LuftWaffle

I can't quite let you get away with this error... Nowhere in the definition of information is it required that either the encoder or the decoder be conscious. So your entire line of reasoning is an imposition upon the definition which is not required. What the argument states is that the information system has a mind as its ultimate source. An anti-virus program which connects to a server and downloads virus updates is an example of a unconscious computer communicating with another unconscious computer via the internet. There is no consciousness in this system at all, but it would be ridiculous to conclude that since there is no consciousness, this did not originate from a mind. The genome operates on a similar basis. The encoder and decoder isn't conscious, and isn't required to be. I'd like to state for the OP that I believe the information argument to be an exceptionally strong argument, but it does rely on strict definition and common sense, so it is vulnerable to obtuseness and/or unreasonableness. The classic tactics against this argument are, and I think we've seen those here: 1. Attempt to argue that everything is a code. The key here are the issues of encoding, decoding and symbolic representation (as per the definition in this thread). Codes represent something other than themselves and are encoded and decoded. All known cases of information that conform to this definition have as their ultimate origin, a mind. 2. Attempt to argue that the gene code isn't a code. The gene code can be mapped in a 1:1 way to any known communication system. It's straightforward logic to say that if A has all the same properties of B, then A is B. Add to that the fact that minds can recognise codes (when the Rosetta stone was discovered it was immediately recognised as a code, and attempts to decode it followed even though its origin was unknown) and after the genome was discovered the next logical step for science was to attempt to decode it. To say that the gene code is only *like* a code is to look at an animal that has all the properties of a horse, and yet deny that you're looking at a horse. For such unreasonableness no argument exists. 3. Creationist are stupid and or insane therefore this argument must not be taken seriously. The notion that information comes from minds is observable in everyday life. SETI applies this principle searching for intelligence and they're certainly not creationists. Hubert Yockey isn't a creationist either yet he laments this code and evolution's inability to account for its origin. In order to refute this argument all that is needed is a single example of coded information originating by purely natural means. None have been given. That's me out. Thanks for reading.

It actually took almost 100 years after its discovery to formulate the idea that DNA "codes" for RNA which "codes" for proteins. Originally, DNA was thought to be a simple molecule; a common idea in academia at the time was that proteins make DNA, not the other way around. I don't really see the relevance of what people thought DNA was, before they knew what it was. Ever since it's discovery it has been referred to as a code. According to Hubert Yockey communcations terms are used in connection with DNA all the time and these terms aren't metaphors or analogies. Good to see you're open minded, D-9. If you're going to approach this with the old, "creationists do not know what they are talking about" tactic and simply dismiss things with ad hominems, then what's the point? While the "creationists are shoddy scientists" tactic may work for Gitt, what about Yockey who is a secular evolutionist? C'mon D-9, you can do better. All I keep seeing is assertions that DNA is only "like" a code but not really. How is that an argument? This is precisely the problem that materialists have with almost everything they can't explain. The universe only "looks" designed, but we're assured it really isn't. Morality only seems objective, but it's really just survival drive. Life only seems to have meaning and purpose. DNA only seems to be a code. According to Hubert Yockey DNA is a code. This is not merely an analogy or metaphor. Dismissing such claims as ignorant creationist babble isn't sufficient. If science cannot deal with this, then perhaps tasking science with the massive burden of having to explain all things is an error. D-9, I'm going to take a break from this discussion for while. If you'd really like to learn about the information aspect from a secular viewpoint, then try reading Yockey's book. Go well

Hey D-9. I'm also rather busy, so I understand the delay. The message in an mp3 file is the song (assuming a music mp3). The message on a DVD is the movie. Well, this question seems rather odd, because the entire point of this thread is to discuss the fact that all instances of information have as their final cause a mind. I think songs and movies ultimately come from the minds of songwriters and playwrights, don't you? Think about SETI. They would assume an intelligent source behind a signal if the signal represents something other than itself (a series of prime numbers). Without intelligence it's possible to get a signal that is random, such as white noise, and it's possible to get a patterns such as that coming from a pulsar. I agree. The magnetised points on a harddrive also behave according to the laws of nature, and so too do the waves of a FM signal. But they form part of a communication system and so does DNA. Neither do the voltage changes in a network cable desire any outcome, but yet those voltage changes carry a message from D-9 to Luftwaffle wherein D-9 purposes to disagree with me You're begging the question. There are no known examples of coded information that do not have as their ultimate cause, a mind. You cannot offer DNA as the exception and then use that to argue for the existence of exception to the information argument. cont'd

I like Johnny Cash, does that count? nah, too mellow for me What does somebody sing like when they sit on bowl of honey? Do you include "Rage against the machine" in hip hop? I like the song "Maggie's Farm". That song kinda conjours up images of driving a big old American car through the Karoo. Ditto on Lady Gaga, and other rebel-conformists like her, including Manson, Eminem etc. I don't like posers and I find that many pop artists nowadays portray this bad - rebel attitude, but in the end they're promoting precisely whatever values the rulers of the industry (MTV, etc.) promote. Kids listen to this thinking they're breaking molds, without knowing they're being molded. That's a rant for another day though. Oh really? That's awesome. I never owned a posh guitar like that. My best and favourite was an oily black Jackson with an inverted head. Not sure what model it was. Wouldn't mind a Gibson SG though.....or another Jackson, but I haven't played in ages. cheers

Well, if we both like Opeth, it is normal to bang heads. Ciao - viole I Haven't listened to "Orchid" in aaaages. Actually spinning it now in my CD player. I'll check out that roadhouse tapes version of "Under the weeping moon". Do you play any musical instruments? Most metalheads tend to be musicians themselves...

