The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
How do we determine that information is involved if we can not measure it and compare it to something that does not contain information to contrast it?

How do we determine that information is created through a directive force if we can obtain the same type of information from an undirected force?

I'll tell you how, we assert it (or at least some of us do).

If we assert this, we cannot use it in our conclusion. That would be a faulty argument.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
RFHendrix said:
Modern science: redefine words until the problem dissapears!
No word has been redefined. You defined information as knowledge, yet failed to explain how the information you discuss can be considered knowledge.

You failed to show how we can tell if a chemical mechanism involves this knowledge or if it doesn't. How can we tell one that does from one that doesn't?
 
Upvote 0
David Gould said:
No, Shannon did not discuss the origin of information. But we have found it is perfectly possible to create information (using Shannon's definition) through undirected processes.

As such, the information content (again, using Shannon's definition) of DNA might not require a director.

In addition:


taken from: http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/shannon.htm

So meaning is irrelevent in Shannon's definition of information. A piece of information does not have to mean anything.

If you accept Shannon, you basically destroy your entire argument.

Why don't you actually read what I said?
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
RFHendrix said:
Use whatever definitions you choose but just solve the problem. Why do these debates always lead to semantics? Is it an attempt to escape the problem?
In philosophy and in science precision is the key. That is why philosophers like to make sure that everyone is on the same page with regard to meaning and why scientists use mathematics wherever possible. It avoids a lot of confusion.


The problem you have presented dissapears if shannon information is used as the definition for information.

You claim that information cannot come about through undirected processes. But shannon information can come about through undirected processes. The problem vanishes.

This is why I wanted a definition from you that was precise and capable of being applied scientifically, as the information you are talking about is clearly NOT shannon information.

Do you have such a definition?
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
RFHendrix said:
Why don't you actually read what I said?
I have. Either I am obtuse or you are not being clear enough. I will accept that I am obtuse. As such, can you explain again (more simply) what your argument is?
 
Upvote 0
notto said:
How do we determine that information is involved if we can not measure it and compare it to something that does not contain information to contrast it?

How do we determine that information is created through a directive force if we can obtain the same type of information from an undirected force?

Well the problem is we cannot obtain the same type of information from an underected source that we can from a directed one in all cases. Yes, a machine can type this sentence but it cannot intelligently answer it unless there has been intelligent input. That is the essence of language that is not duplicated by any random process. A parot says a lot of things that could be determined to be the result of intelligent input if we are not careful but two parrots carrying on an extended conversation would prove that there was more than a random process involved. If there is no way to prove that intelligent life exists then why are people trying to find radio signals in space in order to find intelligent life? Coded communication determines the input of intelligence.
 
Upvote 0
David Gould said:
I have. Either I am obtuse or you are not being clear enough. I will accept that I am obtuse. As such, can you explain again (more simply) what your argument is?

I said that Shannon's definition was fine for the use he intended. It was not intended to determine the origin of information or whether intelligence was involved one way or the other.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
RFHendrix said:
Well the problem is we cannot obtain the same type of information from an underected source that we can from a directed one in all cases. Yes, a machine can type this sentence but it cannot intelligently answer it unless there has been intelligent input. That is the essence of language that is not duplicated by any random process. A parot says a lot of things that could be determined to be the result of intelligent input if we are not careful but two parrots carrying on an extended conversation would prove that there was more than a random process involved. If there is no way to prove that intelligent life exists then why are people trying to find radio signals in space in order to find intelligent life? Coded communication determines the input of intelligence.
And in a chemical reaction, how can we determine when a "coded communication" has happened and when one has not?

How do I know that Oxygen and Hydrogen are not exchanging "coded communications" when they react to create water.

Do these communications always have one response due to the molecules involved? Is there ever an instance where one says "Do this" and the other says "No"? If not, how does this "communication" differ from regular reactions that are not directed by this communication?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
RFHendrix said:
I said that Shannon's definition was fine for the use he intended. It was not intended to determine the origin of information or whether intelligence was involved one way or the other.
Does your information equate to Shannon's information? If it does, you have a problem as Shannon's information can be created by a non-directed process.

If it does not, then you and Shannon are talking about two different things. As such, it is not possible to measure your type of information using Shannon.

Which leaves us back at the point where it is impossible to measure the type of information that you are talking about ... unless you have a way of doing do?
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
As Notto says, how do we tell the difference between the type of information an undirected process can create and the type of information it cannot?

My personal idea would be that, unlike with Shannon information, it would have to have meaning at the point of transmission. But I do not know how that could be tested for, except by going and asking the transmitter.

For example, an alien could sit on a planet broadcasting meaningless gibberish at Earth - something an undirected process could accomplish.

