|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 13. January 2007 00:54
I’m at my 3rd for the day (I hadn’t realized we were asked to limit ourselves to 3 until I think Melvin mentioned it) so I’m responding to a couple of people here.
2ndclass,
quote:
Can you explain how seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling are instances of using math creatively?
Well no, I’m not saying that those are creative exercises; I’m suggesting that creative ability is the best evidence that one can perceive, for example, numbers. I’m eager to hear (perhaps a link?) of evidence that any animal has the ability for creative communication (not artistically creative, but as in the ability to create new communication). Until then I’ve heard too many leading Darwinists (such as Stephen Pinker) say there is no evidence for it.
quote:
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?
No, you’re not, except I would say all interactions between physical objects and immaterial concepts are not possible. (The brain cannot use the eyes to perceive something that cannot be seen, etc.) I would see the entire physical universe as being a medium for nonphysical meaning (i.e. rational, creative information), but the medium itself does not perceive the meaning. For example, the moon is a medium for the laws of gravity but, strictly speaking, it does not interact with those laws; rather, it interacts with the sun, earth, who knows maybe gravitons(?), etc. Likewise, spiders do not perceive geometry, beavers do not perceive engineering, wolves do not perceive social structure, my laptop does not perceive English or math, etc.
Zarathustra,
Oh come on, I represented you’re entire argument quite fairly before saying it just doesn't work. I figured you of all people could take it. But I’ll certainly apologize for ribbing you. Now regarding this philosophical idea of a “state” I’ll go right back to that list I gave on page seven and ask the same question again. You never answered before but it would certainly seem to apply here in the same way.
quote:
Matt has still not retracted his claim of being able to observe non-existent things, by the way.
I never said information was non-existent. I said it was immaterial. Now you’ve agreed several times that it’s immaterial, but are you saying at the same time that it’s non-existent? Or that it only exists in it’s immateriality when we perceive it? Again, I’ll refer to that question on page 7.
Stephen,
quote:
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.
Well I certainly agree with your first statement and as I told 2ndclass above think the medium and the meaning (i.e. information) are entirely distinct and, you put it well don’t ever “mix.” (The physical brain can never mix with nonphysical information.) But I’m not even trying to explain how they both “exist.”
quote:
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.
I don’t see why to separate them by time; why is not the “manifesting now” of physicality still not a medium for information? That seems arbitrary.
As to what exactly is meant by the word physical, this is still my favorite analogy: the difference between the abstract and the concrete (an abundantly abstract word) or between the nonphysical and the physical (more wonderfully immaterial meaning) is exactly the same as the difference between rational and irrational numbers. As Pythagoras put it, “All is number.” As the Bible puts it, “By faith we understand that the world were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.”
[ 13. January 2007, 00:56: Message edited by: Matt Connally ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 13. January 2007 00:58
2ndclass,
It appears your rocks are just ordinary rocks. I respectfully withdraw my offer of $50,000.
You wrote:
quote:
But it does mean that a system comprised of both you and the calculator can add.
If you will agree to include the programmer in this system then I will agree that the system described can add. It is interesting to note that the programmer, all by herself, can add. Also, you, all by yourself can add. But, if we remove the calculator from the system and set it on the table all by itself, it can by no means add. Why it can’t even collect dust, although left idle dust would collect on it.
It is not accurate to say, “the earth moves in an elliptical orbit.” I would say rather, “the earth is moved in an elliptical [form of an ellipse] orbit by natural forces.” The forces need not understand math or physics because those abstractions are not operations required in the movement of the earth. I believe mass is all that is required but you would know better than I.
You wrote:
quote:
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?
These are very good questions which I had not considered before. Honestly, I don’t know how deep. I would not say it is arbitrary; more subjective I think. Let’s turn our attention back to the girl from the perspective of a positivist [if you will allow me to play positivist].
You wrote:
quote:
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.