Hi Viole, Oh, ok. I wonder if they'd really be that engaging live. I also preferred the first few albums. With their Still Life album they lost me. Viole, who teaches atheists to pretend to be cold hard logic machines? These noble-sounding mantras are so far beyond actual arguments forwarded by many atheists that I'm beginning to wonder it is isn't part of a propaganda campaign. If I had a buck for everytime an atheist brags about their logical ability, only to fail at the starting gates, I'd have a large number of bucks. Here are two fine examples: You disagree that my view that God cannot be proven is shared by "ALL apologists"? Where did I offer the view as that of "ALL apologists"? A Strawman, seperated from the "I'm super rational" bluster by a single sentence. See what I mean? This is followed by you basing the notion that William Lane Craig believes God can be proven with 100% certainty on the notion that he allegedly says "inescapable conclusion", "undeniable proof" a lot? Can you offer an example of William Lane Craig claiming that God can be proven with 100% certainty? If you can't offer an example, then where the cold hard logical Viole you keep referring to? Cause and effect IS a meta-physical concept (unless you're prepared to show me an instance of cause and effect, not to be confused with an example of cause and effect), so the objection that this is a composition fallacy fails. In fact it seems to be a category mistake of your part. Your usual objection that you can't imagine causation prior to the existence of time, is an argument from personal incredulity. What rational justification can you offer for the notion that time is a necessary condition for causation? For every theorectical model that specifies time as necessary there are theoretical models specifying time as emergent. So really, your entire case against the KCA seems to rest on a priori restrictions that you're forcing without any reasonable justification. This is further evidenced by the fact that, before Big Bang cosmology came about most atheists took exception with the second premise of the KCA (hoping that the universe would be eternal). It's only once science has supported the second premise, that sceptics have started attacking the first premise. This to me is a strong indication that the problem isn't with either premise, but rather the conclusion ("God exists"). Furthermore, physicists at the forefront of cosmology are scrambling to provide a non-divine cause for the universe, so if the KCA was such a weak argument, one wonders why so many theoretical physicists such as Hawking are so desperately trying to find a cause for the universe (that isn't God), such as relying on the Law of gravity to do the heavy lifting. My honest opinion is that if materialists could find a cause for the universe that isn't God, they'd happily embrace both premises of the KCA. Neither premise is unreasonable and it seems deep down they know it. Either way, I really don't have time for another round-about with the KCA. My point was simply that your initial statement, "The point I have in all such discussions is not to disprove God, but to disprove that you can prove Him..." was a triviality that both parties agree on (and for which you offered no valid counter except for the strawman and the assertion about Craig). I also said that for atheists to build their entire case on the unprovability of God to justify denying God seems to be rather shallow, since coming up with possible denials to virtually any premise are the easiest thing in the world to do. As such it seems atheism, despite all its noble claims, seems more into exploiting gaps in epistomology, than actually embracing reason. Thanks for the chat though, perhaps we'll bang heads again at some stage

