|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 29. January 2007 14:28
IF,
quote:
How does presupposing an intelligence become evidence of an intelligence?
No intelligence is "presupposed".
I have observed that all known intelligent designs are built upon a foundation of information.
I have observed that nature's structures are also built upon a foundation of information.
I have hypothesized (based on these observations) that nature's structures are intelligently designed.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 29. January 2007 14:49
Zarathustra,
quote:
If there happens to be three ducks floating on a pond, is it correct to say that the cardinality of those ducks must be the result of some other agent causing it to be so?
The fact that there are three ducks on the pond is dependant on many factors.
Here's three just off the top of my head:
First, all three ducks must exist.
What informational processes (if any) are involved in the very existence of these ducks? There are many forces at work in nature trying to eliminate ducks, how did these three survive to arrive at this pond on this day?
Second, all three must be able to paddle.
What informational processes (if any) are at work in their learning and executing the paddling motion?
Third, all three must arrive at the pond before the time period when the observation is made.
Of all the places they could be, why are they (and only they) on this pond? Are they feeding? Are they foraging for food for their young? Are there informational processes at work here also?
In the end, we must ask if their methods of reproduction/transportation/learning/survival are information based?
If so, where did this information come from?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 29. January 2007 15:33
Daniel Smith,
quote:
No intelligence is "presupposed".
I have observed that all known intelligent designs are built upon a foundation of information.
And you have defined information as requiring an intelligence! quote:
I have observed that nature's structures are also built upon a foundation of information.
As per your own definition of information! quote:
I have hypothesized (based on these observations) that nature's structures are intelligently designed
You say that "All" designs are built! What constitutes a "design"? What object(s) is/are not designed?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 29. January 2007 15:42
LifeEngineer,
quote:
In my opinion, we have a choice, we can view discussion as a unproductive form of entertainment, or if we wish to attempt to resolve an issue of disagreement we need to accept and follow scientific methods and standards.
Discussion in and of itself is much better than no (civilized) discussion at all. That being said, I agree with the gist of your post.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 29. January 2007 23:22
IF,
quote:
I have observed that all known intelligent designs are built upon a foundation of information. quote:
And you have defined information as requiring an intelligence!
I actually defined information as "all that can be known". I believe that information requires an intelligent source but I did not specify that in my definition. Surely however, you'll agree that the information used in known intelligent designs has intelligence as it's source?
quote:
quote:
I have observed that nature's structures are also built upon a foundation of information.
As per your own definition of information!
My definition is: Information = All that can be known. However, if you have a definition of information that you'd rather we use, please share it.
quote:
You say that "All" designs are built!
I believe all designs start with an idea, that is the foundation upon which they are built ("built" is a metaphor in this case and not necessarily literal).
quote:
What constitutes a "design"?
The one feature all designs have in common is that they are the result of planning. The "design" (noun) is the end utilization of that planning. They can be concrete (like a desk or a computer) or abstract (like a strategy). In fact you're probably designing (verb) a response (end result or "design") to this right now!
quote:
What object(s) is/are not designed?
I don't know. I can't think of one thing I've seen that does not look to be the result of planning at some level.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 30. January 2007 08:37
Daniel,
quote:
I actually defined information as "all that can be known". I believe that information requires an intelligent source but I did not specify that in my definition. Surely however, you'll agree that the information used in known intelligent designs has intelligence as it's source?
"presuppose"
quote:
I believe all designs start with an idea, that is the foundation upon which they are built ("built" is a metaphor in this case and not necessarily literal).
"believe"
quote:
"What object(s) is/are not designed?"
I don't know. I can't think of one thing I've seen that does not look to be the result of planning at some level.
Rocks, comets, clouds, etc.? What does "presuppose" mean to you?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 30. January 2007 15:43
IF,
You keep using the "presupposed" intelligence argument against my position on (this time I'll italicize and boldface it) known intelligent designs (FYI: that's designs done by us humans).
If you think it's wrong to "presuppose" intelligence in humans, be my guest. I think however, you'll be hard pressed to find another explanation.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 30. January 2007 16:40
Daniel,
quote:
You keep using the "presupposed" intelligence argument against my position on (this time I'll italicize and boldface it) known intelligent designs (FYI: that's designs done by us humans).
"know"
quote:
intelligent designs are done by humans
Not exclusively.
quote:
Information is all that can be known.
Using the word known in your definition already implies intelligence (or at least an organism of some kind that can know things/objects) doesn't it?
quote:
If you think it's wrong to "presuppose" intelligence in humans, be my guest. I think however, you'll be hard pressed to find another explanation.
No, I don't think it is wrong to presuppose intelligence in humans even though there are cases where we can't say an unconscious or maybe severely brain damaged human being is demonstrating intelligence in any context. Sorry but I don't quite understand what you are referring to with the "you'll be hard pressed ..." statement.
