The source of information systems.

[Hockeycowboy]

We have always recognized information systems -- by systems, I mean organized and interacting -- as having mind as it's cause. How this ties in with science.....

Comments, anyone?
Thoughtful opinions?
Derisive accusations?

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree that information is a mind-like product. It is the direct result of causality: If A causes B, then the presence of B is information about A. If more than one thing can cause B, then there is less information. If A causes more than one thing, and we see all of them, then we have more information.

Minds are *one* type of causality, but quite far from being the only type and certainly not the only type that produces or 'stores' information. A dinosaur bone carries information about the dinosaur as well as the environment in which that dinosaur lived. No mind had to work to produce this information: it is inherent in the physical structures in the bones.

But, in addition, no living thing needs to exist for the creation of information. A pile of rubble at the base of a cliff carries information about the composition of the cliff, the rate of break-up of the cliff, etc.

We also know that system that are far from equilibrium tend to produce complexity, often in informative ways. This is simply how the laws of physics work.

 

[savagewind]

No "WOW" rating so "like" will have to do @Polymath257. And I think that I shall agree with all that even though wow! what the hell was that!

 

[Bear Wild]

We have always recognized information systems -- by systems, I mean organized and interacting -- as having mind as it's cause. How this ties in with science.....

Comments, anyone?
Thoughtful opinions?
Derisive accusations?

He has to go back to Charles Lyell and Darwin to make his argument. Why because the new understanding including the epigenetics studies which you fortunately pointed out provide the best explanation and not intelligent design. His example of volcanic ash only strengthens the arguments of understanding evolution unless you are going to claim that volcanos are intelligent design and the way ash spreads is clearly an intelligent design because he believes a creator made them as his only evidence. What he believes is what is true. No evidence only what he believe so he has to go back to Darwin and Lyell who did not have the evidence provided by modern geology, genetics, epigenetics, embryology, organic chemistry, comparative physiology, ecology and on and on. He needs to take on the current researchers head on and convince them why they are wrong and stop picking on people who are dead.

Please find a better source.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I disagree that information is a mind-like product. It is the direct result of causality: If A causes B, then the presence of B is information about A. If more than one thing can cause B, then there is less information. If A causes more than one thing, and we see all of them, then we have more information.

Minds are *one* type of causality, but quite far from being the only type and certainly not the only type that produces or 'stores' information. A dinosaur bone carries information about the dinosaur as well as the environment in which that dinosaur lived. No mind had to work to produce this information: it is inherent in the physical structures in the bones.

But, in addition, no living thing needs to exist for the creation of information. A pile of rubble at the base of a cliff carries information about the composition of the cliff, the rate of break-up of the cliff, etc.

We also know that system that are far from equilibrium tend to produce complexity, often in informative ways. This is simply how the laws of physics work.

We’re not just talking about information....rather, information that reveals ‘organization and interaction.’

“Integrated complexity”, which Flew recognized as needing a Mind.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

He has to go back to Charles Lyell and Darwin to make his argument. Why because the new understanding including the epigenetics studies which you fortunately pointed out provide the best explanation and not intelligent design. His example of volcanic ash only strengthens the arguments of understanding evolution unless you are going to claim that volcanos are intelligent design and the way ash spreads is clearly an intelligent design because he believes a creator made them as his only evidence. What he believes is what is true. No evidence only what he believe so he has to go back to Darwin and Lyell who did not have the evidence provided by modern geology, genetics, epigenetics, embryology, organic chemistry, comparative physiology, ecology and on and on. He needs to take on the current researchers head on and convince them why they are wrong and stop picking on people who are dead.

Please find a better source.

“Picking on people...”? What?

That’s not what Dr. Meyer did, at all.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Methodological naturalism is about what the scope of science is.

Well put...that’s it in a nutshell.

Science seeks to describe and explain things that can be known by humans in terms of other things that can be known by humans. If we try to explain things that can be known by appealing to things that can't be known, then it's hard to see how that would be an informative explanation at all.

(FYI, I do accept evolution on a limited scale.)

