|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 12. January 2007 06:27
Melvin wrote:
quote:
As I read the Bible statements like, “Who will rescue me from this body of death!” and “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.”, standout in my mind. I get my information about God and man more from Moses, John, and Paul than I do from J.P. Moreland.
Mel,
Let me reply to the verses you quoted and then bring up another verse that might help clarify. But first let me say that a basic principle of hermeneutics is to read a passage in light of its context. This means its immediate context (the rest of the paragraph), the broader textual context (the book it is found in, that is, is it a Gospel, Epistle, History, etc.), and finally the canonical context (the context of the entire Bible). The reason I make these distinctions is that to clear up the confusion we need to look at both the immediate context of the passages you quoted and the canonical context of the issue in general.
The in the Romans 7.24 passage, Paul is ranting against the sinful nature that wars with his desire to follow the will of God. He is not upset with his materiality itself. Consider, God made Adam and Eve with physical bodies and called them "good," therefore it is not the flesh itself that Paul is upset over, rather it is the sinfulness that twists bodily desires from their natural state to something illicit.
In the John 6.63 passage, Jesus has just told the crowd that they must "eat his flesh and drink his blood" if they are to continue following him. When his disciples consider this teaching hard to accept Jesus offers a clarification "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." What He has done is present a very difficult saying to the crowd to weed out those who did not truly believe, then to his disciples he says that he is really speaking of a Spiritual "eating and drinking" of himself not a literal "fleshy" one. But he is not condemning the body in general.
Finally, in James 2.15-16 he says, "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?" This says that it is good to care for the physical needs of others. That implies that the physicality of individuals itself is not something we should reject (either in ourself or others).
Having answered scripture with scripture I must say that it is poor practice to set aside the astute thinkers in the Christian community (Philosophers, Theologians, Evangelists, etc.) and argue from a "Me, my Bible, and Jesus" position. The practicing apologists are just as dedicated to the Gospel as the next person, yet they have found tools in disciplines like philosophy and science that can be of aid to Scripture. Thomas Aquinas said that philosophy can aid the faith in three ways: It can clarify theological truths (like Augustine's De Trinitate, an exposition on the nature of the Trinity), it can argue for the prologues to the faith (like the existence of God), and it can defend the faith against those who would seek to destroy it. I would think that one who enjoys contemplating the deep truths of faith would appreciate others who do the same.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 12. January 2007 06:32
2ndclass,
Were it true your calculator could add I still would have no use for it. You see, I know how to add myself and require no mechanical assistance. I am sure there is someone on e-bay that would meet your price.
I am surprised if indeed you are serious with respect to your calculator’s capabilities. You are very intelligent and I am indebted to you. You have in posts past on other threads instructed me on topics such as thermodynamics. The workings of a calculator are not nearly so complicated. Perhaps on this occasion I can help you understand a physical system, i.e., what goes on inside that little box. Please indulge that I may share a true story with you that I think will help clear the air.
In years past I served as a math tutor at a local university. On one occasion a pretty young woman came in who was preparing to take the NTE’s [National Teacher Exams]. She wanted to be an elementary school teacher. She was a very bright person, graduated with honors, but felt here skills in mathematics were too weak to pass the math portion of the NTE’s. I enquired as to what exact areas she felt deficient. She was quick to confess a lack of understanding in all areas. We regularly used a diagnostic test some 850 problems long ranging in difficulty from arithmetic to calculus. It was arranged in the usual order of progression and we would administer it piece meal depending on areas of weakness.
I decided to administer the first few pages so as to build her confidence. She performed very well. She got all of the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division problems correct. In fact, she had yet to miss a problem until she came to subtracting feet and inches. There were two of this type and she missed them both.
