vulcanlogician wrote:
No they did not, but relative to that specific comment, only those kinds of responses (i.e. silly objections) had been made.
vulcanlogician wrote:
Sure, there have been a multitude of objections to Paley and other proponents of design. Unfortunately, I don’t think that they ultimately go through or end up succeeding in actually refuting the design argument. As an argument from analogy or even inference to the best explanation, I think Paley’s argument still has merit. For hundreds of years, David Hume’s argument against miracles was thought to be a good argument, but in the last 30 years, it’s been established by John Earman (i.e. “Hume’s Abject Failre: The Argument Against Miracles”) and others that Hume’s argument doesn’t go through at all. And all I mean to say is that something can be thought correct for a long period without actually being so. Conversely, it is possible, and in my view likely, that something can and has been thought incorrect for a seemingly long period but will ultimately prove correct (i.e. the design argument). This has implications for Darwinism, but since Darwinism itself doesn’t put forth a theory of abiogenesis, it mainly has to do with what is assumed by most in the Darwinian community (i.e. life from non-life followed by an unguided and purposeless process that accounts for the diversity of biological life and did not have it or us in mind). I think this is held as increasingly untenable within scientific circles, but I don’t pretend that most of those scientists who think so are in any way necessarily friendly toward intelligent design.
vulcanlogician wrote:
I’m unaccustomed to that in this particular space but…fair enough!
vulcanlogician wrote:
I agree, that is the essential question.
vulcanlogician wrote:
Why to the contrary? In the case you’re talking about, this is information being derived from something else. But how is “information” being derived? If you (i.e. your mind) weren’t there, would the information still have been derived? The tree and everything about it would have still been there, but would or could be legitimately termed information absent the presence of a mind? Having said all of that, this somewhat misses the point, though I don’t fault you at all in this case. This is a difficult and highly philosophical question that has significant scientific implications.
vulcanlogician wrote:
I do not accept or reject this definition. I think this definition is a bit convoluted or at least difficult for the average person to grasp, and I think we can speak about this issue more plainly than that. But it might be helpful to take parts of this definition and point out that which it does not explicitly state. For example, “… Information is associated with data and knowledge…”. What must be present for data to be translated into knowledge? If that thing (i.e. a mind) is not present, is there data or knowledge? Another example, “…as data is meaningful…”. What must be present for something like meaning or meaningfulness, relative to raw data, to be present? And yet another example, “…knowledge signifies understanding…”. What must be present for there to be genuine knowledge and understanding? I think the answer is obvious, though as I said, I think this somewhat misses the point. I can write something that you can understand, and just because you’ve been able to observe this writing and understand it doesn’t mean that the information contained therein somehow originated in your mind. The same is true of you and the tree. But the information did originate somewhere. I’m not necessarily talking about information derived, but its presence to begin with as something to be derived by minds. Where did it come from? We have no examples of new or novel information originating naturally or from non-minds. We have virtually infinite examples of information arising from minds, but as I said, none arising from non-minds or naturally. It is not illict to reason retrodictively from effect back to an appropriate cause that matches our common sense uniform and repeated experience. And our experience, especially related to things or systems that exhibit what has been termed, specified complexity, in the form of codes, ciphers, instructions, languages, etc… invariably originate from a mind or intelligent personal agent of some sort. As such, I don’t feel the slightest obligation to “…abandon the notion that information necessarily originates [from] mind”.
From my perspective, the fact that science has determined that the structure of DNA stores information/instructions in the form of a 4-character digital code or cipher, which itself forms strings of precisely sequenced chemicals (i.e. nucleotide bases) that supply the assembly instructions or information for building the crucial protein molecules that all living cells need to survive, should prompt the question; where did that information come from? I mean the chemical constituents of DNA function like letters in a written language or digital symbols in a section of computer code. So just as letters put to paper or computer screen convey a particular message, depending on their arrangement, the sequences of chemical bases along the spine of the DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins, without which, all life would come to a screeching hault. How is that? From where did those precise instructions originate? From non-mind? Or from mind? Given our common sense uniform every day repeated experience, which alternative is the most plausible? We’ve been working feverishly for over a half-century attempting to create information-based life from non-life, and biologists and bio-chemists alike, who actually work and publish in the field, will tell you that we’ve made virtually no progress and no one understands how this can be done. They’ll also tell you, privately of course, that Neo-Darwinism has absolutely no mechanism by which this can be accomplished.
