|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 19. January 2007 22:47
quote:
Matt: 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.
This is a perfect example of how Matt has both the integrity and intellectual capacity of mildew. Note the "quietly admit" trick; it actually means that he just made that bit up.
I think Matt should be banned from posting on this site; everything he says is either stupid or dishonest. What's the point of letting him submit any more deranged rubbish?
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 20. January 2007 06:23
IF wrote:
quote:
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.
I believe I understand the idea of emergence. Like temperature is not a property of individual atoms/molecules, but emerges as a measure of the average kinetic energy (something like that?). But it doesn't seem that thoughts are like this when transfered from one mind to another. To make things simple we have placed our interlocutors face to face (so as to rule out any other media, like writing or telephones, etc.), but does it make sense to say there is something electro-chemical transfered between one and the other? Do we see chemicals transfered between the speaker and the listener? If this is not the case (and I can't see why we should think it is), then the electro-chemical stimulation is correlated with thought transfer but not identical to it. This is what a substance dualist would expect since the mind and brain are unified, yet distinct; namely that immaterial "things, entities, properties" can be translated via sensible media (the air waves in talking) and decoded by a receiving mind.
If not the above, then if emergent properties are not themselves electro-chemical (and I don't see how they could be since we are saying they "emerge" from them, implying they are not identical), how are these "emergent entities (?)" transferred between rational agents?
And though I would agree that something neuro-electro-chemical is happening at either end of the process (that allows for some aspect of information storage,etc.), the questions I am asking are about the process itself. I am still uncertain about the "medium of discourse" between rational agents, but it seems that a purely materialistic answer is untenable. (And by "seems" I really am conveying uncertainty, not just feigning it ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ).
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 20. January 2007 11:58
Zarathustra,
You wrote:
quote:
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.
My name is written in the Book of Life due to God’s foreknowledge of my acceptance of His offer of salvation. This offer is extended to all who put their faith, hope, and trust in Jesus Christ. It is offered by God and is valid because of His authority to do so. It is accomplished in the power of His grace. It is justified due to the payment for sin accomplished in the obedience unto death of the one and only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ. It was proved true by the resurrection of Jesus from death to life. No other name is given unto man by whom he will be saved.
If you believe Jesus is fictitious, not real, then you have believed a lie. That lie comes to you from the father of lies who is your father that is Satan. The good news is that you, if willing, can be adopted, as I was, into the family of God. Simply, renounce sin for what it is, rejecting it in favor of the goodness of God and ask Jesus Christ into your heart as Savior and Lord. You do not have to be a professor of philosophy or science to understand this Truth; even retards and morons are able to see the light of Christ and decide to run to it or away from it.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 20. January 2007 13:05
JT75 quote:
I believe I understand the idea of emergence. Like temperature is not a property of individual atoms/molecules, but emerges as a measure of the average kinetic energy (something like that?). But it doesn't seem that thoughts are like this when transfered from one mind to another. To make things simple we have placed our interlocutors face to face (so as to rule out any other media, like writing or telephones, etc.), but does it make sense to say there is something electro-chemical transfered between one and the other? Do we see chemicals transfered between the speaker and the listener? If this is not the case (and I can't see why we should think it is), then the electro-chemical stimulation is correlated with thought transfer but not identical to it. This is what a substance dualist would expect since the mind and brain are unified, yet distinct; namely that immaterial "things, entities, properties" can be translated via sensible media (the air waves in talking) and decoded by a receiving mind.
There is no way to explain it better/quicker than Mr. Hofstadter's "GEB"! It is very well written (Pulitzer Prize I think), clever, and profound! Particulary the musings about; what happens/emerges in a society that finally does understand the mechanics/details of the whole process!
Actually, all of Mr. Hofstadter's books are pertinent to many of this site's blogs and comments.
Anyhow, to answer this particular question; From my entry posted 19. January 2007 15:08
quote:
Anyhow, pick a point(s) to start and neuro-electro-chemical reactions are at the "heart" of the transfer process at each end.
