID: Animate matter, living organisms, contain an active form of information that contains the instructions for a continuous process interpreted by parts of the living organism that are programmed for just that purpose. If automatic, intelligence planned it. If evolved by chance, mind is not required. These distinctions are the nub of our debate. You are trying to gloss it over. -I find this confusing too. I do not see how information can be active. Inanimate matter can also be active, but it is the component parts that are active, not “information”. (One of your authors emphasized the need to distinguish between matter and information.) The distinction here is that inanimate matter - if we set aside panpsychism for the sake of this discussion - does not appear to contain an intelligent mechanism to interpret information, whereas living organisms do. It is their intelligence that actively uses information, and the continuous process both of living and of evolving is the result of interaction between the organism's intelligence and the information contained within and coming from outside the organism - an important distinction which I drew at the end of the quoted passage above and which you have not commented on. I described this process in the section of my post that you left out: “The formula then contained all the information required to “run” life, and evolution is the process whereby intelligence (automatic in your hypothesis, autonomous in mine) uses that information plus information from the environment to innovate, thereby creating new information.” Please tell me what part of this you disagree with or find confusing, and what has been glossed over.-The nub of this particular debate, however, has been the indiscriminate and confusing use of the word “information”, and it seems that once again it is causing confusion. Xxxxxxxxxxx-David's comment re “semiotics”: Obviously there must be an intelligently designed decoder, or onboard intelligence to follow the instructions. All we know now is the DNA instructions are used and followed appropriately or there would be no life.-I am happy with this comment, which seems to me no different from intelligence using internal information, allowing for that intelligence to be your God's preprogramming or my autonomous alternative.
Information as the source of life
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 02, 2015, 02:51 (3279 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: The universe and its inanimate objects contain inactive descriptive information we humans create. > > dhw:I'm afraid I already find this confusing. How do humans “create” the information? It is already there within the object (and I thought you thought your God created it).-Simple. The understandable info does not exist until we create it. The info does lie, inert in a rock waiting for discovery. We describe the structure of the rock and the info appears for all to see. We now have mentally useful info about the rock.-> dhw: We humans analyse the objects and invent words to describe what we find. The results of our analysis and translation into words are what we call information, i.e. data, facts, knowledge about what the objects consist of and do. Inventing words is not the same as inventing what they describe.-Of course we have to invent terminology. I don't understand your problem. > > dhw: I find this confusing too. I do not see how information can be active.-The use of information that describes or runs functions is what I think of as active material. Granted there must be an interpretive mechanism using this info--> dhw: The distinction here is that inanimate matter - if we set aside panpsychism for the sake of this discussion - does not appear to contain an intelligent mechanism to interpret information, whereas living organisms do. It is their intelligence that actively uses information, and the continuous process both of living and of evolving is the result of interaction between the organism's intelligence and the information contained within and coming from outside the organism. -Agreed, BUT, not all organisms have intelligence, our usual sticking point. Many lesser organisms have mechanisms which can automatically act appropriately upon the instructions (information) they have.-> dhw: I described this process in the section of my post that you left out: > “The formula then contained all the information required to “run” life, and evolution is the process whereby intelligence (automatic in your hypothesis, autonomous in mine) uses that information plus information from the environment to innovate, thereby creating new information.”-Fine, agreed. The new info allows them to respond to the environment perhaps epigenetically. > > Xxxxxxxxxxx > > dhw: David's comment re “semiotics”: Obviously there must be an intelligently designed decoder, or onboard intelligence to follow the instructions. All we know now is the DNA instructions are used and followed appropriately or there would be no life. > > I am happy with this comment, which seems to me no different from intelligence using internal information, allowing for that intelligence to be your God's preprogramming or my autonomous alternative.-The decoder may be automatic in my way of thinking.
Information as the source of life
DAVID: The universe and its inanimate objects contain inactive descriptive information we humans create. dhw:I'm afraid I already find this confusing. How do humans “create” the information? It is already there within the object (and I thought you thought your God created it). DAVID: Simple. The understandable info does not exist until we create it. The info does lie, inert in a rock waiting for discovery. We describe the structure of the rock and the info appears for all to see. We now have mentally useful info about the rock.-If the information already exists in the rock, humans did not create it, but now in addition to your list of descriptive, specialized, intelligent, functional, static, dynamic, useful, useless, informative etc. etc., you have given us understandable info and mentally useful info. Yes, we describe the structure of the rock, precisely as I wrote below, and then the info appears for all to see. Once again, we did not create it.-dhw: We humans analyse the objects and invent words to describe what we find. The results of our analysis and translation into words are what we call information, i.e. data, facts, knowledge about what the objects consist of and do. Inventing words is not the same as inventing what they describe. DAVID: Of course we have to invent terminology. I don't understand your problem.-My problem here was your confusing claim that humans created the info, and elsewhere in this post your claim that my own account was oversimplified, confusing, and a glossing over of the real issues. I am now trying to unravel your efforts to gloss over the confusion caused by your overcomplicated use of the word “information”. One down, and the rest as follows: dhw: I find this confusing too. I do not see how information can be active.-DAVID: The use of information that describes or runs functions is what I think of as active material. Granted there must be an interpretive mechanism using this info. And so it is not the information that is active but the use of it by the interpretive mechanism. Thank you for confirming the accuracy of my account. Exit “active information”.-dhw: The distinction here is that inanimate matter - if we set aside panpsychism for the sake of this discussion - does not appear to contain an intelligent mechanism to interpret information, whereas living organisms do. It is their intelligence that actively uses information, and the continuous process both of living and of evolving is the result of interaction between the organism's intelligence and the information contained within and coming from outside the organism. DAVID: Agreed, BUT, not all organisms have intelligence, our usual sticking point. Many lesser organisms have mechanisms which can automatically act appropriately upon the instructions (information) they have.-I have specified throughout this discussion that the intelligence may be your automatic variety or my autonomous variety. Thank you for once again confirming my account.-dhw: I described this process in the section of my post that you left out: “The formula then contained all the information required to “run” life, and evolution is the process whereby intelligence (automatic in your hypothesis, autonomous in mine) uses that information plus information from the environment to innovate, thereby creating new information.” DAVID: Fine, agreed. The new info allows them to respond to the environment perhaps epigenetically.-Thank you for confirming everything I wrote in the post which you criticized as being oversimplified and confusing and glossing over the distinctions. You might call it an informative discussion!
Information as the source of life
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 02, 2015, 21:11 (3278 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: If the information already exists in the rock, humans did not create it, .... Yes, we describe the structure of the rock, precisely as I wrote below, and then the info appears for all to see. Once again, we did not create it.-I don't agree. The inert rock exists, but only until we describe it does information exist that can be used by mental activity. We are not discussing information at the same level. It only becomes information when humans describe it.-In living matter we can describe the parts that exist in the cell as a simple description. How the cell operates is another description. These are not the same information as in the genome which contains the instructions for operating systems in the cell. Life cannot exists without the operating information. And the shorthand applies: life runs on information. Therefore I view different types of information as being very different and very separate.
Information as the source of life
dhw: If the information already exists in the rock, humans did not create it, .... Yes, we describe the structure of the rock, precisely as I wrote below, and then the info appears for all to see. DAVID: I don't agree. The inert rock exists, but only until we describe it does information exist that can be used by mental activity. We are not discussing information at the same level. It only becomes information when humans describe it. -You wrote “the information does lie, inert in the rock waiting for discovery.” Therefore the information exists in the rock, but only when we discover and describe it can we use it. Therefore we did not create it. But this was only one of several items that caused confusion, and you agreed with my version in all cases. DAVID: In living matter we can describe the parts that exist in the cell as a simple description. How the cell operates is another description. These are not the same information as in the genome which contains the instructions for operating systems in the cell. Life cannot exists without the operating information. And the shorthand applies: life runs on information. Therefore I view different types of information as being very different and very separate.-That's fine with me. However, originally you wrote that ”information runs life”, and when I complained about this indiscriminate and confusing use of the word, you hastily changed it to “life runs on information” (a very big difference). I objected to “active information” and you agreed that information is not active, but requires intelligence (automatic or autonomous) to use it. I pointed out that “information as the source of life” and “life had to start with available dynamic useful information” makes your God unnecessary (Adami attributes the first information to chance), and so even for your own philosophy it is essential to distinguish between information, which does nothing by itself, and the intelligence that uses it. These are illustrations of my complaint that people use the word indiscriminately and confusingly. You yourself have promised to be more discriminating, and that is all I ask. Under “Human Consciousness”: DAVID: A very confusing approach to consciousness by appealing to information to help explain it: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-integrated-information-theory-expla... Very interesting to hear that panpsychism is being taken seriously in some quarters. You have quoted two sentences in bold:-"So you can't explain consciousness by saying it consists of information, because information exists only relative to consciousness." "Information-based theories of consciousness are circular; that is, they seek to explain consciousness with a concept—information—that presupposes consciousness."-Your comment: I view Horgan as a clear-thinking guy. The first bold above is the point I've tried to make all along. 'Information does not exist except as relative to consciousness'.-Thank you for this. Apart from his use of consciousness instead of intelligence, Horgan is making precisely the same point as me: that people (initially including yourself) use the word “information” indiscriminately and confusingly, and fail to make the necessary distinction between information and the consciousness/ intelligence that uses it. It would appear now that you, he and I are in agreement. Hallelujah!
Information as the source of life
by David Turell , Thursday, December 03, 2015, 19:32 (3277 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Your comment: I view Horgan as a clear-thinking guy. The first bold above is the point I've tried to make all along. 'Information does not exist except as relative to consciousness'. > > Thank you for this. Apart from his use of consciousness instead of intelligence, Horgan is making precisely the same point as me: that people (initially including yourself) use the word “information” indiscriminately and confusingly, and fail to make the necessary distinction between information and the consciousness/ intelligence that uses it. It would appear now that you, he and I are in agreement. Hallelujah!-You are the wordsmith and editor. I'll be more careful, but at least you now recognize the importance of information
Information as the source of life; Royal society
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 17, 2016, 20:25 (3201 days ago) @ dhw
Excerpts from two papers: - http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-the-royal-society-finally-catching... - "The supporters of the information paradigm insist that information is a real and fundamental component of the living world, but have not been able toprove this point. As a result, the chemical view has not been abandoned and the two paradigms both coexist today. Here, it is shown that a solution to the ontological problem of information does exist. It comes from the idea that life is artefact-making, that genes and proteins are molecular artefacts manufactured by molecular machines and that artefacts necessarily require sequences and coding rules in addition to the quantities of physics and chemistry. More precisely, it is shown that the production of artefacts requires new observables that are referred to as nominable entities because they can be described only by naming their components in their natural order. From an ontological point of view, in conclusion, information is a nominable entity, a fundamental but not-computable observable." - *** - "The biologically relevant concept of information has to do with ‘meaning', i.e. encoding various biological functions with various degree of evolutionary conservation. Apart from direct experimentation, the meaning, or biological information content, can be extracted and quantified from alignments of homologous nucleotide or amino acid sequences but generally not from a single sequence, using appropriately modified information theoretical formulae. For short, information encoded in genomes is defined vertically but not horizontally. Informally but substantially, biological information density seems to be equivalent to ‘meaning' of genomic sequences that spans the entire range from sharply defined, universal meaning to effective meaninglessness. Large fractions of genomes, up to 90% in some plants, belong within the domain of fuzzy meaning. The sequences with fuzzy meaning can be recruited for various functions, with the meaning subsequently fixed, and also could perform generic functional roles that do not require sequence conservation. Biological meaning is continuously transferred between the genomes of selfish elements and hosts in the process of their coevolution. Thus, in order to adequately describe genome function and evolution, the concepts of information theory have to be adapted to incorporate the notion of meaning that is central to biology." - Comment: It is recognized that the genome contains information.
Information as the source of life; latest essay
by David Turell , Monday, July 17, 2017, 22:10 (2685 days ago) @ David Turell
Combine material substance and information and a recipe for life can appear:
https://www.yhousenyc.org/yhouse-blog/all-posts/on-matter-and-information-the-origin-of...
"The relationship between matter and information is one of the great mysteries in all of science. Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power.
***
"the idea of information being empowering is an old one. We speak about the pen being mightier than the sword. The invention of writing, followed by that of book printing, allowed for much more coherence in human activities and hence for much more influence, for better or worse.
"It is especially digital information that can empower material systems in which it is utilized. Not only the system of zeros and ones in a computer, or the alphabets used in writing, but also the system of phonemes used in any human language employ digital representations. In contrast with analogue representations, where every distinguishable sound has only one specific "hard-wired" meaning, digital representations allow for sheer endless combinatorics. This is why most animals can express many subtle versions of emotions, but lack the combinatorial richness of, say, story telling. Different emotions may number in the hundreds, but the number of different stories one can tell is more than astronomical.
"Several virtual reality pioneers have pointed out that the invention of language provided humans with the first kind of virtual reality. The very notion of conjuring up a description of a series of events well beyond the location and time of the speaker and listener would have been mind boggling, had it happened all of a sudden. But of course, it must have happened gradually over time, during many generations, much more gradually than the invention of various scripts. In any case, language dates back to well before we started to create cave paintings as a way to abstract events around us into an inner language that we could then share with others.
"Perhaps it makes sense to consider any form of digital representation as a kind of virtual reality. The use of DNA and RNA to provide a way to encode recipes for producing proteins from amino acids was discovered on Earth some four billion years ago, before the oldest common ancestor of any form of life that we know of. And the idea of a recipe, of some string of material symbols pointing to the potential to construct an altogether different and unrelated material structure, has the flavor of a virtual reality. The reality of the protein is virtually encoded in the information carried by the RNA or DNA.
"In contrast, before life appeared on Earth, rivers were flowing, volcanoes erupted, storms were churning the oceans, but all these activities were a direct consequence of matter acting on matter, according to the laws of physics. At no time or place before life appeared were there any recipes to be found.
"Of course, when we look at the exact way in which a ribosome uses the recipes provided by RNA into the manufacture of proteins, we can maintain that it is equally an application of the laws of physics to all the atoms and molecules doing the construction work. While in principle that is a true statement, in practice, the emergent property of the notion of a recipe, based on digital information, was a crucial step, if not in the origins of life directly, then certainly in making life robust, and able to evolve in its myriad forms present today.
"Seen in this light, we can identify the origins of life as the series of events that enabled the first information revolution on Earth. And if the development of astronomical instruments continues at the pace it has in the last few decades, we may soon discover signs of life on other planets. That will tell us that similar information revolutions have taken place on other worlds as well. Life and information will then be seen to be connected in a way that literally has universal significance."
Comment: I've skipped over the introduction in which the author looks at the power of information in AI computer work, especially in warfare. The key point is the primacy of the importance that matter and information made to work together produces life! No life without supplied immaterial information. We can debate the source of the functional information, but it cannot come from matter.
Information as the source of life; Davies opinion
by David Turell , Friday, January 25, 2019, 20:56 (2128 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Friday, January 25, 2019, 21:04
In a new book Paul Davies points to information as the likely underpinning of life:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00215-9?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...
"Paul Davies. His latest book, The Demon in the Machine, presents a case that information is central not just to doing biology, but to understanding life itself.
***
"Davies claims that life’s defining characteristics are better understood in terms of information. This is not as absurd as it may seem. Energy is abstract, yet we have little trouble accepting it as a causal factor. Indeed, energy and information are closely related through entropy.
Davies explains this connection by referring to Maxwell’s demon. Victorian physicist James Clerk Maxwell’s celebrated thought experiment features a hypothetical miniature beast perching at an aperture between two containers of gas, where it allows only certain molecules to pass, depending on their kinetic energy. The demon can thus create a temperature gradient between the containers: a reduction in overall entropy, apparently breaking the second law of thermodynamics. The resolution to this paradox seems to lie in the fact that the demon must gather information about the properties of each molecule, and for this it requires a recording device, such as a brain or a miniature notebook. When its storage space eventually runs out, the information must be deleted, a process that necessarily produces an increase in total entropy.
From this perspective, living systems can be seen as composed of countless such ‘demons’ (proteins and other cellular machinery) that maintain local order by pumping disorder (often in the form of heat) into their surroundings. Davies adroitly brings Schrödinger’s account up to date by way of Claude Shannon’s information theory, Turing machines (universal computers), von Neumann machines (self-replicating universal constructors), molecular biology, epigenetics, information-integration theories of consciousness and quantum biology (which concerns quantum effects in processes from photosynthesis to insect coloration and bird navigation).
***
"Davies adroitly brings Schrödinger’s account up to date by way of Claude Shannon’s information theory, Turing machines (universal computers), von Neumann machines (self-replicating universal constructors), molecular biology, epigenetics, information-integration theories of consciousness and quantum biology (which concerns quantum effects in processes from photosynthesis to insect coloration and bird navigation).
***
"a definition of life that depends on its informational characteristics rather than its carbon-based substrate could force a reappraisal of our attitudes towards artificial systems embodied in computers. We are already beginning to treat these as companions; might we eventually come to see them as living creatures rather than mere imitations?
***
"As well as having eclectic interests, Davies is iconoclastic and opinionated. Although certainly no believer in a vital force distinct from physics or chemistry, he has little time for reductionism, believing that life cannot be fully explained in terms of lower-level laws (such as the second law of thermodynamics), even in principle. In a final nod to Schrödinger — who believed that a proper understanding of life might reveal “other laws of physics hitherto unknown” — Davies closes by arguing that biology might yet contain deep lessons for physics."
