What is "Mind?"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 18681 - 18700 of total 22307 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 22, 2018 - 04:13pm PT

^^^ You are indeed well-read. I anticipate a lively and worthwhile discussion.

:-)

I'll do my best to hold up my end in the time I have.

eeyonkee

Trad climber

Golden, CO

Jun 22, 2018 - 04:16pm PT

Okay,so I only got this far and I already have an answer to the first question.

Biologists, for example, love to talk about how information-packed the DNA molecule is. They wax eloquent about how the codon enzymes transcribe DNA sequences according to the “information” contained in the various combinations of the four bases, and the process as they describe it is akin to the formation of a salt crystal: It has a chemical inevitability about it. The various molecules just must “perform their functions” according to the “instructions” given them.

Perhaps this is just sloppy-speak, as the well know that terms like “instructions” and “functions” are not appropriate when talking about the formation of salt crystals; scientists know that there is nothing “inevitable” about the molecular relations and processes in a living cell. In fact, they well recognize that the formation of an inert, lifeless salt crystal is nothing like the functioning we recognize as “life.” Actually, the fact that the DNA transcription process is not wholly-deterministic nor inevitable like the formation of a salt crystal is one of the foundations of evolutionary theory: Mutations must occur, and mutations in one way or another modify DNA, which just means that the transcription process is not “perfect” or a purely deterministic “chemical process.”

A salt crystal’s chemical structure is not “information,” while a DNA molecule is. But why? What is the difference?

Sheesh, what wrong-headed thinking. First of all, both DNA AND salt crystals are certainly capable of storing information. They are not the information themselves, they are the medium for the information. The reason that salt crystals are not the basis for all life on earth is that a replication process never got started with salt crystals. For evolution to work, it seems to me, you need at least these 4 things;

1. A medium for storing the code -- salt crystals are not excluded here but DNA really is fundamentally better.
2. A replication process involving very high-fidelity transfer of code from one generation to the next -- it might have happened with salt crystals, but didn't.
3. At least for life on earth, a larger thing -- the organism, a composite entity that is built from the code AND transferred with high fidelity from generation to generation.
4. In some ways this one is a subset of 3). It's the parent-child relationship that I mentioned up-thread. A way of transferring the code from one generation to the next from the bigger, composite repositories represented by the organism.

Anyhow, that's my first take on this. Genes are both code and physical, like I said before, but also transferable down a gene line.

Edit: Forgot one (5), without an ever-changing environment, evolution would come to a halt.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 22, 2018 - 04:36pm PT

I'll wait until you have it all before tying to respond to what are at present out-of-context points.

But at the outset I don't think that you are being charitable. You are fixating on one word, "is," when you say "But salt could contain information."

Of course. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm discussing the conflation between syntax and semantics. Empiricists look at a salt crystal and say something like, "There is ordered structure (syntax); therefore there is information." But ordered structure "is" not itself information, although it CAN be employed as a vehicle/medium to convey information.

If you are being even minimally charitable, you would recognize, as I say elsewhere on this very thread, that any physical structure can be a medium for information conveyance. I even referenced how quantum computing appeals to subatomic particles, and various atomic-level storage mechanisms are under development.

What I'm saying (clearly, if you read on rather than nit-pick individual words on the fly) is that a salt crystal IS not ALL there is to information, nor can it be. In the same way, DNA IS not ALL there is to the information it "contains."

Seriously, intellectual honesty is about helping your "opponent" make the best case before leaping to ripping it. Contemplate the totality of what I'm saying before you LEAP to rip on one interpretation of a word, when elsewhere (and later in that piece) I've clarified the sense of it.

I've definitely done that with the vast volumes of atheistic literature I've read and reread. Have some charity. Sheesh!

eeyonkee

Trad climber

Golden, CO

Jun 22, 2018 - 05:12pm PT

Sorry 'bout that chief. You're right:)

In fact, if you actually live in the Denver area, I would love to have a beer with you (or some other beverage -- it would have to be in your case) sometime. We could talk about this proposition, perhaps -- Information requires a sender and a receiver each with a set of rules for the interpretation of the data being sent. Seems to me a certainly reasonable proposition that includes an obvious pathway to its realization. It's truly not information unless it can fulfill this requirement. That's what I think (currently)

eeyonkee

Trad climber

Golden, CO

Jun 22, 2018 - 05:52pm PT

Sorry to be hogging the stage, but it has been fun arguing with MB1.