In between, of course, is the physical medium, i.e. in a face to face conversation here on Earth it is the constituents of the air which includes the light/photons.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 20. January 2007 23:19
I will have to remind other readers that I proposed a more appropriate venue for discussing "spiritual" matters on another forum, so as not to distract from the main part of this discussion. That consideration (out of courtesy) appears to have gone unheeded, so I am forced to deal with this poison here, for which I apologise in advance.
Melvin: My name is written in the Book of Life due to God’s foreknowledge of my acceptance of His offer of salvation.
This is an unfortunate statement, since it means that you have no free-will. If God has already left your name out of the Book of Life, what can you do to prove Him wrong?
Melvin: This offer is extended to all who put their faith, hope, and trust in Jesus Christ. It is offered by God and is valid because of His authority to do so.
This offer is made by Paul, not God.
Melvin: It is accomplished in the power of His grace. It is justified due to the payment for sin accomplished in the obedience unto death of the one and only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ. It was proved true by the resurrection of Jesus from death to life. No other name is given unto man by whom he will be saved.
This is an almost verbatim copy of the claims made by the earlier Dionysus-worshipping cult. It has absolutely no basis in the OT.
Melvin: If you believe Jesus is fictitious, not real, then you have believed a lie. That lie comes to you from the father of lies who is your father that is Satan.
In the Old Testament, what you read as "the Almighty" is actually the word "Shaddai". This comes from the root "shaddad", meaning "to deal violently with, despoil, devastate, ruin, destroy, spoil", (q.v.) The entity the imaginary Jesus claimed to be his "Father" can therefore be best described as "The Destroyer, Author of All Ruin". We all know who that is.
A further confirmation of this comes from Shaddai's instructions to his worshippers, from Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. "
Melvin: The good news is that you, if willing, can be adopted, as I was, into the family of God. Simply, renounce sin for what it is, rejecting it in favor of the goodness of God and ask Jesus Christ into your heart as Savior and Lord.
Call me old-fashioned if you like, but I don't quite see how an invitation to join a satanic blood-sacrifice death cult is particularly good news.
Melvin: You do not have to be a professor of philosophy or science to understand this Truth; even retards and morons are able to see the light of Christ and decide to run to it or away from it.
The shame falls only on those who prey on such unfortunate individuals in order to steer them in the wrong direction.
[ 20. January 2007, 23:46: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 21. January 2007 00:06
quote:
Strictly speaking, the satellites are not processing information; rather, we are using the satellites to process information.
What method do you use to determine whether an entity processes information? (Remember, processing information doesn't necessarily require creativity.)
quote:
Likewise, you are using your brain and your senses to watch a movie, and then you are responding to the information.
If my physical tears are a direct or indirect response to immaterial information, then somewhere in the causal chain there must be an immaterial/physical interaction. Positing a soul doesn't resolve that problem.
quote:
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.
I didn't say that computers know English -- I don't even know what that means. My claim is that computers can translate text from one language to another, albeit poorly. You can verify that claim empirically by typing a sentence into the Google translator. Again, if you disagree, then you need to explain how you go about determining whether something can translate text.
quote:
Rocks do not form patterns in the sense of “form” being a transitive verb.
There is no sense in which the word "form" in the sentence "Rocks form patterns" is not a transitive verb, so your qualifier is superfluous. You're simply saying that rocks don't form patterns. But it's empirically verifiable that rocks can, in fact, form patterns. You can look at rocks and see that they form a pattern. Again, if you disagree with this, you need to explain what method you use to determine whether something forms a pattern.
quote:
And I am saying that taking such things for granted is in principle indistinguishable from taking spirituality for granted.
You're welcome to say that, but you're clearly making a classic category error in conflating abstract concepts with spirits. In fact, according to Wikipedia, Gilbert Ryle coined the term "category mistake" to describe the reification fallacy that you're committing.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 21. January 2007 04:30
2ndclass,
(Such deep thoughts while feeding my baby son in the wee hours…)
quote:
If my physical tears are a direct or indirect response to immaterial information, then somewhere in the causal chain there must be an immaterial/physical interaction.
Yes, that’s an excellent point. If there is an immaterial world then somewhere along the line it does in fact “mix” with the material. So this is where I come back to the distinction between the physical and nonphysical being the same as the distinction between rational and irrational numbers. The infinite can take in the finite but not visa-versa. "All is number."