Comment: Information is either descriptive or provide instructions for functions. ID has always pointed to the latter as very important. Davies is joining in.
Information as the source of life; Davies opinion
by David Turell , Thursday, January 31, 2019, 04:53 (2122 days ago) @ David Turell
More on his new book:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/26/i-predict-great-revolution-physicists-d...
“'The basic hypothesis is this,” Davies says. “We have fundamental laws of information that bring life into being from an incoherent mish-mash of chemicals. The remarkable properties we associate with life are not going to come about by accident.”
"The proposal takes some unpacking. Davies believes that the laws of nature as we know them today are insufficient to explain what life is and how it came about. We need to find new laws, he says, or at least new principles, which describe how information courses around living creatures. Those rules may not only nail down what life is, but actively favour its emergence.
"Davies suspects that information is the answer because it seems increasingly fundamental to both physics and biology. In recent years, physicists have shown that information is more than the bits and bytes that course through computers. Information can be converted into energy, for example, such that physicists now build little information engines and information-powered refrigerators, if not with the appearance their names suggest.
"Similar machines are found in biology. Constructed from proteins, they chunter away inside living cells where they manipulate information at the nanoscale. “What we’re seeing in the lab is these two worlds colliding in a very practical way,” he says. “The physics is really connecting with the biology and that’s why I think we’re on the verge of this great new revolution.”
"Davies believes that life will turn out to bear telltale patterns of information processing that distinguish it from non-life. Few people would argue that a computer is alive no matter how the ones and zeroes zip around inside it. What Davies suspects is that life exploits, and arises from, particular patterns of information flow. (my bold)
“'When you look at a living system, the way information is managed is very far from random. It will show patterns that could lead us to a definition of life,” he says. “We talk about informational hallmarks and these might be used to identify life wherever we look for it in the universe.”
***
"Most radical, though, is Davies’s proposal that any laws of information that shape life might favour its emergence too. Under this scenario, life would not arise on habitable planets by random chance but would be nurtured by “biofriendly” rules. It is the kind of teleological argument that many scientists reject, but one that Davies cannot help finding attractive.
“'People often say that the probability of life forming by chance is so low there must have been intelligent design or a miracle. I find that anathema,” he says. “Religious people have got to move on and get away from the idea that there’s a superbeing who fits it all up. What I find more congenial and much more intellectually respectable is the notion of fundamental laws of organisation that turn matter into life – a life principle built into the laws of the universe.”
"He concedes: “It is wishful thinking because at this stage I can’t demonstrate it. But if we live in a universe in which the emergence of life is built into it in a fundamental way then we can feel more at home in the universe. It’s no substitute for a caring superbeing watching over us. It won’t help us deal with the problem of death, and it doesn’t help in a moral crisis, but it would certainly be more comforting than to believe we live in an empty, sterile universe.”
Comment: this is not descriptive information. it is instructional information both as to structure and appropriate reactions to stimuli. Without this onboard information life would cease to exist. And what created this information? My answer is God. Information without a source is impossible.
Information as the source of life; Davies opinion
QUOTE: "Similar machines are found in biology. Constructed from proteins, they chunter away inside living cells where they manipulate information at the nanoscale.”
"Davies believes that life will turn out to bear telltale patterns of information processing that distinguish it from non-life. Few people would argue that a computer is alive no matter how the ones and zeroes zip around inside it. What Davies suspects is that life exploits, and arises from, particular patterns of information flow. (David’s bold)
See below for “arises from”. I would like to know what Davies believes actually does the information processing, i.e. what it is that chunters away inside living cells and “manipulates” or “exploits” information. (“Life” doesn’t exploit anything – that is done by living organisms.)
QUOTE: “'When you look at a living system, the way information is managed is very far from random.”
Precisely. And what “manages” information? Quite categorically he dismisses your God as the processor/manipulator, so out go your God-given instructions: “Religious people have got to move on and get away from the idea that there’s a superbeing who fits it all up.”
QUOTE: "Most radical, though, is Davies’s proposal that any laws of information that shape life might favour its emergence too. Under this scenario, life would not arise on habitable planets by random chance but would be nurtured by “biofriendly” rules. It is the kind of teleological argument that many scientists reject, but one that Davies cannot help finding attractive.”
"He concedes: “It is wishful thinking because at this stage I can’t demonstrate it.”
Yes, the origin of life (and of the mechanisms of evolution) is the great problem. His hypothesis (natural laws) is as attractive to the atheist as God is to the theist. And we agnostics stay on our fence.
DAVID: this is not descriptive information. it is instructional information both as to structure and appropriate reactions to stimuli. Without this onboard information life would cease to exist. And what created this information? My answer is God. Information without a source is impossible.
Where have you found “instructional information”, and why can’t you just call it “instructions”? In this article we are simply not told what processes or manipulates or exploits information (but maybe he makes it clear elsewhere). It’s as if you and he both think the word itself has magic explanatory properties. Of course all information has a source: you can’t have facts and details about a subject without having a subject. We humans extract the passive information from everything we can set our eyes and minds on, then we actively use it. And in certain contexts we even create information that isn’t there!
Information as the source of life; Davies opinion
by David Turell , Thursday, January 31, 2019, 15:16 (2122 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "Similar machines are found in biology. Constructed from proteins, they chunter away inside living cells where they manipulate information at the nanoscale.”
"Davies believes that life will turn out to bear telltale patterns of information processing that distinguish it from non-life. Few people would argue that a computer is alive no matter how the ones and zeroes zip around inside it. What Davies suspects is that life exploits, and arises from, particular patterns of information flow. (David’s bold)dhw: See below for “arises from”. I would like to know what Davies believes actually does the information processing, i.e. what it is that chunters away inside living cells and “manipulates” or “exploits” information. (“Life” doesn’t exploit anything – that is done by living organisms.)
This is all concepts about the use of information in the genome. Obviously the information in the genome is available for the cells to use. We still don 't have a laid-bare description of how it works.
QUOTE: “'When you look at a living system, the way information is managed is very far from random.”dhw: Precisely. And what “manages” information? Quite categorically he dismisses your God as the processor/manipulator, so out go your God-given instructions: “Religious people have got to move on and get away from the idea that there’s a superbeing who fits it all up.”
He has his approach, I have mine, but we both are recognizing the importance of the information that is obviously present. When I first introduced the concept of information running life to you, you were startled an d resisted the idea. I won't bother looking for quotes.
QUOTE: "Most radical, though, is Davies’s proposal that any laws of information that shape life might favour its emergence too. Under this scenario, life would not arise on habitable planets by random chance but would be nurtured by “biofriendly” rules. It is the kind of teleological argument that many scientists reject, but one that Davies cannot help finding attractive.”
"He concedes: “It is wishful thinking because at this stage I can’t demonstrate it.”dhw: Yes, the origin of life (and of the mechanisms of evolution) is the great problem. His hypothesis (natural laws) is as attractive to the atheist as God is to the theist. And we agnostics stay on our fence.
DAVID: this is not descriptive information. it is instructional information both as to structure and appropriate reactions to stimuli. Without this onboard information life would cease to exist. And what created this information? My answer is God. Information without a source is impossible.
dhw: Where have you found “instructional information”, and why can’t you just call it “instructions”? In this article we are simply not told what processes or manipulates or exploits information (but maybe he makes it clear elsewhere). It’s as if you and he both think the word itself has magic explanatory properties. Of course all information has a source: you can’t have facts and details about a subject without having a subject. We humans extract the passive information from everything we can set our eyes and minds on, then we actively use it. And in certain contexts we even create information that isn’t there!
Yes, exactly. The genome creates the structure of organisms and offers ways for appropriate responses to stimuli.
Information as the source of life; Davies opinion; a reply
by David Turell , Saturday, February 09, 2019, 18:58 (2113 days ago) @ David Turell
Physicist Rob Shelton's reply negates Davies:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-rob-sheldon-on-paul-davies-lif...
"Davies is being vague, which helps if you are trying to get funding, or avoid being defunded. As I understand it, he is claiming that information can be increased by having information feed back on itself—improving the input and flow.
"If information is a conserved quantity, then the ability to increase the information flow leads to faster and faster complexity. This is a property of feedback-enabled or “bootstrap” systems, as illustrated by the Intel/Microsoft “bootstrap” of a computer program that starts from a ROM chip on the motherboard.
"Davies realizes that all these OOL projects (and he’s had a hand in several of them), focus on the hardware. But it is the software that is controlling the hardware, and it is the software that is growing in complexity. So if the software is managing the information flow and bootstrapping, then the focus needs to be on “laws of physics” that use feedback networks.
"There aren’t very many institutions that fund that sort of research because physics almost always defines itself as a commitment to reductionism, leaving “networks” to the biologists and biochemists. So Davies is wistfully imagining that the study of “networks” will eventually reveal a reductionist “law”, and somehow we’ll arrive back at physics again. This was certainly the hope of the Sante Fe Institute in its early days, though after 40 years it appears to have given up.
"Is it reasonable for Davies to hope for a “law” of information multiplication in physics?
I think it is a reasonable hope provided that we redefine what he means. The work that George Montañez has done on irreducible complexity suggests that we have a method of measuring information and complexity of biology. If Montañez adds self-reference to his definition, we would be well on our way to defining the information content in a cell.
"Davies is suggesting that the way to pack more information into a smaller volume is effectively to make information hierarchical. It is as if we take a text, compress it with PKZIP, add some more zipped files, and then pack them all in a library file. When we need the information, we read the header in the library file, extract the file that we want, and then unzip it. This packing and zipping can be done again and again, putting libraries inside libraries inside libraries, as much as is needed, so that an incredible video game with great graphics displaying Terabytes of information can be shipped in a file of 1 Gbyte.
"But what Davies perhaps doesn’t recognize is that the header files, the directories must be “above” the information level of the files. Nothing in the zipped file tells you how to extract it. Yes, there are “self-extracting” files, but those are more properly “programs.” And I guarantee that if you made one on Windows 10, it won’t work on my Linux 18.04, because it relies on “knowing” the operating system that reads it. The Department of Defense has some 40-year old computers in a bunker whose only job is running old software, should there be a need to cross-calibrate output. Which is to say, to preserve the information in those old programs, they also need to preserve the old hardware.
"So if Davies believes that a hierarchy of information can pack more information in, and possibly explain the incredible information content of biology, then there must be something “outside” or “above” the biology that is responsible for the compression algorithm. That information cannot arise from inside the cell any more than a self-extracting program can exist without the operating system/hardware outside it.
"The only thing Davies hasn’t done is name this attribute.
"Should we suggest a name? How about … intelligent design?"
Comment: As in my entry just a few minutes ago, where does the information come from? Life must have its own operating system to interpreting the code and acting on the information contained in it.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
by David Turell , Saturday, January 04, 2020, 16:16 (1784 days ago) @ David Turell
Another argument:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/karsten-pultz-why-random-processes-canno...
"The specific sequences that carry information, phone numbers, for example, can only be defined as information in relation to the whole system of which they are a part. There needs to be a translation system with defined rules that sorts out which sequences contains information and which do not.
"To claim that information in DNA could arise by random chance is therefore nonsense. A functional sequence could not be regarded as information until we have a complete set of rules which defines that certain sequences are functional and all others are nonfunctional gobbledygook.
***
"Phone numbers are only phone numbers because we, the intelligent designers, have made the rules that decide what is required in order for a sequence of digits to function as an actual phone number.
"Talking about information detached from the translation system which defines it as information doesn’t make sense. (my bold)
"We don’t get information without the act of choice, a feature that is related only to intelligent agency. A random process producing information is therefore an oxymoronic (or just moronic) concept. The translation system that defines what sequences are functional is obviously intelligently designed because it involves the conscious selection of parameters.
"Not only is the problem that there aren’t enough probabilistic resources to produce the DNA code by random processes but the DNA code would in fact not be information without the translation system. The code, together with the translation system, would still be worthless if it weren’t strictly tied to the last part of the overall system, namely the product, the organism.
"In the end, it is the final product that defines that the information which forms the basis of the product can be considered information in the first place.
In a modern car factory we have the three part production system which consists of computer code, the machinery (robots) that translate the code into specific movements, and finally the end product, the car. It is obvious that the intelligent designers did not start with the two first items, the code and the translation. It was the final product which initially was in the mind of the intelligent designers. The code and the translation tools were developed in coordination to realize the idea of a car, the idea of which initially was in the mind of the intelligent designer.
"Hence I will argue that information is only information if it is related to the end product. The idea (logos) comes first, then secondly the coding and the translation tools are put together simultaneously in order to realize the idea.
***
"A code—which is what we call information—is nothing in itself because it is slave to the idea. I would argue that the same counts for living things, that the DNA code was set up to realize and idea, an organism the intelligent designer already had in mind.
"It is the end product that defines whether a code sequence carries (“correct”) information or not. If cars leave the production line with only three wheels or with just one headlight, we become aware that something is wrong with the underlying information. So that is how we can evaluate if something can be regarded as information, simply by looking at the end product.
"The materialist cannot escape the fact of teleology in nature, because even he or she will recognize illness and defect as something that is “wrong” with an organism, thereby acknowledging the overall idea and purpose of an organism.
***
"It is not possible to look at information separated from the translation and the end product. The three parts, code-translation-product, are inherently connected, the idea, product or message in the mind of the intelligent designer being the first to arise.
"So even if the chances of a protein arising in a prebiotic soup were not out of reach, it would still not be a protein because a protein is defined by its function in the end-product, the organism. A DNA sequence can only be defined as information if you already have the organism in view. Therefore it makes sense that in the beginning was the idea, the logos.
"Conclusion
I think my argument shows that idealism is true and materialism is false, that random processes do not produce information, and that a mind with an idea is the primary means by which everything comes into existence. One can use it to argue for ID and for teleology in nature. I would also not hesitate to use it as argument in a theological debate."
Comment: Designed information is the source of life. There is no argument against that concept.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
QUOTE: "Talking about information detached from the translation system which defines it as information doesn’t make sense. (David’s bold)
What does this mean? Do you and he think information doesn’t exist without a system and someone to define it? This is similar to the idea that nothing exists unless we observe it. And I’m sorry, but neither concept makes sense to me.
"Conclusion
I think my argument shows that idealism is true and materialism is false, that random processes do not produce information, and that a mind with an idea is the primary means by which everything comes into existence. One can use it to argue for ID and for teleology in nature. I would also not hesitate to use it as argument in a theological debate."
DAVID: Designed information is the source of life. There is no argument against that concept.
I thought we’d dealt with this argument long ago. Information is facts or details about something. It is present in everything but cannot produce anything. Of course random processes can produce information, but it needs an intelligent mind to extrapolate that information and to use it. What mind and what idea causes a gust of wind to blow a stone off a cliff and kill the person walking on the beach below? You can write a book full of information produced by this random event, including scientific laws, but this has all been extrapolated and named by intelligent minds. Which came first – the information contained in the wind, the stone, the person, or the author’s extraction of information from them in order to explain the event? “Ah!” say your ID-ers, but where did the intelligence come from to create the information and the laws in the first place? That is the unanswerable question: did materials produce intelligence, or did intelligence produce materials? Your comment puts the argument for idealism in a nutshell, without all the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook: in order to produce life (the subject of this thread) an intelligent designer used the information he had created. The materialist can respond by asking where the intelligent designer came from, and by arguing that since we do not know of any intelligence beyond that generated by materials, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that an infinite number of material combinations will eventually produce the intelligence that is able to extrapolate and use information from materials (the basis of science). Needless to say, I sit on the fence between the two explanations.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
by David Turell , Sunday, January 05, 2020, 16:28 (1783 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "Talking about information detached from the translation system which defines it as information doesn’t make sense. (David’s bold)
dhw: What does this mean? Do you and he think information doesn’t exist without a system and someone to define it? This is similar to the idea that nothing exists unless we observe it. And I’m sorry, but neither concept makes sense to me.
It does make sense!! Life uses information with a translating system. It does demand there must exist the two parts, both of which have to be invented from scratch on a rocky Earth at the same time for life to start!!! He is asking where all this came from. Your gobbledygook answer below is the usual nebulous discussion of something from nothing.
"Conclusion
I think my argument shows that idealism is true and materialism is false, that random processes do not produce information, and that a mind with an idea is the primary means by which everything comes into existence. One can use it to argue for ID and for teleology in nature. I would also not hesitate to use it as argument in a theological debate."DAVID: Designed information is the source of life. There is no argument against that concept.
dhw: I thought we’d dealt with this argument long ago. Information is facts or details about something. It is present in everything but cannot produce anything. Of course random processes can produce information, but it needs an intelligent mind to extrapolate that information and to use it. What mind and what idea causes a gust of wind to blow a stone off a cliff and kill the person walking on the beach below? You can write a book full of information produced by this random event, including scientific laws, but this has all been extrapolated and named by intelligent minds. Which came first – the information contained in the wind, the stone, the person, or the author’s extraction of information from them in order to explain the event? “Ah!” say your ID-ers, but where did the intelligence come from to create the information and the laws in the first place? That is the unanswerable question: did materials produce intelligence, or did intelligence produce materials?
The bold is where you join the stone off the cliff. Materials offer information about about their composition, nothing more, ever! Only minds can create instructions and and them ability to act upon them.
dhw: Your comment puts the argument for idealism in a nutshell, without all the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook: in order to produce life (the subject of this thread) an intelligent designer used the information he had created. The materialist can respond by asking where the intelligent designer came from, and by arguing that since we do not know of any intelligence beyond that generated by materials, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that an infinite number of material combinations will eventually produce the intelligence that is able to extrapolate and use information from materials (the basis of science). Needless to say, I sit on the fence between the two explanations.