I still would like to know how you define presuppose and why you think I am using it inappropriately.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 30. January 2007 20:47
IF,
I think we're at an impasse. We're just talking past each other now.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 30. January 2007 21:02
Daniel,
I agree.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 30. January 2007 21:58
quote:
Z If there happens to be three ducks floating on a pond, is it correct to say that the cardinality of those ducks must be the result of some other agent causing it to be so?
Daniel Smith has evaded this question, so he must be asked again. It concerns the "cardinality" of the ducks, which is related to none of the other distractions he mentions. As that piece of information is not inhered by any physical property of the ducks, Daniel now needs to explain how such is necessarily the result of some other agent causing it to be so. Zarathustra will ask this question as many times as is necessary for Smith to answer it.
Smith: Information is all that can be known.
This falls into the festering morass of "laissez-faire" definitions, (as does Matt's "all that can be translated"). Instead of attempting to distill the essence of the meaning, the perpetrator attempts to shift the debate into terms that are even less amenable to agreement or understanding. Whilst cunning, this serves only those who are not able to stand their ground, and lets them retreat to a safe, but cowardly distance out of bowshot.
Smith: Information is all that can be known.
Since the positions of all matter in the physical universe can (theoretically) be known, as can the forces that seem to operate on them, this is a very generous definition. Since the machinery by which we synthesize abstractions is provably resident in the physical mechanisms in our brains, all human abstractions necessarily fall under this aegis as well.
What, given Daniel's model, is not "information"? It must be all those things that can not be known! Since there is no-one here that can enumerate even a single one of them, one has to conclude that Daniel's set of "non-information" is completely empty.
This gives us an equivalently useless definition: "Information is everything". Whilst convenient for Smith's discourse, it purpose otherwise serves neither man nor beast. A convenient substitution is now available, however: whenever we see "information" in what he writes, simply substitute "everything" in its stead, as it will surely demonstrate the solipsistic error that he has made in a very systematic fashion from the very beginning.
By "design", Smith actually means the word in the sense of "external purpose". Anyone who knows the etymology of the word "design" can be sure that Daniel is using it with teleological implications, since he has made no other interpretation possible.
Here is a defining question:
Does the organic molecule signified by the notation "C2 H5 NO2" occur as the result of "intelligent design", or does it occur because of the physical properties of the atoms that comprise that particular structure?
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard Oldani
Member
Member # 2606
|
posted 31. January 2007 05:40
quote:
My definition is: Information = All that can be known. However, if you have a definition of information that you'd rather we use, please share it.
Are you aware that when applied to an object this is the definition of the wave function?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 31. January 2007 13:02
Richard,
quote:
quote:
My definition is: Information = All that can be known. However, if you have a definition of information that you'd rather we use, please share it.
Are you aware that when applied to an object this is the definition of the wave function?
I am not as familiar with quantum matters as I should be so I would like to know if the wave function is as useful at the macro level as it is at the quantum level of reality? Also, is an observer really required in the calculations?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 31. January 2007 14:26
I don’t mean to speak for Daniel or the ducks, but I will stipulate that it is correct to say that the cardinality of the set of those ducks must be the result of some other [not the ducks] agent causing it to be so.
Let’s ask the lead duck; “Is it correct to say that the cardinality of the set of you ducks on the pond must be the result of some other agent causing it to be so?” The duck’s response; Quack! umm. What is the duck trying to say? Is it yes or no, or maybe he is accusing us of being untrained persons who are pretending to have knowledge. God only knows.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 31. January 2007 14:58
I am open to correction and suggestions as to a definition of Information.
Just to get an idea of the commonly held definitions of Information, I did a Google search.
Leaving off the definitions from Information theory and the legal definitions, here are the more relevant finds:
quote:
Definitions of Information on the Web:
* a message received and understood
* data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"
* knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
* Information is a term with many meanings depending on context, but is as a rule closely related to such concepts as meaning, knowledge, instruction, communication, representation, and mental stimulus.
* Information is the result of processing, manipulating and organizing data in a way that adds to the knowledge of the person receiving it.
* Data that has been processed to add or create meaning and hopefully knowledge for the person who receives it. Information is the output of information systems.
* That which is extracted from a compilation of data in response to a specific need.
* A measure of how surprising something is.
* Organized data which is understood to have significance and meaning.
* "Data, text, images, sounds, codes, computer programs, software, databases, or the like" (Minnesota Statutes, section 325L.02).
* Data that have been processed and presented in a form suitable for human interpretation, often with the purpose of revealing trends or patterns.
* Often used very broadly to encompass all ideas, facts, and imaginative works; can also be used to mean a single data element. Whole volumes have been written in the effort to define it satisfactorily.
* any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts, data, or opinions in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual forms (OMB Circular A-130).
* Data explicitly described in the manuscripts.
* Facts, concepts, or instructions; any sort of knowledge or supposition which can be communicated.
* organized data that has been arranged for better comprehension or understanding. What is one person's information can become an other person's data.
* Messages used as the basis for decision-making.
So lets see if we can come up with a definition we all can agree on. Take your pick - or suggest an amalgamation.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