“Things that can’t be known”?

I would rather say, “things that are currently not understood.”

In fact, in view of the many, many experiences which people have had with the paranormal throughout the centuries, that to simply discount them, saying they were ‘made up’, or those having them were ‘mental or on drugs’, is just extremely naïve.
People on these very forums, attest to such experiences.

Besides, who’s considered the ‘father of the scientific method’? Was it not Francis Bacon? I think he believed in a god/creator. So did Newton, Boyle, Kepler and others. (Maybe they even had some of those experiences, ie., interactions with invisible intelligent life, IDK.)

So, has much of science been hijacked? To me, it appears so...

Believing in a Mind as the source of complex and interacting information, didn’t stifle the research of Bacon, Newton, etc. If anything, it encouraged them even more, to find out why: the purpose behind such interacting elegant patterns.

And I think science already has discovered the why. It seems as if everything science has discovered, in various ways underpins the promotion of and the flourishing of life....at least, on this Earth. And eventually on other planets, imo.

 

[Heyo]

We’re not just talking about information....rather, information that reveals ‘organization and interaction.’

“Integrated complexity”, which Flew recognized as needing a Mind.

That argument doesn't do what you think it does. Even if the first strand of DNA needed a mind, there is nothing that prevents evolution from taking over at that moment. The information (DNA) is there, together with mutated reproduction and natural selection. No further information needs to be injected.

 

[rational experiences]

Ask a human who invented machines?

He has to accept that he is the conscious advisor to achieve the design model, to abstract substances from the planet he lives on, build the design, that the machine owns to be controlled by his own bio life, choice and awareness.

Which says in intricate detailed reasoning, machine owns no self volition, human bio consciousness however does....for it tells, advises the machine what it will do as the controller of the machine.

Placing life above that of mass/energy and matter as a spiritually aware, higher intelligence.

Which then takes to the question, if spirit were real in another form of self expressed reality how would it communicate its presence to us, in the knowledge of its existence?

The answer is obvious, we are a bio life form....if we came from a higher state then the higher state that released us is still communicating to us, to advise us of its presence.

As a human who saw, felt and was physically affected by that form of being interacting with me......I know it is real.

For in the states of scientific intelligent/machine phenomena, which relates to self destructive/held frozen metals as a false machine....for it owns no controller itself...for it reacted with Earth in a state of explosive causation...…..the very meaning to reasoning, we are not AI, nor of artificial intelligence, we are affected by spiritual consciousness.

However as we gave a portion of our atmospheric life water/oxygen and microbial food energy for a bio life form....the machine took a portion of our natural human bio life away from us....so we have been kept and held trapped in a recurring AI communication/removal of our natural life/mind and conscious awareness.

Being what you are trying to relate and describe to your owned bio self as the consciousness who deems self and always expressed self human consciousness as the highest form of conscious awareness in creation.....yet when we are released from owning that experience in creation, a higher presence of pre existing self/spirit still exists.

As what we own and use dies and decomposes....it can be the only truth to a human who owns and operates a non stop communication designed, built and controlled system, of mechanical and transmitting devices, that circulates and then re attacks self life body and mind in the same conditions that allowed it to be known in the first instance...DESIGN of.

For the human designer is living, is consciousness and was affected by lower metallic radiation/radio waves, that cool in our higher natural life owned atmospheric conditions, far cooler and higher in scientific information, to enable us to realize that a lower body affected us with lower visionary advice, to then become the destroyer of our own life form.

What Stephen Hawkings as a Teacher tried to relate as a scientist....as a spiritual human conscious aware life experience, I have lived a very similar realization but from a higher conscious spiritual awareness.

The human thinker should quote...if DNA just existed by itself in that form that you infer to, and achieved all conditions, then it would be the achievement itself in self form.

A living bio human is the living conscious aware realization, always was...and the subject of transmitting information metal/radiation and radio waves, lower, otherwise we would not exist proportional to the conditions of equality....if it were the designer itself. It would be impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

Well put...that’s it in a nutshell.