Hi Viole, I've been meaning to ask you, have you seen Opeth live? I'd like to focus on the statement you made above, because I think in a way it really forms the crux of why I think Christians sometimes get frustrated with atheists and I think it actually does a disservice to atheism in general. I'm going to speak frankly here, not because I want to provoke an argument or because I want to be controversial, but because I think it needs to be said: If atheists think that all they need to do to defend atheism is come up with possibilities that negate the premises of theistic arguments, then they simply do not understand reason and argumentation. I'm aware that this is a strong statement, but I see this mentality all the time, that in order to shut down the cosmological argument, all you need to do is come up with a way to negate either premise, be it the breakdown of cause and effect, or an eternal universe of some sort. Or, in order to shut down the teleological argument, all you need to do is come up with some possible explanation for the illusion of design. Theistic arguments aren't proofs for God. Any Christian who understands there arguments will tell you that you can't prove the existence of God. In fact very few things in life can actually be proven without any sort of doubt whatsoever. That's precisely why courtrooms use terms like beyond reasonable doubt, and philosophers use terms like justified belief, properly basic truths etc. So really, if your aim is as trivial as trying to show that God cannot be proven, then we already agree on that. No need for debate. We freely admit that. Neither the cosmological argument, nor the teleological argument, nor the argument from moral values and duties, or any argument for God, proves God. So there, if that was your goal, then mission accomplished. These things are called "arguments" because if they were proofs, it would be the "Kalam Cosmological Proof", the "Teleological proof" etc. And I'm not picking on you here, Viole. Most atheists seem to do this. They come here saying, "I really want to believe in God, but I have trouble with ____________ (insert objection here)" The atheist then sits back, listens to arguments and simply comes up with possible denials of the premises. "Maybe the disciples lied or were deluded", "morality could have evolved", "why the Christian God and not Allah?", etc. etc. I submit that doing so does not make a person rational. Coming up with possible denials are easy, because possibilities come cheap. This tactic can be applied to dismiss almost anything, since as I mentioned, there are very few things in life that aren't susceptible to hyperscepticism. You'd have a hard time trying to prove to me that atheists exist, if you have to come up with argument and all I need to do is dream up possible denials. Does that make me more rational, because I can shoot down all your arguments for the existence of atheists with the possibility of sollipsism? No, it doesn't. Here's the thing, and if you understand this, you'll understand us a little better, and I promise you, that our discussion will be a lot more fruitful. We do not believe that God can be proven. We offer these arguments because we believe them to be good arguments. What is a good argument? A good argument is an argument where the premises are more reasonable than their denials. Now, you could turn this into a debate about, "how do we know what is reasonable?" or "what's reasonable in your eyes, isn't necessarily(again appealing to possible denial) reasonable", and I would fully accept it, and say "yes, you're absolutely correct". Reasonableness cannot be proven, so reasonableness itself is contingent upon reasonableness. I believe that you are reasonable, and that's why I'm appealing to you to think about the arguments and evaluate them for what they are, instead of trying to show what everybody already knows, which is that arguments aren't proofs. Doing so simply misses the point of the arguments, and results in those involved in discussions speaking past each other. The bottomline is this. There is a shared set of evidence (the cosmos, complex life, morality, etc.). All worldviews have access to this evidence, but all worldviews also have the responsibility to explain the evidence. The more reasonable worldview is the one that better explains the evidence. If atheism is 1% better at explaining the evidence, then it is more reasonable to hold atheism as true. Conversely if Christianity is 1% better at explaning the evidence, then Christianity is more reasonable to hold. We're not arrogant enough to think we can prove God, we simply believe that given the cumulative cases, Christianity is a more reasonable belief than atheism. Thanks for reading this. Again I didn't want to rant, and I hope this doesn't come across as a rant. I just wanted to get this off my chest in the hopes that it will clarify our position a little better. Also know, that I'm not interested in rehashing the KCA, or the moral argument etc. in this thread. This post is not an argument in itself, but instead it's about arguments. God bless.

Hi D-9 Computers are also very much controlled by the physical, but if you have a picture of aunt Martha or a classical music mp3 or your harddrive, it's not like aunt Martha really physically exists inside the harddrive, or that the Boston Symphonic orchestra really plays inside the computer. I totally agree that the encoding and decoding systems are usually physical. I totally agree that the medium is generally physical. The message however, is abstract. It is non-physical. It is seperate from the physical process. I think the reason you're having trouble "seeing" the immaterial aspect of information, is because you want me to point to a physical thing, but by definition there is no distinc physical thing that is the information. The information is the message which is stored and/or transmitted in the physical but it's wholly apart from the physical system. Sorry "semantics" and "meaning" are redundant, since symantics is about meaning. The semantic aspect as it relates to DNA would be as follows: Certain gene sequences mean certain things, in other words a person like Craig Venter would be able to look at a certain section of DNA and say, "this section specifies such-and-such bacteria's propulsion system". That particular section can be translated into a different language to be stored on a computer, right? The computer language has a vastly different statistical, and syntactical structure than DNA. Computer = binary DNA = quarternary A Stop codon on a computer may be stored as "01111101101011010101110110111" A Stop codon in DNA may be "UAA UAG UGA". The meaning however is exactly the same. You have two seperate languages, each with their own statistical propertes, grammatical rules, but storing the same information. That's the semantic aspec. In terms of purpose. That's the reason for the message, the desired practical outcome, whether it be to produce some organ or regulate some function in the case of DNA. No, DNA isn't merely a long interesting chemical. It's is a precise information storage mechanism. Where's the storage mechanism in zinc combining with iodine? What is being stored? But that's precisely the point. DNA is a code AND a language, whereas a leaf hitting a pond is not. Any coded information or language has a predetermined alphabet, an encoding system where abstract concepts are coded using the alphabet and whatever syntactical rules apply. These abstract concepts are transmitted across a medium, but they aren't the medium. A leaf hitting a pond has none of these properties. While you can use your mind, to derive knowledge (even implied knowledge) by direct observation, there is no encoding or symbolic representation inherent. Look at what you're arguing here: 1. If DNA is a code, then all chemical reactions are codes 2. DNA is a code 3. Therefore all chemical reactions are codes. On what basis should premise one be assumed to be true? Consider the same argument using different example 1. If Morse-code is a code, then all clinking or knocking sounds are codes. 2. Morse-code is a code 3. Therefore all clicking or knocking sounds are codes. Yet we don't see people trying to decode a screen door banging in the wind, or water dripping in a cave, because a screen door isn't representing anything other than itself. The reason you don't see that happening is because it's obvious that those things aren't sending coded information. It's obvious that there is no symbolic message that needs to be decyphered. But when DNA was discovered it was immediately recognised as a code, and the very next step was identified as "lets decipher this code". DNA has all the hallmarks of coded information. The idea that this is just a human construct seems to me to be another example of materialism having to redefine as "illusory" anything that it can't explain. DNA isn't just like a code, it is a code. “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005) According to information theorist Werner Gitt, it does. "We find a unique coding system and definite syntax in every genome. The coding system is composed of four chemical symols for the letters of the defined alphabet, and the syntax entails triplets representing certain amino acids" Apart from that, the fact is that numerous biology textbooks out there describe the 4 bases as characters of the DNA alphabet. I think the notion that it merely "looks" like an alphabet is to avoid dealing with the consequences of DNA being coded information. I'm not implying you in particular are trying to avoid anything. The "it just looks like a code" argument is common amongst scientists, because of the a priori materialism in which science is grounded. Why is DNA only "like" a code, when it has all the hallmarks of a code? If human conceptions cannot be trusted then why trust the human conception that it only looks like a code? Is it not also a human concept to believe that biology should be the only voice we listen to, to explain the genome, when information theory also has something to contribute?