Biologists, for example, love to talk about how information-packed the DNA molecule is.

I really just want you to understand my POV on this. The DNA molecule is only "information-packed" because it is capable of transferring information down generations. I really do think that you have omitted the time-dependent part of information as it relates to humans.

For the last 15+ years I have had to deal with non-time-based and time-based data. The other big divide with respect to handling data in my work life, by the way, has been discrete (e.g., steel or plastic) versus continuous (e.g., 1.04 or 7.56) data.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 22, 2018 - 06:59pm PT

Yeah, man, let's get together. I'm in Westminster, so probably not far from you. It's definitely easier to talk than write this stuff out, and a forum thread is an absolutely terrible venue for this discussion. Tone is also difficult to convey in this venue.

Rather than to play the PM game (I almost never check that address) or post my info here, feel free to use the contact form on my company's website. That will get to me (and a few others, but no worry), and we can arrange to meet. I'm looking forward to it.

http://www.conclusivesystems.com

I really appreciate your response!

It's a good point! I think that there's more going on than your "only" seems to imply, but that's a side point. Your emphasis seems to be on "transmission," and I think that's an important aspect of "information." However, I'm not clear yet if by that idea you mean that some minimal (or maximal) amount of time is a factor or just that successful (i.e.: largely intact) transmission takes place at all.

If you are emphasizing the latter, then we are on the same page. If you are emphasizing the former, then I think that there are too many counterexamples to sustain that position.

So, presuming that your emphasis is on the notion of "replication/transmission" (which you seem to say in your talk of "parents"):

1) I believe that you are spot on. Transmission/replication is a critical component of "information." That's what I've been talking about in my emphasis on intentionality.

2) I believe that intentionality encompasses what I think you're after with transmission, yet it includes some nuances that I think are traditionally conflated in empirical discussions of "information."

So, we may be saying much the same thing ultimately, just using different emphases to get there. Not sure, but I can say that I agree with what you've said thus far.

WBraun

climber

Jun 22, 2018 - 07:08pm PT

1. A medium for storing the code

Then there must a code writer.

Gross materialists will say there is no need for a code writer, because ...

The code just appears out of nowhere lol.

The gross materialist has absolutely no clue where the code comes from .......

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

Jun 22, 2018 - 07:34pm PT

Good luck, my fellow physicalists!

We accept non-, anti-, dis-, and ambivalent physicalists on our thread.

MikeL

Social climber

Southern Arizona

Jun 22, 2018 - 07:41pm PT

MH2: . . . on our [physicalists] thread.

Oh, I was not aware. Good to know.

eeyonkee

Trad climber

Golden, CO

Jun 23, 2018 - 05:45am PT

I have read the whole of the Information theory introduction. (I haven't read anything else since my last post). I think this paragraph sums up your position nicely.

Whether we are talking about tree rings, a sentence, or an ordering of zeros and ones in a binary pattern, empiricists necessarily equate the information itself with its means of conveyance.
kDELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl (I shortened it)
Now, here is the huge question: “Is this string of characters ‘information?'”
Empiricists will say, “Well, it’s a state of affairs in the universe, so, yes, it’s ‘information.'”

I do not agree with that last sentence. This string, instead, would be the equivalent (say) of junk DNA, which may have been information once but now isn’t. What do you think they do when they sequence a genome? They skim the information from the junk. The information and non-information are both stored in DNA.

The idea of junk DNA actually is perfect for explaining the importance of time-dependency in data. It may have been information once, but now it isn’t. Why? Maybe because the machinery for understanding it has changed and no longer can read it as information. So, I reject your claim that empiricists conflate information with its medium. And, again, I would emphasize that information needs a sender and a receiver – and would add that the Is_Current_Information flag should be set to yes.