As for translating text my only point is that the computer is merely a tool, in principal no different from a paper bilingual dictionary. Just as we use satellites to process (a type of translation) information we use computers and dictionaries to translate it. And so in that sense I’ll go back to the creativity test for both perception and translation. (So a computer does not perceive/translate any more than does a dictionary.) As for what it means to say that information has been “processed” I guess it’s just a matter of whether it has been translated into another physical medium (from electromagnetic waves onto silicon and back) though not necessarily another language.
quote:
You're welcome to say that, but you're clearly making a classic category error in conflating abstract concepts with spirits. In fact, according to Wikipedia, Gilbert Ryle coined the term "category mistake" to describe the reification fallacy that you're committing.
Both are taking the immaterial for granted as a self-evident truth—and not just the immaterial but also the immaterial that comprises rationality. No difference or conflation whatsoever. (But now I used the word “immaterial” and you used the word “abstract”. I’m talking about both abstract language and concrete language as being immaterial. After all, the word “concrete” is abstract. Anyway, you and Gilbert might be using “abstract” in a totally different way from how I am using “immaterial”. I can’t quite tell.) For example, I quoted Dennett earlier as referring to us as superceded ontologies, and so I’m saying that a soul by any other name is still a mystery.
[ 21. January 2007, 04:52: Message edited by: Matt Connally ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 21. January 2007 09:52
2ndclass,
You wrote:
quote:
The fact that a physical calculator can add two numbers does not imply that numbers have physical qualities.
My Claim: Calculators can’t add.
Definitions:
number – an abstract mathematical object.
ordered set - Let S be a set. An order on S is a relation, denoted by <, with the following two properties:
[i] If x is an element of S and y is an element of S then one and only one of the statements
x < y, x = y, y < x
is true.
[ii] If x, y, z are elements of S, if x < y and y < z, then x < z.
If a and b are numbers with a < b, then a is said to be a predecessor of b and b is said to be a successor of a.
The number b is said to be the first successor of a if and only if a < b < c for all numbers c such that a < c and c does not equal b.
The number a is said to be the first predecessor of b if and only if x < a < b for all numbers x such that x < b and x does not equal a.
Axioms:
There exists a number, 0.
The set of numbers is ordered.
Every number has a first successor.
Every number has a first predecessor.
Notation:
N = the set of numbers
Sa = {x| a < x} [successor set of the number a]
Pa = {x| x < a} [predecessor set of the number a]
For numbers a and b, {ab} = [Pa intersect Sb] union {a}
Define addition over the set of numbers [+,N], for 0 < a < b, by
a + b = c if and only if there exists a one-to-one correspondence between {a0} and {cb}.
Please note that the definition can be extended to cases a < b < 0 and a < 0 < b with slight modifications in notation. I did not include them here so that this post would not become too cumbersome.
This is the definition of what we actually do when we add two numbers. The objective test that is most often administered to children in school is the number line diagram. If the student can indicate on the diagram an appropriate representation of this correspondence then he or she has shown the ability to add. If they can’t, then it is concluded that they can’t add. Determining what is an appropriate representation is the part that is subjective. The operation of addition is not subjective.
You would like to define addition as the identification of the correct sum. That is not addition. I do not care what the dictionary says and I do not care what the polls say. Your definition is not correct. At best it is pseudo-addition. This is similar to determining the correct derivative of a function using the power rule instead of differentiating by the definition.
Your calculator can’t set up the necessary one-to-one correspondence; therefore, by definition, your calculator can’t add.
It can’t set up the correspondence. It can’t create that information. You and I can. The correspondence can only be created by something with the capacity to develop the correct algorithm. For that you need a programmer, not a computer. Programmers are creators of information; computers are warehouses of information.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 21. January 2007 13:56
IF,
Your definition of Information seems to require a sender (informant) and a receiver (one who is impinged upon).
My question then is, what is it when it is "in transit" between the sender and receiver?
Does it start out as information in the sender, become something else during transit (or translation), then re-emerge as information in the receiver?
Does the book on the shelf contain any information?
Or does it become information when it is read and comprehended?