I was eager to assist her here. After all, it would be a quick fix. I simply explained that instead of barrowing 10 units we were barrowing 12 because there are 12 inches in a foot. I did not anticipate the strange look that immediately appeared on her face as she replied; “Barrowing? What do you mean by barrowing?” I explained that if you are faced with the problem 25 – 9, you can’t take nine from five so you go to the tens column and barrow one which makes ten ones in the ones column. This together with the five makes fifteen ones and you can take nine from fifteen. She simply said, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
Rubbing my face, I shifted in my chair as I asked her how she got all the subtraction problems correct if she did not know how to barrow. She perked up in her chair and responded proudly, “Well, I just know that when I see a 9 under a 5, then I write 6.”
Do you see? She memorized all of the possible cases. She could get any and all subtraction problems correct in base ten because she had memorized all of the possible cases. Yet, she had no idea how to subtract.
It took me all of the next 15 minutes to teach her how to subtract. You could not teach your calculator to subtract or add for that matter in all of 15 centuries. Why? It is because your calculator will never be able to understand what is going on. Your calculator can’t even memorize. We can store things in your calculator’s memory [all possible cases] including the algorithms [floating point arithmetic] and then retrieve the information by pressing the correct sequence of keys. That is all that is going on. Let me ask you, if I can press the keys 2, +, 2, and = in that order, does that mean I can add?
If your calculator can add, then your tape recorder can read, your VCR can act, your clock can tell time, and your jukebox can sing. It seems you have a great many things to sell on e-bay.
As for the stones, you wrote:
quote:
The fact that physical rocks can form a circle doesn't make the concept of a circle any less abstract.
I don’t know what you are feeding them but these rocks are truly amazing. I will give you $50,000 for the lot of them. Just one thing, we need to verify that they are actually in a circle. I would not even care if you helped them get the arrangement right. You do understand what a circle is, don’t you? You do understand that any time we take a measurement we make an error, don’t you. Perhaps your calculator can determine if the center of gravity for each stone is equidistant from some specified point in space. Good luck with that.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 12. January 2007 06:47
Daniel wrote:
quote:
Lets take the example of DNA: Would you agree that DNA contains "information"? Did this information exist before we discovered it? I think we can both agree that it did - even though there were no "learners" aware of it.
I think everything in the universe is built upon a foundation of information. I think *this* information exists - whether we discover it or not. The physical laws of the universe existed long before we discovered
Yes Daniel, I would agree that the "object of information" exists in an extra-mental, mind-independent real world. These objects of information exist whether we discover them or not. But when they are known as such then they go from being known potentially to actually. For example, if i stoop down to count the divets on a golf ball, these divets existed before they became objects of my strange curiosity. The amount(?) of divets exist before I count them, and once I count them the number (if accurate) that I have arrived at is representative of the existing divets. But the divets only exist "as counted" after I have counted them, and the counting is done by an agent with a mind and the representation of the number and divets together is in my mind (since "number" is immaterial) is also immaterial. But to say the "number of divets" is actually in the world together is false. It conflates one immaterial, mental entity (number) with a material, mind-independent entity (divets). So divets are in the world but "counted divets" are divets in the world interacted with by an immaterial mind and represented in a new, immaterial way (namely, "as counted").
I hope this clarifies where we agree and where we might still disagree. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 12. January 2007 07:17
JT75,
You obviously know Scripture and so no need for me to quote chapter and verse. I agree without reservation that context is a critical component of any Biblical Truth. I encourage all to read the entire book of Romans – The Whole Bible – for that mater and see what sort of conclusion is demanded about the flesh.
The conclusion to which I have been led is that it was created good and then defiled by man. Each and every one of us had a hand in that. It is doomed to destruction but our spirit is not.
Scripture continually reminds me to ignore the philosophy of man and not to rely on science [my own understanding]. In other words, science is always useful but does not rule. Also, philosophy can be reveling, yet, it is most often dangerous. It tells me I have no need to be taught the nature of God and man by other men because I have available to me the Spirit of God at all times to instruct. In other words, there are no astute thinkers in the faith, only sinners saved by grace with one remaining hope – Jesus. It says in no uncertain terms that it is not open to private interpretation and this is why I meet weekly with a group of other Christian men to read, pray, and discuss.