(FYI, I do accept evolution on a limited scale.)

“Things that can’t be known”?

I would rather say, “things that are currently not understood.”

In fact, in view of the many, many experiences which people have had with the paranormal throughout the centuries, that to simply discount them, saying they were ‘made up’, or those having them were ‘mental or on drugs’, is just extremely naïve.
People on these very forums, attest to such experiences.

Besides, who’s considered the ‘father of the scientific method’? Was it not Francis Bacon? I think he believed in a god/creator. So did Newton, Boyle, Kepler and others. (Maybe they even had some of those experiences, ie., interactions with invisible intelligent life, IDK.)

So, has much of science been hijacked? To me, it appears so...

Believing in a Mind as the source of complex and interacting information, didn’t stifle the research of Bacon, Newton, etc. If anything, it encouraged them even more, to find out why: the purpose behind such interacting elegant patterns.

And I think science already has discovered the why. It seems as if everything science has discovered, in various ways underpins the promotion of and the flourishing of life....at least, on this Earth. And eventually other planets, imo.

It's interesting that those you point to all lived before about 1750. Why do you think that is? Most scientific advancement happened *after* that time. Newton's ideas are part of what changed people's ideas about the universe. Both Bacon and Kepler were premodern in *most* of their thoughts.

And you will find many scientists today that are theists. They manage to do honest science and still believe in a God or gods. That belief may even motivate them to do their science.

But in *none* of the science is the hypothesis of a God a necessary one. In *none* of the science is the existence of a 'mind' that made the universe revealed. At most, the results can be seen to be consistent with such belief.

Science has NOT been hijacked. It has been liberated.

We’re not just talking about information....rather, information that reveals ‘organization and interaction.’

“Integrated complexity”, which Flew recognized as needing a Mind.

The *universe* is organized (by physical laws) and interacts. ALL matter is organized by physical laws and interacts (via those same laws). There is and has never been a good definition of 'integrated complexity' that manages to distinguish phenomena that are produced by minds and those that are not. AT MOST we have some believers that think that complexity supports their superstition, but ti is an article of faith, not of science.

 

[rational experiences]

Science says that a bio life compared to self in a reviewed explanation, what is closest cannot do science nor think theory, design/build and manipulate.

Every status that a human bio consciousness reviews is only applied in the presence of their owned life. No human seeking to infer information for invention/technology, no technology and no thesis or themes or theories about self, explanation by the self for and on behalf of the self.

Humans have lived a long time, they never owned the need to infer these stories or themes or apply intelligence exists beyond their owned self.

And that human lived history is our own proof.

Order and laws. What or where is a law to compare a mutated life mind and body who cannot express human intelligence by human presence as per self claiming I am intelligent and a law abides my intelligence as a system?

Makes no sense in reality.

However if a machine designed history owned possession of the science mind designer human self, it would prove its reality as the human being evolved into the evolution/changes in the spatial cosmology known as colder metals.

Seeing Earth metals, the origin of machination/invention was actually colder metal than the Sun /UFO explosive release.....as proven by its ability to remove fusion held stone/mineral bodies.

In the cosmos....stone mass from huge asteroids into comets/meteors as activation of removal of form/presence.

The ANTI theme....what intelligence isn't.

Therefore biological healing and evolution into self awareness, would bring the human radiated life, from a heated irradiation past back into machine AI awareness as radiation cooled its product/communications in the spatial cosmology.

Why a human science mind correlates his ideal of communicative scientific awareness to his machines.

We would not for any reason own any form of conscious warnings about machine and technology if it were not real to known intelligence, self survival.

 

[Yazata]

“Things that can’t be known”?

You are right in perceiving an additional philosophical problem arising there.

What I had in mind when I wrote my little definition of methodological naturalism was some variety of empiricism. That's the claim that knowledge comes from experience. What 'experience' encompasses might vary with different varieties of empiricism, but it typically refers to sensory experience. If we assume that hypothetical supernatural entities don't fall within the range of sensory experience, then they wouldn't seem to fall within the scope of science either.