This bold is pure pipe-dream. It is not reasonable, only wishful, as a way of staying on the fence. The universe is not infinite in time, so the materials only got to a rocky planet after 3.8 byo when life with the onboard info and the interpretation systems appeared all together at the same time without any evidence of infinity. Dream on!!!
Info the source of life; bile uses info for gut immunity
by David Turell , Sunday, January 05, 2020, 20:37 (1783 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Sunday, January 05, 2020, 20:42
Bile can trigger T cells:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200103141047.htm
"The findings of the two studies, both conducted in mice, show that bile acids promote the differentiation and activity of several types of T cells involved in regulating inflammation and linked to intestinal inflammatory conditions. They also reveal that gut microbes are critical for converting bile acids into immune-signaling molecules.
***
"The first study reveals bile acids exert their immune-modulating effect by interacting with immune cells in the gut. Once bile acids leave the gallbladder and complete their fat-dissolving duties, they make their way down the digestive tract where they are modified into immune-regulatory molecules by gut bacteria. The modified bile acids then activate two class of immune cells: regulatory T cells (Tregs) and effector helper T cells, specifically Th17, each responsible for modulating immune response by either curbing or promoting inflammation.
"Under normal conditions, the levels of proinflammatory Th17 cells and anti-inflammatory Treg cells balance each other, maintaining a degree of protection against pathogens without causing too much tissue-damaging inflammation. These cells play a key role in the context of intestinal infection. Th17 cells ignite inflammation to quell the infection, while Tregs curb inflammation once the threat has subsided.
***
"'Our findings identify an important regulatory mechanism in gut immunity, showing that microbes in our intestines can modify bile acids and turn them into regulators of inflammation," said Huh, assistant professor of immunology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS.
***
To test the hypothesis that gut bacteria convert food-derived bile acids produced in response to food into immune signaling molecules, the researchers silenced bile acid-converting genes in various gut microbes and then put both the modified and nonmodified microbes in mice specially bred to have germ-free guts. Animals whose guts were populated by microbes without bile acid-converting genes had notably lower levels of Treg cells. (my bold)
***
"'Our results demonstrate an elegant three-way interaction between gut microbes, bile acids and the immune system," said Kasper, who is professor of immunology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS and the William Ellery Channing Professor of Medicine at HMS and Brigham and Women's Hospital."
Comment: Note my bold. Genes containing information are necessary in this process to modify bile molecules.
Info the source of life; bile uses info for gut immunity
by David Turell , Thursday, January 28, 2021, 20:09 (1394 days ago) @ David Turell
More about Treg T cells:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-01-scientists-key-function-molecule-cells.html
"Now, UNC School of Medicine scientists led by Jenny Ting, Ph.D., the William Kenan Distinguished Professor of Genetics, and Yisong Wan, Ph.D., professor of microbiology and immunology, discovered that AIM2 is important for the proper function of regulatory T cells, or Treg cells, and plays a key role in mitigating autoimmune disease. Treg cells are a seminal population of adaptive immune cells that prevents an overzealous immune response, such as those that occurs in autoimmune diseases.
"Published in Nature, the research shows that AIM2 is actually expressed at a much higher level in Treg cells of the adaptive immune system than in innate immune cells.
***
"Normal immune responses are carried out by both innate immunity and adaptive immunity to fight pathogens and maintain biological stability. But these responses need to be regulated so they do not escalate and cause a whole host of different health problems aside from what the pathogen originally caused. Distinct cell types and molecules play discrete roles in the down-regulation of innate immunity and adaptive immunity. This work shows that AIM2, in Treg cells, is one of them. Treg cells dampen over-exuberant immune responses, and so they are critical for the check-and-balance of the immunity system.
"Impaired function of Treg cells often perturbs immune system stability and can trigger autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.
"In lab experiments led by first author Wei-Chun Chou, Ph.D., research associate in the Ting Lab, the UNC scientists found that AIM2 was expressed at a much higher level in Treg cells than in innate immune cells, in both mice and humans.
"'This suggests a big role for AIM2 in Treg cells," Chou said. "We found that AIM2 is important to maintain the normal function of Treg cells, which could not effectively protect mice from developing autoimmune encephalomyelitis and inflammatory colitis without AIM2."
***
"'We conducted further molecular and biochemical analysis to reveal a new, cellular signaling pathway of protein molecules in Treg cells—called the AIM2-RACK1-PP2A-AKT pathway—which regulates the metabolism and function of Treg cells to mitigate autoimmune disease.'"
Comment: All processes in living biology have tight controls, many feedback loops. Only design can do this.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
QUOTE: "Talking about information detached from the translation system which defines it as information doesn’t make sense. (David’s bold)
dhw: What does this mean? Do you and he think information doesn’t exist without a system and someone to define it? This is similar to the idea that nothing exists unless we observe it. And I’m sorry, but neither concept makes sense to me.
DAVID: It does make sense!! Life uses information with a translating system. It does demand there must exist the two parts, both of which have to be invented from scratch on a rocky Earth at the same time for life to start!!! He is asking where all this came from. Your gobbledygook answer below is the usual nebulous discussion of something from nothing.
Of course living organisms use information, but that does not mean that information did not exist before there was life (i.e. that it does not exist "detached from" any translation system)! It takes living intelligence to extrapolate and use information from materials, but those materials already contained the information before it was extrapolated and used.
"Conclusion
I think my argument shows that idealism is true and materialism is false, that random processes do not produce information, and that a mind with an idea is the primary means by which everything comes into existence. One can use it to argue for ID and for teleology in nature. I would also not hesitate to use it as argument in a theological debate." (dhw's bold)
DAVID: Designed information is the source of life. There is no argument against that concept.
dhw: I thought we’d dealt with this argument long ago. Information is facts or details about something. It is present in everything but cannot produce anything. Of course random processes can produce information, but it needs an intelligent mind to extrapolate that information and to use it.(dhw’s bold) What mind and what idea causes a gust of wind to blow a stone off a cliff and kill the person walking on the beach below? You can write a book full of information produced by this random event, including scientific laws, but this has all been extrapolated and named by intelligent minds. Which came first – the information contained in the wind, the stone, the person, or the author’s extraction of information from them in order to explain the event? “Ah!” say your ID-ers, but where did the intelligence come from to create the information and the laws in the first place? That is the unanswerable question: did materials produce intelligence, or did intelligence produce materials? (David’s bold)
DAVID: The bold is where you join the stone off the cliff. Materials offer information about about their composition, nothing more, ever! Only minds can create instructions and and them ability to act upon them.
You have repeated exactly what I said above, now bolded by me. You have completely misunderstood all of the above. According to our author, random processes do not produce information, and there has to be a mind with an idea before anything comes into existence. I disagree and have given an example. But it takes an intelligent mind to extrapolate and use that information. What you have bolded is the next stage of the argument: namely what started it all (“where did the intelligence come from [...] in the first place?”). In other words, what is the unique "first cause"? Our author thinks he’s proved that idealism is true, and he can use the same argument in a theological debate, but (a) he hasn’t proved it, and (b) I present both sides of the "theological" argument:
dhw: Your comment puts the argument for idealism in a nutshell, without all the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook: in order to produce life (the subject of this thread) an intelligent designer used the information he had created. The materialist can respond by asking where the intelligent designer came from, and by arguing that since we do not know of any intelligence beyond that generated by materials, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that an infinite number of material combinations will eventually produce the intelligence that is able to extrapolate and use information from materials (the basis of science). Needless to say, I sit on the fence between the two explanations. (David's bold)
DAVID: This bold is pure pipe-dream. It is not reasonable, only wishful, as a way of staying on the fence. The universe is not infinite in time, so the materials only got to a rocky planet after 3.8 byo when life with the onboard info and the interpretation systems appeared all together at the same time without any evidence of infinity. Dream on!!!
How the heck do you know that the universe is not infinite in time? What came before the big bang, if the big bang ever happened? You believe in some form of conscious energy that never had a beginning, so it must be infinite in time, but you can’t imagine unconscious energy (plus materials) being infinite in time. All this gobbledygook about information is irrelevant to the subject of "first cause", and as always you ignore the fact that I find BOTH "pipe-dreams" equally difficult to believe.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
by David Turell , Monday, January 06, 2020, 15:59 (1782 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It does make sense!! Life uses information with a translating system. It does demand there must exist the two parts, both of which have to be invented from scratch on a rocky Earth at the same time for life to start!!! He is asking where all this came from. Your gobbledygook answer below is the usual nebulous discussion of something from nothing.
dhw: Of course living organisms use information, but that does not mean that information did not exist before there was life (i.e. that it does not exist "detached from" any translation system)! It takes living intelligence to extrapolate and use information from materials, but those materials already contained the information before it was extrapolated and used.
Materials that existed on early Earth before life only contained fixed information describing their characteristics. NO instructions that run life itself.
"Conclusion
I think my argument shows that idealism is true and materialism is false, that random processes do not produce information, and that a mind with an idea is the primary means by which everything comes into existence. One can use it to argue for ID and for teleology in nature. I would also not hesitate to use it as argument in a theological debate." (dhw's bold)DAVID: Designed information is the source of life. There is no argument against that concept.
dhw: I thought we’d dealt with this argument long ago. Information is facts or details about something. It is present in everything but cannot produce anything. Of course random processes can produce information, but it needs an intelligent mind to extrapolate that information and to use it.(dhw’s bold) What mind and what idea causes a gust of wind to blow a stone off a cliff and kill the person walking on the beach below? You can write a book full of information produced by this random event, including scientific laws, but this has all been extrapolated and named by intelligent minds. Which came first – the information contained in the wind, the stone, the person, or the author’s extraction of information from them in order to explain the event? “Ah!” say your ID-ers, but where did the intelligence come from to create the information and the laws in the first place? That is the unanswerable question: did materials produce intelligence, or did intelligence produce materials? (David’s bold)
DAVID: The bold is where you join the stone off the cliff. Materials offer information about about their composition, nothing more, ever! Only minds can create instructions and and them ability to act upon them.
dhw: You have repeated exactly what I said above, now bolded by me. You have completely misunderstood all of the above. According to our author, random processes do not produce information, and there has to be a mind with an idea before anything comes into existence. I disagree and have given an example.
Your understanding is totally backward. Random processes (whatever that means) do not produce intelligent instructions. The information present only describes the process itself. You are constantly describing descriptive information as information that creates action, which it cannot.
dhw: Your comment puts the argument for idealism in a nutshell, without all the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook: in order to produce life (the subject of this thread) an intelligent designer used the information he had created. The materialist can respond by asking where the intelligent designer came from, and by arguing that since we do not know of any intelligence beyond that generated by materials, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that an infinite number of material combinations will eventually produce the intelligence that is able to extrapolate and use information from materials (the basis of science). Needless to say, I sit on the fence between the two explanations. (David's bold)DAVID: This bold is pure pipe-dream. It is not reasonable, only wishful, as a way of staying on the fence. The universe is not infinite in time, so the materials only got to a rocky planet after 3.8 byo when life with the onboard info and the interpretation systems appeared all together at the same time without any evidence of infinity. Dream on!!!
dhw: How the heck do you know that the universe is not infinite in time? What came before the big bang, if the big bang ever happened? You believe in some form of conscious energy that never had a beginning, so it must be infinite in time, but you can’t imagine unconscious energy (plus materials) being infinite in time. All this gobbledygook about information is irrelevant to the subject of "first cause", and as always you ignore the fact that I find BOTH "pipe-dreams" equally difficult to believe.
Your argument has a huge hole. This iteration of a universe is ours and is 13.78 byo. The so-called intelligent information carried between iterations is my God. God is my infinity. What is yours?
Information as the source of life; not by chance
dhw: According to our author, random processes do not produce information, and there has to be a mind with an idea before anything comes into existence. I disagree and have given an example.
DAVID: Your understanding is totally backward. Random processes (whatever that means) do not produce intelligent instructions. The information present only describes the process itself. You are constantly describing descriptive information as information that creates action, which it cannot.
Instructions are intelligent USE of information! Of course random processes do not produce them! (See the Shapiro thread for the rest of the muddle and for the absolute need to define your terms.) But they do produce information (as in the example of the wind dislodging a stone)! I even bolded this: Information “ is present in everything but cannot produce anything. Of course random processes can produce information, but it needs an intelligent mind to extrapolate that information and to use it.” Why is this backward? You have simply ignored what I wrote and set up a straw man.
DAVID: The universe is not infinite in time, so the materials only got to a rocky planet after 3.8 byo when life with the onboard info and the interpretation systems appeared all together at the same time without any evidence of infinity. Dream on!!!
dhw: How the heck do you know that the universe is not infinite in time? What came before the big bang, if the big bang ever happened? You believe in some form of conscious energy that never had a beginning, so it must be infinite in time, but you can’t imagine unconscious energy (plus materials) being infinite in time. All this gobbledygook about information is irrelevant to the subject of "first cause", and as always you ignore the fact that I find BOTH "pipe-dreams" equally difficult to believe.
DAVID:Your argument has a huge hole. This iteration of a universe is ours and is 13.78 byo. The so-called intelligent information carried between iterations is my God. God is my infinity. What is yours?
You are assuming that the big bang happened, but even if it did, you still believe in eternal conscious energy that preceded this “iteration”, so why can’t you believe in eternal unconscious energy that preceded this “iteration”? What is intelligent information? Information does not have a mind of its own! You have agreed that information cannot create anything – it needs a mind to use it. The very idea that non-productive information is the “source of life” is plainly absurd. The source of life has to be whatever used existing information to provide the instructions. Back to “first cause”: eternal conscious energy (where did its intelligence come from?), or eternal unconscious energy producing infinite numbers of material combinations resulting eventually but – given eternity – some might say inevitably, in a great big stroke of luck. No, I don’t believe it. Nor do I believe in eternal consciousness that has no source. More fool me – one of these incredible hypotheses must be true, but which one? That is the agnostic’s dilemma, and in our ignorance the only way to believe in either is through the proverbial leap of faith.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 07, 2020, 15:46 (1781 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: According to our author, random processes do not produce information, and there has to be a mind with an idea before anything comes into existence. I disagree and have given an example.
DAVID: Your understanding is totally backward. Random processes (whatever that means) do not produce intelligent instructions. The information present only describes the process itself. You are constantly describing descriptive information as information that creates action, which it cannot.
dhw: Instructions are intelligent USE of information! Of course random processes do not produce them!
Instructions are inert information until interpreted and used. You've said that! Now they aren't? Agreed random processes produce information but not instructions.
dhw:(See the Shapiro thread for the rest of the muddle and for the absolute need to define your terms.) But they do produce information (as in the example of the wind dislodging a stone)! I even bolded this: Information “ is present in everything but cannot produce anything. Of course random processes can produce information, but it needs an intelligent mind to extrapolate that information and to use it.” Why is this backward? You have simply ignored what I wrote and set up a straw man.
What is above this comment of yours is the backward part. this part is correct.
DAVID: The universe is not infinite in time, so the materials only got to a rocky planet after 3.8 byo when life with the onboard info and the interpretation systems appeared all together at the same time without any evidence of infinity. Dream on!!!dhw: How the heck do you know that the universe is not infinite in time? What came before the big bang, if the big bang ever happened? You believe in some form of conscious energy that never had a beginning, so it must be infinite in time, but you can’t imagine unconscious energy (plus materials) being infinite in time. All this gobbledygook about information is irrelevant to the subject of "first cause", and as always you ignore the fact that I find BOTH "pipe-dreams" equally difficult to believe.
DAVID:Your argument has a huge hole. This iteration of a universe is ours and is 13.78 byo. The so-called intelligent information carried between iterations is my God. God is my infinity. What is yours?
dhw: You are assuming that the big bang happened, but even if it did, you still believe in eternal conscious energy that preceded this “iteration”, so why can’t you believe in eternal unconscious energy that preceded this “iteration”? What is intelligent information? Information does not have a mind of its own! You have agreed that information cannot create anything – it needs a mind to use it. The very idea that non-productive information is the “source of life” is plainly absurd. The source of life has to be whatever used existing information to provide the instructions.
All correct, except I view God as having all the information He needs to make new instructions. Your 'absurd' does not describe my view of God whose m ind is very active.
dhw: Back to “first cause”: eternal conscious energy (where did its intelligence come from?), or eternal unconscious energy producing infinite numbers of material combinations resulting eventually but – given eternity – some might say inevitably, in a great big stroke of luck. No, I don’t believe it. Nor do I believe in eternal consciousness that has no source. More fool me – one of these incredible hypotheses must be true, but which one? That is the agnostic’s dilemma, and in our ignorance the only way to believe in either is through the proverbial leap of faith.
Of course it is possible to pick one side with all the evidenced available. The obvious design can only be explained by a designing mind. You are in a minority that tries to avoid the evidence for a Big Bang. 'Eternal' universes are a series of bangs and then crunches, but each new universe has to start over from scratch to create each new reality! Your use of eternity is very flawed. Of course there is an original 'first cause' at the beginning of the series, which can be deist or theist, or your preference, amorphous energy.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
dhw: According to our author, random processes do not produce information, and there has to be a mind with an idea before anything comes into existence. I disagree and have given an example.
DAVID: Your understanding is totally backward. Random processes (whatever that means) do not produce intelligent instructions. […] Instructions are inert information until interpreted and used. […] Agreed random processes produce information but not instructions.
