Paul Davies: new comments on Information and life (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, March 14, 2020, 17:26 (1716 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:I am not going to reopen the discussion on information. We have already agreed in two previous discussions that information is passive and non-creative. It requires intelligent processing to produce anything. Now please note my bolds. It could hardly be clearer that Davies is espousing the theory of cellular intelligence. Clearly the author realizes this, and wants to take it one step further. The “information processing system” is the intelligent cell, and he wants to know the origin of the intelligent cell. If Davies doesn’t wish to tackle the problem of the origin, so be it. That is not his concern. I am more than happy to say that the origin of the mechanism may be your God. Complexity of design for me is a good reason not to espouse atheism, and even to espouse theism. There are plenty of other good reasons why I cannot espouse theism either. Maybe Davies is in the same position.

DAVID: I've always appreciated Davies clear thinking, but he is trapped by having to protect his scientific career as a materialist. The point you always like to skip is is really where did the operational information come from? If the cells make up their own instructional information and act on it, how did that happen naturally. A designing mind is required to exist. I agree with the bolded statement, but something has to have the ability to translate it into understandable instructions and act on it. How did activity appear naturally? It couldn't have, based on our own mental experience.

dhw: I have not skipped anything, but I reject the term “operational information”, which is what causes half the confusion whenever you talk of information. My name for that is intelligence. There are three factors: 1) information, which is passive and non-creative; 2) the intelligence that uses information; 3) the source of the intelligence that uses the information, or in your terms the something that created the ability to translate information into understandable instructions and act on it. The source may be your God, and I suspect that is what Davies is reluctant to put in writing.

I know you don't like the term 'operational information' because our views of how a cell works are totally different. For me the cell is automatic, no intelligence involved and follows onboard instructions to do its work. You have this idea that cells have intelligence and do some sort of thinking or planning without underlying instructions. Your number 3 concedes my approach might exist. As usual we disagree.