Suppose I decide to test and see if the girl can add. I repeatedly [say 100 trials] give her a pair of integers and she consistently responds with the correct sum. The test ends and the girl leaves the room. Being the positivist that I am, I quickly conclude that the girl knows how to add. Later that day, I notice her in the cafeteria line. She picks out only a sandwich that costs $4 and a drink that costs $2. When she gets to the cashier, she hands him a five dollar bill [it’s an old fashioned cafeteria where they use cash] and begins to walk away. The cashier stops her and asks for the remaining dollar. She is confused and embarrassed but complies. What on earth is going on?
Next class I have a conference with the girl and confront her with my conflicting information. She readily confesses that she had a cell phone with her during the exam and was texting her boyfriend, a math major, and he was sending her the answers. What is a positivist to do? After all, she did come up with the correct sums.
2ndclass, can this girl add even though she needs help from her boyfriend to get the right answer? No! Look I am a teacher. When I test students I am supposed to test for understanding. Would you honestly be pleased with your own child’s education if upon their 8th grade graduation they had memorized all the possible cases for subtraction problems and did not understand the concepts involved? Would you be comfortable saying your child could subtract?
Thank you for the Chinese room link; this is new to me and I will investigate. It is refreshing when we can offer one another constructive argumentations.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 13. January 2007 10:58
IF,
I believe you were involved in the discussion on another thread where perplexity asked the question; “How do we know what to believe?” At some point each of us, if we are to believe in anything, must believe some things which we can’t prove are true. You can call them axioms, postulates, assumptions, guesses, or steps of faith.
In response to perplexity, one contributor refused to acknowledge his faith in the bench of science yet offered no proof of its authority. I believe by faith that the words in the Bible are the Word of God Almighty and that is how I know.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 13. January 2007 12:09
Zarathustra wrote:
quote:
It probably took her 15 minutes to realise that you meant "borrowing".
Since he was speaking to her, it is safe to say this was not the point of her confusion. However, Zarathustra has made an observation that is completely accurate. Melvin the Immaterial can not spell. He does not know how. It has been a problem of his since his youth. He does not understand the inner workings of the relationships between and among the characters, their positions in the word with respect to the other characters, and the sounds we utter. How does he coup, being a teacher and all?
Well, he memorized the spelling of a great many of the words. Spell check on the computer is an indispensable tool for him as it saves a great deal of time. Also, when preparing documents such as these he looks up the spelling of many of the words he is unsure of how to spell. Every once and a while a word slips through this net of protection and the secret gets out. This weakness does help him to empathize with those of his students who struggle with math. Do not feel too bad for him because of the ridicule he may recieve, he is a big boy and can take it.
How does this compare to Zarathustra’s misspelling “realise” for “realize”? Zarathustra’s error was what they call in mathematics a “stupid mistake.” Not that the person is stupid, but rather that the person does know better; a typo in this case [or perhaps he is British]. Zarathustra knows how to spell; Melvin does not. Zarathustra can spell; Melvin can’t.
All,
The above narrative supports my assertion: Inanimate objects can’t do anything much less create information. They can’t because they don’t know how. Can Zarathustra show compassion on those less fortunate than he, even in an argument? Does he know how? We don’t know. We do know that the physical structure [metal, plastic, etc.] that is called a calculator can’t add and a planet [we can’t even decide what a planet is] can’t move. We also know that a calculator can be part of a system, including intelligent agents, that can add. We also know that the earth, as part of a system that includes an intelligent agent, can be moved and moved in a describable ways. Describable by whom? Describable by other intelligent agents. Are these descriptions by these other agents correct? Only the author of the movement can judge that.
Zarathustra has hinted one more time that he is finished with this thread filled with illiterates. In my flesh I want to say; Good riddance for he never really addresses the logical points made against his argument. In my spirit I pray that he will stay in order that it might be revealed to him, as it was to Paul, that he is only persecuting Jesus.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 13. January 2007 14:40
quote:
Zarathustra: 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.]
The fact is, the three numbers represent a color. That fact remains unchanged forever. You chose to reveal that they represent a color, which gave us a clue as to the meaning of the information. We could guess correctly that the code was for a color, or someone with an intimate knowledge of photoshop could probably find out quickly what color they represent, but even if no one knows any of this, the information is not non-existant, it is merely unknown. The codons in our genes still code for the same amino acids whether we know what they code for or not, your color code still represents olive green whether we know it or not, the information is still real.