I criticize the author’s claim that random processes do not produce information, and you agree with me. Then you want to discuss instructions. You know as well as I do that instructions cannot be produced without intelligent use of information. So then you skip to the intelligent user of the instructions!
dhw: Information “ is present in everything but cannot produce anything. Of course random processes can produce information, but it needs an intelligent mind to extrapolate that information and to use it.” Why is this backward?
DAVID: What is above this comment of yours is the backward part. this part is correct.
There is nothing backward in the argument that random processes do produce information, information is non-active, random processes do not produce instructions, and instructions can only be produced by intelligent use of information. The fact that instructions also require a user does not make my statement backward.
DAVID: This iteration of a universe is ours and is 13.78 byo. The so-called intelligent information carried between iterations is my God. God is my infinity.[/b] (dhw’s bold – see later)
dhw: You are assuming that the big bang happened, but even if it did, you still believe in eternal conscious energy that preceded this “iteration”, so why can’t you believe in eternal unconscious energy that preceded this “iteration”? What is intelligent information? Information does not have a mind of its own! […]. The very idea that non-productive information is the “source of life” is plainly absurd. The source of life has to be whatever used existing information to provide the instructions.
DAVID: All correct, except I view God as having all the information He needs to make new instructions. Your 'absurd' does not describe my view of God whose mind is very active.
What is absurd is the claim that information is the source of life. According to you, it is your God who intelligently uses the information. There is no “except”, and of course if God exists his mind is active.
dhw (taken from the Shapiro thread): “Information” explains nothing. The great question is what uses the information?
DAVID: Your very limited concept of information explains nothing. Information exists in many forms.
dhw: Then in order to clarify your thoughts, perhaps you should distinguish between those many forms and their functions and range of influence. Meanwhile, I will continue to argue that information itself produces nothing, and so it is absurd to say that “information is the source of life”.
DAVID: I agree with you, use of existing information is the source of life, but the information has to be supplied first!
Thank you for finally agreeing that the first part of the heading of this thread is absurd. And I agree with you too, but the agnostic’s dilemma is not knowing the origin of everything that contains information. Perhaps it is your God, perhaps it is an infinite, eternal, ever changing material universe. I drew attention to your new definition of God as bolded above: “intelligent information […] is my God” and expressed surprise that apparently information has a conscious mind.
DAVID: My God supplied/supplies "intelligent information" my shorthand for intelligently formed information.
So now you are saying that “intelligently formed information” is your God. More confusion.
dhw: Back to “first cause”: eternal conscious energy (where did its intelligence come from?), or eternal unconscious energy producing infinite numbers of material combinations resulting eventually but – given eternity – some might say inevitably, in a great big stroke of luck. […] the only way to believe in either is through the proverbial leap of faith.
DAVID: Of course it is possible to pick one side with all the evidenced available. The obvious design can only be explained by a designing mind. You are in a minority that tries to avoid the evidence for a Big Bang.
Evidence for the big bang is irrelevant to the subject of conscious versus unconscious energy.
DAVID: 'Eternal' universes are a series of bangs and then crunches, but each new universe has to start over from scratch to create each new reality! Your use of eternity is very flawed. Of course there is an original 'first cause' at the beginning of the series, which can be deist or theist, or your preference, amorphous energy.
What beginning? Are you now telling us that your God had a beginning? Of course you’re not. And so once more: If your conscious God had no beginning, then the unconscious, ever changing universe might also have had no beginning, and that = eternity. Where is the flaw?
Information as the source of life; not by chance
by David Turell , Thursday, January 09, 2020, 00:33 (1780 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: There is nothing backward in the argument that random processes do produce information, information is non-active, random processes do not produce instructions, and instructions can only be produced by intelligent use of information.
In answer, I'd like to restate my view of information and life and the issue of random processes. Life is created by information in a code. That code provides life with a way to decode the information code and use the materials it produces in a coordinated way to actually make life emerge. The information in all the many layers of DNA must therefore contain instructions. All information is inactive until interpreted. That view makes the origin of life a miracle, since all of that must be in place at the same instant of time. Only a mind can form this type of information in DNA. Random processes can be totally inert but are filled with information which can be found/described by an intelligent mind. Agree or not?
DAVID: I agree with you, use of existing information is the source of life, but the information has to be supplied first!
dhw: Thank you for finally agreeing that the first part of the heading of this thread is absurd. And I agree with you too, but the agnostic’s dilemma is not knowing the origin of everything that contains information. Perhaps it is your God, perhaps it is an infinite, eternal, ever changing material universe. I drew attention to your new definition of God as bolded above: “intelligent information […] is my God” and expressed surprise that apparently information has a conscious mind.
DAVID: My God supplied/supplies "intelligent information" my shorthand for intelligently formed information.
dhw: So now you are saying that “intelligently formed information” is your God. More confusion.
The bold above is not your weird interpretation. God SUPPLIES the needed info, no more.
dhw: Evidence for the big bang is irrelevant to the subject of conscious versus unconscious energy.
DAVID: 'Eternal' universes are a series of bangs and then crunches, but each new universe has to start over from scratch to create each new reality! Your use of eternity is very flawed. Of course there is an original 'first cause' at the beginning of the series, which can be deist or theist, or your preference, amorphous energy.
dhw: What beginning? Are you now telling us that your God had a beginning? Of course you’re not. And so once more: If your conscious God had no beginning, then the unconscious, ever changing universe might also have had no beginning, and that = eternity. Where is the flaw?
Eternity only exists for ALL universes, not each one which has a finite beginning and therefore not eternal. Out goes your fervent wish that enough random combinations will produce anything in a single universe. As for God He is eternal first cause.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
dhw: There is nothing backward in the argument that random processes do produce information, information is non-active, random processes do not produce instructions, and instructions can only be produced by intelligent use of information.
What a shame that you refuse to explain why the above argument is backward. Instead you embark on a muddled account of the origin of life. I will comment in brackets.
DAVID: In answer, I'd like to restate my view of information and life and the issue of random processes. Life is created by information in a code. That code provides life with a way to decode the information code and use the materials it produces in a coordinated way to actually make life emerge. (This makes no sense. How can life decode the information in a code that created it and use its materials in order to make itself emerge? You've got life existing before it emerges!) The information in all the many layers of DNA must therefore contain instructions. (Agreed, but without the “therefore”, since you are referring back to non-sense, but see my comment on the origin of life.) All information is inactive until interpreted. (Thank you for agreeing with me.) That view makes the origin of life a miracle, since all of that must be in place at the same instant of time. Only a mind can form this type of information in DNA. (I agree that the origin of life is a miracle and that all the information and instructions in DNA require intelligence, but now you are blurring the borderline between the origin of life and evolution. The former remains unexplained. The latter, in which information and instructions are constantly changing, may be the product of the intelligence [a form of "mind"] originally present in the first living cells and possibly designed by your God.) Random processes can be totally inert but are filled with information which can be found/described by an intelligent mind. (Thank you for agreeing with me again.) Agree or not? (As specified above. Do you agree with my statement at the head of this post, and if so, why do you think it is backward?)
DAVID: I agree with you, use of existing information is the source of life, but the information has to be supplied first!
dhw: Thank you for finally agreeing that the first part of the heading of this thread is absurd. And I agree with you too, but the agnostic’s dilemma is not knowing the origin of everything that contains information. Perhaps it is your God, perhaps it is an infinite, eternal, ever changing material universe. I drew attention to your new definition of God as bolded above: “intelligent information […] is my God” and expressed surprise that apparently information has a conscious mind.
DAVID: My God supplied/supplies "intelligent information" my shorthand for intelligently formed information.
dhw: So now you are saying that “intelligently formed information” is your God. More confusion.
DAVID: The bold above is not your weird interpretation. God SUPPLIES the needed info, no more.
Then please withdraw your statement that “intelligent information [...] is my God”.
dhw: Evidence for the big bang is irrelevant to the subject of conscious versus unconscious energy.
DAVID: 'Eternal' universes are a series of bangs and then crunches, but each new universe has to start over from scratch to create each new reality! Your use of eternity is very flawed. Of course there is an original 'first cause' at the beginning of the series, which can be deist or theist, or your preference, amorphous energy.
dhw: What beginning? Are you now telling us that your God had a beginning? Of course you’re not. And so once more: If your conscious God had no beginning, then the unconscious, ever changing universe might also have had no beginning, and that = eternity. Where is the flaw?
DAVID: Eternity only exists for ALL universes, not each one which has a finite beginning and therefore not eternal. Out goes your fervent wish that enough random combinations will produce anything in a single universe. As for God He is eternal first cause.
We have no idea if there have been lots of new universes, but it makes no difference to the argument. If the conscious energy you call God can be eternal and can produce a zillion universes, then so can unconscious energy, and a zillion universes may eventually produce one with the requisite combination. This is not my wish, and I don’t believe it, any more than I believe in eternal conscious energy. That is why I am an agnostic. Remember?
Information as the source of life; not by chance
by David Turell , Thursday, January 09, 2020, 19:07 (1779 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I agree with you, use of existing information is the source of life, but the information has to be supplied first!
dhw: Thank you for finally agreeing that the first part of the heading of this thread is absurd. And I agree with you too, but the agnostic’s dilemma is not knowing the origin of everything that contains information. Perhaps it is your God, perhaps it is an infinite, eternal, ever changing material universe. I drew attention to your new definition of God as bolded above: “intelligent information […] is my God” and expressed surprise that apparently information has a conscious mind.
DAVID: My God supplied/supplies "intelligent information" my shorthand for intelligently formed information.
dhw: So now you are saying that “intelligently formed information” is your God. More confusion.
> DAVID: The bold above is not your weird interpretation. God SUPPLIES the needed info, no more.
dhw: Then please withdraw your statement that “intelligent information [...] is my God”.
I've finally found your objection to something I've written and corrected in the bolded above, and corrected below:
From an entry days ago: "The so-called intelligent information carried between iterations is [by] my God. God is my infinity." Sorry for the obvious typo you seized upon so triumphantly, when you know my position full well!!!
dhw: Evidence for the big bang is irrelevant to the subject of conscious versus unconscious energy.DAVID: 'Eternal' universes are a series of bangs and then crunches, but each new universe has to start over from scratch to create each new reality! Your use of eternity is very flawed. Of course there is an original 'first cause' at the beginning of the series, which can be deist or theist, or your preference, amorphous energy.
dhw: What beginning? Are you now telling us that your God had a beginning? Of course you’re not. And so once more: If your conscious God had no beginning, then the unconscious, ever changing universe might also have had no beginning, and that = eternity. Where is the flaw?
DAVID: Eternity only exists for ALL universes, not each one which has a finite beginning and therefore not eternal. Out goes your fervent wish that enough random combinations will produce anything in a single universe. As for God He is eternal first cause.
dhw: We have no idea if there have been lots of new universes, but it makes no difference to the argument. If the conscious energy you call God can be eternal and can produce a zillion universes, then so can unconscious energy, and a zillion universes may eventually produce one with the requisite combination. This is not my wish, and I don’t believe it, any more than I believe in eternal conscious energy. That is why I am an agnostic. Remember?
Open your mind to the finite existence of this universe. In a series of universes each must start from initial conditions and must evolve from a definite beginning whether a bang or a bounce. Life exists only after a stretch of time!!! My God carries the info in advance for each universe He creates. What can your agnostic mind produce to explain this if anything? Your 'unconscious energy' is not an organized mind, but you unreasonably give it the attributes of a planning mind. Talk about illogicality!
Information as the source of life; not by chance
DAVID: God SUPPLIES the needed info, no more.
dhw: Then please withdraw your statement that “intelligent information [...] is my God”.
DAVID: I've finally found your objection to something I've written and corrected in the bolded above, and corrected below:
From an entry days ago: "The so-called intelligent information carried between iterations is [by] my God. God is my infinity." Sorry for the obvious typo you seized upon so triumphantly, when you know my position full well!!!
I didn’t seize on it triumphantly. We are discussing the nature and role of information, which according to the heading of this thread is supposed to be the source of life. To me that is nonsense, but the statement that “intelligent information is my God” suggests that you believe your heading, since you believe your God to be the source of life. I had no idea it was a typo and you had left out a word (maybe two, since "information by" doesn't quite make sense)that changed the entire meaning, but I’m glad we can now forget the whole idea that information is the source of life. You have ignored the rest of that section of the post, and so I assume that you now accept my original statement (“There is nothing backward in the argument that random processes do produce information, information is non-active, random processes do not produce instructions, and instructions can only be produced by intelligent use of information") as well as my criticisms of your own, one part of which even had life existing before it emerged.
dhw: We have no idea if there have been lots of new universes, but it makes no difference to the argument. If the conscious energy you call God can be eternal and can produce a zillion universes, then so can unconscious energy, and a zillion universes may eventually produce one with the requisite combination. This is not my wish, and I don’t believe it, any more than I believe in eternal conscious energy. That is why I am an agnostic. Remember?
DAVID: Open your mind to the finite existence of this universe. In a series of universes each must start from initial conditions and must evolve from a definite beginning whether a bang or a bounce. Life exists only after a stretch of time!!! My God carries the info in advance for each universe He creates. What can your agnostic mind produce to explain this if anything? Your 'unconscious energy' is not an organized mind, but you unreasonably give it the attributes of a planning mind. Talk about illogicality!
Life has come about through combinations of materials. Of course it exists after a stretch of time, but if you believe in an eternity and an infinite number of universes, you have a potential infinity of combinations, regardless of the fact that each one must have a beginning. You then suddenly ask me to explain how your God carries the info for each one in advance! (Or is this another typo?) Why don’t you explain how immaterial pure energy can carry info in advance for every universe it creates! Of course unconscious energy is not a mind, and I have never given it "planning attributes". The theory proposes that chance created the first rudimentary form of consciousness. I don't believe it, but nor do I see why organized conscious energy that has always existed should be more credible than unorganized, unconscious energy which eventually produces combinations of materials that lead to life and consciousness. And why do you constantly ignore my emphasis on the fact that I cannot believe EITHER hypothesis, which is why I remain agnostic!
Information as the source of life; not by chance
by David Turell , Friday, January 10, 2020, 14:59 (1778 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: God SUPPLIES the needed info, no more.
dhw: Then please withdraw your statement that “intelligent information [...] is my God”.
DAVID: I've finally found your objection to something I've written and corrected in the bolded above, and corrected below:
From an entry days ago: "The so-called intelligent information carried between iterations is [by] my God. God is my infinity." Sorry for the obvious typo you seized upon so triumphantly, when you know my position full well!!!dhw: I didn’t seize on it triumphantly. We are discussing the nature and role of information, which according to the heading of this thread is supposed to be the source of life. To me that is nonsense, but the statement that “intelligent information is my God” suggests that you believe your heading, since you believe your God to be the source of life. I had no idea it was a typo and you had left out a word (maybe two, since "information by" doesn't quite make sense)that changed the entire meaning, but I’m glad we can now forget the whole idea that information is the source of life. You have ignored the rest of that section of the post, and so I assume that you now accept my original statement (“There is nothing backward in the argument that random processes do produce information, information is non-active, random processes do not produce instructions, and instructions can only be produced by intelligent use of information") as well as my criticisms of your own, one part of which even had life existing before it emerged.
Random processes can only produce descriptive information which an observing mind will describe.
dhw: We have no idea if there have been lots of new universes, but it makes no difference to the argument. If the conscious energy you call God can be eternal and can produce a zillion universes, then so can unconscious energy, and a zillion universes may eventually produce one with the requisite combination. This is not my wish, and I don’t believe it, any more than I believe in eternal conscious energy. That is why I am an agnostic. Remember?DAVID: Open your mind to the finite existence of this universe. In a series of universes each must start from initial conditions and must evolve from a definite beginning whether a bang or a bounce. Life exists only after a stretch of time!!! My God carries the info in advance for each universe He creates. What can your agnostic mind produce to explain this if anything? Your 'unconscious energy' is not an organized mind, but you unreasonably give it the attributes of a planning mind. Talk about illogicality!
dhw: Life has come about through combinations of materials. Of course it exists after a stretch of time, but if you believe in an eternity and an infinite number of universes, you have a potential infinity of combinations, regardless of the fact that each one must have a beginning. You then suddenly ask me to explain how your God carries the info for each one in advance! (Or is this another typo?) Why don’t you explain how immaterial pure energy can carry info in advance for every universe it creates!
It is obvious, my faith in God tells me He has powerful thinking mind.
dhw: Of course unconscious energy is not a mind, and I have never given it "planning attributes". The theory proposes that chance created the first rudimentary form of consciousness. I don't believe it, but nor do I see why organized conscious energy that has always existed should be more credible than unorganized, unconscious energy which eventually produces combinations of materials that lead to life and consciousness.
Why bother to invent a theory which for you is not believable? But God is more credible since you accept obvious design exists! So you invent a fairy tale with no evidentiary substance.
dhw: And why do you constantly ignore my emphasis on the fact that I cannot believe EITHER hypothesis, which is why I remain agnostic!
I don't ignore your agnosticism which is quite apparent in the title of your website. I am using it to proselytize, as you have graciously allowed, against it and atheism.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
dhw: You have ignored the rest of that section of the post, and so I assume that you now accept my original statement (“There is nothing backward in the argument that random processes do produce information, information is non-active, random processes do not produce instructions, and instructions can only be produced by intelligent use of information") as well as my criticisms of your own, one part of which even had life existing before it emerged.