Other than what I’ve stated above, the only thing that your example illustrates is that the information you were able to derive originated outside of your mind, not that it orginated outside of mind itself or from non-mind. But as I stated above, it also illustrates that absent your mind, there wouldn’t have been any information or knowledge to derive because information and knowledge necessarily require mind. Without the mind, the very concepts of information and knowledge are utterly meaningless. So the question remains.
vulcanlogician wrote:
How can it rightly be called information without a mind? They are necessarily linked by the nature of what they are. The term information only applies to that which can be known or understood, and knowledge and/or understanding require mind.
vulcanlogician wrote:
On this, I’d say you’re correct. I suspected that it was a bit of a joke, but in my defense, I’m used to being so flippantly dismissed with so much disregard and hostility in this space that I’ve found it more helpful to play it all straight rather than to let my guard down and/or loosen up. I meant no offense.
Quote:Nobody said anything about responding to every silly objection.
No they did not, but relative to that specific comment, only those kinds of responses (i.e. silly objections) had been made.
vulcanlogician wrote:
Quote:Surely you realize that that there are plenty of good objections to design theory. Even William Paley (the philosopher responsible for articulating most of the theory at its inception) realized that. He spent a great deal of time anticipating and treating those objections, too. Given the science available to him at the time, I actually think Paley drew some reasonable conclusions. But reasonable does not always equal true, and most of his ideas have since been thoroughly refuted.
Sure, there have been a multitude of objections to Paley and other proponents of design. Unfortunately, I don’t think that they ultimately go through or end up succeeding in actually refuting the design argument. As an argument from analogy or even inference to the best explanation, I think Paley’s argument still has merit. For hundreds of years, David Hume’s argument against miracles was thought to be a good argument, but in the last 30 years, it’s been established by John Earman (i.e. “Hume’s Abject Failre: The Argument Against Miracles”) and others that Hume’s argument doesn’t go through at all. And all I mean to say is that something can be thought correct for a long period without actually being so. Conversely, it is possible, and in my view likely, that something can and has been thought incorrect for a seemingly long period but will ultimately prove correct (i.e. the design argument). This has implications for Darwinism, but since Darwinism itself doesn’t put forth a theory of abiogenesis, it mainly has to do with what is assumed by most in the Darwinian community (i.e. life from non-life followed by an unguided and purposeless process that accounts for the diversity of biological life and did not have it or us in mind). I think this is held as increasingly untenable within scientific circles, but I don’t pretend that most of those scientists who think so are in any way necessarily friendly toward intelligent design.
vulcanlogician wrote:
Quote:I'm not here to stereotype you, man. Share your thinking with me and I'll respond to the ideas themselves. Don't assume that I'm some ranting YouTube atheist, and I won't assume you're a card-carrying member of the Westboro Baptist Church. As long as we can agree to stick to logic, we can have a reasoned debate. Period. We can admit to one another that ranting Youtubers and Westboro hatemongers exist in large numbers, and influence even larger numbers of people... but that only has bearing on socio-political discussions. Concerning this particular issue, we can forget the socio-political atmosphere because what we are discussing is a matter of truth.
I’m unaccustomed to that in this particular space but…fair enough!
vulcanlogician wrote:
Quote:I think that the question that must be addressed first is: "What is information?"
I agree, that is the essential question.
vulcanlogician wrote:
Quote:As I see it, you can saw a tree down, look at the inside of its trunk, and gain information. So the tree contains the information. If I inspect the inside of the trunk, I can gain that information, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE INFORMATION ORIGINATED IN MY MIND. To the contrary...
Why to the contrary? In the case you’re talking about, this is information being derived from something else. But how is “information” being derived? If you (i.e. your mind) weren’t there, would the information still have been derived? The tree and everything about it would have still been there, but would or could be legitimately termed information absent the presence of a mind? Having said all of that, this somewhat misses the point, though I don’t fault you at all in this case. This is a difficult and highly philosophical question that has significant scientific implications.
vulcanlogician wrote:
Quote:Since wikipedia is a good starting point, let's see what it has to say:
Information is the resolution of uncertainty; it is that which answers the question of "what an entity is" and is thus that which specifies the nature of that entity, as well as the essentiality of its properties. Information is associated with data and knowledge, as data is meaningful information and represents the values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of an abstract or concrete concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
If you accept this definition (and you by no means have to...) then you will have to abandon the notion that information necessarily originates inside a mind. If anything, it must originate outside a mind. As the article says: "[Information] is that which answers the question of "what an entity is..."