Or he could transmit, in his language, a message of 'Peace, love and suchlike'. An undirected process might do this accidentally but would not have meaning at the point of transmission because meaning can only come if the code is understood at the point of transmission.

If we went to the planet and asked the alien, he could confirm that it was indeed directed information.
 
Upvote 0
notto said:
And in a chemical reaction, how can we determine when a "coded communication" has happened and when one has not?

How do I know that Oxygen and Hydrogen are not exchanging "coded communications" when they react to create water.

Do these communications always have one response due to the molecules involved? Is there ever an instance where one says "Do this" and the other says "No"? If not, how does this "communication" differ from regular reactions that are not directed by this communication?

Outside of life there are no exceptions. The chemical reactions are simple chemistry. But there is such a thing as a genetic code in life. That is not a made up word to describe a chemical reaction that also takes place in non-living things. It is the proper use of the word because it describes the specified direction of certain reactions at specified times by way of coded information. The coded information limits and directs certain reactions for a specific purpose in a specified sequence just as a language directs sounds (or written words) in order to convey a specified message.
 
Upvote 0
David Gould said:
Which leaves us back at the point where it is impossible to measure the type of information that you are talking about ... unless you have a way of doing do?

It is not impossible. The discovery of coded communication indicates intelligent input. That is what we have discovered in life.
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
RFHendrix said:
It is not impossible. The discovery of coded communication indicates intelligent input. That is what we have discovered in life.
Then define information in such a way that

1.) does not pressuppose the conclusion and
2.) makes it possible to tell the difference between coded communication and non-coded communication

In other words, using your definition can you tell the difference between:

ioashguoahsgGHGo;SHgASOihjuh

and

to shoot
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
RFHendrix said:
Outside of life there are no exceptions. The chemical reactions are simple chemistry. But there is such a thing as a genetic code in life. That is not a made up word to describe a chemical reaction that also takes place in non-living things. It is the proper use of the word because it describes the specified direction of certain reactions at specified times by way of coded information. The coded information limits and directs certain reactions for a specific purpose in a specified sequence just as a language directs sounds (or written words) in order to convey a specified message.
What limits and directs? It is not the information, it is the molecules themselves. They can behave in no other way. They are not coded in any analogy to language, they are understood and only have meaning based on the reactions they take place in.

Why is a sugar molecule not considered coded in the same way and that it is this coding that limits and directs certain reactions for a specific purposed in a specified sequence when it is introduced to a catalyst to start a reaction?
 
Upvote 0
David Gould said:
Then define information in such a way that

1.) does not pressuppose the conclusion and
2.) makes it possible to tell the difference between coded communication and non-coded communication

In other words, using your definition can you tell the difference between:

ioashguoahsgGHGo;SHgASOihjuh

and

to shoot

No, you wrote them both. ;)

In order to tell the difference one would normally need more information to use as a sample. If we saw scrawled in the sand; "help, I'm lost" and then a few feet away we saw; "too bad sucker", we would be pretty sure that there were some not so intelligent beings involved in this somewhere. ;) And I will leave it to you to define words however you want. Good night...
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
RFHendrix said:
No, you wrote them both. ;)

In order to tell the difference one would normally need more information to use as a sample. If we saw scrawled in the sand; "help, I'm lost" and then a few feet away we saw; "too bad sucker", we would be pretty sure that there were some not so intelligent beings involved in this somewhere. ;) And I will leave it to you to define words however you want. Good night...
Actually, I typed them in but I only assigned meaning to one of them.

'to shoot' was derived by simply flicking a dictionary open at random and jamming my finger down on the page. I decided that it had no meaning (similar to the way a parrot might select a word at random and say it).

The other series of symbols were developed by me running my fingers over the keyboard. I then assigned meaning to the string of symbols. That meaning was, 'I thought not.'

You see, I think it is possible for non-directed processes to produce any particular information string. Meaning, however, is something that is assigned by intelligence.

I do not think it is possible to prove that meaning has been assigned by intelligence to any particular information string at the point of production/transmission.

You may be able to find evidence for or against such intelligence - for example, the famous pulsar discovery, where initially it was thought that it could be aliens until they checked into it a little further - but you can never prove it. Unless, of course, that you can meet the little green me - or the big guy in the sky - and ask them directly.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Thanks for your participation in this debate, David. I will let you have the last word although I disagree with your conclusion that "it is possible for non-directed processes to produce any particular information string." On first glance that may be true but after study with enough evidence, intelligent input can certainly be inferred in many cases. I see the thread is dropping to the bottom so I hope to talk with you another day when I have time. So long for now...
 
Upvote 0