DAVID: Random processes can only produce descriptive information which an observing mind will describe.
So you clearly agree that there is nothing backward in my statement. Thank you. And I think you also agree that we can finally dismiss the heading of this thread: information is not the source of life.
I have brought the following exchange over from “biological complexity” and substituted it for the discussion on this thread concerning the same subject, as follows:
dhw: I totally accept the logic of your design argument, but I find your concept of non-finite, eternally conscious energy just as incredible as that of unconscious, infinite and eternal energy coming up with the goods. Once again, I would say that belief in either requires a leap of faith.
DAVID: I would repeat , logic requires a planing mind, which God has. How does your unconscious energy think? Since something cannot come from nothing, something has always existed. You do not address all the evidence, which most be considered.
Yes, something has always existed. Your question is wrongly phrased. We can agree that energy has always existed. The question therefore is: how does energy think? Your glib answer is presumably that energy is conscious and therefore it thinks. So how does energy become conscious? Presumably you will answer that it doesn’t become conscious, it just is. And yet the only consciousness we know is that of material beings. And so an equivalent hypothesis is that energy produces materials and by a great big stroke of luck in the course of an eternity/infinity of material combinations, some materials combined to create consciousness. And once that material combination had formed, the rest is the history of life. No, I DON’T BELIEVE IT. Nor do I believe that energy just IS conscious. But I find it feasible that once consciousness existed, it was able to manipulate its own materials. Just a theory which is open to theistic or atheistic interpretation. (See also the Shapiro thread.)
DAVID: Why bother to invent a theory which for you is not believable? But God is more credible since you accept obvious design exists! So you invent a fairy tale with no evidentiary substance.
I did not invent the chance theory that underlies all atheism, any more than you invented the planning theory that underlies all theism! Why bother? Because it is innate in human nature to look for explanations. Why do you think I bothered to set up this website?
dhw: And why do you constantly ignore my emphasis on the fact that I cannot believe EITHER hypothesis, which is why I remain agnostic!
DAVID: I don't ignore your agnosticism which is quite apparent in the title of your website. I am using it to proselytize, as you have graciously allowed, against it and atheism.
I am delighted that you use it to proselytize your own “fairy tale with no evidentiary substance”, and in the past we have discussed various other such fairy tales. Since none of them have been or can be proven, we apply our human reason to them to test their credibility. You’re all in favour of that when it comes to the concept of design, but you’re dead against it when we try to explain the history of life according to “David’s theory of evolution”!
Information as the source of life; not by chance
by David Turell , Saturday, January 11, 2020, 16:37 (1777 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Random processes can only produce descriptive information which an observing mind will describe.
dhw: So you clearly agree that there is nothing backward in my statement. Thank you. And I think you also agree that we can finally dismiss the heading of this thread: information is not the source of life.
I would agree that the presence of necessary information and its use is one of the bases of life.
dhw: I have brought the following exchange over from “biological complexity” and substituted it for the discussion on this thread concerning the same subject, as follows:dhw: I totally accept the logic of your design argument, but I find your concept of non-finite, eternally conscious energy just as incredible as that of unconscious, infinite and eternal energy coming up with the goods. Once again, I would say that belief in either requires a leap of faith.
DAVID: I would repeat , logic requires a planing mind, which God has. How does your unconscious energy think? Since something cannot come from nothing, something has always existed. You do not address all the evidence, which most be considered.
dhw: Yes, something has always existed. Your question is wrongly phrased. We can agree that energy has always existed. The question therefore is: how does energy think? Your glib answer is presumably that energy is conscious and therefore it thinks. So how does energy become conscious? Presumably you will answer that it doesn’t become conscious, it just is. And yet the only consciousness we know is that of material beings. And so an equivalent hypothesis is that energy produces materials and by a great big stroke of luck in the course of an eternity/infinity of material combinations, some materials combined to create consciousness. And once that material combination had formed, the rest is the history of life. No, I DON’T BELIEVE IT. Nor do I believe that energy just IS conscious. But I find it feasible that once consciousness existed, it was able to manipulate its own materials. Just a theory which is open to theistic or atheistic interpretation. (See also the Shapiro thread.)
All we know is our material bodies and the material universe in which we live. But we deal in immaterial thoughts. You seem to agree that consciousness must precede this reality.
DAVID: Why bother to invent a theory which for you is not believable? But God is more credible since you accept obvious design exists! So you invent a fairy tale with no evidentiary substance.dhw: I did not invent the chance theory that underlies all atheism, any more than you invented the planning theory that underlies all theism! Why bother? Because it is innate in human nature to look for explanations. Why do you think I bothered to set up this website?
dhw: And why do you constantly ignore my emphasis on the fact that I cannot believe EITHER hypothesis, which is why I remain agnostic!
DAVID: I don't ignore your agnosticism which is quite apparent in the title of your website. I am using it to proselytize, as you have graciously allowed, against it and atheism.
dhw: I am delighted that you use it to proselytize your own “fairy tale with no evidentiary substance”, and in the past we have discussed various other such fairy tales. Since none of them have been or can be proven, we apply our human reason to them to test their credibility. You’re all in favour of that when it comes to the concept of design, but you’re dead against it when we try to explain the history of life according to “David’s theory of evolution”!
I don't try to explain God's decisions, but I do analyze and find His purposes. Because you are human you always analyze His thoughts as very human. We all would which is why I avoid that approach as wasted effort. That is our difference.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
DAVID: Random processes can only produce descriptive information which an observing mind will describe.
dhw: So you clearly agree that there is nothing backward in my statement. Thank you. And I think you also agree that we can finally dismiss the heading of this thread: information is not the source of life.
DAVID: I would agree that the presence of necessary information and its use is one of the bases of life.
Could anybody possibly disagree? I shan’t bother to repeat the statement you called “backward” which in fact you also now agree with, and of course you agree that information is not the source of life. Case closed?
DAVID: I would repeat , logic requires a planing mind, which God has. How does your unconscious energy think? Since something cannot come from nothing, something has always existed. You do not address all the evidence, which most be considered.
dhw: Yes, something has always existed. Your question is wrongly phrased. We can agree that energy has always existed. The question therefore is: how does energy think?
DAVID: All we know is our material bodies and the material universe in which we live. But we deal in immaterial thoughts. You seem to agree that consciousness must precede this reality.
Of course consciousness precedes our immaterial thoughts. But we do not know the source of consciousness, which may or may not be material. You can ask how material can think, but you should also ask how energy can think. And there is no answer.
The rest of this post is covered in “David’s theory of evolution Part Two”.
Information as the source of life; not by chance
by David Turell , Sunday, January 12, 2020, 19:13 (1776 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Random processes can only produce descriptive information which an observing mind will describe.
dhw: So you clearly agree that there is nothing backward in my statement. Thank you. And I think you also agree that we can finally dismiss the heading of this thread: information is not the source of life.
DAVID: I would agree that the presence of necessary information and its use is one of the bases of life.
dhw: Could anybody possibly disagree? I shan’t bother to repeat the statement you called “backward” which in fact you also now agree with, and of course you agree that information is not the source of life. Case closed?
Your editorial skills are recognized and conceded.
DAVID: I would repeat , logic requires a planing mind, which God has. How does your unconscious energy think? Since something cannot come from nothing, something has always existed. You do not address all the evidence, which most be considered.dhw: Yes, something has always existed. Your question is wrongly phrased. We can agree that energy has always existed. The question therefore is: how does energy think?
DAVID: All we know is our material bodies and the material universe in which we live. But we deal in immaterial thoughts. You seem to agree that consciousness must precede this reality.
dhw: Of course consciousness precedes our immaterial thoughts. But we do not know the source of consciousness, which may or may not be material. You can ask how material can think, but you should also ask how energy can think. And there is no answer.
I know.
The rest of this post is covered in “David’s theory of evolution Part Two”.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Monday, January 20, 2020, 18:03 (1768 days ago) @ David Turell
Second part of his argument:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/karsten-pultz-the-information-problem-pa...
"Stephen Meyer [major ID scientist] has often said that if we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind, not a material process.
***
"My main postulate is that information is strictly tied to an idea, a product, or a message. I cannot see how it is possible to have information prior to the idea, product, or message because information is an abstract representation of those things. How can an abstract representation exist prior to the phenomenon which it represents?
***
"I think it is reasonable to raise the question whether the abstract representation of a protein could come about through means of random processes that did not have it in mind. It’s like having means without ends.
"Information is the means, the idea is the end, we cannot have means before we have ends. Ends are purposeful and purposefulness is only found where we have intelligent causality. The neo-Darwinists want to put the cart before the horse by essentially having information produce the idea. This ludicrous concept runs, of course ,all the way through philosophical materialism.
"The most important feature about information is that it is “about” something other than itself. A gene is nothing in itself, it is about the protein. The score is nothing in itself, it is about the music. A text is nothing in itself, it is about the message. The computer codes that run the robots in a car factory are nothing in themselves, they are about the final product, the automobile.
***
"My question to the neo-Darwinists is this: When did the DNA code move from being a random chemical product to being “about” the products for which it codes? When does the aboutness come about? (my bold)
"The phenomenon of aboutness is found elsewhere only in human thoughts. Thoughts are nothing by themselves. They are real but they do not exist detached from what they are about. I see the same with information, that it is intrinsically linked to what it is about. The DNA code is about the organism, I think that this would be hard for neo-Darwinists to deny, so looking at an organism today, they can hardly claim that DNA is not information. But they somehow imagine that we can have information, the DNA, come into existence without it being about the organism. And then later by some mysterious process, the aboutness arises out of the blue.
"If the neo-Darwinists deny that DNA contains information, I have just delivered some empirical evidence to claim otherwise. The car factory, music, and written language are similar to organisms by having the three part system of code-translation-product, and you cannot within the frames of sanity claim that computer code, scores, and text have nothing to do with information. Hence it logically follows that the DNA code also is information.
"If you want to make the claim that the DNA code is not information, you would simply have to deny there’s any connection between DNA and the organism it codes for.
"I think it is rather obvious that a code sequence doesn’t possess any intrinsic informative value unless it is tied to a product. Without accepting the connection between information and product we have no way of defining what information is and the word becomes meaningless.
"It’s worth mentioning that the three part system code-translation-product also is irreducibly complex since none of them makes sense without the others.
"Am I then saying that we (proponents of ID) should give up showing the neo-Darwinists that there aren’t enough probabilistic resources to have information produced by random processes. No, absolutely not. The thoughts I here have shared are just an attempt to put some meat on Meyers bones when he claims that if we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind."
Comment: a carefully thought-out explanation of the information in DNA, what it stands for in the product and processes related, and the need for a creating mind to form it. dhw has always had trouble in accepting that the information found in life needs a mind to explain its origin.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
QUOTES: "Stephen Meyer [major ID scientist] has often said that if we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind, not a material process.
"My main postulate is that information is strictly tied to an idea, a product, or a message. I cannot see how it is possible to have information prior to the idea, product, or message because information is an abstract representation of those things. How can an abstract representation exist prior to the phenomenon which it represents?
DAVID: a carefully thought-out explanation of the information in DNA, what it stands for in the product and processes related, and the need for a creating mind to form it. dhw has always had trouble in accepting that the information found in life needs a mind to explain its origin.
Your last remark is a total misrepresentation. I reject your claim that information needs an intelligent mind to form it. It does need an intelligent mind to find it, process it and use it. We covered all this before, and now you want to go over it all again! I thought we had agreed that information is present in all things, it is totally passive, and it exists independently of any observers. Again: It takes an intelligent mind to extract information from all things and to use it. In answer to the question: How can you have an abstract representation of something that doesn’t exist? You can’t. But information is not an abstract representation. Order of procedure: 1) the thing exists and contains all the information – i.e. the facts, details, characteristics, properties etc. - about itself; the mind comes along and examines the thing and creates words for the facts, details etc. as an abstract representation of what it has found. Of course an intelligent mind can also create information, and once it is created, intelligent minds can use it, but information itself cannot create or use anything, and so how can it possibly be the source of life as proclaimed in the heading of this thread?
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 21, 2020, 16:18 (1767 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTES: "Stephen Meyer [major ID scientist] has often said that if we trace information back to its source, we always come to a mind, not a material process.
"My main postulate is that information is strictly tied to an idea, a product, or a message. I cannot see how it is possible to have information prior to the idea, product, or message because information is an abstract representation of those things. How can an abstract representation exist prior to the phenomenon which it represents?DAVID: a carefully thought-out explanation of the information in DNA, what it stands for in the product and processes related, and the need for a creating mind to form it. dhw has always had trouble in accepting that the information found in life needs a mind to explain its origin.
dhw:n Your last remark is a total misrepresentation. I reject your claim that information needs an intelligent mind to form it. It does need an intelligent mind to find it, process it and use it. We covered all this before, and now you want to go over it all again! I thought we had agreed that information is present in all things, it is totally passive, and it exists independently of any observers. Again: It takes an intelligent mind to extract information from all things and to use it. In answer to the question: How can you have an abstract representation of something that doesn’t exist? You can’t. But information is not an abstract representation. Order of procedure: 1) the thing exists and contains all the information – i.e. the facts, details, characteristics, properties etc. - about itself; the mind comes along and examines the thing and creates words for the facts, details etc. as an abstract representation of what it has found. Of course an intelligent mind can also create information, and once it is created, intelligent minds can use it, but information itself cannot create or use anything, and so how can it possibly be the source of life as proclaimed in the heading of this thread?
The first bold is wrong as creating DNA information requires a mind. The second bold is all we have agreed to. What is really the issue is the genome, containing information. DNA as the inanimate molecule fits our agreement. What is the problem is presented by the author. DNA is a code that contains useful information that creates life, when translated. The issue you constantly sidestep is that in human experience, only mental activity can originate the information in the DNA code and probably designed the DNA code-ability molecule itself. Chance cannot be an issue. Therefore that mind exists. Agreed, information in and of itself is inert. It requires creation and interpretation or translation. In my view, a mind that could create such a magnificent code is also capable of providing the automatic translation machinery. Establishing the true inertness of information itself does not help your view of the origin of the information, the real point of the article.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
DAVID: a carefully thought-out explanation of the information in DNA, what it stands for in the product and processes related, and the need for a creating mind to form it. dhw has always had trouble in accepting that the information found in life needs a mind to explain its origin.
dhw:n Your last remark is a total misrepresentation. I reject your claim that information needs an intelligent mind to form it. It does need an intelligent mind to find it, process it and use it. We covered all this before, and now you want to go over it all again! I thought we had agreed that information is present in all things, it is totally passive, and it exists independently of any observers. [David’s bolds] Again: It takes an intelligent mind to extract information from all things and to use it. In answer to the question: How can you have an abstract representation of something that doesn’t exist? You can’t. But information is not an abstract representation. Order of procedure: 1) the thing exists and contains all the information – i.e. the facts, details, characteristics, properties etc. - about itself; the mind comes along and examines the thing and creates words for the facts, details etc. as an abstract representation of what it has found. Of course an intelligent mind can also create information, and once it is created, intelligent minds can use it, but information itself cannot create or use anything, and so how can it possibly be the source of life as proclaimed in the heading of this thread? [dhw’s bold]
DAVID: The first bold is wrong as creating DNA information requires a mind.
The rest of your post is dedicated to DNA! Do you think DNA is the only information in existence? Now please read my own bold at the end of my post, including “an intelligent mind can also create information”. Why don’t you answer my question?
DAVID: The second bold is all we have agreed to. What is really the issue is the genome, containing information. DNA as the inanimate molecule fits our agreement. What is the problem is presented by the author. DNA is a code that contains useful information that creates life, when translated. The issue you constantly sidestep is that in human experience, only mental activity can originate the information in the DNA code and probably designed the DNA code-ability molecule itself. Chance cannot be an issue. Therefore that mind exists.
Only a mind can create a railway timetable, the laws of cricket, and a lollipop. Information is not their source, and information is not the source of DNA or of life. Please read my bold again and answer it.
DAVID: Agreed, information in and of itself is inert. It requires creation and interpretation or translation. In my view, a mind that could create such a magnificent code is also capable of providing the automatic translation machinery. Establishing the true inertness of information itself does not help your view of the origin of the information, the real point of the article.
How can information require anything if it is in and of itself “inert”? It requires creation only in the sense that information cannot exist in a total void, but the word “creation” does not mean it needs a conscious mind to create it. There is information in a grain of sand! And it will still be there even if there is no mind to interpret or translate it.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 16:11 (1766 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: a carefully thought-out explanation of the information in DNA, what it stands for in the product and processes related, and the need for a creating mind to form it. dhw has always had trouble in accepting that the information found in life needs a mind to explain its origin.
dhw: Your last remark is a total misrepresentation. I reject your claim that information needs an intelligent mind to form it. It does need an intelligent mind to find it, process it and use it. We covered all this before, and now you want to go over it all again! I thought we had agreed that information is present in all things, it is totally passive, and it exists independently of any observers. [David’s bolds] Again: It takes an intelligent mind to extract information from all things and to use it. In answer to the question: How can you have an abstract representation of something that doesn’t exist? You can’t. But information is not an abstract representation. Order of procedure: 1) the thing exists and contains all the information – i.e. the facts, details, characteristics, properties etc. - about itself; the mind comes along and examines the thing and creates words for the facts, details etc. as an abstract representation of what it has found. Of course an intelligent mind can also create information, and once it is created, intelligent minds can use it, but information itself cannot create or use anything, and so how can it possibly be the source of life as proclaimed in the heading of this thread? [dhw’s bold]
DAVID: The first bold is wrong as creating DNA information requires a mind.
dhw: The rest of your post is dedicated to DNA! Do you think DNA is the only information in existence? Now please read my own bold at the end of my post, including “an intelligent mind can also create information”. Why don’t you answer my question?