Ahh ok. We normally have a wet Christmas down by the coast in SA. Well, in a blueprint or the assembly instructions for a toy, the specification is not the paper and ink itself, but the particular arrangement of the elements, their syntax, context, etc. The same applies to genes. You have an alphabet consisting consisting of bases and the particular arrangement contains the message, which specifies a cat, or blue eyes etc. As with any code, I understand the genetic code has syntax, symantics, meaning and purpose, all of which make up the non-physical aspect of information. No the wave pattern doesn't symbolise anything. There is no system that encoded data into the wave by assigning certain symbolic values to the wave. Let me put it this way: What you can learn by observing a leaf hitting the water are really only things pertaining to that leaf hitting the water, right? In other words everything you can learn about that leaf hitting the water somehow has to do with that leaf hitting the water. In contrast, what can you learn by reading a book? Sure by examining the ink and paper, you may be able to learn how old the book is, what glue was used in the binding etc, but you can learn much more than merely things pertaining to the physical characteristics of books. By reading the information you can learn about God, if that book is the Bible, you can learn about biology if it's a textbook, etc. See, the difference? Genes are the same, they represents far more than merely the components they consist of. They may represent feathers of a certain shape and size and color. The echo location system of a bat, along with the "software drivers" so that the bat can make sense of the signals, it may represent the prey drive of a leopard, or the reproductive cycle of a mosquito etc. etc. There are many ways to define information, and I think it may be a bit of an equivocation on your part, since the way you're defining information is not quite valid in terms of the definition given in my earlier post. My original definition conforms to the definition of information where it relates to communication systems. The genetic code can be mapped in a 1:1 way against any other communication system code. All communication systems of which their origin is known, has a mind as its source. Therefore it seems reasonable that the gene code came from a mind.

I am well aware of the Landauer principle. The big problem here is that you're trying to sound clever throwing around names and principles but you're not at all aware of what this discussion is about. The landauer principle in essence specifies the mininum amount of energy required to flip the smallest possible binary switch physically. In other words it deals with the storage of information and not the ontology of it. Formatting a hard drive doesn't require more energy when it's full of information, as opposed to if it's full of random noise. Burning an informative textbook doesn't require a bigger flame than burning the same book if it was full of gibberish.

Hi D-9 Yeah, doing great. Does it snow during Christmas where you live? I wouldn't mind a white Christmas once. I totally agree that some pretty complex patterns can emerge via the laws of nature, such as snowflakes for instance. DNA seems to be more than merely a pattern though. It represents something other than itself in that it's possible to analyse a sequence of DNA and see what it represents, for instance "this DNA belongs to a person with blue eyes", "this DNA describes a cat" etc. etc. Also with patterns you don't really have a coding and decoding system. They just are. It is not required that a consciousness be there to read a code. Consider a radio controlled airplane. The information is passed via radio-waves to the receiver on the airplane, which translates the coded commands to the servos operating the airplane. There is no consciousness reading or carrying out the process in this instance. Yes, that's basically what I'm saying, but let me elaborate a little. "Information (a code) is a message consisting of a set of symbols transmitted across a medium between an encoding and decoding system." While the signal, in other words the sequence of symbols transmitted via medium is physical, this sequence of symbols, symbolise (represent) something other than themselves. The message is what's being represented, and that is not physical. This diagram shows the communication system mapped according to Claude Shannon's model of a general communication system. The diagram is from the book Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of life by Hupert P. Yockey No a leaf hitting the water is not representing anything other than a leaf hitting water. While we can analyse the wave pattern and draw certain conclusions, but we are observing reality directly and not decoding a symbolic representation (message) that has been encoded by the leaf hitting the water.

