ID commentary on animal minds (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, January 17, 2016, 16:36 (3233 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: My problem is with such misleading and confusing claims as “everything is information”, “information as the source of life”, “information runs life” etc.
DAVID: If you note in my entry on Wheeler, information is discussed in much the same way to which you object. Again there is an understood shorthand: first information, and then some process uses it. Two steps in thought.-Wheeler's three phases were: “Everything is Particles”, “Everything is Fields” and “Everything is Information”. Perhaps the next one would have been “Everything is Energy”, and I know of some folk who would claim that “Everything is God”. We need clear explanations if such claims are to make any sense, but thankfully this article is actually quite explicit in making a distinction between information and reality and the indispensable role of the observer:
 
QUOTE: Can we say reality is information, that they are one and the same? Zeilinger thinks not: "No, we [need] both concepts. But the distinction between the two is very difficult on a rigorous basis, and maybe that tells us something." Instead, we need to think of reality and information together, with one influencing the other, both remaining consistent with each other. (I wish he'd expounded on the something we are told, but still...)
QUOTE: “Quantum physics doesn't describe reality as it is, but as it is perceived by an observer. It simply can't answer questions such as "what was the particle doing while no observation was being made?" -No clear definitions, but in the various articles and the interview I have objected to, these distinctions have not been made at all. You may remember that George C. Williams (another of your references) made a similar complaint: “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter.” And in relation to DNA, “Maintaining this distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution” (which you yourself put in bold).To this I added “the something that collects, processes and uses that information”, and you have added the source of the information. My little campaign is a simply an appeal for clarity of thought, which is the issue in many of our discussions.-DAVID: If the information is well-planned, in appearance, and is highly-complex, as it is, I'll stick with my contention that a mind planned and created it. The degree of complexity is discovered to increase year by year. Is there a point at which you might accept the origination through a mind? There will never be absolute proof.-I long ago lost faith in chance, and the discussions I have had especially with you have not only strengthened my scepticism, but have also given me the scientific background to justify it. However, even before that, I had already lost faith in the concept of an eternal mind that created, encompassed and guided the universe and life. (See my post today on “The Immensity of the Universe”). I have criticized your opinions for their logical inconsistency, but am fully aware that there is no logical consistency in this aspect of my thinking. It's either chance or design. But the case for and against each hypothesis is so riddled with question marks that I cannot currently visualize making a decision either way. Absolute proof is indeed impossible, but for me there is not even any convincing evidence.