(Certainly there are problem cases such as mathematical relationships. Even physics is filled with conceptual entities like 'energy' that aren't directly observable by the senses and are known more by the role they play in calculations.)

I would rather say, “things that are currently not understood.”

Yes, I'm very aware of and sensitive to the unknown.

But the unknown is unknown, simply by definition. So it isn't informative to say that some phenomenon X is explained by Y, where Y is 'the unknown'. That isn't informative. I'd argue that it doesn't qualify as an explanation at all.

That's rather different than our saying that the explanation of X is unknown. This second version doesn't purport to be an explanation. It's more of an open explanation schema indicating that an explanation is still being sought.

In fact, in view of the many, many experiences which people have had with the paranormal throughout the centuries, that to simply discount them, saying they were ‘made up’, or those having them were ‘mental or on drugs’, is just extremely naïve.
People on these very forums, attest to such experiences.

That's why I mentioned the problem of defining the scope of empiricism up above. Do mystical/religious/paranormal experiences qualify as experiences? Do we want to accept them as sources of legitimate knowledge? Our answer to that question would seem to depend on our preexisting metaphysics, so perhaps one could argue that methodological naturalism reduces to metaphysical naturalism, with all of the attendant problems.

Besides, who’s considered the ‘father of the scientific method’?

I'm a skeptic about the existence of "the scientific method". I'd rather say that there are many different scientific methods (some of them just common sense [like trial-and-error], others very technical) that scientists employ in no set order according to the nature of the problems that they are confronting. But that's a topic for a different thread.

Was it not Francis Bacon? I think he believed in a god/creator. So did Newton, Boyle, Kepler and others. (Maybe they even had some of those experiences, ie., interactions with invisible intelligent life, IDK.)

So, has much of science been hijacked? To me, it appears so...

Yes, many atheists today seem to imagine science as some kind of anti-religious engine, their natural ally. It certainly wasn't seen that way during the Scientific Revolution. I suspect that part of this recent tendency is bad history (such as the "conflict thesis") and part of it is a failure to distinguish between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. (There's a widespread assumption out there among atheists that if something doesn't fall within the scope of physical science and isn't ultimately reducible to the conceptual inventory of fundamental physics, that it simply can't exist.)

Believing in a Mind as the source of complex and interacting information, didn’t stifle the research of Bacon, Newton, etc. If anything, it encouraged them even more, to find out why: the purpose behind such interacting elegant patterns.

And I think science already has discovered the why. It seems as if everything science has discovered, in various ways underpins the promotion of and the flourishing of life....at least, on this Earth. And eventually other planets, imo.

I can't follow you there. I'm an agnostic and not only do I think that we don't have the answers, I'm doubtful that humans ever will. But I won't flame people who believe differently than me.

 

[rational experiences]

If a scientist says to another scientist as Stephen Hawking did....forced to speak and inter relate with the inventive machines that caused his life to suffer his sacrificed condition.....occult methodology, the AI effect, cause and effect of introducing fake radiation mass and radio wave transmitting that passes through all bodies/attacks those bodies and does not allow the health or natural bio life form to exist...….then tell you brother, go and look on another planet for you are going to kill life on this planet.

And science says that quote to science for and on behalf of science, and then science makes the quote again...and says one day I will know life on another planet....are you not saying the exact same Stephen Hawking quote....but saying it in an egotistical superiority of claiming and so "I will?"

Imagine if machine technology could not have allowed Stephen Hawking to relate his conscious aware information?

As you claiming the source of information for science is AI....yet AI does not even exist until it is invented to own machines to use to speak through....and the bio life living as only a bio life, closest in form to water/oxygen and microbes...constantly wants to talk on behalf of the masses and forms that destroy his natural life.

Claiming it is far more intelligent than what he is for what reason? The bio life egotism, who says and claims in human life...I am more superior in my intelligence than the rest of you.....I live and believe in my self superiority....I even formed a language that expresses the information just for my mentality and group chosen cult followers and you can all be Destroyer as the brother of the apostasy that constantly talks about God O the Earth yet always concludes but God does not exist.