Notice that she doesn't even hazard to suggest that lightning hitting a telephone line could by chance call you up, introduce itself as lighting with the world's best cocktail recipe and provide said recipe before bidding you good day and hanging up - and yet no less would be required and example of information being produced by natural means? Alvin Plantinga made a funny comment once, when he said good arguments can make people dumber. If you propose a valid argument, with true premises, but your opponent doesn't like the conclusion, then they're forced to reject the premises. So in order to avoid an unwanted conclusion they deny true premises, and by doing so they've become dumber by being presented a good argument.

A List of article titles do not inform, Viole. What exactly is the evidence that information is physical? If you're not going to make an argument, then I'm not going to do it for you. I would love to see Landau prove that assertion. You do realize that he's making a very bold metaphysical claim here? But what does he base it on? The idea that information affects the physical realm? How does that make information physical? I can understand that it refutes the notion that information isn't real, but it's pretty weak as a proof that information is physical. By the way, if energy is equivalent to information, then the law of conservation of energy should have an information counterpart, right? I think it would be very hard for you to prove such a thing, and anybody with a harddrive and a magnet or a pencil and eraser could easily refute it. Not sure what your point is. The topic is the origin of information, not how evolution works. In fact I offered it as a response to your idea that lighting hitting a telephone can improve a cocktail recipe, which you proposed as a way that information can be created naturally.....remember? C'mon Viole, just one empirical example of information arising without a mind as an ultimate cause will do. Can you provide an example, or are you going to keep trying to derail the thread, with non-arguments and speculations about materialism?

Are you referring to this sort of thing, "There are close parallels between the mathematical expressions for the thermodynamic entropy, usually denoted by S, of a physical system in the statistical thermodynamics established by Ludwig Boltzmann and J. Willard Gibbs in the 1870s; and the information-theoretic entropy, usually expressed as H, of Claude Shannon and Ralph Hartley developed in the 1940s." - http://en.wikipedia....ormation_theory If not, then I'm afraid you'll need to send me link

No worries, as I said, I'm actually interested in the information theory aspect of the discussion and not merely trying to kindle a discussion on materialism. Connections do not determine identity. While information may behave like energy in a certain sense does make make it equivalent ontologically. Either way I have searched on google and have found Einstein's matter-energy equivalence, but I haven't found anything that seems to confirm what you're saying. Totally irrelevant as I dealt with the measurement aspect. I actually found that so-called information-driven experiment, and I have to agree with many of the comments that the experiment is unconvincing and seems to be a classic scientific magazine exaggeration akin to "Craig Venter creates life in a lab", when the reality is a prosthetic DNA in an already living bacterium. Viole, you really need to distinguish between facts and whimsical theories. Susskind and Hawking have been arguing over what happens to information in black holes for ages, and neither has any empirical evidence. To pick and choose between speculative theories and offer them in a discussion such as this is immensely frustrating, because it requires little effort for you to post irrelevant trivia but it takes effort and time for me to respond to it. Have I not said that information is measured in bits and that while it's possible in a limited sense to measure information it just doesn't justify that it must therefore be physical? The measurement really only measures information's interaction with the physical, it doesn't not measure the qualitative aspects of information. It is precisely those qualitative features that makes information distinct. As I said this is because of the features of the medium, not the features of information. Information is distinct from the medium. If the moon was made of cheese.... You'll need to explain this. You're joking, right? So if errors produce a better tasting cocktail then the information content has increased? You can't measure the information content of a recipe by how well the recipe tastes. It's entirely possible that losing information (and therefore ingredients) could also result in a better tasting cocktail. Nonetheless, since the argument about information is an inductive argument, you'll actually need to come up with real world examples. Try going to http://www.randommutation.com/ and see if you can increase the information content of a string using just random errors and without smuggling any mental input into the equation. Let me know how it goes.

