To the question of does God exist, the answer is whether Intelligence created Life

[Angrboda]

And my reply, which I wrote after careful consideration of your initial post, also contained important information, which you have apparently just ignored.



This tells me where information is, but it does not tell me what it is.  Moreover it's wrong, as things like air and bacteria and undifferentiated matter are included, none of which constitutes actual information, as none of it can be organized as required by the second part of your definition.



As just pointed out to you, there are exceptions to this.  Repeating your earlier assertions do not answer the point you are replying to here.



A blade of grass cannot perceive information, nor organize it, nor act on it.  Please explain how an organism that doesn't fit your definition of intelligence is thereby intelligent?  That seems an obvious contradiction.

This applies to you and any member who wants to logically challenge the first absolute law of logic. A blade of grass is not the plant, it is like your hand, i.e. part of the being! Give a difficult real non-hypothetical example, so that we can see together whether intelligence is defined according to the law. The law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence. Whether something is intelligent or how intelligent it is should be analyzed with rigorous critical logical analysis.

"A blade of grass" is a metonym that refers to the whole plant, thus your claim that it is only a part of the plant only indicates your poor understanding of the English language. The question was proper as stated and you misunderstood it.

Second, I pointed out that you had ignored the legitimacy of my complaint about the exceptions to your law rendering it not a law, as well as my points about it being ambiguous and therefore not an explicit law of anything.

Third, I will explain why your definition of information, which is a part of your law by reference, is wrong. You state that everything inside an intelligent being is information. However this is not an example of standard usage of the term. While facts about my pancreas can be information, my pancreas itself is not the information, nor is the perception of my pancreas information in and of itself, it is the representation of that perception which is information. By its roots, when we say representation, it implies a second presentation of a thing. Thus the color of my pancreas and my pancreas itself are not the information, but rather the re/presenting of these aspects of the thing are information. Information has an intentional aspect, it is 'about' something. This has consequences for your law. I can perceive that I have food in my mouth, and I can reorganize the food in my mouth by swallowing, but that is not intelligent, quite the opposite. Thus by defining information as everything inside an intelligent being, you are equivocating using a non-standard definition of information which renders your law indeterminate. What does it mean to organize my hip bone into knowledge? Does it mean anything at all. As a result of your definition of information, your 'law' no longer has a clear meaning. A law must first have a definite meaning as an ambiguous statement cannot be a law, absolute or otherwise. By using a private definition of information, you have rendered your law meaningless.