I'm just curious as to your thoughts on this.
quote:
quote:
Does the information used to design a calculator reside within the calculator?
No. It is not an organism.
quote:
Is it within the pixels of your computer monitor?
Yes.
quote:
Is it in the bits on your hard drive?
Yes.
Now, why do the (non-organic) computer parts contain information while the calculator does not?
========================================
Zarathustra,
Of all the participants on this thread, you seem to contribute the least in actual substantive argument.
Your modus operandi seems to be; Swoop in with great swelling words announcing your superiority on the subject, wax poetic about the inferiorities of others, say nothing about the actual subject, offer no refutations, present no counter-arguments, then pronounce yourself the victor and ruler of all.
You are what the internet savvy call a "Troll". You have nothing constructive to offer. You enter a thread, throw around a bunch of insults in order to provoke a reaction, then leave.
If anyone should be banned - it's you.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 21. January 2007 16:18
Zarathustra,
It is always appropriate for me to give the reason for the hope that is in me, even on this scientific forum. The following appears on page 210 of William Dembski’s book “Intelligent Design”.
quote:
Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ. Christ, as the completion of our scientific theories, maintains the conceptual soundness of those theories even as the real numbers maintain the complete conceptual soundness of the applied mathematician’s calculations. Christ has assumed the fullness of our humanity and entered every aspect of our reality. He thereby renders all our studies the study of himself.
Zarathustra, it is up to you, that your name appear or not in the Book of Life. I don’t know what your final answer will be. You don’t know what your final answer will be. But God knows what your final answer, as an exercise of your free-will, will be and that is why He could have written your name or not before time began.
God has never forced a human being to face consequences more terrible than they deserved. By His mercy we can be spared these consequences and by His grace we can receive rewards reserved for sons and daughters of the King.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 21. January 2007 17:47
Daniel Smith quote:
Your definition of Information seems to require a sender (informant) and a receiver (one who is impinged upon).
That is just one of the contextual definitions.
quote:
My question then is, what is it when it is "in transit" between the sender and receiver?
It is the medium that is transmitting the meaning (as per this contextual definition) to the informant.
quote:
Does it start out as information in the sender, become something else during transit (or translation), then re-emerge as information in the receiver?
Yes, if there was an informer that initiated it or, if not, the informant finds meaning in it.
quote:
Does the book on the shelf contain any information?
Yes, to a cognizant informant to which it has meaning.
quote:
Or does it become information when it is read and comprehended?
Yes, as long as an organism is involved somewhere to which this book has meaning.
I've got one for you; is there information without an informer(organism) or an informant (organism) of any kind anywhere?
(That's the old question about sounds and falling trees we've all heard, isn't it?)
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 22. January 2007 11:46
Matt: quote:
If there is an immaterial world then somewhere along the line it does in fact “mix” with the material.
This, of course, reverses your many earlier statements to the contrary, and invalidates your argument for a soul.
quote:
But now I used the word “immaterial” and you used the word “abstract”.
I think we can posit a distinction between abstract concepts and immaterial entities.
Consider, for example, the concept of momentum. The momentum of one object can be transferred to another object, e.g. when a billiard ball hits another billiard ball. So in that sense, the concept of momentum is independent of the host object, but it's obvious that the concept of momentum makes no sense without some object. There can be no free-floating momentum in a space devoid of particles (assuming that physics allows for such a space).
Likewise, the concept of information makes no sense without some medium. But that doesn't seem to be the case for immaterial entities such as spirits, which apparently can be free-floating. It seems, then, that there is a distinction between abstractions and immaterial entities.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 22. January 2007 13:18
quote:
This is the definition of what we actually do when we add two numbers.
"What we do when we add two numbers" is execute an algorithm that inputs a and b and outputs c such that a+b=c according to the definition of "+". Your formal definition, while perfectly valid, contains no such algorithm.
quote:
You would like to define addition as the identification of the correct sum.
I'll tell you what, you can have the word "add" and I'll define a new term. I define "radd" to mean "identify the correct sum of". So we can change my statement to: "The fact that a physical calculator can radd two numbers does not imply that numbers have physical qualities," and the point still stands.
quote:
I do not care what the dictionary says and I do not care what the polls say.
