Why the bias against materialism?

[Royce]

AG, From my understanding of what I'm reading yo are saying the there is no difference between a blank CD that I can buy for $2-3 and a CD with information on it that may cost me $200-300.

As I am a frugel man I would obviously but the blank CD but try as I might to load the program into my computer I get nothing.

Knowledge is. Information is. Our physical brain is the hardware on which the information and knowledge reside and operate. The electrochemical processes supply the energy and electrons to allow the hardware to run the software.

I can buy the most expensive complicated and advanced computer in the world and set it up and plug it in and turn it on. Even it I buy all he CD's in the world written or un written and load them onto my computer, the computer is not going to do anything until I tell it to do something and the it is only go to do exactly what I tell it to do, not necessarily what I want it to do. It is the same with our brains and minds. Every living human being has a funtioning brain. Every living human being does not know how or use his brain with the same efficency or to do the same thing. Even if we spent 20 years loading information into a number of brains as in education people, the results will differ drastically from one individual to another.

All phd's are not the same. If it were just a matter of physical brains there would not be that much difference in final results.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
This all appears to me to be essentially the same as the Objective - Subjective thing.

Train of cause and effect, no 'information' above and beyond the mere existence of the intermediate particles, behaving in their characteristic ways is required.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The color red is a subjective interpretation of a light wave. But the function of a software program is distinct and can have real effects on the world whether a human being is around to see it or not. To go back to the laws of nature... the fact that circumference divided by diameter always equals Pi is NOT subjective. It is a universal rule that is not physical. (I understand that all these math labels are man made, but that doesn't change the fact that the ratio is constant in nature.)

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Royce
AG, From my understanding of what I'm reading yo are saying the there is no difference between a blank CD that I can buy for $2-3 and a CD with information on it that may cost me $200-300.

Wow...I explained it THAT bad?

What I am saying does not mean that at all. In fact, it says the very opposite. It says that the $200 CD is much more worth it, because the CD has a very important part of it altered so that the computer which interacts with it does something impressive. The $2 CD does not have this alteration, and so makes for a very boring interaction.

I am simply saying that you do not pay $200 for the CD with the funky alterations, and the information that comes with it. The information is only a consequence of the funky alterations.

Of course, I say the above with an attempt at Objectivity, and I only say it that way because of the context of the discussion. It is true that in daily usage I would say "The $200 CD is worth it, because of the information it contains"...but that is a euphemism, a way of talking, a convenient expression to get a point across. It is important not to confuse 'ways of talking' with how things are, which is precisely what I think Fliption has done in this instance.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
Wow...I explained it THAT bad?
It is important not to confuse 'ways of talking' with how things are, which is precisely what I think Fliption has done in this instance.

What I say here I say because of many things I've read on the topic. So it isn't just me.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The color red is a subjective interpretation of a light wave. But the function of a software program is distinct and can have real effects on the world whether a human being is around to see it or not.

Absolutely in agreeance there, my point is that it only appears as 'information' because that's what us humans subjectively call it...it has a predictable causal relationship, a complex one at that, and so we call this particular example information.

In this way, we could call everything information. DNA holds information of the base pairs, the light waves holds the information of the the colour it will impart into the human consciousness, the atom holds the information of its mass and dimensions, the snooked ball holds the information of its momentum, and it even acts to impart some of this information into the snooker ball it collides with...not only that, but it instantaneously calculates a complicated trajectory equation, and the momentum is transformed in the passing.

But it becomes silly to talk about 'information' in this way. The fact is, these things are just acting in the way they act. Doing what they do. it is not that the ball carries the information of its momentum with it...it is that the ball is momentus (if that's not a word, then it is now) (the ball is in motion).

Now how you want to name that, how you want to say, how you want to think of it is your own deal, but don't confuse human simplification of the matter with how it is.