I didn't think you'd embrace this view. Note that I am not offering information as proof against naturalism. I simply stated that I believe it makes a strong case against it, for the simple reason that information is neither matter nor energy and since the physical world consists of those things, information is not physical. Many prominent information theorists agree. East German scientist J.Peil made this rather pithy comment, "Even the biology based on a materialistic philosophy, which discarded all vitalistic and metaphysical components, did not readily accept the reduction of biology to physics...Information is neither a physical not a chemical principle like energy and matter, even though the latter are required as carriers". Then there's mathematician Norbert Wiener who said, "Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this, will not survive one day." While I can't comment in his prediction that materialism won't survive, I can say that a priori philosophical assumptions limit one's view and skew one's conclusions. My worldview doesn't require information to be physical, so I can look at the evidence and let it guide my conclusion. I realise that this is not the same for an orthodox materialist though I have no idea what you wrote here, Viole. Perhaps it's a language thing or perhaps I'm a little dense today. Can you clarify please. You're talking about energy and simply assuming that whatever applies to energy must apply to information. It seems you're arguing: 1. Information is like energy 2. When things are like those things in some ways they are like those things in every way 3. Therefore information is physical. This is a bad argument, Viole. It seems what you're arguing here is that since information often informs one about the physical world, it must be physical. This doesn't follow. Also information can have a non-physical context. Consider a philosophical discussion or a book on mathematics. Are numbers or propositions physical? No, in fact it's very easy to strip information from the physical medium. I can take today's newspaper in printed form and translate it to binary data on a magnetic harddrive. I can then transmit is as a light signal via optic fibre cable to another computer, that can display it on a plasma display. Same information transferred from one medium to another to another. In some cases the medium was particles (ink on paper) and in other cases it was energy (electric signal, optic signal) etc. While the information is transmitted via a physical medium and can be translated from one medium to another it is distinct from its medium. The encoding and decoding of information into a physical medium may require energy. It doesn't not follow from this that information is physical since information is distinct from the encoder, decoder and medium. Really? How many grams does Shakespear's Hamlet contain, bearing in mind that you said independent of medium? Information is measured in bits, Viole that while information has a statistical aspect, it cannot be divorced from it's qualitative aspects. As such an information rich picture can have the same bit value as white noise. Thus, it doesn't follow that just because it can be measured in a limited fashion, that it is physical. Shannon entropy is not the same as entropy in the sense of thermodynamics. As for this being the driver of evolution, that is kind of what we're asking, and so can't really be used as proof of an exception. Nonsense, information does not have physical dimensions. Mediums require space, information doesn't. A harddrive containing no information is no smaller or bigger than one that's full of information. A sphere can be filled with non-information or information and have the same statistical content. Information is distinct from the medium. Very little of what you wrote actually deals with the definition of information or the inductive argument from information that states: 1. Every instance of information that we observe ultimately comes from a mind. 2. The genetic code contains information 3. Therefore it must have come from a mind. It seems your post revolved around trying to argue that information is physical, understandably because of your a priori commitment to physicalism/materialism, while I expected this, I'd really like to get back to the topic, which is about information inductively leading to a mind as source for the genetic code.

Hi D-9, Hope you're well. It's been a while since we had a chat. It it possible that you're confusing the code with the medium in your above explanation? The chemicals in DNA make up the alphabet characters of the code and strung together form the medium of transmission, but the chemicals aren't the code. Using you description one may say that the text appearing on your computer screen are caused by red, green and blue pixels lighting up according to the electrical signals coming from your computer's graphic processor. While this medium is natural/mechanical/electrical or whatever, the source of the information, the very sentence that I'm typing which is transported across many natural mediums, ultimately comes from my mind. Likewise I am warranted to assume that your words that I'm reading come from a mind, even though I cannot detect your mind inside my computer, or in the airwaves of my WiFi connection. A Definition of information is needed. This is how I understand information and this definition seems to be inline with how most information theorists define it. (j102, you've started this discussion so if you have a different definition, then by all means feel free to correct mine.) Information (a code) is a message consisting of a set of symbols transmitted across a medium between an encoding and decoding system. I agree. The medium often is physical, but the information isn't. In fact I believe that the existence of information makes a strong argument against physicalism. Think about it, information is stored in books, so the code is stored in the physical characteristics of ink sticking to paper, but the information isn't ink and paper. A Magnetic tape is code stored on a physical medium that relies on the characteristics of magnetism, but again the information itself isn't mere magnetism, it's a software backup, a recording of a business meeting, or an old Iron Maiden album. No, this would be like saying the origin of Beethoven's music goes way back to before music was started and the sounds were basically just vibrating airwaves. It's important to distinguish between the code and medium. While the chemicals making up DNA may have existed for a long time, we're talking about the origin of the information. A leaf hitting a pond is not sending out information. As you well pointed out a conscious mind can derive information from the leaf by interpreting it in some way, but on it's own there's no encoding and decoding system. One aspect of information is that the information transmitted across the medium is distinct from the medium itself. as I've said. A Leaf hitting a pond on its own isn't a symbolic representation of anything other than a leaf hitting a pond. DNA however has all the characteristics of information. DNA is encoded and decoded, by a transmitter and receiver respectively. It uses an alphabet, has symantics and syntax. It's represents something other than itself. It can be translated to a different medium. etc.

The author mentions that he/she is a member of the Hebrew Roots movement. Is that similar to the Christian Identity or Anglo Israelism, which is basically the belief that the Western caucasians are the real Israel and not the jews? There are some telltale comments in the document such as: "Let

The author mentions that he/she is a member of the Hebrew Roots movement. Is that similar to the Christian Identity or Anglo Israelism, which is basically the belief that the Western caucasians are the real Israel and not the jews? There are some telltale comments in the document such as: "Let

If the dinosaurs are found to be in the same exact geological timeframe your theory would hold quite a bit of water, no pun intended. If however the various dinosaurs are from different time periods then the theory will be completely destroyed. Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, so my statements reflect my own understanding of the issues. Stargaze, I think it's highly unlikely that these will be revealed as from the same time periods based on the way dating is done. From what I've seen and read faunal dating usually overrides radiometric dates. In essence this means that if the dates don't correspond to the paradigm, contamination of the samples is assumed and the taxonomy will determine the dates and not the other way around. This ties in with the falsification criterium which states that if a rabbit was found in pre-cambrian rock, evolution will be falsified. Out-of-place fossils are found quite often and in most cases, the radiometric dates are rejected with the statement "we know such and such animal only evolved recently, therefore the dates must be wrong (rocks contaminated)" A fine example of this is the dating of the KBS Tuff. I believe five seperate dating methods were used to get a date for the tuff. Then later a relatively modern skull is found below the tuff. Since the initial dates aren't consistent with the evolutionary paradigm, the rock samples are sent back to the dating lab and a new date is given.

