|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 18. January 2007 08:16
quote:
You all seem dead set against any implication that information is non-physical or immaterial, but if it's not information, then what is it?
Electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 18. January 2007 10:28
quote:
Matt – ” Would structure be pretty much synonymous with pattern?”
Not exactly. A pattern is what is perceived – so it is included in an epistemological perspective. A knower perceives a pattern and makes the pattern part of their database, as mutual information. The pattern’s structure in nature and the pattern in the database of the knower represent the same form/shape/organization, which is an abstraction of structure.
Structure would be an empirical (or quasi-empirical like math) ontological property of reality. So – structure IS - and intelligent agents perceive patterns.
Structure is associated with formal information, as said before. When you say –
quote:
Matt –“shouldn’t we say that information is subsumed by time itself? Because a pattern or structure (as I’m thinking of structure though you might have a totally different idea) is quite simply a repetition of meaning.”
I see this as mixing up the soup. Sorry to be so specific – but I think these categories important. Meaning is recognition of data in a contextual circumstance. Information (formal) is related to the ontological structure, which can be seen as objective. Semantic content is related to epistemological considerations, which are subjective. Patterns in music, for instance, can evoke strong emotions in two people at a concert. Both are pleased with the performance, but the emotions elicited in each, can be very different. The physical sound qualities measurable as frequencies, timbre and rhythm can be converted to objective signals. If not transcribed, exactly as formal information, the music is actually different. As to a player or conductor – they can play the same formal music and render it with added subjective content.
Two separate pathways – structure and content meaning. Information theoretic concepts refer to the objective structure and psychological/sociological concepts refer to meaning.
[ 18. January 2007, 10:31: Message edited by: Stephen Wright ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 18. January 2007 11:30
Melvin: quote:
It is kind-a-like when that jerk Einstein changed the definition of gravitation. Newton’s law of gravitation is so elegant and easy to use and understand. Why muck up the works with curved space-time? Everyone else was perfectly happy with gravity as a field force, end of story.
Actually, I don't think it's like that at all. Einstein was right and Newton was wrong, as can be demonstrated empirically. Our disagreement, on the other hand, is semantic. It isn't right vs. wrong, but rather standard vs. non-standard definitions.
quote:
Most scholars I have asked in the past few days say at first glance that the calculator can add (they also think of gravity as a field force). When I voice my opinion they just look at me and then go about their business. They don’t really care.
Of course they don't. If someone came up to you while you were eating lunch and said, "You aren't really eating; I know eating when I see it and that isn't it", would you care? Of course not. He's just playing semantic games.
quote:
You are aware, I am sure, that this is a logical fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not give ‘evidence’ to support an action.
But it does give evidence that a definition is standard. Words mean what people take them to mean, so an accusation of argumentum ad populum is misplaced here.
quote:
If programmers agree with your characterizations of the abilities of machines, be aware that this programmer (cobol, fortran, basic, C++, visual basic, GDC) does not.
Your disagreement is with my word choice. Since you've redefined the word "add", you object to my claim that calculators can add. But what term should I use instead? I submit that you're the one who should be coming up with a new term to label the subjective phenomenon that you call "adding", since "adding" already has a objective meaning for the rest of us.
quote:
Please consider that it is possible 2ndclass is responsible for the impasse. As we read from Wikipedia:
quote: Certain problems arise with the positivist belief system once it is accepted: (1) Since all of our most certain knowledge, namely, that of ourselves and our own mental states, is inaccessible to objective science (being personal), how is positivism to account for what we know? And since our inferences about what we do not directly know, but only surmise on the basis of our actual experiences, comprise the objective world of scientific entities imagined by positivist philosophy, how is it supposed to be possible to account for any knowledge at all positivistically?
Our impasse is semantic, and your quote from Wikipedia sheds no light on it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 18. January 2007 11:34
quote:
2ndclass – “So is a soul indicated only by perceiving information, or is it indicated by any interaction with anything nonphysical?”
I am uncomfortable using the word soul in a philosophy of science discussion – but since character has pragmatic status in law – I think it does the job of specifying the psychological entity that makes decisions. I agree with the points you make about testing and establishing standard definitions. It is easier to do in material systems than in social systems – the primary environment for human behavior.