Having said that, I do have a slight suspicion that the universe is simply the consequence of a neat little mathematical relationship, and that equation dictates everything...which i guess would mean that everything 'is only information'...but that's just the same, but looked at oppositely, and so I am not completely contradicted. I still claim that there is not 'A ball AND the information with it', the is not "The CD AND the Software on it" There is only one unified entity.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The color red is a subjective interpretation of a light wave. But the function of a software program is distinct and can have real effects on the world whether a human being is around to see it or not. To go back to the laws of nature... the fact that circumference divided by diameter always equals Pi is NOT subjective. It is a universal rule that is not physical. (I understand that all these math labels are man made, but that doesn't change the fact that the ratio is constant in nature.)

No, you don't understand what I'm saying.*grins* But, I'm still having a hard time explaining. Software is physical. Sure, ok, software is physical! And 'pi' doesn't exist, roundness does. 'Red' doesn't exist, but the visible light spectrum does.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
Having said that, I do have a slight suspicion that the universe is simply the consequence of a neat little mathematical relationship, and that equation dictates everything...which i guess would mean that everything 'is only information'...but that's just the same, but looked at oppositely, and so I am not completely contradicted. I still claim that there is not 'A ball AND the information with it', the is not "The CD AND the Software on it" There is only one unified entity.

Nothing you are saying is refuting the fact that in order to have the universe, you have to have the things in the universe and then the rules which govern how those things interact. I don't care what you call it; information or not information. These rules are not material yet they do exists.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
No, you don't understand what I'm saying.*grins* But, I'm still having a hard time explaining. Software is physical. Sure, ok, software is physical! And 'pi' doesn't exist, roundness does. 'Red' doesn't exist, but the visible light spectrum does.

I was referring to AG. I'll concede that I may not understand what you're trying to say if you say I don't.

But the ratio of Pi DOES exists. If humans were not present it wouldn't be known as Pi but this has no bearing on the fact that the universe is contructed in a certain way according to certain rules and constants. These rules are not physical in and of themselves but they DO exists.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Fliption
I was referring to AG. I'll concede that I may not understand what you're trying to say if you say I don't.

But the ratio of Pi DOES exists. If humans were not present it wouldn't be known as Pi but this has no bearing on the fact that the universe is contructed in a certain way according to certain rules and constants. These rules are not physical in and of themselves but they DO exists.

Yeah, let's get metaphysical baby!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, let's get metaphysical baby!

Nothing metaphysical about it. As I said, roundness exists, as a property of matter, described by pi.

 

[Zero]

This is starting to sound like the return of Alexander's 'math created the universe' threads, isn't it?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
This is starting to sound like the return of Alexander's 'math created the universe' threads, isn't it?

Are you referring to me here? Just give me a chance to finish the post on my other thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection?, and we'll see if we can't get you to eat some of your own words, Okay?

Give me about ten or fifteen minutes. I can assure you you won't be dissapointed!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you referring to me here? Just give me a chance to finish the post on my other thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection?, and we'll see if we can't get you to eat some of your own words, Okay?

Give me about ten or fifteen minutes. I can assure you you won't be dissapointed!

LOL

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
Absolutely in agreeance there, my point is that it only appears as 'information' because that's what us humans subjectively call it...it has a predictable causal relationship, a complex one at that, and so we call this particular example information.

"Ask anybody what the physical world is made of, and you are likely to be told "matter and energy."
Yet if we have learned anything from engineering, biology and physics, information is just as crucial an ingredient. The robot at the automobile factory is supplied with metal and plastic but can make nothing useful without copious instructions telling it which part to weld to what and so on. A ribosome in a cell in your body is supplied with amino acid building blocks and is powered by energy released by the conversion of ATP to ADP, but it can synthesize no proteins without the information brought to it from the DNA in the cell's nucleus. Likewise, a century of developments in physics has taught us that information is a crucial player in physical systems and processes. Indeed, a current trend, initiated by John A. Wheeler of Princeton University, is to regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals."

This is the first paragraph of the cover story of the most recent Scientific American. I'm not posting it because it necessarily contradicts anything you have said. I am posting it because by using the same language as this article, you claimed I was confused in terminology. I recommend you read the entire article.

But it does appear to contradict what Zero is saying. This article at least makes the distinction between information and it's media.