I do not accept or reject this definition. I think this definition is a bit convoluted or at least difficult for the average person to grasp, and I think we can speak about this issue more plainly than that. But it might be helpful to take parts of this definition and point out that which it does not explicitly state. For example, “… Information is associated with data and knowledge…”. What must be present for data to be translated into knowledge? If that thing (i.e. a mind) is not present, is there data or knowledge? Another example, “…as data is meaningful…”. What must be present for something like meaning or meaningfulness, relative to raw data, to be present? And yet another example, “…knowledge signifies understanding…”. What must be present for there to be genuine knowledge and understanding? I think the answer is obvious, though as I said, I think this somewhat misses the point. I can write something that you can understand, and just because you’ve been able to observe this writing and understand it doesn’t mean that the information contained therein somehow originated in your mind. The same is true of you and the tree. But the information did originate somewhere. I’m not necessarily talking about information derived, but its presence to begin with as something to be derived by minds. Where did it come from? We have no examples of new or novel information originating naturally or from non-minds. We have virtually infinite examples of information arising from minds, but as I said, none arising from non-minds or naturally. It is not illict to reason retrodictively from effect back to an appropriate cause that matches our common sense uniform and repeated experience. And our experience, especially related to things or systems that exhibit what has been termed, specified complexity, in the form of codes, ciphers, instructions, languages, etc… invariably originate from a mind or intelligent personal agent of some sort. As such, I don’t feel the slightest obligation to “…abandon the notion that information necessarily originates [from] mind”.
From my perspective, the fact that science has determined that the structure of DNA stores information/instructions in the form of a 4-character digital code or cipher, which itself forms strings of precisely sequenced chemicals (i.e. nucleotide bases) that supply the assembly instructions or information for building the crucial protein molecules that all living cells need to survive, should prompt the question; where did that information come from? I mean the chemical constituents of DNA function like letters in a written language or digital symbols in a section of computer code. So just as letters put to paper or computer screen convey a particular message, depending on their arrangement, the sequences of chemical bases along the spine of the DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins, without which, all life would come to a screeching hault. How is that? From where did those precise instructions originate? From non-mind? Or from mind? Given our common sense uniform every day repeated experience, which alternative is the most plausible? We’ve been working feverishly for over a half-century attempting to create information-based life from non-life, and biologists and bio-chemists alike, who actually work and publish in the field, will tell you that we’ve made virtually no progress and no one understands how this can be done. They’ll also tell you, privately of course, that Neo-Darwinism has absolutely no mechanism by which this can be accomplished.
Other than what I’ve stated above, the only thing that your example illustrates is that the information you were able to derive originated outside of your mind, not that it orginated outside of mind itself or from non-mind. But as I stated above, it also illustrates that absent your mind, there wouldn’t have been any information or knowledge to derive because information and knowledge necessarily require mind. Without the mind, the very concepts of information and knowledge are utterly meaningless. So the question remains.
vulcanlogician wrote:
Quote:If you just DECIDE in your own mind, without observing an object, what an object is, one can (rightly) say that you haven't really gained any information. In fact, deciding beforehand without observing characterizes a LACK of information, doesn't it? So information, by this particular definition, originates outside a mind. The only thing a mind can do is understand it.
How can it rightly be called information without a mind? They are necessarily linked by the nature of what they are. The term information only applies to that which can be known or understood, and knowledge and/or understanding require mind.
vulcanlogician wrote:
Quote:Either you need to loosen up and get a sense of humor, or you just didn't catch my joke. I don't expect any sane person to read the entire thread, dude. I was just poking fun at what a monstrosity this thread has become!
On this, I’d say you’re correct. I suspected that it was a bit of a joke, but in my defense, I’m used to being so flippantly dismissed with so much disregard and hostility in this space that I’ve found it more helpful to play it all straight rather than to let my guard down and/or loosen up. I meant no offense.
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry? -