A person can add; and at the same time comprehend the logic of adding. These are separate steps and as you point out, the adding step is objective and mechanistic. In the second step, while comprehension of adding is subjective – the logic behind it is not. As per my prior post, the “knower’s” sense of adding processes is subjective. However, the correct detection of the target underlying logic is a focus on a real structural aspect of reality.
Living knowers have their characters graded by decision-making capability relational to responsibility. Low capability – low responsibility and hence a judgment of weak character, such as a child or a person suffering from autism. The key capability would be detecting or understanding intent. Being fully cognizant of one’s own intentions (this is hard for the best of us) and the intentions – obvious or hidden – of others requires acumen. I would say the skill-set of interaction with intent is the key attribute of character.
And for what its worth – testing of intent and character have a formal system. It is call jurisprudence, where character structures that challenge society are parsed and judged as to exhibiting intentional values, according to or in contrast to, written standards. Again in this case, I would maintain that intent, as a target of knowers’ perception, has a real structural basis in reality.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 18. January 2007 14:02
quote:
IF: quote:
but if it's not information, then what is it?
Electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
So...
When we take a movie and transfer it to DVD, we are transfering electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
When we print out a paper we are changing electro-chemical responses to stimulus from one medium to another?
When an artist tries to convey a message through a painting, he is conveying electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
When a scientist sequences a genome and makes a chart with lots of combinations of C's A's T's and G's, he is transfering electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
When you formulate your response to this message, your response will be merely electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
What about the makeup of a hydrogen atom, is that also electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
Somehow, I don't think that definition is adequate to describe what's really in play here. Then again, I need help finding my way home - so what do I know? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 18. January 2007 14:56
quote:
When we take a movie and transfer it to DVD, we are transfering electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
When we print out a paper we are changing electro-chemical responses to stimulus from one medium to another?
When an artist tries to convey a message through a painting, he is conveying electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
When a scientist sequences a genome and makes a chart with lots of combinations of C's A's T's and G's, he is transfering electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
When you formulate your response to this message, your response will be merely electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
Yes to all with the human organism as the intermediary.
quote:
What about the makeup of a hydrogen atom, is that also electro-chemical responses to stimulus?
No, so far the best guess is it is the result of a "Big Bang".
quote:
Somehow, I don't think that definition is adequate to describe what's really in play here.
Exactly, its just the best guess so far.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 18. January 2007 17:20
2ndclass,
quote:
The question you're avoiding is: How do we go about testing it? To answer that question, you'll need to flesh out your definitions of "information" and "nonphysical". Until you do that, we can't assign a truth value to your claim.
I doubt you can find a definition of information from science or philosophy that will not pass the test. As I said in my opening post, the test is whether any information can be translated from one physical medium to another. It’s a very, very simple test. Again, what exactly is being translated from one physical medium to another? Although we can’t say exactly what it is we can say for certain what it is not: it is not physical. (Contrary to IF’s claim, there are no electro-chemical interactions in paper, on a DVD, etc.)
Information is a self-evident truth, as seen in the fact that both the question “What is information?” and the answer are themselves 100% pure information. So no one has any other choice but to take information for granted. So the definition I offered was as broad and inclusive a one as I could come up with:
Information: anything that can be translated mathematically; anything that forms a pattern.
Mathematics is the context and vantage point from which we do all science, all philosophy, or any deductive reasoning. Biologists study patterns among organisms. Meteorologists study patterns in the weather. Economists study patterns in the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Etc. But I’ll even expand upon that definition and say information includes anything that can be translated into English or any other language. (After all, language is entirely dependant upon patterning; meaning is carried through patterns in sound and symbol.)
Now the definition is the argument, since the definition takes translation for granted. But that is true for any definition of information. There is no place for a naturalist to hide. It is a self-evident truth.
So, 2ndclass, all that’s to say that you’re absolutely right that we cannot “assign” a truth value to this claim, for it is a self-evident truth. To say we can prove that information exists would be an appalling understatement, and likewise to say that we can prove it is immaterial. (Which is perhaps one of a multitude of reasons that 95 percent of the planet believes in spirituality.)