 

[Zero]

I don't think that this is anything for me to worry about, really. It is a new way of looking at the same stuff, and I don't think it violates anyt of the main points I make.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't think that this is anything for me to worry about, really. It is a new way of looking at the same stuff, and I don't think it violates anyt of the main points I make.

That would depend on the definition of "information" that is being used by these scientists. While they don't mention materialism directly, it certainly sounds like they are describing "information" as a non-physical concept. Nonetheless, they are clearly distinguishing information from it's media. This alone contradicts what you've said.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
That would depend on the definition of "information" that is being used by these scientists. While they don't mention materialism directly, it certainly sounds like they are describing "information" as a non-physical concept. Nonetheless, they are clearly distinguishing information from it's media. This alone contradicts what you've said.

Well, it contradicts one aspect of what I have said...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, it contradicts one aspect of what I have said...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook.

Lol. I agree. I am confident that whatever they discover the truth to be that you will perceive it to be consistent with your worldview. How can it not be with this openminded attitude? lol

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. I agree. I am confident that whatever they discover the truth to be that you will perceive it to be consistent with your worldview. How can it not be with this openminded attitude? lol

I know you are being sarcastic, but it is true. I AM open-minded, to the results of properly done scientific inquiry.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I know you are being sarcastic, but it is true. I AM open-minded, to the results of properly done scientific inquiry.

I meant to say at the bottom that I assume you were kidding. But who knows? Maybe you weren't.

The question is "will you actively pursue looking into progress in this area or will it be forgotten until someone brings it up in another "bash everyone who disagrees with me thread"?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption

"A ribosome in a cell in your body is supplied with amino acid building blocks and is powered by energy released by the conversion of ATP to ADP, but it can synthesize no proteins without the information brought to it from the DNA in the cell's nucleus."

This is the first paragraph of the cover story of the most recent Scientific American. I'm not posting it because it necessarily contradicts anything you have said. I am posting it because by using the same language as this article, you claimed I was confused in terminology. I recommend you read the entire article.

Hmm, well, it seems I may disagree with the author of this article, and the editors who deemed this article good enough to post in New Scientist.

I don't mind that.

It basically comes down to the assertion that DNA carries information with it. I mean, yes, the structure of the RNA can be said to interact with the ribosome in a way so as to translate to 'information' into proteins...But this is only a consequence of the structure of that particular RNA molecule.

Either the author of this article realizes that he is using the word information, as a human created concept, imposed upon simply characteristics of our universe, or he is claiming that characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things, or he is confusing language in his attempt to objectively analyse nature, and so making a fool of himself.

I will agree with the first one, the second one is a big conjecture for which I will need some sort of proof (ie: Seperate the information from the matter that carries it), and then the third one is simply a result of...well, let's call it miseducation.

Thats my belief anyway.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Another God
Hmm, well, it seems I may disagree with the author of this article, and the editors who deemed this article good enough to post in New Scientist.

I don't mind that.

It basically comes down to the assertion that DNA carries information with it. I mean, yes, the structure of the RNA can be said to interact with the ribosome in a way so as to translate to 'information' into proteins...But this is only a consequence of the structure of that particular RNA molecule.

Either the author of this article realizes that he is using the word information, as a human created concept, imposed upon simply characteristics of our universe, or he is claiming that characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things, or he is confusing language in his attempt to objectively analyse nature, and so making a fool of himself.

I will agree with the first one, the second one is a big conjecture for which I will need some sort of proof (ie: Seperate the information from the matter that carries it), and then the third one is simply a result of...well, let's call it miseducation.

Thats my belief anyway.

That's what I was thinking...or that ;information' is being used as a desciptive term different in the context from what it is in normal usage.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Another God
I will agree with the first one, the second one is a big conjecture for which I will need some sort of proof (ie: Seperate the information from the matter that carries it), and then the third one is simply a result of...well, let's call it miseducation.

Thats my belief anyway.

Then I would recommend that you do a lot more reading on it. This is certainly not the only place where this is discussed. I'm positive you will have to cast aside the credibility of more than just one scientists in order to keep your world view.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Then I would recommend that you do a lot more reading on it. This is certainly not the only place where this is discussed. I'm positive you will have to cast aside the credibility of more than just one scientists in order to keep your world view.