You've made that pretty clear. You seem to think that words have intrinsic meanings.
quote:
Your calculator can’t set up the necessary one-to-one correspondence; therefore, by definition, your calculator can’t add.
Currently it can't, but it would be trivial for me to program it to display the sets {a0} and {cb} in parallel, thus showing their correspondence. Thus programmed, my calculator would be adding, according to your definition. You may object and say that programming it entails injecting part of myself into the calculator, so that I'm the one showing the correspondence rather than the calculator. To which I would respond: If a student appears to be adding, is it really his teacher who's doing the adding?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 22. January 2007 14:44
IF,
quote:
I've got one for you; is there information without an informer(organism) or an informant (organism) of any kind anywhere?
I'm a bit confused about your use of the terms "informer" and "informant"; I thought those were the same thing? (Which is why I used "sender" and "receiver".)
If I understand your question to mean "Does information require both a sender and a receiver?", my answer is "No".
I believe the ultimate source of information is always an intelligent agent, but there does not necessarily have to be someone available to receive the information for it to be called "information".
My position is that Information = All that can be learned (even if there are no "learners").
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 22. January 2007 15:01
2ndclass,
quote:
This, of course, reverses your many earlier statements to the contrary, and invalidates your argument for a soul.
Like I said you made an excellent point, and you’re right that I have been corrected and I’m truly glad for the clarification. When I reread my post from yesterday I thought that I had not expressed enough gratitude and satisfaction for the clarification. (Please believe that I’m not, for the most part, trying to win a debate here.) In the back of my mind I’d been pondering how a soul could even be considered to have a “location” inside the skull.
Regardless, of course this does not invalidate the argument for a soul; if anything it strengthens it. For it is still beyond question that the brain cannot perceive the immaterial. The brain still cannot use the five senses to perceive something that cannot be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. So if we acknowledge that the material and immaterial do in fact mix, then that means something immaterial is using the brain to process and store information.
quote:
I think we can posit a distinction between abstract concepts and immaterial entities.
Consider, for example, the concept of momentum. The momentum of one object can be transferred to another object, e.g. when a billiard ball hits another billiard ball. So in that sense, the concept of momentum is independent of the host object, but it's obvious that the concept of momentum makes no sense without some object. There can be no free-floating momentum in a space devoid of particles (assuming that physics allows for such a space).
Likewise, the concept of information makes no sense without some medium. But that doesn't seem to be the case for immaterial entities such as spirits, which apparently can be free-floating. It seems, then, that there is a distinction between abstractions and immaterial entities.
Working backwards, infinity cannot have a medium, yet it is astonishingly coherent. For mathematicians and physicists alike it is pure, unbridled, breathtakingly glorious mystery. Yet all of mathematics depends upon it. And, for example, the concept of infinity is just as necessary and non-negotiable an ingredient in any NASA mission as the alloy in their rocket ships. Furthermore, our ability to use language depends upon the capacity to form an infinite variety of creative sentences. Etc., etc.
Now again I will suggest that the distinction between abstract information and concrete information is exactly the same as the distinction between irrational numbers (infinite) and rational numbers (finite). One can be fully represented/imaged; the other cannot. The concrete word “apple” can be fully represented though in a multitude (even infinite) variety of ways (i.e. no two apples are exactly the same. The word abstract word “peace”, which also can be represented in an infinite variety of ways (a peaceful village; a peaceful ocean; etc.) but can never be fully represented, for something could always be just a little more peaceful.
Still, all the information—all concrete and abstract information; all rational and irrational numbers—mediated through those images, all that information is immaterial. So the distinction between the abstract and the immaterial is simply that abstract is a subset of the immaterial.
Finally, although the coherence of infinity is completely independent of the material world, the reverse is not true. It is not possible to have a material object, such as a billiard ball, that does not mediate information. The one can exist without the other but the reverse is not true. The concept of momentum (which I think is abstract) can exist without something such as billiard balls, but the reverse is not true. Furthermore, this means the laws of gravity precede and govern such things.
[ 22. January 2007, 15:02: Message edited by: Matt Connally ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