Don’t presume to lecture me JT75 on the practice of my faith. I only share with you and others what has been revealed to me. You are free to read J.P. Moreland all you like and I am free not to.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 12. January 2007 07:32
2ndclass,
quote:
What is the logical basis for including or excluding items from your list?
My point from the previous post remains. We include abstract concepts in our descriptions of physical phenomena all the time. Mixing the physical with the abstract in statements like "brains interpret information" poses no more of a logical problem than saying that "calculators add numbers" or "rocks form circles".
The basis we’ve discussed a couple of times—and I think is a good one—is the ability to use math creatively as opposed to just follow a program. No computer is able to do this; they are just tools for leveraging information through wonderfully creative programming. No other species of animal has demonstrated such an ability either. There is very little debate on this. (And BTW, of course there is a logical problem with saying that “rocks form circles” if “form” is a transitive verb in the same way that “interpret” and “add” are transitive verbs. I’m sure that’s not what you meant, 2ndclass, but I don’t know what you did mean.)
There is a very strong tendency to take the perception of arithmetic and geometry (circles, etc.) for granted, as in the quote I gave from Steven Pinker on the top of page 10. In fact, leading Naturalists in every relevant field of academia all agree that such abilities are innate and must be taken for granted. No big deal; arithmetic is so simple and easy.
And I’m saying no, actually, it’s a very, very, very big deal. Taking it for granted is in principle indistinguishable from religious people taking the belief in a “soul” for granted. Taking the rational, creative ability to use immaterial data for granted? Spirituality by any other name (“qualia calculator,” “meme machine,” “superceded ontology”) is still a mystery.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 12. January 2007 07:37
Zarathustra,
quote:
For the benefit of our other, more genuine, readers, I shall explain why Matt's claim that information is "immaterial" does not lead to a conclusion that it exists in any kind of non-physical dimension.
Whoever said anything about a “non-physical dimension”? Let’s see, I’ve said that, for example, the math used to put men on the moon was just as real a part of the operation as the rocket ship that took them there, or even as real as the meaning of the word “real” is real. My point being that the nonphysical is just as real as the physical, and “exists” as much as the physical can be said to “exist” or even as much as the meaning of the word “exist” exists, but I did not presume to explain how or why, etc.
Okay, so now we’re going to move from talk of a “non-physical dimension” to an even more foggy concept, a "state", in which to hide:
quote:
In any system (i.e. collection) of physical objects, two things can be said to exist:
a) the physical properties of those objects, and
b) the state of that system at any particular time.
Anyone who cannot understand that a physical system has a "state" should stop reading now, since this web forum is clearly not intended for them.
Done. Well...at least until the next drive:
quote:
To give a concrete example: Matt thinks that his DVD of "The Chronicles of Narnia" actually "contains" that information all by itself. This is risible. The state of the system required for the information to be available involves more objects than he is prepared to admit: a) the DVD, b) a mechanism to convert the bit-patterns into an AV signal, c) a device to transduce said signal into physical audio and visual stimuli, d) the perceptive/cognitive mechanisms in the human brain to interpret them according to the pre-existing model in that brain.
If any of the above components is permanently removed from the system, it can no longer be said that "The Chronicals of Narnia" are on the DVD, since all parts of the system must exist for the information to be retrieved.
What’s that last statement you made? Did you say that “all parts of the system must exist for the information to be retrieved”? (italics mine) You mean there’s information there—as in the whole Chronicles of Narnia movie—even if the components we need to view it aren’t there?!
Oh, he scores! And he draws the foul!
quote:
Can we also conclude that you are also simultaneously observing the non-existence of Elvis, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, the Eiffel Tower, and Botswana? Normal people cannot observe things that do not exist. Perhaps Matt has "special powers" because he belongs to a cult that worships invisible super-beings, as he confessed to earlier. How many other things is he not seeing in his living room?