DAVID: The second bold is all we have agreed to. What is really the issue is the genome, containing information. DNA as the inanimate molecule fits our agreement. What is the problem is presented by the author. DNA is a code that contains useful information that creates life, when translated. The issue you constantly sidestep is that in human experience, only mental activity can originate the information in the DNA code and probably designed the DNA code-ability molecule itself. Chance cannot be an issue. Therefore that mind exists.
dhw: Only a mind can create a railway timetable, the laws of cricket, and a lollipop. Information is not their source, and information is not the source of DNA or of life. Please read my bold again and answer it.
You should edit a bit better. The word 'source' is the key to my meaning in the headline. we all use sourced material to help us developing n idea or a process. DNA is a 'source' for the creation of life and it contains the information to create a translating mechanism to read the DNA. You are picking on a headline to confuse the debate.
DAVID: Agreed, information in and of itself is inert. It requires creation and interpretation or translation. In my view, a mind that could create such a magnificent code is also capable of providing the automatic translation machinery. Establishing the true inertness of information itself does not help your view of the origin of the information, the real point of the article.dhw: How can information require anything if it is in and of itself “inert”? It requires creation only in the sense that information cannot exist in a total void, but the word “creation” does not mean it needs a conscious mind to create it. There is information in a grain of sand! And it will still be there even if there is no mind to interpret or translate it.
Once again you are off on a tangent. The inert information in DNA has to have a source that created it. How did the information in the coded DNA get there? It had to be created in some way. The point of the original article, we are discussing, claimed it required mental activity by a mind. You are fighting that meaning with confusion over the meaning of a headline. Why does the discussion of the source of the information underlying life frighten you so much? We both know it had to be created or life would not exist,.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
I am going to do some summarizing before answering David. The subject becomes a total mess without definitions see below). My post focused initially on this extraordinary generalization:
QUOTE: "My main postulate is that information is strictly tied to an idea, a product, or a message. I cannot see how it is possible to have information prior to the idea, product, or message because information is an abstract representation of those things. How can an abstract representation exist prior to the phenomenon which it represents?”
I pointed out that information is present in all things and existed long before we came along to extrapolate “abstract representations” from them, i.e. the words that identify all the facts, details, characteristics, properties etc. of the material concerned. Information is totally passive and creates nothing. It takes a mind to analyse, process and use it. But I also bolded the obvious fact that intelligent minds can create information. David wishes to confine the discussion to DNA, and has therefore totally ignored all of the above. I object to the title of this thread because inert information cannot possibly be the source of life.
DAVID: You should edit a bit better. The word 'source' is the key to my meaning in the headline. we all use sourced material to help us developing n idea or a process. DNA is a 'source' for the creation of life and it contains the information to create a translating mechanism to read the DNA. You are picking on a headline to confuse the debate.
The headline causes as much confusion as the woolly manner in which the word “information” is bandied about. Of course DNA contains the information which is the “key” to life. And I have no problem with the logic behind the argument that this information is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent mind. Your argument is NOT that information is the source of life. Your argument is that your God is the source that created the information contained in DNA. Bizarrely, you have said precisely this yourself, and yet you think you are contradicting me:
DAVID: […] The inert information in DNA has to have a source that created it. How did the information in the coded DNA get there? It had to be created in some way. The point of the original article, we are discussing, claimed it required mental activity by a mind.
Yes, a theist can take DNA as an example parallel to the human mind creating the information in a railway timetable, the laws of cricket and a lollipop. But firstly that does not mean all information must be created by an intelligent mind! This generalization is used as an attempt to prove the existence of God, and it doesn’t work. Although your belief that the complexity of the information in DNA requires an intelligent designer is perfectly logical, you need faith to believe in such a being. An atheist can argue that the information for life was always present in the materials of which it is composed (NB again: it is absurd to argue that all information has to be created by a mind), and these were assembled by chance – and not created and assembled by an intelligent mind. But again you need faith to believe in such a hypothesis.
DAVID: You are fighting that meaning with confusion over the meaning of a headline. Why does the discussion of the source of the information underlying life frighten you so much? We both know it had to be created or life would not exist.
It is the source of the information that is the source of life, and I am not in the least bit frightened – I am the one trying to bring sense to the discussion. You believe the source of the information is an intelligent mind which was always simply “there”; an atheist can argue that the information was always simply “there”. You complained that I should edit a bit better. My complaint is that the headline is misleading, and you and the author of the article should define your terms before you embark on a needlessly convoluted and misleading argument to justify your beliefs.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Thursday, January 23, 2020, 18:49 (1765 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I am going to do some summarizing before answering David. The subject becomes a total mess without definitions see below). My post focused initially on this extraordinary generalization:
QUOTE: "My main postulate is that information is strictly tied to an idea, a product, or a message. I cannot see how it is possible to have information prior to the idea, product, or message because information is an abstract representation of those things. How can an abstract representation exist prior to the phenomenon which it represents?”
dhw: I pointed out that information is present in all things and existed long before we came along to extrapolate “abstract representations” from them, i.e. the words that identify all the facts, details, characteristics, properties etc. of the material concerned. Information is totally passive and creates nothing. It takes a mind to analyse, process and use it. But I also bolded the obvious fact that intelligent minds can create information. David wishes to confine the discussion to DNA, and has therefore totally ignored all of the above. I object to the title of this thread because inert information cannot possibly be the source of life.
DAVID: You should edit a bit better. The word 'source' is the key to my meaning in the headline. we all use sourced material to help us developing n idea or a process. DNA is a 'source' for the creation of life and it contains the information to create a translating mechanism to read the DNA. You are picking on a headline to confuse the debate.
dhw: The headline causes as much confusion as the woolly manner in which the word “information” is bandied about. Of course DNA contains the information which is the “key” to life. And I have no problem with the logic behind the argument that this information is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent mind. Your argument is NOT that information is the source of life. Your argument is that your God is the source that created the information contained in DNA. Bizarrely, you have said precisely this yourself, and yet you think you are contradicting me:
DAVID: […] The inert information in DNA has to have a source that created it. How did the information in the coded DNA get there? It had to be created in some way. The point of the original article, we are discussing, claimed it required mental activity by a mind.
dhw: Yes, a theist can take DNA as an example parallel to the human mind creating the information in a railway timetable, the laws of cricket and a lollipop. But firstly that does not mean all information must be created by an intelligent mind! This generalization is used as an attempt to prove the existence of God, and it doesn’t work. Although your belief that the complexity of the information in DNA requires an intelligent designer is perfectly logical, you need faith to believe in such a being. An atheist can argue that the information for life was always present in the materials of which it is composed (NB again: it is absurd to argue that all information has to be created by a mind), and these were assembled by chance – and not created and assembled by an intelligent mind. But again you need faith to believe in such a hypothesis.
DAVID: You are fighting that meaning with confusion over the meaning of a headline. Why does the discussion of the source of the information underlying life frighten you so much? We both know it had to be created or life would not exist.
dhw: It is the source of the information that is the source of life, and I am not in the least bit frightened – I am the one trying to bring sense to the discussion. You believe the source of the information is an intelligent mind which was always simply “there”; an atheist can argue that the information was always simply “there”. You complained that I should edit a bit better. My complaint is that the headline is misleading, and you and the author of the article should define your terms before you embark on a needlessly convoluted and misleading argument to justify your beliefs.
Instead of entering the back and forth above, one simple statement fits the issue of information. There is descriptive information which a mind can describe, and there is instructional information which can initiate a process like life itself. DNA contains that information and it must come from mental activity, especially because of the enormous complexity of the process of life.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
QUOTE: "My main postulate is that information is strictly tied to an idea, a product, or a message. I cannot see how it is possible to have information prior to the idea, product, or message because information is an abstract representation of those things. How can an abstract representation exist prior to the phenomenon which it represents?”
dhw: I pointed out that information is present in all things and existed long before we came along to extrapolate “abstract representations” from them, i.e. the words that identify all the facts, details, characteristics, properties etc. of the material concerned. Information is totally passive and creates nothing. It takes a mind to analyse, process and use it. But I also bolded the obvious fact that intelligent minds can create information. David wishes to confine the discussion to DNA, and has therefore totally ignored all of the above. I object to the title of this thread because inert information cannot possibly be the source of life.
[…]
David: Instead of entering the back and forth above, one simple statement fits the issue of information. There is descriptive information which a mind can describe, and there is instructional information which can initiate a process like life itself. DNA contains that information and it must come from mental activity, especially because of the enormous complexity of the process of life.
This is at least clearer than the article you quoted, since you have attempted to distinguish between two different types of what you call “information”. I hope you now agree with all the objections to the article that I have raised above.
We are almost at a point of general agreement, except that for the life of me I don’t know why you have to link instructions to information, because it is this attempt to bring the whole universe under the umbrella of the in-word “information” that causes all the “back and forth” confusion. Why don’t you just call instructions “instructions”? Like virtually every form of reality you can think of, instructions CONTAIN information. Why do you need to wave the “information” flag, when in this particular context, all you are saying is that DNA is too complex not to have been designed? The absurdity of the above quote, and the absurdity of the heading of this thread are totally unnecessary. Once you drop the attempt to create this vast umbrella, everything is clear: DNA is too complex not to have been designed. And in your philosophy, the source of life is not information but is an intelligent mind you call God, who did the designing.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Friday, January 24, 2020, 15:36 (1764 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "My main postulate is that information is strictly tied to an idea, a product, or a message. I cannot see how it is possible to have information prior to the idea, product, or message because information is an abstract representation of those things. How can an abstract representation exist prior to the phenomenon which it represents?”
dhw: I pointed out that information is present in all things and existed long before we came along to extrapolate “abstract representations” from them, i.e. the words that identify all the facts, details, characteristics, properties etc. of the material concerned. Information is totally passive and creates nothing. It takes a mind to analyse, process and use it. But I also bolded the obvious fact that intelligent minds can create information. David wishes to confine the discussion to DNA, and has therefore totally ignored all of the above. I object to the title of this thread because inert information cannot possibly be the source of life.
[…]
David: Instead of entering the back and forth above, one simple statement fits the issue of information. There is descriptive information which a mind can describe, and there is instructional information which can initiate a process like life itself. DNA contains that information and it must come from mental activity, especially because of the enormous complexity of the process of life.dhw: This is at least clearer than the article you quoted, since you have attempted to distinguish between two different types of what you call “information”. I hope you now agree with all the objections to the article that I have raised above.
We are almost at a point of general agreement, except that for the life of me I don’t know why you have to link instructions to information, because it is this attempt to bring the whole universe under the umbrella of the in-word “information” that causes all the “back and forth” confusion. [1]Why don’t you just call instructions “instructions”? Like virtually every form of reality you can think of, instructions CONTAIN information. Why do you need to wave the “information” flag, when in this particular context, all you are saying is that DNA is too complex not to have been designed? The absurdity of the above quote, and the absurdity of the heading of this thread are totally unnecessary. Once you drop the attempt to create this vast umbrella, everything is clear: DNA is too complex not to have been designed. And in your philosophy, the source of life is not information but is an intelligent mind you call God, who did the designing. [2]
The first bold above is your problem. The issue of the importance of 'information' was introduced to make just the point you express, quite rightly in the second bold. You are bright and clear thinking, but many folks are not, and the issue of information has to be pounded home to make the point you make about the approach: it requires a mind. Part of the battle for the ID folks against the Darwinians is at the level of a political propaganda campaign. In that level of discussion their introduction of information and reference of Shannon information is entirely correct. I assume you opened up this website to entertain all approaches to the battle for review by you and others who might tune in. This is simply one of the argumentative points of view, but in your clear-thinking mind it is not necessary.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
dhw: We are almost at a point of general agreement, except that for the life of me I don’t know why you have to link instructions to information, because it is this attempt to bring the whole universe under the umbrella of the in-word “information” that causes all the “back and forth” confusion. [1]Why don’t you just call instructions “instructions”? Like virtually every form of reality you can think of, instructions CONTAIN information. Why do you need to wave the “information” flag, when in this particular context, all you are saying is that DNA is too complex not to have been designed? The absurdity of the above quote, and the absurdity of the heading of this thread are totally unnecessary. Once you drop the attempt to create this vast umbrella, everything is clear: DNA is too complex not to have been designed. And in your philosophy, the source of life is not information but is an intelligent mind you call God, who did the designing.[/b]
DAVID: The first bold above is your problem. The issue of the importance of 'information' was introduced to make just the point you express, quite rightly in the second bold. You are bright and clear thinking, but many folks are not, and the issue of information has to be pounded home to make the point you make about the approach: it requires a mind.
No, information does NOT “require” a mind, and the pounding home concerns the complexity of DNA, quite independently of what sort of information requires a mind and what doesn’t! That is how your author has tried to mislead us. Some information is created by minds, and some is not. But even when it has been created by minds, it does not itself create anything. It is simply there, regardless of whether there are minds or not. It requires a mind to analyse it, process it and use it, but as you said yourself, it is “inert”.
DAVID: Part of the battle for the ID folks against the Darwinians is at the level of a political propaganda campaign. In that level of discussion their introduction of information and reference of Shannon information is entirely correct. I assume you opened up this website to entertain all approaches to the battle for review by you and others who might tune in. This is simply one of the argumentative points of view, but in your clear-thinking mind it is not necessary.
Not only is it not necessary, but it leads to confused thinking as exemplified by the absurd generalizations and statements such as those I dealt with earlier (including “information as the source of life”).
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Saturday, January 25, 2020, 16:03 (1763 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: We are almost at a point of general agreement, except that for the life of me I don’t know why you have to link instructions to information, because it is this attempt to bring the whole universe under the umbrella of the in-word “information” that causes all the “back and forth” confusion. [1]Why don’t you just call instructions “instructions”? Like virtually every form of reality you can think of, instructions CONTAIN information. Why do you need to wave the “information” flag, when in this particular context, all you are saying is that DNA is too complex not to have been designed? The absurdity of the above quote, and the absurdity of the heading of this thread are totally unnecessary. Once you drop the attempt to create this vast umbrella, everything is clear: DNA is too complex not to have been designed. And in your philosophy, the source of life is not information but is an intelligent mind you call God, who did the designing.[/b]
DAVID: The first bold above is your problem. The issue of the importance of 'information' was introduced to make just the point you express, quite rightly in the second bold. You are bright and clear thinking, but many folks are not, and the issue of information has to be pounded home to make the point you make about the approach: it requires a mind.
No, information does NOT “require” a mind, and the pounding home concerns the complexity of DNA, quite independently of what sort of information requires a mind and what doesn’t! That is how your author has tried to mislead us. Some information is created by minds, and some is not. But even when it has been created by minds, it does not itself create anything. It is simply there, regardless of whether there are minds or not. It requires a mind to analyse it, process it and use it, but as you said yourself, it is “inert”.
DAVID: Part of the battle for the ID folks against the Darwinians is at the level of a political propaganda campaign. In that level of discussion their introduction of information and reference of Shannon information is entirely correct. I assume you opened up this website to entertain all approaches to the battle for review by you and others who might tune in. This is simply one of the argumentative points of view, but in your clear-thinking mind it is not necessary.
dhw: Not only is it not necessary, but it leads to confused thinking as exemplified by the absurd generalizations and statements such as those I dealt with earlier (including “information as the source of life”).
A good summary of your views.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
DAVID: This is simply one of the argumentative points of view, but in your clear-thinking mind it is not necessary.
dhw: Not only is it not necessary, but it leads to confused thinking as exemplified by the absurd generalizations and statements such as those I dealt with earlier (including “information as the source of life”).
DAVID: A good summary of your views.
I note that you do not present any arguments against my views, so I hope there will be no more posts on the subject.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Sunday, January 26, 2020, 15:57 (1762 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: This is simply one of the argumentative points of view, but in your clear-thinking mind it is not necessary.
dhw: Not only is it not necessary, but it leads to confused thinking as exemplified by the absurd generalizations and statements such as those I dealt with earlier (including “information as the source of life”).
DAVID: A good summary of your views.
dhw: I note that you do not present any arguments against my views, so I hope there will be no more posts on the subject.
The use of the information argument for God has always troubled you, but I can't promise to leave it alone.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
DAVID: This is simply one of the argumentative points of view, but in your clear-thinking mind it is not necessary.
dhw: Not only is it not necessary, but it leads to confused thinking as exemplified by the absurd generalizations and statements such as those I dealt with earlier (including “information as the source of life”).
DAVID: A good summary of your views.
dhw: I note that you do not present any arguments against my views, so I hope there will be no more posts on the subject.
DAVID: The use of the information argument for God has always troubled you, but I can't promise to leave it alone.
There is no information argument for God. The argument for God is quite simply that living organisms are too complex to have come into existence by chance, i.e. they must have been designed, i.e. there must be a designer. The very fact that the “information” argument causes such confusion and so many obfuscations in its attempts to present this same case should be enough to put you off trying to use it.[/i]
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Monday, January 27, 2020, 18:06 (1761 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: This is simply one of the argumentative points of view, but in your clear-thinking mind it is not necessary.
dhw: Not only is it not necessary, but it leads to confused thinking as exemplified by the absurd generalizations and statements such as those I dealt with earlier (including “information as the source of life”).