Your argument seems to be that knowledge = information. I don't think information requires knowledge.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 14. January 2007 20:46
quote:
Melvin H Fox: Zarathustra can spell; Melvin can’t.
Perhaps, but my use of British spellings still makes me look a bit dislexic, so it hasn't done me much good, has it? I do apologise, Mel, for even mentioning the matter. I was truly baffled at how the wrong word could have been propagated so systematically (unlike a typo), especially since everything you write is otherwise so meticulously impeccable. That latter is what you should be proud of.
quote:
Melvin: Can Zarathustra show compassion on those less fortunate than he, even in an argument? Does he know how? We don’t know.
My rebuttals to Matt's arguments have been met with evasion, equivocation, and misrepresentation. Zarathustra always treats such intellectual dishonesty with contempt, as should everyone.
Now that Matt has been so emboldened by his "unassailability" that he has moved into the la-la land of "rational creative information", I have no more to say on this topic, since it might cause him to embarrass himself even further. His basic tack is that of Cartesian Dualism, albeit an amateur attempt. There is a very competent summary of the issues on both sides, with useful references, at Wikipedia.
quote:
Daniel: The codons in our genes still code for the same amino acids whether we know what they code for or not, ...
This, finally, is our point of agreement. Whatever "information" exists therein manifests itself in the physical configuration of the atoms involved in those molecules. It is the one place that we can be sure that the information exists, even were there no-one to know what it means. Moreover, no extra meaning or knowledge needs to be imparted to such molecules, since they are able to function perfectly well in the absense of such.
quote:
Melvin: In my spirit I pray that he will stay in order that it might be revealed to him, as it was to Paul, that he is only persecuting Jesus.
I trust that you're not simply hoping that I will be knocked off my horse and be ordered to go to the nearby town in order to receive further instructions? That would serve little purpose now, especially given Matt 12:32.
Saul/Paul was said to have persecuted members of the "redeemer-cults" of the time, which were variants of the Dionysus-worshipping sects which had already been around for a number of centuries, and are the basis for the Pauline doctrine in the NT. The Jesus character had to be introduced in order to give a linkage back to the Abrahamic back-story in the Torah. This explains why Paul appears to know nothing much about Jesus, and why the NT and OT present two fundamentally different religions. A more appropriate place to discuss these issues is on this forum. Those with a sound position on the theological implications of information complexity might also like to hone their debating skills at the same venue, should they care to test their ideas against considered, rational opposition.
Best regards, as always,
Z
Eccl 3:1-22
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 15. January 2007 00:48
Zarathustra,
quote:
quote:
Daniel: The codons in our genes still code for the same amino acids whether we know what they code for or not, ...
This, finally, is our point of agreement. Whatever "information" exists therein manifests itself in the physical configuration of the atoms involved in those molecules.
But...
We can do a computer simulation of those molecules and the information still works. So the information does not reside in the molecules, else the simulation would not work.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 15. January 2007 01:52
quote:
Daniel: We can do a computer simulation of those molecules and the information still works. So the information does not reside in the molecules, else the simulation would not work.
This is where you finally reveal yourself to be pathologically stupid, Daniel. That was my opinion the first time you opened your mouth, and you have given no-one any reason to form a different conclusion subsequently.
Do you have your home address sewn into the lining of your jacket, just in case you go out for longer than 30 minutes and have to be returned by other people more able?
[ 15. January 2007, 02:07: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 15. January 2007 07:30
Zarathustra,
Apology accepted. You are forgiven. See you on the other side, I HOPE.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
D.C.
Member
Member # 3624
|
posted 15. January 2007 16:30
I'm not sure that I completely agree. Why does information have to be a single thing? Why can't it be a combination of various physical interactions that are interpreted independently and then combined together to create what we call *information*?
I'm not sure that I believe in this but it didn't seem to be mentioned in any of the comments.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 15. January 2007 22:59
quote:
Zarathustra: This is where you finally reveal yourself to be pathologically stupid, Daniel. That was my opinion the first time you opened your mouth, and you have given no-one any reason to form a different conclusion subsequently.