Well, it never crossed my mind. But now that you mention it, none of those things are in my living room either. (So I’m normal?) You know what is there though that I hadn’t mentioned: the dimensions of my coffee table, it’s length, width, height, etc. Now even though I’m staring right at it I can’t tell you what width looks like. (Brown-stained wood? No. Two hands stretched out about yeah wide? No. Yellow measuring tape? No.) But the dimensions are still there and with the right components (namely the measuring tape) I could translate it into English and metric measurements and send the information hurtling through space to you on electromagnetic waves. Because, exactly like you affirmed earlier regarding the Narnia DVD, the information is there.
Come on, Zarathustra, no artificially authored "state" can cover over that, any more than the desire for some spectacular "phenomena" renders it ineffective.
[ 12. January 2007, 12:18: Message edited by: Matt Connally ]
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 12. January 2007 08:29
Melvin wrote,
quote:
Scripture continually reminds me to ignore the philosophy of man and not to rely on science [my own understanding]. In other words, science is always useful but does not rule. Also, philosophy can be reveling, yet, it is most often dangerous. It tells me I have no need to be taught the nature of God and man by other men because I have available to me the Spirit of God at all times to instruct. In other words, there are no astute thinkers in the faith, only sinners saved by grace with one remaining hope – Jesus. It says in no uncertain terms that it is not open to private interpretation and this is why I meet weekly with a group of other Christian men to read, pray, and discuss.
Just a few points Mel,
1. Your belief that science is useful but does not rule, is a philosophical statement.
2. If there are no astute thinkers in the faith, then why should I take your post seriously? That is, it is either an astute, thoughtful post or it is not. If it is then it is self-defeating (since there is no such thing as an astute thoughtful Christian). If it is not, then why should I take it to be true?
3. A similar dilemma, was the apostle Paul an astute thinker or was he just a sinner saved by grace? If he is both, then there are such things as astute thinking saved sinners.
4. You are correct, you do not have to read anything other than your Bible or listen to anyone but the Holy Spirit. But in listening to the HS and in reading your Bible perhaps you will realize that it is a portion of humility to listen to others (or read others) in your effort to become a mature Christian. After all, you already imply that this is the proper course since you meet regularly with others to discuss scripture. Why discuss unless you are both contributing to the discussion (which assumes that others should listen to you) and listening to others (which assumes that sometimes it is proper to be taught by others)?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 12. January 2007 12:54
JT75,
More lecture I see.
That I am not to lean on human wisdom in which science would be included is not a philosophy of man; it is rather direct instruction form God. Compared to Scripture, no you should not take any of my ramblings seriously. The Apostle Paul, by his own admission, was not an astute thinker claiming to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified. Moses and Isaiah harbored the same attitude toward themselves.
At Bible study we always begin with the same verse [Romans 3: 19].
quote:
Now we know that what the law says is addressed to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world stand accountable to God,
We do this to remind ourselves we have nothing to add but much to receive. Our discussions are geared more toward sharing how God’s Word is active in our lives.
It is clear we are at odds on this point. I do not wish to drown on, each of us repeating ourselves. I give you the last word.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 12. January 2007 14:28
JT75,
I propose then that there are at least three categories of information:
1. Absolute information (all that can be known)
2. Collective information (all that is known)
3. Individual information (all that an individual knows)
So 2 is a subset of 1 and 3 is a subset of 2.
The number of divets on your golfball resides in category 1 (as does all information). It also resides in category 2 (someone knows that number - most likely the designer) and when you count them, it then resides in your own personal category 3.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 12. January 2007 15:14
Thank you for your kind reply, Melvin. Obviously, if my calculator does add then that proves that it can. So I assume that your position is that it does not add. Similarly, I assume that, according to your definition of "subtract", the young woman in your story did not subtract base 10 numbers (at least not until you taught her). I suspect that very few people subscribe to that definition.