I don't see why...this hypothesis is going to have to be backed by empirical data...which is the main point of our philosophy.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't see why...this hypothesis is going to have to be backed by empirical data...which is the main point of our philosophy.

So you're claiming that other scientists are claiming things without evidence? Anyway, this has less to do with evidence as it does the usage and definition of the term "information" by scientists. Let me note again that they make a distinction between information and it's medium. And this is definitional. Semantics doesn't require evidence.


"BTW, love the use of the word "our" in "our philosophy".

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
So you're claiming that other scientists are claiming things without evidence? Anyway, this has less to do with evidence as it does the usage and definition of the term "information" by scientists. Let me note again that they make a distinction between information and it's medium. And this is definitional. Semantics doesn't require evidence.


"BTW, love the use of the word "our" in "our philosophy".

Yeah, as a matter of fact, semanitics should actually require evidence, or shall I start calling you a 'toad', because I can make up meanings of words to suit me?

 

[Zero]

And, in addition, are these scientists claiming that the 'information' carried by DNA is subjective?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
And, in addition, are these scientists claiming that the 'information' carried by DNA is subjective?

I'm not sure they address that topic. Are you suggesting that subjectivity doesn't exists?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, as a matter of fact, semanitics should actually require evidence, or shall I start calling you a 'toad', because I can make up meanings of words to suit me?

So you're saying that if serveral scientists are using a different definition from you than they are making it up? lol

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
So you're saying that if serveral scientists are using a different definition from you than they are making it up? lol

No, I am saying they need to make sure to clarify terms, if'n you get my point?

You know, like when the creationists call 'Intelligent Design' a theory, they don't use the word the way a scientist would, confusing some people into believing that ID is science, when it is not. You know, that sort of thing.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
No, I am saying they need to make sure to clarify terms, if'n you get my point?

You know, like when the creationists call 'Intelligent Design' a theory, they don't use the word the way a scientist would, confusing some people into believing that ID is science, when it is not. You know, that sort of thing.

Yeah I know what you mean. In this case, these are scientists and I know there is a lot you can read about this if you actually wanted to get a clear understanding.

I think we should hold the same standards of explanation to people of all views.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yeah I know what you mean. In this case, these are scientists and I know there is a lot you can read about this if you actually wanted to get a clear understanding.

I think we should hold the same standards of explanation to people of all views.

I do hold them to the same general standards, which is why I am dismissive of the ID supporters, while I respect the research into this whole 'information is the fundamental building block of reality' idea. I don't think that they are right, but I also think they might be onto something, as far as a useful way of describing things. And, if they are right, it doesn't make me 'wrong' in a practical sense.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
I do hold them to the same general standards, which is why I am dismissive of the ID supporters, while I respect the research into this whole 'information is the fundamental building block of reality' idea. I don't think that they are right, but I also think they might be onto something, as far as a useful way of describing things. And, if they are right, it doesn't make me 'wrong' in a practical sense.

The way I think of information, it can exists objectively. Whether or not this understanding of mine is consistent with what these scientists think, I can't be sure right now. But it certainly seems as if they are talking about the same thing I have in mind.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
The way I think of information, it can exists objectively. Whether or not this understanding of mine is consistent with what these scientists think, I can't be sure right now. But it certainly seems as if they are talking about the same thing I have in mind.

I think I know why I am resistant to the idea. I believe when they say 'information', they mean something very specific. I am afraid that some people will take that to mean that information in the broadest sense is objective, and then make wild claims that those scientists never intended and wouldn't support.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
Then I would recommend that you do a lot more reading on it. This is certainly not the only place where this is discussed. I'm positive you will have to cast aside the credibility of more than just one scientists in order to keep your world view.

So which one do you think it is, and which one do you think they think it is?

1 Information is a human created concept, imposed upon characteristics of our universe

2 Characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things

3 "DNA contains information...now we just have to find where that information that it contains..." (ie: Semantic confusion. Category Error)