DAVID: A good summary of your views.
dhw: I note that you do not present any arguments against my views, so I hope there will be no more posts on the subject.
DAVID: The use of the information argument for God has always troubled you, but I can't promise to leave it alone.
dhw: There is no information argument for God. The argument for God is quite simply that living organisms are too complex to have come into existence by chance, i.e. they must have been designed, i.e. there must be a designer. The very fact that the “information” argument causes such confusion and so many obfuscations in its attempts to present this same case should be enough to put you off trying to use it.[/i]
The confusion is yours. The argument is simple. Instructional information underlying the complex processes, and designed to create life, implies a mind must have created it. This is a prime ID tenet.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
dhw: There is no information argument for God. The argument for God is quite simply that living organisms are too complex to have come into existence by chance, i.e. they must have been designed, i.e. there must be a designer. The very fact that the “information” argument causes such confusion and so many obfuscations in its attempts to present this same case should be enough to put you off trying to use it.
DAVID: The confusion is yours. The argument is simple. Instructional information underlying the complex processes, and designed to create life, implies a mind must have created it. This is a prime ID tenet.
We dealt with this. Why do you have to call it “instructional information”, thereby necessitating the definition of different kinds of information? What is the difference between instructional information and instructions? Instructions CONTAIN information, so to avoid all the confusion, why don’t you just say that the instructions contained in DNA are too complex to have come about by chance and therefore they must have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer. Why do you try to defend the ridiculous heading of this thread when you have already agreed that information is not the source of life. According to you the source of life is the creator of the instructions. Too simple for you?
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 15:15 (1760 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: There is no information argument for God. The argument for God is quite simply that living organisms are too complex to have come into existence by chance, i.e. they must have been designed, i.e. there must be a designer. The very fact that the “information” argument causes such confusion and so many obfuscations in its attempts to present this same case should be enough to put you off trying to use it.
DAVID: The confusion is yours. The argument is simple. Instructional information underlying the complex processes, and designed to create life, implies a mind must have created it. This is a prime ID tenet.
dhw: We dealt with this. Why do you have to call it “instructional information”, thereby necessitating the definition of different kinds of information? What is the difference between instructional information and instructions? Instructions CONTAIN information, so to avoid all the confusion, why don’t you just say that the instructions contained in DNA are too complex to have come about by chance and therefore they must have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer. Why do you try to defend the ridiculous heading of this thread when you have already agreed that information is not the source of life. According to you the source of life is the creator of the instructions. Too simple for you?
I'm sorry the word 'information' as ID uses it bothers you. From this statement you obviously understand the reasoning, but do not like the way it is stated. All beside the point. The information exists and we have debated the source.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 13, 2020, 18:10 (1654 days ago) @ David Turell
The meaning of information from John Horgan:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-information-cant-be-the-basis-of-r...
"A growing number of scientists... are beginning to wonder whether information "may be primary: more fundamental than matter itself."
***
"In the 1980s, Wheeler started pointing out deep resonances between quantum mechanics and information theory. An electron, Wheeler pointed out, behaves like a particle or a wave depending on how we interrogate it. Information theory, similarly, posits that all messages can be reduced to a sequence of "binary units," or bits, which are answers to yes or no questions.
***
"In a paper that he delivered at the Santa Fe Institute in 1989, he postulated that "every it--every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself--derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely--even if in some contexts indirectly--from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits."
***
"The concept of information makes no sense in the absence of something to be informed—that is, a conscious observer capable of choice, or free will (sorry, I can't help it, free will is an obsession). If all the humans in the world vanished tomorrow, all the information would vanish, too. Lacking minds to surprise and change, books and televisions and computers would be as dumb as stumps and stones. This fact may seem crushingly obvious, but it seems to be overlooked by many information enthusiasts.
"The idea that mind is as fundamental as matter—which Wheeler's "participatory universe" notion implies--also flies in the face of everyday experience. Matter can clearly exist without mind, but where do we see mind existing without matter? Shoot a man through the heart, and his mind vanishes while his matter persists. As far as we know, information—embodied in things like poetry, hiphop music and cell-phone images from Libya--only exists here on Earth and nowhere else in the universe. Did the big bang bang if there was no one there to hear it? Well, here we are, so I guess it did (and saying that God was listening is cheating)."
Comment: If DNA is a code, then it must be stated it carries information which only an existing mind can understand. But genes run living processes through many interlocking series of molecular actions. Molecules do not think, but we know folded protein molecules carry out functions to create the wanted results desired by DNA. The only answer is a mind designed all those molecules and their coordinated functions through instructions which are information. And for all these functions to work, they have to be automatic. Taking time for decision-making will slow down the system too much for it to work.
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
QUOTES: "The concept of information makes no sense in the absence of something to be informed—that is, a conscious observer capable of choice, or free will (sorry, I can't help it, free will is an obsession). If all the humans in the world vanished tomorrow, all the information would vanish, too."
I was tempted to ignore this, as we have covered it over and over again. The whole discussion is pointless unless the writer defines what he means by information. Information to me means the facts about a given subject or object or event or person etc. etc. The sun must contain millions of facts. It takes a mind to observe or record them, but that does not mean that the facts are not there without being observed. This is solipsism gone mad!
Information as the source of life; not by chance II
by David Turell , Thursday, May 14, 2020, 23:19 (1653 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTES: "The concept of information makes no sense in the absence of something to be informed—that is, a conscious observer capable of choice, or free will (sorry, I can't help it, free will is an obsession). If all the humans in the world vanished tomorrow, all the information would vanish, too."
dhw: I was tempted to ignore this, as we have covered it over and over again. The whole discussion is pointless unless the writer defines what he means by information. Information to me means the facts about a given subject or object or event or person etc. etc. The sun must contain millions of facts. It takes a mind to observe or record them, but that does not mean that the facts are not there without being observed. This is solipsism gone mad!
The info is there with or without humans, but is unrecognized without minds being present to understand it. Information can also exist if it is instructional information as to how to run processes that create life, but they must come from a mind because minds and information are always tied together. You never have production of coded instructive information without mind/minds to create it. But it is also perfectly reasonable that the mind that creates the code can also give what is produced the ability to interpret and follow the coded instructions automatically.
Information as the source of life's creativity
by David Turell , Sunday, December 06, 2020, 00:30 (1448 days ago) @ David Turell
Another essay on the subject:
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/12/information-is-the-currency-of-life-but-what-is-it/
"Egnor: What about information as meaning?
Robert J. Marks: The three models of information that I have just shared with you don’t really measure meaning. The fourth model is specified complexity. The purpose of specified complexity, and specifically the mathematics of algorithmic specified complexity, is to measure the meaning in the bits of an object…
"Note: Specified complexity: “A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified [it is hard to duplicate but it also doesn’t mean anything]. A short sequence of letters like “the,” “so,” or “a” is specified without being complex. [It means something but what it means is not very significant by itself]. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.” [It is both complex and hard to duplicate and it means a lot in a few words]
"Egnor: How does biological information differ from information in non-living things?
"Robert J. Marks: We can talk about creativity. Creativity is the creation of information. And that is outside of naturalistic or information processes.
"Egnor: Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, defined living things as things that strive for their own perfection. That was what distinguished living things from non-living things. A rock doesn’t wake up in the morning and try to be a better rock. Whereas living things, to greater or lesser degrees of success, try to make themselves better at what they do. They eat, they rest, they interact with nature. They do things to make themselves even better examples of what they are. And it would seem, to me, that that might relate to the difference between information in non-living and in living things. The information in living things is directed to ends; it’s directed to purposes that you don’t see in non-living things in the same way.
"Robert J. Marks: In other words, the entity has to have creativity.
Comment: taken from a podcast. Specified complexity is how ID folks identify design.
Information as the source of life's creativity
Information as the source of life’s creativity
Egnor: Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, defined living things as things that strive for their own perfection. That was what distinguished living things from non-living things. A rock doesn’t wake up in the morning and try to be a better rock. Whereas living things, to greater or lesser degrees of success, try to make themselves better at what they do. They eat, they rest, they interact with nature. They do things to make themselves even better examples of what they are. And it would seem, to me, that that might relate to the difference between information in non-living and in living things. The information in living things is directed to ends; it’s directed to purposes that you don’t see in non-living things in the same way.
"Robert J. Marks: In other words, the entity has to have creativity.
In my view, the heading is totally misleading. Information does not create anything. It takes intelligence to extrapolate it from whatever exists, and then to use it creatively. But with one tiny change, I can only applaud Aquinas, which is why I’ve left the quote in full. “Try to make themselves better at what they do” leaves out what most of them do: namely, to survive. There we have evolution in a nutshell: life forms try to survive, and their creative interaction with an ever changing nature is what either demands or allows for their “improvements”. The exception is humans, who have continued the quest for survival, but have also branched out into other forms of improvement (knowledge, art, comfort etc.) which makes them unique. And Marks’ comment is spot on: information is not the “source” of creativity! There is information present in all things, but only living things (intelligent entities) can USE it creatively. Intelligence is therefore the source of life's creativity.
Xxx
Information theory proves design
QUOTE: Additionally, I found Dembski’s key indicator of intelligent design, “complex specified information (CSI)”, to be a more refined form of the information theory concept of “mutual information,” with the additional constraint that the random variable for specification is independent of the described event. This additional constraint results in the second keystone of intelligent design theory: the conservation of information.
Maybe I'm too simplistic in my thinking, but for the life of me I can't see the attractions of “information” as the answer to so many of our problems. In my perhaps jaundiced view, it is a great way of creating loads of waffle to cloak the simplest of arguments: in this case, the sheer complexity of life “proves” design. But of course what it doesn’t prove – and many ID-ers scrupulously avoid such a conclusion – is that the design was created by an unknown, sourceless, eternal being which some people call God. That is a different puzzle. I really can’t understand why people can’t accept the logic of the design argument, but I totally understand why they are reluctant to solve the mystery of how the design came about by creating another mystery of such gigantic proportions. I see no point in even mentioning the term "information".
Information as the source of life's creativity
by David Turell , Sunday, December 06, 2020, 19:49 (1447 days ago) @ dhw
Information as the source of life’s creativity
Egnor: Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, defined living things as things that strive for their own perfection. That was what distinguished living things from non-living things. A rock doesn’t wake up in the morning and try to be a better rock. Whereas living things, to greater or lesser degrees of success, try to make themselves better at what they do. They eat, they rest, they interact with nature. They do things to make themselves even better examples of what they are. And it would seem, to me, that that might relate to the difference between information in non-living and in living things. The information in living things is directed to ends; it’s directed to purposes that you don’t see in non-living things in the same way.
"Robert J. Marks: In other words, the entity has to have creativity.dhw: In my view, the heading is totally misleading. Information does not create anything. It takes intelligence to extrapolate it from whatever exists, and then to use it creatively. But with one tiny change, I can only applaud Aquinas, which is why I’ve left the quote in full. “Try to make themselves better at what they do” leaves out what most of them do: namely, to survive. There we have evolution in a nutshell: life forms try to survive, and their creative interaction with an ever changing nature is what either demands or allows for their “improvements”. The exception is humans, who have continued the quest for survival, but have also branched out into other forms of improvement (knowledge, art, comfort etc.) which makes them unique. And Marks’ comment is spot on: information is not the “source” of creativity! There is information present in all things, but only living things (intelligent entities) can USE it creatively. Intelligence is therefore the source of life's creativity.
You are correct. The intelligent use of information describes how life works, but it is secondary. It must use the available information it has been given in the genome codes. Without both parts, no life.
Xxx
Information theory proves designQUOTE: Additionally, I found Dembski’s key indicator of intelligent design, “complex specified information (CSI)”, to be a more refined form of the information theory concept of “mutual information,” with the additional constraint that the random variable for specification is independent of the described event. This additional constraint results in the second keystone of intelligent design theory: the conservation of information.
dhw: Maybe I'm too simplistic in my thinking, but for the life of me I can't see the attractions of “information” as the answer to so many of our problems. In my perhaps jaundiced view, it is a great way of creating loads of waffle to cloak the simplest of arguments: in this case, the sheer complexity of life “proves” design. But of course what it doesn’t prove – and many ID-ers scrupulously avoid such a conclusion – is that the design was created by an unknown, sourceless, eternal being which some people call God. That is a different puzzle. I really can’t understand why people can’t accept the logic of the design argument, but I totally understand why they are reluctant to solve the mystery of how the design came about by creating another mystery of such gigantic proportions. I see no point in even mentioning the term "information".
That is why you remain agnostic. Doesn't design require a designer? A designing mind? One must exist.
Information as the source of life; Davies current opinion
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 22:44 (1514 days ago) @ David Turell
This is a book review of Davies new book about how information affects evolution and life:
https://inference-review.com/article/evolution-in-revolution
"If the connection between What Is Life? and the central dogma is direct because it is historical, the central dogma is now known to be incorrect. Much of the evidence in favor of the demotion of the central dogma is brilliantly expounded by Paul Davies in The Demon in the Machine. Schrödinger brought crystallography to bear on the puzzles of stability and heredity; Davies brings information theory to bear on the same puzzles. In doing so, he joins the distinguished company of physical scientists who have contributed to fundamental biology.
***
"In discussing cell division, he points out that the genome is entirely passive. It is the cell that does the dividing. DNA is as much acted upon as acting. If so, the conventional framework of biological theory is misleading. “What is still a mystery,” Davies writes,
is the biological equivalent of the supervisory unit that determines when instructions need to switch to become passive data. There is no obvious component in a cell, no special organelle that serves as “the strategic planner” to tell the cell how to regard DNA (as software or hardware) moment by moment. The decision to replicate … is not localized in one place.
"The book’s frequent references to top-down causation are welcome. In 2011, George Ellis organized an important meeting that brought this topic to the fore. At the meeting, I argued that there is no privileged level of causation in biology. This has been clearly shown in the mathematical modeling of biological networks. I have been arguing for this principle ever since. Davies, it is satisfactory to recount, expresses the same idea, but by a different metaphor.
***
"Maxwell’s demon appeared to reverse the laws of thermodynamics.
"Davies shows that organisms have such molecular demons working away throughout the body. They can do this, of course, because they are open systems, continually exchanging matter and energy with their environment. Any energy used by the molecular demons comes from the environment with which living systems are in communion. Darwin saw this very clearly as well. “In my opinion,” he wrote in 1876, “the greatest error which I have committed, has not been allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the environment, i.e. food, climate, etc., independently of natural selection.”
***
"Cells can detect serious danger and effectively change the arrangement or composition of their DNA. These processes are in some way guided because without such guidance, they could not produce the desired result.
"A word is needed for this. Fortunately, one is on hand, which has been in use since the time of Aristotle. It is teleology. The process is rather like shuffling a pack of cards. By chance, many different new arrangements will occur. The operative unit—whether a multicellular organism or a single-cell organism—then selects the arrangement best suited to cope with the environmental challenge...These arguments serve to weaken the common neo-Darwinian assumption that evolution is completely blind, and they suggest, if they do not imply, that life is not simply an unlikely occurrence in a universe without purpose.
***
"The actual error rate when DNA is being copied is around 1 in 104 bases—a figure a million times higher than previously assumed. Davies describes a process in which proofreading demons come in to diligently compare one strand of copied DNA with the other to discover where the errors occur, and then to correct them. Imagine a proofreader receiving a book draft with so many errors. It would amount to an error on almost every page. At 100 pages per book, the demons would clean up all the errors in 10,000 such books. No human proofreader could be that accurate. Imagine now that the organism can selectively vary the error-correction rate.
"Davies: "While it is the case that biological information is instantiated in matter, it is not inherent in matter. Bits of information chart their own course inside living things. In so doing, they don’t violate the laws of physics, but nor are they encapsulated by those laws: it is impossible to derive the laws of information from the known laws of physics."
***
"Like the rest of the book, Davies’s epilogue touches on deep questions about ourselves and the universe. One of these is whether life was inevitable.
***
"The view that the universe is ruled by just blind chance, flies in the face of all that we experience as sentient, creative, and intentional beings. To believe this, we have to swallow the view that evolution, in creating the human nervous system, endowed it with an extraordinarily powerful illusion that forces us to act as though we have purpose, while really we only reflect the blind determination of our genes and other molecules."(my bold)
Comment: The bold is exactly my point. Our arrival is highly significant. This discussion mirrors the comments of Stephen Talbott. Information must be used but how so is still hidden from us. Where did all that definitive and necessary information come from? Smells of God for me but they carefully try to stay away.
Information as the source of life; Davies current opinion
QUOTE: A word is needed for this. Fortunately, one is on hand, which has been in use since the time of Aristotle. It is teleology. The process is rather like shuffling a pack of cards. By chance, many different new arrangements will occur. The operative unit—whether a multicellular organism or a single-cell organism—then selects the arrangement best suited to cope with the environmental challenge. What holds for the cell, holds as well for evolution itself. […] These arguments serve to weaken the common neo-Darwinian assumption that evolution is completely blind, and they suggest, if they do not imply, that life is not simply an unlikely occurrence in a universe without purpose.
This paragraph contains many of the issues I’d like to comment on: 1) The influence of the “environment challenge” on evolution; 2) it is the organism (i.e. the community of cell communities) itself that decides how to respond; 3) the purpose of all this cellular activity is to enable organisms to live, reproduce, evolve into different species. The word “teleology” is used ambiguously here. No neo-Darwinist would deny that the cells themselves act purposefully. The question is how the cells themselves originated. The “arguments” may suggest or even imply that life and evolution are the products of a designer, in which case he/she/it must have had a purpose (e.g. enjoyment of the unfolding spectacle of evolution). Alternatively, the origin of the cells is an “unlikely occurrence” (chance), in which case the cells themselves still have their purpose, but there is no overall purpose in the universe.