Your position seems to be that the statement "X does Y" implies that X has a certain depth of understanding. But how deep must that understanding be? Is it arbitrary? Is it accurate to say that "the earth moves in an elliptical orbit" if the earth doesn't understand math or physics?
quote:
You could not teach your calculator to subtract or add for that matter in all of 15 centuries. Why? It is because your calculator will never be able to understand what is going on.
You seem to be taking an angle similar to Searle's Chinese Room, in which "understanding" and "intelligence" are divested of operational definitions. I guess I'm too much of a positivist to see this approach as useful. I see propositions as meaningful only as far as they lend themselves to well-defined tests, and it seems that the natural test for the proposition "X can add" is to feed numbers to X and see if it comes up with the correct sums. (My calculator handles various bases, as well as complex numbers. But even if it didn't, it wouldn't follow that it can't add. Just because I can't drive a tank, it doesn't follow that I can't drive.) What test would you propose to determine whether a calculator can add?
quote:
Let me ask you, if I can press the keys 2, +, 2, and = in that order, does that mean I can add?
That's somewhat analogous to the Chinese Room question, and the answer is the same: no. But it does mean that a system comprised of both you and the calculator can add.
quote:
You do understand that any time we take a measurement we make an error, don’t you.
I could restate the proposition, "Rocks can form approximate circles." The issue is not one of precision, but of mixing physical with abstract.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 12. January 2007 15:33
I asked: quote:
You've given us a list of things that physical objects cannot do with abstractions, which so far includes perceive, translate, interpret, author, create, see, hear, feel, taste, and smell. Can physical objects perform arithmetic operations on abstractions? What is the logical basis for including or excluding items from your list?
Matt answered: quote:
The basis we’ve discussed a couple of times—and I think is a good one—is the ability to use math creatively as opposed to just follow a program.
Can you explain how seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling are instances of using math creatively?
Your argument seems to have two separate roots. One is that (some?) interactions between physical objects and immaterial concepts are not possible. The other is that physical objects lack a certain attribute that gives rise to creativity in humans. Am I misinterpreting you?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 12. January 2007 16:07
Mel,
"That I am not to lean on human wisdom in which science would be included is not a philosophy of man; it is rather direct instruction form God."
How do you know this is true?
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 12. January 2007 16:08
Matt and 2ndclass,
Mixing the physical and the abstract sounds like a confusing cocktail to me. I think there are more precise words in the literature, which explain their relationship, such as subsumed. My personal take on this is that there is a diffusion boundary layer between virtual information objects and manifest reality. To be able to make a point about this boundary area, background would be needed as to what I meant so, this idea needs to be put aside for the moment.
I would like to take a crack at the topic question and am interested in 2ndclass’s take on this “out-of- the-box” perspective. What is not information, in reality, is all that is physical. Everything else is some state of information. But as an “it from bit” kind of guy – I have a very strict definition of what is the physical half of this.
If it happened in the past – it is an information object.
If it is a projected event in the future – it is an information object.
That leaves the manifesting now – as the only venue of the physical.
If it is potential energy in the now – it is only structure – which is designated by an information object.
Matter and energy are physical and their manifestation in time and space is 100% of the picture describing them. The rest of reality is virtual structure as a result of physicality’s past track and future probability, with the possibility of added creativity from intelligent agents.
So physicality is restricted to the moving state of affairs that is realized through time and space, in the here and now only. All else is some state of information.
Is this too harsh?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 12. January 2007 22:47
Matt: Whoever said anything about a “non-physical dimension”?
Is the Altzheimer's starting to kick in early?
quote:
Matt Connally, 19 Dec 06 But it’s surely safe to say that the nonphysical world (mathematics, etc.) is more complex than the physical world—perhaps even infinitely complex.
Or perhaps your lack of adequate vocabulary has let you down again. Since you refuse to accept that even words can be relied upon, one does have to ask why you are even bothering to use them here. How can anyone even know what you're talking about?