That's the whole point. If it's logically impossible to provide the falsification criterium, then the idea isn't falsifiable now, is it? The point here is that there is no way to determine the relative fitness of an organism and find any correlation with survival. It is simply assumed that things that have survived were fitter than things that didn't. But all this is missing the point. You made the statement, "Now, this premise cannot be falsified because it isn't based on evidence in the first place" and I have offered a number of examples where the scientific establishment does exactly that. Sound Christian arguments are countered with imaginings that aren't based on evidence and aren't falsifiable, yet because they're rooted in naturalism they're accepted. Based on the fact that Premise #1 of this moral law, which is simply an argument from ignorance, has been shown to be false since there is another possibility that "objective" moral laws may have been derived from. Firstly, premise 1 is not an argument from ignorance. Is isn't based on what we don't know, but it is based on what we DO know. Objective moral laws are immaterial in that they are normative properties. We know from experience that immaterial things do not come from material things. Can you give us an example of how an "IS" can become an "OUGHT" through naturalistic means? The only recourse for the naturalist is to deny the immaterial, which in turn leads to absurd beliefs that something can come from nothing, that information can come from non-information, that the appearance of design in the world is illusiory, that life can come from non-life and that love, joy, meaning, logic and reason are merely the byproducts of natural processes and thus are deterministic. If it's merely an argument from ignorance that objective morals values and duties cannot exist without a transcendent moral law giver, then why do most atheists believe that morality is subjective, and the few who claim otherwise fail spectacularly to demonstrate it, but instead place their faith on future scientific discoveries? Secondly, the alternative possibility that you proposed involved telling a story that essentially starts with a warm pond long ago and ends with a moral ape. The fact that this ethical naturalist morality is reversible in that what is good, could be contra human flourishing and vice versa was answered simply with your assurance that a blind, unguided process such as evolution will punish the narrowsighted and reward those who *see* and play by evolution's long term goals. I'm sorry but that's nothing more than fluff. If good and bad are mere manifestations of genetic make-up, then are you saying there is a sadistic tyrant gene and a self-sacrificing carer gene? Any evidence for this? And if this be true then why do we condemn Hitler and praise Mother Theresa, if their actions are determined by their genes? Is that yet another one of those everyday human traits that we should simply dismiss as illusiory, because naturalism is incapable of explaining it? Is it wrong to require evidence from those who claim to be led by it and who criticise us for supposedly not having any? I probably won't be able to respond for the next couple of days, as I have a number of things to attend to. Which is a pity as it's been an interesting discussion thus far... Blessings

"Shaky grounds", based on what? Based on your ability to "imagine" naturalistic explanations and tell evolutionary stories without providing any evidence? You're missing the point. "There's nothing special about humans or Earth -- that's the Copernican principle in a nutshell" - http://curiosity.dis...nican-principle So, how do you falsify the notion or even prove for matter that there's nothing special about humans or Earth? As for is acceptance, the Copernican Principle is hailed by most scientists as the cornerstone of modern astronomy. In support of my earlier remarks, perhaps you'll find this quote by Edwin Hubble rather interesting "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…. [1] The hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. [2] Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative … But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs ... Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable ... Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape." Does this help? http://en.wikipedia....pe_preservation I hope you're not one of those guys who simply pastes links to various articles expecting one to read through an entire text to find out how the article relates to your point. The softbodiedness of precambrian life is simply assumed due to a lack of evidence. An article on preservation methods doesn't address this issue at all. I'm arguing that materialists often commit precisely the things that you accuse Christians of. Hence the fact that my examples were preceded by the words, "On the other hand it is actually the materialist who is seeking to fill the gaps with materialism" How do you know it doesn't have survival means that you "simply because you are unable to understand or imagine and other possible means", to use you own words? "Actually, an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy is made when a party in a discussion pleads that a premise has to be true, even if there is no evidence whatsoever that it is, simply because he is unable to understand or imagine any other possibility." - Exaeus

