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

by dhw, Tuesday, March 17, 2020, 13:03 (1713 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Meanwhile, the point of this particular post was to put a stop to all the confusing uses of the word “information”. Thank you for acknowledging my clear definition, which I hope will put an end to your confusing efforts to make information use information.

DAVID: I've never said your words I bolded.

You wrote: “The point you always like to skip 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?” According to you, operational or instructional information uses passive and non-creative information, as below, now bolded:

DAVID: You have returned to the same confusion about information in life. Cells contain information that is passive and also contains other information that allows cells to use it actively in performing cell processes.

I objected to the term “operational information” (and I also object to “instructional information”) which is the “other” information that uses the passive information. This sort of terminology seems to me to cause unnecessary confusion in some of the articles you post. I have explained that the former (operational) is what I call intelligence – whether autonomous (cellular intelligence) or automatic (your God’s preprogramnmed instructions or direct dabblings). The third question – the one you say I always like to skip – is the origin of this intelligence. I have always agreed that this may be your God.

DAVID: All automatic. Introducing cell intelligence is your problem. I view it as provided intelligently by a designer in sets of instructions the cell is fully enabled to follow.

I know you do. That is not the problem here. We are not arguing about the possible origin but about the widespread but in my view unnecessarily confusing use of the word “information”.