Matt: Okay, so now we’re going to move from talk of a “non-physical dimension” to an even more foggy concept, a "state", in which to hide:
State is a well-understood concept among post-mediaeval people who know about the relationships between things in the real world. That you may be arguing in the fog of ignorance is not something anyone else here has yet been able to remedy. The state of things is not a physical property of any of them, so it can be said to be immaterial. So what? The human brain is constantly changing state even though it is entirely physical. This is how cognition works, obviously.
Matt has still not retracted his claim of being able to observe non-existent things, by the way.
Matt: The basis we’ve discussed a couple of times—and I think is a good one—is the ability to use math creatively as opposed to just follow a program. No computer is able to do this; they are just tools for leveraging information through wonderfully creative programming. No other species of animal has demonstrated such an ability either.
Animals have exhibited the ability to produce creative solutions using abstract models, if you care to look at modern research. You're just plain wrong on this, Matt. Repeating a false statement does not make it any more true.
Matt: You mean there’s information there—as in the whole Chronicles of Narnia movie—even if the components we need to view it aren’t there?!
This is such a wilful misrepresentation as to be downright deceitful. I said the exact opposite. If you can't discuss this topic without telling barefaced lies in front of an entire internet audience, then you should pick a different hobby-horse, Matt.
quote:
Melvin the Immaterial: I was eager to assist her here. After all, it would be a quick fix. I simply explained that instead of barrowing 10 units we were barrowing 12 because there are 12 inches in a foot. I did not anticipate the strange look that immediately appeared on her face as she replied; “Barrowing? What do you mean by barrowing?” I explained that if you are faced with the problem 25 – 9, you can’t take nine from five so you go to the tens column and barrow one which makes ten ones in the ones column. This together with the five makes fifteen ones and you can take nine from fifteen. She simply said, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
Nor do I. If you want to help pretty young women, talking gibberish is not the best way to do it. It probably took her 15 minutes to realise that you meant "borrowing".
quote:
Smith: It does not matter if I can decode your color. That is entirely irrelevant. If it's a color code, it's a color code. That in itself is information. Since you know the code, you can verify which color it codes for, but even if no one existed to verify this, it wouldn't change the fact that that is a color code.
So if I hadn't said that it was a color code, there is simply no way that anyone could "learn" the information in the three numbers, is there? That is also why the information on the Mesopotamian farmer's tablet is forever inaccessible. Guessing is no substitute, Daniel. You said the information was always available. It's not. [Melvin's approach was worthy. In fact, I used the Photoshop L,a,b color space to encode the darker (olive green?) of the alternating background colors on this forum.]
quote:
Melvin the Immaterial The naturalist, with all his philosophy and mathematical models, can’t begin to configure the complex workings of the Holy Spirit toward the beloved created man for they are subsumed in the revelation of the person of Jesus Christ. The good news is that this revelation is available to all men and women.
What you have failed to realise in all this talk about information, Melvin, is that the Lord Shiva does not allow for the permanent existence of such false, illusory beings. At the beginning of every cycle in the ever-to-be-repeated cycle of Creation, when the Universe is drawn out of the cosmic waters, all that was known in previous iterations is completely lost. This should be obvious even to someone like you, Melvin. The Monkey-God Haruman could do away with that worthless Holy Spirit thing with one arm tied behind his back (and He doesn't support the Jesus death-sacrifice cult either, I might add). If you are still in any doubt about this, I can direct you to hundreds of millions of people who can testify to the mountains of evidence available to substantiate these claims about the real nature of the Universe.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 12. January 2007 23:10
quote:
Stephen: Matter and energy are physical and their manifestation in time and space is 100% of the picture describing them. The rest of reality is virtual structure as a result of physicality’s past track and future probability, with the possibility of added creativity from intelligent agents.
So physicality is restricted to the moving state of affairs that is realized through time and space, in the here and now only. All else is some state of information.
Is this too harsh?
Yes. Being both succinct and absolutely correct at the same time is too much of a shock to most people. You've just said everything that needs to be said here, Stephen.
Now is the time to move on to worthwhile speculation about information, should you care to start a new topic on the subject.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