As for a definition of nonphysical, it’s an adjective meaning that something lacks any physical qualities (mass, charge, color, etc.).
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 18. January 2007 19:43
quote:
(Contrary to IF’s claim, there are no electro-chemical interactions in paper, on a DVD, etc.)
Correct iff we don't consider organisms that may find them valuable in their current or deteriorated state (eg. termites, bacteria, etc.)
quote:
Information is a self-evident truth, as seen in the fact that both the question “What is information?” and the answer are themselves 100% pure information.
Correct for the human organism and any others who have developed language.
quote:
Information: anything that can be translated mathematically;
Correct for the human organism and any others who have developed language and "advanced" mathematical concepts.
quote:
Information: anything that forms a pattern.
Correct iff "anything" has the same "meaning" as an object (real or imagined) and pattern implies more than one of them.
It is very hard to be 100% accurate using only language to explain large concepts due to language's many symbols, contexts, and ambiguities. This fact is now and always has been used to great advantage by the unscrupulous.
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 19. January 2007 13:17
IF wrote:
quote:
Yes to all with the human organism as the intermediary.
What about communication directly between humans (say in a personal conversation)? How is information transferred from the mind of one to the mind of the other? Is this a material exchange (from brain to brain)? If so, what is the matter being tranferred?
I have been wondering about this idea of information transfer or the "medium of discourse" between rational agents. Your thoughts...
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 19. January 2007 14:14
If information is a physical entity, where does it reside?
Does the information in a song reside within the sound waves?
Does the information in a book reside within the ink? Or is it in the paper?
Does the information used to design a calculator reside within the calculator? Or is the information in the mind of the designer?
If in the mind, where specifically?
Does the information in DNA reside within the molecules?
If it's in the molecules, does this count as information?
1 CCACACCACA CCCACACACC CACACACCAC ACCACACACC ACACCACACC
51 CACACACACA CATCCTAACA CTACCCTAAC ACAGCCCTAA TCTAACCCTG
If so, then where does *this* information reside? Is it within the pixels of your computer monitor? Is it in the bits on your hard drive?
And is this information different from that which resides in the molecules? How so?
If information is physical, show me some. Explain the physical properties of what you're showing me so I can know exactly what information looks like.
Tell me what it is and what it isn't. Do I need a microscope to see it? How can I test whether it is really information?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 19. January 2007 15:08
JT75
quote:
What about communication directly between humans (say in a personal conversation)? How is information transferred from the mind of one to the mind of the other? Is this a material exchange (from brain to brain)? If so, what is the matter being tranferred?
Each of those questions deal with a couple of other "nasty" words/concepts called "recursion" and "emergent properties". In other words where do we draw the lines of beginning (where does the question physically start/reside) and ending (when/where/how is the question physically answered/stored). Anyhow, pick a point(s) to start and neuro-electro-chemical reactions are at the "heart" of the transfer process at each end. All of this is dealt with wonderfully by Mr.Hofstadter (I think that's how its spelled) in his "Godel, Escher, and Bach (GEB)" book. Remember "information" is a word to describe a concept and concepts are not simple especially when the added concept called context is included. This particular blog reflects a very typical process that all "thinking" humans go through when they want to understand things for themselves. Unfortunately, it is not always allowed in all groups for obvious political and sociological reasons.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 19. January 2007 16:53
Daniel Smith
quote:
If information is a physical entity, where does it reside?
In the organism that is considered the informant.
quote:
Does the information in a song reside within the sound waves?
If they impinge on an organism to which they have meaning of any kind.
quote:
Does the information in a book reside within the ink? Or is it in the paper?
See previous for both.
quote:
Does the information used to design a calculator reside within the calculator?
No. It is not an organism.
quote:
Or is the information in the mind of the designer?
Yes.
quote:
If in the mind, where specifically?
That is presently being researched. Prepare yourself to help if at all possible and if you are really interested, see books and papers on split-brain experiments for some more insight.
quote:
Does the information in DNA reside within the molecules?
Yes, but only if you substitute the word "of" for "in" in the organism that results from the DNA but you can leave it just like it is if the organism on which it impinges is a virus.
quote:
If it's in the molecules, does this count as information?