QUOTE: Organisms steer their own evolutionary course, a process made possible by Davies’s molecular demons. As he makes clear, this is not a sufficient explanation. What enables organisms to control their genes and other molecular mechanisms? Not the demons themselves. […] A gap needs to be filled to connect high-level decisions with low-level molecular machinery.
This paragraph can be interpreted as support for the theory that the high level decisions are taken by the intelligent cell/cell communities themselves, and the molecular mechanisms carry out the decisions. But….
QUOTE: The modern synthesis gives too small a role to chance at the molecular level.
QUOTE: This process must be high-level. The immune system as a whole must work out what will meet the new challenge. That cannot be done at the molecular level. The demons do not themselves know what they are doing.
The molecular system sometimes fails to obey the instructions of the decision-making compartment of the cell/cell community. These are what David calls the “errors”. I myself do not believe these chance errors by non-intelligent molecules are responsible for evolution in the sense of speciation, though they are responsible for certain diseases. I would opt for the intelligent responses of cell communities to the demands and opportunities arising from “environmental challenges”, as in the first quote. Not just the immune system - the WHOLE system!
QUOTE: My view is consistent with Davies’s exposition of molecular demons and what they do in the human body—and with the conclusion that organisms are purposive.
I agree.
QUOTE: I, for one, find a universe that naturally gives rise to purposive and creative organisms more plausible, and more reassuring, than one that is completely purposeless.
Ambiguous. What does he mean by “naturally”? The organisms (not just humans) are purposive and creative. It’s only if you think there is a God who designed them that you can talk of “teleology”, i.e. a purpose behind the existence of purposive, creative organisms. What does reassurance have to do with it?
QUOTE: The view that the universe is ruled by just blind chance, flies in the face of all that we experience as sentient, creative, and intentional beings. To believe this, we have to swallow the view that evolution, in creating the human nervous system, endowed it with an extraordinarily powerful illusion that forces us to act as though we have purpose, while really we only reflect the blind determination of our genes and other molecules. (David’s bold)
DAVID: The bold is exactly my point. Our arrival is highly significant.[…] Information must be used but how so is still hidden from us. Where did all that definitive and necessary information come from? Smells of God for me but they carefully try to stay away.
Suddenly we jump from organisms in general to humans. But yes, of course, our arrival is highly significant - to us! And we have devised countless purposes for ourselves, independently of the purpose of our genes and molecules (which enable us to live and reproduce until we die). But it requires just as great a leap of faith to believe in a sourceless supreme intelligence that simply exists and designs as the leap of faith that the source of our existence and intelligence is “blind chance”.
QUOTE: We would then also have to live with an incoherent view of ourselves. We cannot, at one and the same time, deny that we have purpose and also write an article like this one […] Articles and books are necessarily written by purposive agents, not by random typewriting machines.
We make our own purposes! The author’s purpose was to write an article proclaiming that we have purpose. That does not mean that there is a universal purpose for his existence!
Information as the source of life; Davies current opinion
by David Turell , Friday, October 02, 2020, 20:45 (1512 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: This paragraph contains many of the issues I’d like to comment on: 1) The influence of the “environment challenge” on evolution; 2) it is the organism (i.e. the community of cell communities) itself that decides how to respond; 3) the purpose of all this cellular activity is to enable organisms to live, reproduce, evolve into different species. The word “teleology” is used ambiguously here. No neo-Darwinist would deny that the cells themselves act purposefully. The question is how the cells themselves originated. The “arguments” may suggest or even imply that life and evolution are the products of a designer, in which case he/she/it must have had a purpose (e.g. enjoyment of the unfolding spectacle of evolution). Alternatively, the origin of the cells is an “unlikely occurrence” (chance), in which case the cells themselves still have their purpose, but there is no overall purpose in the universe.
QUOTE: Organisms steer their own evolutionary course, a process made possible by Davies’s molecular demons. As he makes clear, this is not a sufficient explanation. What enables organisms to control their genes and other molecular mechanisms? Not the demons themselves. […] A gap needs to be filled to connect high-level decisions with low-level molecular machinery.
dhw: This paragraph can be interpreted as support for the theory that the high level decisions are taken by the intelligent cell/cell communities themselves, and the molecular mechanisms carry out the decisions. But….
QUOTE: The modern synthesis gives too small a role to chance at the molecular level.QUOTE: This process must be high-level. The immune system as a whole must work out what will meet the new challenge. That cannot be done at the molecular level. The demons do not themselves know what they are doing.
dhw: The molecular system sometimes fails to obey the instructions of the decision-making compartment of the cell/cell community. These are what David calls the “errors”. I myself do not believe these chance errors by non-intelligent molecules are responsible for evolution in the sense of speciation, though they are responsible for certain diseases. I would opt for the intelligent responses of cell communities to the demands and opportunities arising from “environmental challenges”, as in the first quote. Not just the immune system - the WHOLE system!
The bold is strongly suggestive of automaticity in following instructional information.
QUOTE: My view is consistent with Davies’s exposition of molecular demons and what they do in the human body—and with the conclusion that organisms are purposive.dhw: I agree.
I agree also.
QUOTE: I, for one, find a universe that naturally gives rise to purposive and creative organisms more plausible, and more reassuring, than one that is completely purposeless.dhw: Ambiguous. What does he mean by “naturally”? The organisms (not just humans) are purposive and creative. It’s only if you think there is a God who designed them that you can talk of “teleology”, i.e. a purpose behind the existence of purposive, creative organisms. What does reassurance have to do with it?
He always sneaks up toward God.
dhw: Suddenly we jump from organisms in general to humans. But yes, of course, our arrival is highly significant - to us! And we have devised countless purposes for ourselves, independently of the purpose of our genes and molecules (which enable us to live and reproduce until we die). But it requires just as great a leap of faith to believe in a sourceless supreme intelligence that simply exists and designs as the leap of faith that the source of our existence and intelligence is “blind chance”.
Blind chance cannot design the intricacies of living organisms. Logic dictates a designer!!!
QUOTE: We would then also have to live with an incoherent view of ourselves. We cannot, at one and the same time, deny that we have purpose and also write an article like this one […] Articles and books are necessarily written by purposive agents, not by random typewriting machines.dhw: We make our own purposes! The author’s purpose was to write an article proclaiming that we have purpose. That does not mean that there is a universal purpose for his existence!
Your same blinkered view. There is no logical way around the existence of a designer. And you have honestly admitted the evidence for design will not allow you to be an atheist. That same evidence has made me a theist. There is no other issue but design from which to make as decision!!! Things are obviously designed or they are not. That is why Talbott and Davies tiptoe in their commentaries. Both as obviously agnostic. You are keeping good company. I appreciate how you worked producing such clear commentary of a very important entry.
Information as the source of life; Davies current opinion
QUOTE: This process must be high-level. The immune system as a whole must work out what will meet the new challenge. That cannot be done at the molecular level. The demons do not themselves know what they are doing.
dhw: The molecular system sometimes fails to obey the instructions of the decision-making compartment of the cell/cell community.
DAVID: The bold is strongly suggestive of automaticity in following instructional information.
That is what I have just said. And I propose that the instructions come from the decision-making compartment of the cell/cell community.
QUOTE: I, for one, find a universe that naturally gives rise to purposive and creative organisms more plausible, and more reassuring, than one that is completely purposeless.
dhw: Ambiguous. What does he mean by “naturally”? The organisms (not just humans) are purposive and creative. It’s only if you think there is a God who designed them that you can talk of “teleology”, i.e. a purpose behind the existence of purposive, creative organisms. What does reassurance have to do with it?
DAVID: He always sneaks up toward God.
I guessed that. Seeking reassurance is no basis for a theory. Hence all this muddled thinking about purpose.
dhw: And we have devised countless purposes for ourselves, independently of the purpose of our genes and molecules (which enable us to live and reproduce until we die). But it requires just as great a leap of faith to believe in a sourceless supreme intelligence that simply exists and designs as the leap of faith that the source of our existence and intelligence is “blind chance”.
DAVID: Blind chance cannot design the intricacies of living organisms. Logic dictates a designer!!!
An excellent argument for design, which explains your own leap of faith. But this whole article deals with teleology – and the quote below sums up its lack of coherence.
QUOTE: We would then also have to live with an incoherent view of ourselves. We cannot, at one and the same time, deny that we have purpose and also write an article like this one […] Articles and books are necessarily written by purposive agents, not by random typewriting machines.
dhw: We make our own purposes! The author’s purpose was to write an article proclaiming that we have purpose. That does not mean that there is a universal purpose for his existence!
DAVID: Your same blinkered view. There is no logical way around the existence of a designer. And you have honestly admitted the evidence for design will not allow you to be an atheist. That same evidence has made me a theist. There is no other issue but design from which to make as decision!!! Things are obviously designed or they are not. That is why Talbott and Davies tiptoe in their commentaries. Both as obviously agnostic. You are keeping good company. I appreciate how you worked producing such clear commentary of a very important entry.
Thank you for your appreciation. I return it: on this forum and in your two brilliant books, you have made the strongest possible case for design. But this article faffs around with the subject of PURPOSE, and in my view is so muddled that it defeats its OWN purpose! I have tried to explain why, and your last comment suggests that you agree.
Information as the source of life; Davies current opinion
by David Turell , Saturday, October 03, 2020, 21:00 (1511 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: This process must be high-level. The immune system as a whole must work out what will meet the new challenge. That cannot be done at the molecular level. The demons do not themselves know what they are doing.
dhw: The molecular system sometimes fails to obey the instructions of the decision-making compartment of the cell/cell community.
DAVID: The bold is strongly suggestive of automaticity in following instructional information.
dhw: That is what I have just said. And I propose that the instructions come from the decision-making compartment of the cell/cell community.
QUOTE: I, for one, find a universe that naturally gives rise to purposive and creative organisms more plausible, and more reassuring, than one that is completely purposeless.
dhw: Ambiguous. What does he mean by “naturally”? The organisms (not just humans) are purposive and creative. It’s only if you think there is a God who designed them that you can talk of “teleology”, i.e. a purpose behind the existence of purposive, creative organisms. What does reassurance have to do with it?
DAVID: He always sneaks up toward God.
dhw: I guessed that. Seeking reassurance is no basis for a theory. Hence all this muddled thinking about purpose.
dhw: And we have devised countless purposes for ourselves, independently of the purpose of our genes and molecules (which enable us to live and reproduce until we die). But it requires just as great a leap of faith to believe in a sourceless supreme intelligence that simply exists and designs as the leap of faith that the source of our existence and intelligence is “blind chance”.
DAVID: Blind chance cannot design the intricacies of living organisms. Logic dictates a designer!!!
dhw: An excellent argument for design, which explains your own leap of faith. But this whole article deals with teleology – and the quote below sums up its lack of coherence.
QUOTE: We would then also have to live with an incoherent view of ourselves. We cannot, at one and the same time, deny that we have purpose and also write an article like this one […] Articles and books are necessarily written by purposive agents, not by random typewriting machines.
dhw: We make our own purposes! The author’s purpose was to write an article proclaiming that we have purpose. That does not mean that there is a universal purpose for his existence!
DAVID: Your same blinkered view. There is no logical way around the existence of a designer. And you have honestly admitted the evidence for design will not allow you to be an atheist. That same evidence has made me a theist. There is no other issue but design from which to make as decision!!! Things are obviously designed or they are not. That is why Talbott and Davies tiptoe in their commentaries. Both as obviously agnostic. You are keeping good company. I appreciate how you worked producing such clear commentary of a very important entry.
dhw: Thank you for your appreciation. I return it: on this forum and in your two brilliant books, you have made the strongest possible case for design. But this article faffs around with the subject of PURPOSE, and in my view is so muddled that it defeats its OWN purpose! I have tried to explain why, and your last comment suggests that you agree.
The organisms produced by evolution seem to operate at all times from purpose and with purpose. The final issue for both of us is whether God operated with the same purpose to produce humans by evolving them. And I continuously describe a purposeful God.
Information as the source of life; Davies current opinion
I’ve edited the quotes and our responses, since you had only one comment to make.
QUOTE: I, for one, find a universe that naturally gives rise to purposive and creative organisms more plausible, and more reassuring, than one that is completely purposeless.
dhw: Ambiguous. What does he mean by “naturally”? The organisms (not just humans) are purposive and creative. It’s only if you think there is a God who designed them that you can talk of “teleology”, i.e. a purpose behind the existence of purposive, creative organisms. […]
dhw: it requires just as great a leap of faith to believe in a sourceless supreme intelligence that simply exists and designs as the leap of faith that the source of our existence and intelligence is “blind chance”.
DAVID: Blind chance cannot design the intricacies of living organisms. Logic dictates a designer!!!
dhw: An excellent argument for design, which explains your own leap of faith. But this whole article deals with teleology
DAVID: Your same blinkered view. There is no logical way around the existence of a designer.
dhw: [...] in your two brilliant books, you have made the strongest possible case for design. But this article faffs around with the subject of PURPOSE, and in my view is so muddled that it defeats its OWN purpose!
DAVID: The organisms produced by evolution seem to operate at all times from purpose and with purpose. The final issue for both of us is whether God operated with the same purpose to produce humans by evolving them. And I continuously describe a purposeful God.
Yes, the organisms clearly have the purpose of surviving and reproducing, the former purpose sometimes involving adaptation and innovation. The final issue in the context of this article has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God’s purpose being to create humans, since it doesn’t even mention God! The article is an attempt to show that the purposeful actions of animals and humans must mean there is an overall purpose, and for me this is a complete non sequitur. If chance was the origin of life, animals and humans will still have their purposes, but there can be no universal purpose. A universal purpose would mean there is a God. You and I have been discussing what that God’s purpose might be, if he exists, and of course he would have had a purpose in designing life. But that brings us back to your theory of evolution, which you admit you cannot understand (you don’t know why he would have chosen to design millions of extinct non-human life forms when all he wanted was one life form plus its food supply), and to my own alternatives, all of which you admit are logical.
Information as the source of life; Davies current opinion
by David Turell , Sunday, October 04, 2020, 16:07 (1510 days ago) @ dhw
I’ve edited the quotes and our responses, since you had only one comment to make.
QUOTE: I, for one, find a universe that naturally gives rise to purposive and creative organisms more plausible, and more reassuring, than one that is completely purposeless.
dhw: Ambiguous. What does he mean by “naturally”? The organisms (not just humans) are purposive and creative. It’s only if you think there is a God who designed them that you can talk of “teleology”, i.e. a purpose behind the existence of purposive, creative organisms. […]
dhw: it requires just as great a leap of faith to believe in a sourceless supreme intelligence that simply exists and designs as the leap of faith that the source of our existence and intelligence is “blind chance”.
DAVID: Blind chance cannot design the intricacies of living organisms. Logic dictates a designer!!!
dhw: An excellent argument for design, which explains your own leap of faith. But this whole article deals with teleology
DAVID: Your same blinkered view. There is no logical way around the existence of a designer.
dhw: [...] in your two brilliant books, you have made the strongest possible case for design. But this article faffs around with the subject of PURPOSE, and in my view is so muddled that it defeats its OWN purpose!
DAVID: The organisms produced by evolution seem to operate at all times from purpose and with purpose. The final issue for both of us is whether God operated with the same purpose to produce humans by evolving them. And I continuously describe a purposeful God.
dhw: Yes, the organisms clearly have the purpose of surviving and reproducing, the former purpose sometimes involving adaptation and innovation. The final issue in the context of this article has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God’s purpose being to create humans, since it doesn’t even mention God! The article is an attempt to show that the purposeful actions of animals and humans must mean there is an overall purpose, and for me this is a complete non sequitur. If chance was the origin of life, animals and humans will still have their purposes, but there can be no universal purpose. A universal purpose would mean there is a God. You and I have been discussing what that God’s purpose might be, if he exists, and of course he would have had a purpose in designing life. But that brings us back to your theory of evolution, which you admit you cannot understand (you don’t know why he would have chosen to design millions of extinct non-human life forms when all he wanted was one life form plus its food supply), and to my own alternatives, all of which you admit are logical.
Your summary is quite thorough and correct with the exception of the bold. In my acceptance of God, there is no requirement to understand His reasons for His actions. I do not try to understand what His reasons might be. I just see what He did and accept it. You sit on the outside of 'acceptance' and seem to demand logic for all His actions. My simple logic is at a level you refuse to accept. My view is God chose to evolve all of the bush of life on the way to a goal of human, an exact parallel to history. From Thursday's comment you did not answer:
DAVID: If God chose to evolve us of course He desired to create all the necessary stages as a part of the process. Answer one is your unreasonable version of my theory. We were His purposeful eventual outcome. […] It is patently obvious God wanted to create us.
dhw: But you have him specifically designing ALL species, so it must be patently obvious that he wanted to create ALL species throughout the last 3.8 billion years. Which can only mean that we weren’t the one and only species he wanted to create! Or can you tell us in what way the dodo and the dinosaur plus millions of other dead life forms were “necessary stages” before he could start designing us.
David: Your thinking finally understands my theory. Of course He wanted all of the evolutionary stages on the way to humans, which are His final goal. The lack of understanding all these years shows your basic bias from the beginning. Your statement that He only wanted humans was your rigid misinterpretation of my thoughts all along.
Do you understand my approach or not?