Which is exactly the point. The same evolutionary storytelling that naturalists use to try to explain morality is equally capable of explaining an thoroughly immoral world. So attempting to ground morality in it leads ultimately to subjectivism. I doubt that genocide + (inheritable) brainwashing + killing opposition (redundant operation anyway because of the brainwashing), provide an optimum solution for humans living in this environments. But if it did, then this society would consider these values good. For us it is unconceivable because we are not part of this society. Why do you doubt? Killing the opposition seems to work perfectly well in the rest of the animal kingdom. Note also that you're essentially making a statement of faith here. You cannot know for sure what the optimum solution would be, you're simply placing faith in a certain idea as being that optimum solution. But that just pushes back the problem, why is the optimum solution for human flourishing desireable? How do you even know that the natural world really exists? Is it possible that all you see and experience are mere projections of your own mind? You might say that Sollipsism is counter intuitive, and I would agree, but we already know how you feel about intuitions, right? So if your starting point would be "things that Viole can know for sure", then why do you know for sure that the natural world really exists? Because you see it? And how do you know you're perceiving what is real? We also perceive moral imperatives, guilt, love, joy, beauty etc. and these things, you say are not strictly real. There's a flip side to this. Do you know your thoughts? Suppose you're thinking of a particular thing, do you know that you are thinking of that particular thing? The answer would be yes, right? Let's say you're thinking of a penguin. You would be asolutely right to say, "at this moment I am thinking of a penguin". This is called an incorrigible truth, it is something that you simply cannot be wrong about. But yet there is no penguin inside your head, is there? That thought is immaterial; it cannot be weighed or measured, yet you know for sure that it is true. Do you agree?

Here's what you wrote: "The Golden Rule is grounded in neuroscience and evolutionary biology in order to reject destructive elements of a herd when species learned to band together in groups for increased survival chances, and food and mating opportunities. When combined with altruism under certain situations, it can potentially improve the fitness of the group or species as a whole at the expense of a few individuals. We follow the Golden Rule because it allows us to exist and function as a society. A number of other animal species do the same;" I've attempted to summarise the key terms which are, "increased survival chances", "improve fitness of the group or species", "exist and function as a society" as human flourishing. You have also said, "A large subset of morals that are generally agreed upon across the world can be termed as "objective" because they stem from a single source: the Golden Rule." I merely attempted to sum up all these points in terms of morally right essentially meaning "that which improves human flourishing". To be honest I don't see how that equates to me feigning ignorance? It seems then that the claim you're making is that human beings intrinsically *know* what the goal of evolution is, and that our moral judgements are essentially based on this intrinsic knowledge, is that correct? The problem is that you can dismiss any objection as "near sighted", but how is that falsifiable? Aren't you simply assuming that it's near sighted? The distinction is mostly a man-made one. Humans are the only species who have evolved enough intellectual capacity and self-awareness to question and ponder what we do. In the early ages where science was lacking, the easy answer to that question was that we were created as an inherently superior species and endowed with morality by an omnipotent, omniscient being (who also happened to be the convenient explanation for everything else). With the progression of neurobiology, we can now trace morality back down its evolutionary roots and observe how other species exhibit "morality" as well, not just humans. Apart from making claims you haven't actually demonstrated anything, though. How do we know the distinction is mostly man-made? Why would that make it invalid? How do we know that our intellectual capacity and self-awareness has evolved? The problem is that if our morality is evolved then it cannot be prescriptive. Why should a person follow any moral standard? Because that's how we evolved? Why does a person OUGHT to behave according to how they evolved? If a psychopath behaves according to his evolved morality, why do we say their apathy and selfishness is wrong? ....and there are actions exhibited by animals that would be considered "immoral". On what standard do you select which animal behaviors we should emulate? This again raises the problem of flexibility within the evolutionary paradigm as Philip Skell put it, "Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery." If humans behaved utterly selfishly and cold, you'd do exactly what you're doing now. Plugging "neuro biology" in to fill the gaps. This is simply false. If seems you're suggesting that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in God, so we're just inserting God as an explanation to these gaps in our understanding. The exact opposite is true, as PGA also pointed out, there are numerous deductive reasons for believing in God forming a strong cumulative case. These are philosophically sound arguments, not mere arguments from ignorance. On the other hand it is actually the materialist who is seeking to fill the gaps with materialism, by simply imagining ways that these gaps can be filled. I have not seen a single shred of hard evidence that a level 2 or greater multiverse exists, but this is posited to provide the probabilistic resources to answer the teleological argument. I have not seen a single shred of hard evidence suggesting the non-uniformity of cause and effect, but this is posited to answer the cosmological argument. I have not seen a single shred of hard evidence suggesting that the Copernican principle is valid, but this is simply assumed to answer to the vast body of evidence that planet earth appears to be unique. I have not seen a single shred of hard evidence that precambrian life was soft bodied, this is simply assumed to explain the precambrian explosion, and thus the lack of progression up to those species. I have not seen a single shred of hard evidence that "OUGHT" is a dummy term or simply a manmade construct apart from the assurance by materialists that such is the case. If falsifiability is important to you, then how would you falsify "survival of the fittest"?

hehe, hey no worries. I'm surprised you can't see this, being a mathematician. Have you ever seen the number seven? Note, I'm not saying have you seen a representation of the number seven, but the actual number? Mathematical entities are immaterial, just like logic and information, yet they're very much real. You earn a salary based on 'em don't you? Is it rational to reject immaterial entities because they cannot be seen or measured? This is pure speculation, Viole. I thought prophesy was the domain of the faithful? Fascinating or not, your worldviews needs to explain reality and as I said many times, naturalism can't seem to reach beyond the most superficial. Now, don't forget to answer questions I'd like to know: If genocide is evil and If brainwashing is evil and If killing opposition is evil how come genocide + brainwashing + killing opposition = good