1 CCACACCACA CCCACACACC CACACACCAC ACCACACACC ACACCACACC
51 CACACACACA CATCCTAACA CTACCCTAAC ACAGCCCTAA TCTAACCCTG
Yes but it may be nonsense in some contexts.
quote:
If so, then where does *this* information reside?
In electro-chemical reactions on whichever organism it impinges and has meaning.
quote:
Is it within the pixels of your computer monitor?
Yes.
quote:
Is it in the bits on your hard drive?
Yes.
quote:
And is this information different from that which resides in the molecules?
Yes.
quote:
How so?
Impingement -> electro-chemical reactions -> neuro-electro-chemical reactions.
quote:
If information is physical, show me some.
It is everywhere in a non-maximum entropy state where organisms find meaning to the objects that are encountered.
quote:
Explain the physical properties of what you're showing me so I can know exactly what information looks like.
Information is a word for a concept and concepts are an emergent property of neuro-chemical reactions (in language aware humans anyway) or in electro-chemical reactions if there are no neurons involved, it is not always (i.e. in all contexts) a thing we can point to, yet. Just like many concepts (eg. love, truth, fair, etc.).
quote:
Tell me what it is and what it isn't. Do I need a microscope to see it? How can I test whether it is really information?
See previous.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 19. January 2007 18:30
Matt: quote:
It’s a very, very simple test. Again, what exactly is being translated from one physical medium to another?
That's not a test -- it's a rhetorical question. I repeat, from two days ago: ... maybe you can tell us what your claim is and how one would go about proving it formally or verifying it empirically. I'm not saying that your root claim is necessarily wrong. Nor am I asking you to prove it formally or empirically. The point is for you to consider how you would go about doing so. That will tell you whether your current definitions are usable or not.
IMO, you're trading in terms that are too nebulous to form a falsifiable logical argument. So instead of trying to point out fallacies, I'll point out some counterexamples:
- One of your repeated claims is that "the notion of any and all interactions between the physical and nonphysical are just logically incoherent". But in your Jan. 4 post, you said that communications satellites process information. How can satellites process information if such an idea is logically incoherent?
- When I watch a sad movie, my brain triggers a physical reaction (tears) to the information I perceive. Either my brain is perceiving the information, or my soul is perceiving it and somehow affecting my brain. Either way, there's an interaction between something immaterial (either the information or my soul) and my brain. So positing the existence of a soul doesn't solve the material/immaterial interaction problem; it simply pushes it back a level.
- You say that computers can't translate information, but I can type an English phrase into Google Language Tools and the server will translate it to Spanish for me. If you take Melvin's approach and say that the server isn't really translating, you'll need to explain how you go about determining whether something is translating or not.
- You define information as anything that forms a pattern. Rocks form patterns. Therefore, rocks are information and are therefore immaterial.
- In your Jan 18 post, you seem to be saying that the immateriality of information refutes naturalism and supports spirituality. Yet naturalists and people who don't believe in spirits have no problem accepting abstract concepts like information. They also accept concepts like algorithms, numbers, etc., but they don't reify such concepts. Refuting naturalism would require the reification of information, and you offer no justification for doing so.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 19. January 2007 20:07
2ndclass,
quote:
One of your repeated claims is that "the notion of any and all interactions between the physical and nonphysical are just logically incoherent". But in your Jan. 4 post, you said that communications satellites process information. How can satellites process information if such an idea is logically incoherent?
Again my wording was messy. I’ve already be corrected on that once and I appreciate you pointing it out again. Strictly speaking, the satellites are not processing information; rather, we are using the satellites to process information.
Likewise, you are using your brain and your senses to watch a movie, and then you are responding to the information. Your brain is not perceiving any information; you are perceiving it. If information is immaterial, then you are not your brain.
Likewise computers do not know English or any other language any more than a bucket of sand and oil (the basic ingredients of silicon and plastic that the computer is made of) does. Rather, you are using your computer as a tool. Likewise, we use the internet to leverage information the same way we use telescopes to leverage information, in principal the same way we use actual levers and pulleys.
quote:
You define information as anything that forms a pattern. Rocks form patterns. Therefore, rocks are information and are therefore immaterial.