Do you have your home address sewn into the lining of your jacket, just in case you go out for longer than 30 minutes and have to be returned by other people more able?
The substance is lacking in your "refutation" of my argument.
Insults are no substitute for reason (but are of course necessary if the latter is unavailable).
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 16. January 2007 08:00
D.C.,
quote:
Why does information have to be a single thing? Why can't it be a combination of various physical interactions that are interpreted independently and then combined together to create what we call *information*?
Well with some work you might be able to form a workable definition of information along those lines. The work would be in describing what is meant by "interactions" and, especially, by "combination."
In the end, though, I think that in principle you'd still be left with the same question: what is the single thing we call "combination"?
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 16. January 2007 08:39
I think this one takes the cake. I’ve said that naturalists have no other choice but to take both mathematics and the ability to do math for granted. For example, Daniel Dennett addresses whether there really such a phenomenon as a center of gravity. Is such a pattern “real”? Does it “exist”? Or is belief in such a pattern just a figment of our imagination? BTW, he says the following—an abstract of a chapter titled “Real Patterns” (again, using the belief in a center of gravity as one of his examples)—is foundational to all his philosophy:
quote:
Are there really beliefs? Or are we learning (from neuroscience and psychology, presumably) that, strictly speaking, beliefs are figments of our imagination, items in a superseded ontology? Philosophers generally regard such ontological questions as admitting just two possible answers: either beliefs exist or they don't. There is no such state as quasi-existence; there are no stable doctrines of semi-realism. Beliefs must either be vindicated along with the viruses or banished along with the banshees. A bracing conviction prevails, then, to the effect that when it comes to beliefs (and other mental items) one must be either a realist or an eliminative materialist. This conviction prevails in spite of my best efforts over the years to undermine it. (Brainchildren: Essays On Designing Minds. Chapter 5, "Real Patterns." Daniel C. Dennett. p. 95.)
I’m not a soul; I’m a superceded ontology?! I don’t have beliefs in my heart and mind; I have items in a superceded ontology?! If you want to know whether mental items—i.e. information—are “real”, you will finish Dennett's Brainchildren begging to know what in the world "quasi-existence" means. What are "stable doctrines of semi-realism"? Are they among the laws which govern the universe? If so, what might be the difference between that concept and the Biblical concept of the "doctrines of God"? And what might be the difference between this Darwinian "superceded ontology" and the Biblical concept of a "soul"?
In principle, there would be one and only one difference: authorship. Who authored the laws which govern the universe? Could Charles Darwin and his disciples have authored them? That would make no sense at all, for they have not been around that long. Even if we are a race of superceded ontologies following stable doctrines of semi-realism and exulting in our quasi-existence, we were doing it long before they came along.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 16. January 2007 09:02
Mel,
I believe you were involved in the discussion on another thread where perplexity asked the question; “How do we know what to believe?” At some point each of us, if we are to believe in anything, must believe some things which we can’t prove are true.
>>We must "believe" them when and only when we are forced to make a choice about some particular course of action and there is no time to research the matter for ourselves so that our statistical odds are better at making the correct choice.
You can call them axioms, postulates, assumptions, guesses, or steps of faith.
>>Agreed! If we must declare a "belief" then we must choose to base that belief on the most likely source(s) of the most accurate information or which makes one "feel" better.
In response to perplexity, one contributor refused to acknowledge his faith in the bench of science yet offered no proof of its authority.
>>Authority, the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes, in this sense Science has "earned" their "authority".
Authority, jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine, in this sense Science has "earned" only the power to determine.
I believe by faith that the words in the Bible are the Word of God Almighty and that is how I know.
>>I assume ( I hate assuming ) you think your Religion has "earned" their power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes and the right to control, command, or determine; or it makes you "feel" better.
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 16. January 2007 09:27
quote:
Matt -- "In the end, though, I think that in principle you'd still be left with the same question: what is the single thing we call "combination"?
I think I have mentioned the answer to this before. Structure is the the "single thing" that categorizes what happens in relata, as to being attracted, repulsed, combined, separated, balanced, supportive, etc.................
Further, structure has a "history" in terms of thermodynamics, organization, design and code, which can help our understanding.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