Finally, with respect to intentionality, I think that you are on the right track but, I would argue that all you really need is something like the replication process which imbues in an organization of things the intentionality to survive. Now, how this all got started is another subject, but once it did, the system has all of the intentionality it needs. Our human intentions evolved from this original signal.

Heading out to Turkey Rocks this morning.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 23, 2018 - 08:00am PT

Thanks for reading the whole thing!

I do not agree with that last sentence. This string, instead, would be the equivalent (say) of junk DNA, which may have been information once but now isn’t.

You can only make that distinction from "outside the system" rather than from the inside. That's the point to the need of intentionality. You can't tell whether or not that string is junk or conveying information until you know "the box" that information is in and the intention of "the box."

I'm surprised that you would claim that that particular string is akin to junk DNA, when you know from the context that that string is certainly not junk. But that point goes with the next one.

What do you think they do when they sequence a genome? They skim the information from the junk. The information and non-information are both stored in DNA.

Too many points to make here.

First, back to the idea of junk. The only way to distinguish junk from information is to be "outside the box" and from a "God's eye perspective" being able to observe "the process" from the outside. Even in linguistics or philosophy of language, you have to adopt a meta position to discover the necessary conditions; those cannot be discovered by the "users" themselves.

Next, in the same way that the above string certainly was not junk, even though without knowing the intentionality (being outside the box) it has every appearance of junk, so-called "junk DNA" may not be junk at all! It's an extremely naive position to take to believe that scientists have "mapped the genome" in the sense that they "understand" it. In fact, leading researchers readily admit that what they don't know still far exceeds what they think they do know.

Another point is that your view still has no account of the difference between "junk noise" (background noise) and evidence of intelligence (pattern) sought by SETI. In the same way that the above string actually was conveying information, the "background noise" could also be conveying information. Until you get "outside the box" and discover the intentionality, you simply can't distinguish junk from information.

Finally, what I said is true. The empiricist account of "information" has no principled line to keep it from meaning "everything in the universe." We "chunk up" our thinking about isolated bits, putting the bits into particular boxes for our particular purposes. But, yet again, that just demonstrates how pervasive is the need to talk about intention when talking about information.

The idea of junk DNA actually is perfect for explaining the importance of time-dependency in data. It may have been information once, but now it isn’t. Why? Maybe because the machinery for understanding it has changed and no longer can read it as information. So, I reject your claim that empiricists conflate information with its medium.

See above. Replication is not the same thing as intention but instead presumes it. And how do you know that a bit of "junk DNA" isn't actually serving some purpose. Again, we do NOT understand the genome!

Moreover, my view is consistent with the idea that what once was "readable" may come to be "unreadable." Prior to discovering the Rosetta Stone, there were ancient languages we could not read. What you need to "reject my claim" is to demonstrate that "junk" never was "readable" by "anybody" at any time. I've never denied the time dimension in "readability." In fact, my position is entirely consistent with it.

Finally, with respect to intentionality, I think that you are on the right track but, I would argue that all you really need is something like the replication process which imbues in an organization of things the intentionality to survive.

I'm sorry, but that's just wishful thinking, and it's shared by all empirical accounts of life. The problem that explanation faces, by conflating intention with replication, is that we have countless examples of the fact that in order to know WHAT to replicate, we must already know the intention. The two are not the same thing; replication presupposes intention (and knowing what that intention is) rather than acting as a sort of "proxy" for it.

Somehow, we know not how (and it is clearly and necessarily not a deterministic process), enzymes "work to" replicate genetic material. And the huge difference between a beaker full of "all the parts" and a living cell is that the living cell somehow, we know not how, "works together to" make the right things happen. There is "something" going on there that we don't even begin to understand, and that something is literally and in the robust sense intentional. That's WHY replication occurs rather than that the replication just is the "intention."

Now, how this all got started is another subject, but once it did, the system has all of the intentionality it needs.

I hope that as you write that your internal red-flags are waving like crazy at how obviously question-begging it is.

Our human intentions evolved from this original signal.

