Information as the source of life (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, December 03, 2015, 17:51 (3277 days ago) @ David Turell

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!