|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 24. January 2007 18:46
Daniel Smith,
quote:
You have not really addressed why you disagree with my other contentions (which are summed up in #2 above).
I disagree because there appears to me to be several definitions/contexts of the word information and some refer to its objective sense (fact, data, object, etc.) and others that presuppose an intelligence/organism of some kind. And you appear to be convinced that there is only one all inclusive definition and have not been able, yet, to verbalize it.
quote:
1. Can you demonstrate any instance of information that does not have an intelligent agent as it's ultimate source?
Yes, the ultimate source itself! Do you think that the Foucault Pendulum serves as a demonstration of information (that the Earth rotates) that does not have an intelligent agent as its ultimate source (i.e. the rotation of the earth)?
quote:
2. Do you possess any information that you did not receive from anyone and have never shared with anyone?
How would I know? Is a tumor, virus, ingested molecule, etc., considered information in this particular context?
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 24. January 2007 19:14
Matt, I think you would see the problems in your argument pretty quickly if you tried to come up with an empirical test. But since you're intent on sticking with rhetoric, I'll play along for a while.
quote:
So the distinction between the abstract and the immaterial is simply that abstract is a subset of the immaterial.
1) What's the difference between an abstract immaterial entity and a non-abstract immaterial entity?
2) Is information abstract?
3) Are patterns abstract?
4) Can non-abstractions interact, or "mix", with abstractions?
quote:
If there is an immaterial world then somewhere along the line it does in fact 'mix' with the material.
5) Given the above quote, why can't brains perceive information?
6) Given the above quote, why can't computers perceive information?
quote:
If patterns have no physical qualities, then they cannot be seen (again, they are not photons; vision is a mystery), heard (nor are they air particles), felt (nor are they paper particles), etc.
7) Does this imply that things with physical qualities, i.e. physical objects, can be seen, etc.?
8) If souls have no physical qualities, then they cannot be detected electrically, chemically, or by any other physical means. How, then, does the soul communicate with the brain?
quote:
I perceive, translate, and use patterns; therefore I am…what?!
9) If patterns are abstractions and I can perceive patterns, does this mean that I am an abstraction?
10) If I can see physical objects, does this mean that I am a physical object?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 24. January 2007 21:28
Your previous post, 2ndclass, is so sharply incisive that I have to applaud your rigour. Matt needs to answer all of those points without evasion. If he can't, then the preposterous conclusions that follow from his "information is immaterial" gambit have to be flushed down to where they belong. Maybe twice, just to be sure. I will be waiting for his answers, too, since he has, undaunted, continued to commit crimes against intellectual honesty in the short period that I have been absent.
For amusement, remember: quote:
Matt: 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.
Billiard balls cannot exist without the concept of momentum? Balls indeed.
This link says it all: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 24. January 2007 23:09
IF,
quote:
I disagree because there appears to me to be several definitions/contexts of the word information and some refer to its objective sense (fact, data, object, etc.) and others that presuppose an intelligence/organism of some kind. And you appear to be convinced that there is only one all inclusive definition and have not been able, yet, to verbalize it.
My statement; "Information = All that can be known", includes both objective and "organic" information. I'm not sure what I haven't verbalised. Maybe it's too simplistic for you?
quote:
Do you think that the Foucault Pendulum serves as a demonstration of information (that the Earth rotates) that does not have an intelligent agent as its ultimate source (i.e. the rotation of the earth)?
I'd say the Foucault Pendulum demonstrates informtion about the rotation of the earth - yes. I'd say that the rotation of the earth is information as well. I'd also argue that the source of that information is intelligence.
quote:
Is a tumor, virus, ingested molecule, etc., considered information in this particular context?
Well, an original thought was more what I had in mind but yes, those all contain information as well.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 25. January 2007 02:03
2ndclass,
quote:
So the soul is a non-abstract immaterial entity, but you can't tell us what properties such an entity has…
1) What's the difference between an abstract immaterial entity and a non-abstract immaterial entity?
2) Is information abstract?
3) Are patterns abstract?
4) Can non-abstractions interact, or "mix", with abstractions?
I never suggested that the soul was a “non-abstract immaterial entity”. You just made that up. The first time you offered it I said I could not imagine how to apply the word “abstract” to anything but language or information. I said I could not imagine how to use the word “abstract” in regards to a soul, so of course I wouldn’t use the word “non-abstract” or “non-concrete” either. I said I would only use the words abstract and concrete as they apply to language—i.e. in the way any dictionary will use them. And I have repeatedly argued that all information and all words, whether abstract or concrete, are immaterial. (Even then I don’t call information or laguage an “entity” because that’s at best a superfluous and foggy word.)
Okay, the second time you brought it up, you completely ignored my response and instead said I was actually arguing that the soul is a “non-abstract immaterial entity.” Since I’d already said very plainly that I couldn’t imagine what that might mean I just ignored it.