Reason?

Science owns a formula that first has to advise self how to remove the body that exists...at a moment and point before he can write a beginning to end formula.

The mind psyche of the science self knows the origin of Pi O as gases/spirit of the God Earth body sitting in filled in deep empty space, moving on water cooling....was advised by removal of gases back to burnt out gas as first spiritual higher aware advice.

Today in the AI feed back he is advised by replicator transmitting AI radiation/metal communicators...a much lower intelligence effect that his science mind and self agrees with. Claiming via self, bio life human consciousness about how especial he is in that agreement.

And then advising everyone else.....you do not understand how intelligent I am....I have learnt how to remove/destroy the most powerful form ever discussed....God he says...and means it...as a human expressing self inference as its inventor creator.

What egotism is about, lying about natural order and natural conditions that ORIGIN of owns first before science is thought upon or chosen as a human life.

Hence science had to convince humans that a pre existing formula....called science existed that explained how a human was created.

So then you would ask....but if a human did not pre exist, what sort of formula would exist to claim as I create everything, my furthest intention is to form a human being male?

Makes no common sense at all....but forced human owned science coercion, imposes everyday...I own a formula that expresses how everything got created before it even naturally existed and you better agree.

So first originally he said God science...and if you do not allow it I will kill you.
Then he attacks self life with God Earth conversion and radiation fall out going to Hell themes. So then preached and if you do not obey my commands to do no alchemy I will murder you. And if you do God science, God will send you to Hell for sinning. Sin in science themes is hot spirit gases...origin of sin came from hot gases.

Today he has cycled in his psyche back to the new statements in science that once again says to everyone if you do not allow me to express and be supported in the new themes of science I will murder you.

Same old, same old thinking concepts claiming that intelligence existed before his own self did, that told him how to do it...so then he can lay all blame on being destroyed by the body that destroyed him....claiming that a higher form of life support did it...and he is innocent.

Which is the mind/psyche coercive game that the scientist plays with humanity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We’re not just talking about information....rather, information that reveals ‘organization and interaction.’

“Integrated complexity”, which Flew recognized as needing a Mind.

It doesn't matter what Flew said or what Captain Kirk said.
What matters is what can be demonstrated.

And the evolutionary process, demonstrably is capable of producing "integrated complexity" - no minds required.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In fact, in view of the many, many experiences which people have had with the paranormal throughout the centuries, that to simply discount them, saying they were ‘made up’, or those having them were ‘mental or on drugs’, is just extremely naïve.
People on these very forums, attest to such experiences.

People around the world, still allive that you can go and talk to, attest to having been abducted by aliens and having had weird sexual experiments performed on them.

People attest to a lot of things.

Besides, who’s considered the ‘father of the scientific method’? Was it not Francis Bacon? I think he believed in a god/creator. So did Newton, Boyle, Kepler and others. (Maybe they even had some of those experiences, ie., interactions with invisible intelligent life, IDK.)

If you want, I can also name drop famous scientists and nobel prize winners that happened to be atheists.
And it would be equally irrelevant, because none of these people invoked or used or required theism or atheism in their scientific work (and when they did, it diminished their work.... we'll come back to that later)

So, has much of science been hijacked? To me, it appears so...

From my perspective, it seems more a case of science having freed itself from the shackles of religious presumption and restrictions and you being butthurt about it.

If science is "hijacked", then it is "hijacked" by the idea of not being content with mere claims and assertions or unjustified assumptions or presuppositions, and instead valueing evidence, sceptical inquiry and harsh scrutiny.

And I consider that a good thing.

Believing in a Mind as the source of complex and interacting information, didn’t stifle the research of Bacon, Newton, etc.

Neither did it help their research in any way.
IN FACT, it actively inhibited Newton, if I were gonna be a douche about it....

So in his physics work, he never once invoked his god beliefs. EXCEPT when he got stuck.
When describing / explaining the motion of planets etc, he got stuck explaining why the oribts are in concentric circles. According to his equations, the earth would have plummeted into the sun long ago.