Rocks do not form patterns in the sense of “form” being a transitive verb. But yes, rocks and everything else physical is a medium for information, principal exactly like computers are a medium for information.
quote:
In your Jan 18 post, you seem to be saying that the immateriality of information refutes naturalism and supports spirituality. Yet naturalists and people who don't believe in spirits have no problem accepting abstract concepts like information. They also accept concepts like algorithms, numbers, etc., but they don't reify such concepts. Refuting naturalism would require the reification of information, and you offer no justification for doing so.
You're absolutely right that naturalists take information for granted. I’ve given several quotes of them doing just that. In fact, leading naturalists in every relevant field quietly admit that we have to take both mathematics and the ability to do math for granted. And I am saying that taking such things for granted is in principle indistinguishable from taking spirituality for granted. The immaterial nature of information is non-negotiable and undeniable. Again, no one can articulate a theory for information having any physical qualities. It is not possible to even suggest such a theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 19. January 2007 22:33
There is a saying: "Too much knowledge is a dangerous thing".
I think everyone will agree that Matt has scrupulously avoided this particular risk.
quote:
Matt: Finally (I’m really stretching with these questions.), just as a really basic matter of logic, shouldn’t we say that information is subsumed by time itself? Because a pattern or structure (as I’m thinking of structure though you might have a totally different idea) is quite simply a repetition of meaning. Time, also being immaterial, would literally be the source of information (patterns or structures), from which then springs (it from bit) physicality. This might be supported by the fact that scientists have searched and found no evidence for time being quantized, and by Gödel’s outrageous theorem that made time disappear.
Ah, if only that uneducated idiot Gödel had bothered to use his time more productively. Then we might have had a theorem that would have made ranting, uninformed nonsense disappear.
quote:
Melvin: I have no affiliation with any religion organized by man. Jesus Christ came to me personally in Spirit. I asked him to save me from my sins. He did so and more. There is some physical evidence of this miracle but for the most part it is indemonstrable with respect to the five senses. But you are correct to say that He has earned the right to control, command, and determine all things by His work on the cross.[/b]
The NT does not authorize the fictitious Jesus character to save anyone from their sins. Admittance to the City of God depends entirely on whether the name is in the Book of Life (as per Revelations). Jesus is nowhere said to be its author. Liars (and dogs) will have to remain outside. Any Christian would do well to reflect on this.
Jesus did no work on a cross, since the Roman method of execution was not such (gk. stauros/xulou). If anything, Jesus was cursed by God, since he was hung on a tree (Deut 21:32). The cross is a piece of pagan Chaldean symbolism harnessed by the neo-Dionysan cult that uses Jesus as their charismatic fetish character. The next time Jesus comes to you, Melvin, don't be taken in. Deal with him the same way as you treat dodgy insurance salesmen. They'll promise anything in order to get their commission.
quote:
Matt: No, I’m suggesting the creativity is a good test for whether something is capable of perceiving information—which roughly translates as to whether something has a “soul”. Because the notion of any and all interactions between the physical and nonphysical are just logically incoherent.
That's because the "non-physical" is a synonym for that which does not actually exist. All perception is performed using physical means, as is all mental activity. No-one has shown this to be possible otherwise, and certainly not you, Matt.
quote:
Matt: Notice how his explanation gets turned upside down and inside out within the span of a single paragraph. He starts off saying that “information is physical,” but concludes by saying information “is a quality or property”—two abundantly abstract, nonphysical concepts. After all, what are the physical qualities of a “quality,” or the physical properties of a “property”? They do not have any. The word “physical” (which is itself an abstract concept) is not defined as the presence of something “which can change the course of events.”
This is where Matt moves into serious "jerk-off clever wanker" territory. Anything someone else says is support for his position, even if they claim the opposite. By opposing him, it only proves his point. Matt uses a different brush on the words of those who disagree with him than he does on his own febrile emissions. Everything Matt says, of course, is undeniably correct, since there is no possibility of showing him to be wrong.
The sooner someone starts a new thread on the subject the better. Hopefully it won't be polluted by as many retarded and moronic fallacies as we have seen here so far.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