So here, for the third time, you’re ignoring my response, attributing the words to me and then asking me what they mean. Again, I still have no idea what your question means. And then you ask, “Can non-abstractions interact, or ‘mix’, with abstractions?” I can’t tell whether by “non-abstraction” you mean a non-abstract word—i.e. a concrete word—or a physical thing? Are you still hung up on the idea of “chargeless, massless particles”? I said before that such wording is as incoherent to me “as brave sevens or humorous rectangles.” I don’t know what else to say to all this.
Most of your other questions here are just as laboriously repetitive and just as oblivious to anything I say, so I’m going to try to stop now. Except #7 brings clarity.
quote:
7) Does this imply that things with physical qualities, i.e. physical objects, can be seen, etc.?
To “see” is only to comprehend the patterns of light waves coming in through the eyes, and nothing else. (But patterns are immaterial; circles, for example, do not collide with brain tissue; etc.) Neither the brain nor the eyes come into contact with the physical objects whose patterns are being translated. So what is it that is using the brain to process, translate and store these patterns? That’s what I would call the soul.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 25. January 2007 07:32
Daniel,
quote:
Let's say, for example, that I make up my own language. Let's say also, that I only speak this language to myself, that I write down my daily doings in a journal (in my language), and I don't tell anyone else the meaning of my words. Does my language still contain information? I'd argue that it does. At least to me it does. Can someone else come along and decipher my journal? Maybe. If they do, they discover it's meaning, but the information was there all along.
Does it mean that "meaning" you had written down cease to exist after you die too? Suppose the case nobody will be able to determine meaning of the words you had once written in your own language.
quote:
The meaning of the word (or lack thereof) is information - whether anyone else knows about it or not.
Does it also mean you will call information everything that contain Latin letters regardless of meaning, structure and syntax?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 25. January 2007 08:06
Daniel Smith
quote:
I'd say the Foucault Pendulum demonstrates informtion about the rotation of the earth - yes. I'd say that the rotation of the earth is information as well. I'd also argue that the source of that information is intelligence.
Hence the controversy! You can subjectively enhance the the source of this information as an individual but not as a discipline or else we waste time and resources deciding where exactly to draw the line! Don't you think?
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 25. January 2007 11:51
Matt: quote:
I never suggested that the soul was a “non-abstract immaterial entity”. You just made that up.
Matt, you said, "abstract is a subset of the immaterial," and you said "the soul would be immaterial and the word 'soul' would be abstract." The clear implication is that the soul falls outside of the subset "abstract". (Otherwise, you would have said that both the soul and the word "soul" are abstract.) So, no, I didn't make it up.
By saying that the abstract is a subset of the immaterial, and I'm assuming that you mean it's a proper subset, you are also positing immaterialities that are not abstract. Your refusal to acknowledge this and answer the ensuing questions makes things difficult.
With regards to the questions that don't deal with abstractions, you answered #5 on January 24 as follows: quote:
And if information is acknowledged to be immaterial (which is my opening argument in this thread) then the second claim is way beyond self-evident: a rock cannot collide with a circle anymore than my eyes, ears, hands, tongue, or nose can collide with a circle. If you want to say that the brain can use the eyes to see patterns, then you will have to argue that patterns are physical things.
But since you already conceded that the material and immaterial can "mix", your answer doesn't make sense, which is why I asked you to answer it in light of that concession. If you want to apply your creativity criterion, how do you objectify that criterion and demonstrate that computers can't possibly meet it? (Question #6)
With regards to question #7, you say: quote:
To “see” is only to comprehend the patterns of light waves coming in through the eyes, and nothing else.
But previously you said: quote:
If patterns have no physical qualities, then they cannot be seen
You have repeatedly said that immaterialities, specifically patterns and information, can't be seen, which seems to contradict your response to question #7.
This underscores my point that "seeing" can be described in terms of photons or in terms of information. If we don't try to intermingle the two viewpoints, then your paradox dissolves. This is an example of how the malleability of our language renders rhetorical arguments, such as yours, insufficient to the establishment of empirical facts.
Anyway, my questions still stand, and Zarathustra reminded me that I have others still, although they aren't necessarily central to the main issue. You said: quote:
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.
11. How can there be momentum without physical objects? Can a space devoid of particles have free-floating momentum in it?
12. How does your statement about gravity follow from the preceding statement?
And I have even more questions beyond these. You've made several statements that have yet to be supported.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 25. January 2007 13:26
Matt,
I too would be interested in knowing how there could be momentum without some amount of invariant mass greater than zero.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. January 2007 15:02
Martin,
quote:
Does it mean that "meaning" you had written down cease to exist after you die too? Suppose the case nobody will be able to determine meaning of the words you had once written in your own language.
Sure they can.
When we decipher a code, we discover it's meaning even though it's been purposely hidden from us.
When we figure out the meaning of "dead" languages, we don't have the benefit of any living speakers.