There isn't even good hand-waving in the general direction of what this "original signal" could be.

Heading out to Turkey Rocks this morning.

Have a great one!

yanqui

climber

Balcarce, Argentina

Jun 23, 2018 - 08:59am PT

"Even if Margulis made only one major contribution to science, that is one more than Coyne or Dawkins"

Growing pains in the science of evolution:

http://musicoflife.website/pdfs/Two%20Wrongs.pdf

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 23, 2018 - 12:09pm PT

^^^ Beautiful piece.

It coheres with something I've been trying to say, which is: "I am convinced that neo-Darwinism is not correct. But from that 'fact' (once it finally becomes widely recognized), there is no inferential leap to 'God,' and I am not advocating such a leap."

Perhaps some other entirely materialistic theory will provide a better account. For my part, I am presently convinced that there are in-principle problems inherent in pure materialism. But I'm open to seeing some materialistic theory emerge that, in ways I presently can't imagine, solves these problems. I am very sensitive to appeal-to-ignorance! I do not "need to be right."

But neo-Darwinism isn't going to be the deal, and the sooner that science comes clean about the sweeping inadequacies inherent in neo-Darwinism, the sooner it can move on to a more promising line of inquiry.

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

Jun 23, 2018 - 02:30pm PT

Oh, I was not aware. Good to know.

Other-ly humoured also welcome.

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

Jun 23, 2018 - 02:33pm PT

I do not "need to be right."

But you are strongly motivated. Can you say much about what you do need? Or want, if that is more the case?

WBraun

climber

Jun 23, 2018 - 02:58pm PT

I do not "need to be right."

The gross materialist can never be right to begin with since they are inherently wrong to begin with.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 23, 2018 - 07:32pm PT

But you are strongly motivated. Can you say much about what you do need? Or want, if that is more the case?

It's not anything special. We're all motivated to discover, to understand, within our severely limited capacities.

"Knowledge is power," and we all want as much as we can have.

However, I discovered pretty early in the study of philosophy that we live in a deeper epistemic hole than we can even know. Once you scratch that surface, "being right" goes out the window. Perhaps the best you can do is not be wrong quite as much. Of course, there's an infinite number of ways to be wrong, and we don't dodge them all.

I clearly remember the day when, as an undergraduate, I "felt the bottom go out from under me." It was literally on a particular day, and nothing was the same after that day. I had a long conversation with one of my two favorite professors, and she helped me through that intellectual crisis. But that day changed everything in my perspectives. It was like a "red pill" experience for me, only "the truth" is not what emerged.

You know, when Morpheus says to Neo, "Welcome to the real world," at that moment, for the first time in his life, Neo has exactly ZERO reason to believe that he IS in the real world. Morpheus promises "the truth," but in fact he's entirely unable to deliver.

Philosophy is like that, and you learn that so are ALL the other disciplines (and religions).

I think it was Heisenberg who said, "Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think." I believe that it's stranger than even understanding that quote opens the logical space for.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - Jun 23, 2018 - 08:00pm PT

The way I think about it (and it is fun to see Largo argue against himself when I bring up his points) the entirety of our lives is a unique set of experiences. How we perceive these experiences depend a lot on our own specific body build (down to our genetic makeup) and the way we are "taught" to interpret these experiences. This not only affects our immediate response to the experiences, but our memory of the experiences.

You conflated "perceive" with "interpret."

Is it possible for you to imagine perceiving without interpreting?

Yes, our biology shapes our perceptions, but not our awareness. Awareness is not an interpretation. When Ed says, "perceive," he is really talking about what we perceive and what we make of that content, including all the a priori constructs that come along with perceiving any thing or phenomenon, including our sense of self, time, and process.

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

Jun 23, 2018 - 08:57pm PT

Perhaps the best you can do is not be wrong quite as much.

I see an easy way to satisfy that need: don't try to explain everything. As I see it, the best I can do is to enjoy all the wonderful things that happen each day, and only try to understand and discover small parts of the whole. Understanding and discovery are very difficult to get for the big picture but work quite well on pieces of it.