In both these cases, the information is there, it's just hidden.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. January 2007 15:14
IF,
quote:
You can subjectively enhance the the source of this information as an individual but not as a discipline or else we waste time and resources deciding where exactly to draw the line! Don't you think?
You're right in a way.
I think it can be argued (indeed you yourself have argued) that information requires an intelligent agent (informer/informed) of some sort. By extension, it can be argued that the information that exists in nature is evidence of an informer.
Then again, if you take the stance that there can be no designer, this line of reasoning is flawed because (you'll say) the information in nature is evidence of unsourced information.
So we'll go round and round.
I guess, if you are not opposed to the idea of a designer, these things are easier to accept.
I see all information as beginning with an "Idea" (this is the seed). Some ideas come to fruition and are represented with physical objects, some remain abstract (but expressed), and some remain unexpressed. All are represented in the various forms of information you mentioned.
I see "ideas" behind the structure of atoms, solar systems and chromosomes. For me, it just makes sense. It all fits. It's subjective though.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 25. January 2007 17:43
2ndclass,
quote:
Matt, you said, "abstract is a subset of the immaterial," and you said "the soul would be immaterial and the word 'soul' would be abstract." The clear implication is that the soul falls outside of the subset "abstract". (Otherwise, you would have said that both the soul and the word "soul" are abstract.) So, no, I didn't make it up.
No, your “non-“ is still a non sequitur on which to base an absurd question. You’re mixing up your sets and subsets. “Non-pear” is not a characteristic of an apple. Likewise, “non-abstract” would not be the characteristic of something which is likewise a subset of the immaterial. So yes, you made it up.
My argument is that all information—whether concrete or abstract, whether rational (such as the number 12) or irrational (such as pi, 3.14…)—is immaterial. That means you cannot see or touch concrete language though you can see or touch the objects which the language represents, and it means you cannot see or touch abstract language any more than you can see or touch what the abstract language represents. It means you cannot see or touch the meaning of the word twelve though you can represent it with 12 physical objects, and you cannot see or touch the meaning of the word pi (3.14…) and more than you can have pi number of physical objects. So an immaterial soul would be distinct from the abstract word “soul” (even though both are immaterial), just as an apple would be distinct from the concrete word “apple”.
Speaking of circles, I’m really seeing a pattern in our dialogue here and in these questions. It has at times been fruitful, but you guys seem bound and determined to project a category error on me. I guess you so very much want for me to be making a category error that you’ll completely ignore all my arguments to the contrary and then just make one up and attribute it to me.
I’m not trying to win a debate here, so feel free to declare victory. Again, it's been fun.
Peace.
Matt
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 25. January 2007 18:10
quote:
No, your “non-“ is still a non sequitur on which to base an absurd question. You’re mixing up your sets and subsets. “Non-pear” is not a characteristic of an apple. Likewise, “non-abstract” would not be the characteristic of something which is likewise a subset of the immaterial. So yes, you made it up.
Whenever you define a subset, you are also defining another subset which is the complement of the first subset. This is a fact -- I'm not making it up.
Every immateriality either falls in the "abstract" subset or it doesn't. If you object to the term "non-abstract", then substitute the phrase "not in the 'abstract' subset". Problem solved.
quote:
Peace.
Peace to you, Matt.
[ 25. January 2007, 21:06: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 25. January 2007 18:41
Daniel Smith
quote:
You're right in a way.
In what way?
quote:
I think it can be argued (indeed you yourself have argued) that information requires an intelligent agent (informer/informed) of some sort.
But only in some contexts.
quote:
By extension, it can be argued that the information that exists in nature is evidence of an informer.
Only if information presupposes an organism of some kind.
quote:
Then again, if you take the stance that there can be no designer, this line of reasoning is flawed because (you'll say) the information in nature is evidence of unsourced information.
I don't understand this! Are you saying that there is no benefit in searching for unsourced "information" (your definition) because there is no such thing?
quote:
So we'll go round and round.
Do you mean there is no answer?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 25. January 2007 19:36
IF,
quote:
Are you saying that there is no benefit in searching for unsourced "information" (your definition) because there is no such thing?
I don't think there is such a thing, but how do we determine that?
It seems to me that it's a matter of differing interpretations of the evidence - based on our own world views.
I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that the entire universe is built upon a foundation of information and that that information has an intelligent agent as it's source. The evidence (as I interpret it) fully supports my contention because I view this information as evidence of a designer.
For some (you I assume?), there is no evidence of any designer, so all the "information" that exists (outside of that produced by us intelligent agents) is unsourced information. Those who feel this way are perfectly comfortable in their interpretation of the evidence as well and feel that the evidence fully supports their views. Their view is that information exists in the absence of any known designer (thus supporting the notion that information does not require an intelligent source).
So what's the difference? Our world views.
quote:
Do you mean there is no answer?
No, I mean we'll probably never agree on one.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