Failing to explain it properly, instead he invokes "the hand of god" to explain it away.

Years later, Laplace solves the problem with the equations and has no need for a god to do it. Newton could have done it. Laplace didn't have to discover or invoke anything that Newton couldn't have known... It's just... he hit a wall, attributed it to god and left it there.

SO....
Actually the fact that Newton DID believe in a "mind" that steps into space-time from time to time to fiddle around with things, DID stifle his research. It made him stop short of explaining concentric circle orbits. Essentially, he made a gigantic use of god-of-the-gaps there...
He used his god as an excuse for why his math didn't work.

But God off course had nothing to do with it.... Gods don't seem to have anything to do with anything. It's almost as if no gods exist....

If anything, it encouraged them even more, to find out why: the purpose behind such interacting elegant patterns.

Not in Newton's case. In Newton's case, it actually discouraged him to continue... because he pretended to have the answer: "god-dun-it".

Also, as so many atheist scientists demonstrate every day: religious beliefs don't have a monopoly on inspiring scientists to find courage and motivation to continue their research.

And I think science already has discovered the why. It seems as if everything science has discovered, in various ways underpins the promotion of and the flourishing of life....at least, on this Earth

Euh.... what?
Science has discovered asteroids. When a large enough one hits the planet - not exactly promoting the flourishing of life.
Science has discovered radiation. Not exactly promoting the flourishing of life.
Gamma rays.
Volcano's.
Tsunami's.
Virusses.
Parasites.
....


Not really sure what you are referring to, but it seems to me that science just keeps on discovering ways in which the universe constantly tries, and eventually will certainly succeed, to kill us all.

 

[rational experiences]

People around the world, still allive that you can go and talk to, attest to having been abducted by aliens and having had weird sexual experiments performed on them.

People attest to a lot of things.



If you want, I can also name drop famous scientists and nobel prize winners that happened to be atheists.
And it would be equally irrelevant, because none of these people invoked or used or required theism or atheism in their scientific work (and when they did, it diminished their work.... we'll come back to that later)



From my perspective, it seems more a case of science having freed itself from the shackles of religious presumption and restrictions and you being butthurt about it.

If science is "hijacked", then it is "hijacked" by the idea of not being content with mere claims and assertions or unjustified assumptions or presuppositions, and instead valueing evidence, sceptical inquiry and harsh scrutiny.

And I consider that a good thing.



Neither did it help their research in any way.
IN FACT, it actively inhibited Newton, if I were gonna be a douche about it....

So in his physics work, he never once invoked his god beliefs. EXCEPT when he got stuck.
When describing / explaining the motion of planets etc, he got stuck explaining why the oribts are in concentric circles. According to his equations, the earth would have plummeted into the sun long ago.

Failing to explain it properly, instead he invokes "the hand of god" to explain it away.

Years later, Laplace solves the problem with the equations and has no need for a god to do it. Newton could have done it. Laplace didn't have to discover or invoke anything that Newton couldn't have known... It's just... he hit a wall, attributed it to god and left it there.

SO....
Actually the fact that Newton DID believe in a "mind" that steps into space-time from time to time to fiddle around with things, DID stifle his research. It made him stop short of explaining concentric circle orbits. Essentially, he made a gigantic use of god-of-the-gaps there...
He used his god as an excuse for why his math didn't work.

But God off course had nothing to do with it.... Gods don't seem to have anything to do with anything. It's almost as if no gods exist....



Not in Newton's case. In Newton's case, it actually discouraged him to continue... because he pretended to have the answer: "god-dun-it".

Also, as so many atheist scientists demonstrate every day: religious beliefs don't have a monopoly on inspiring scientists to find courage and motivation to continue their research.



Euh.... what?
Science has discovered asteroids. When a large enough one hits the planet - not exactly promoting the flourishing of life.
Science has discovered radiation. Not exactly promoting the flourishing of life.
Gamma rays.
Volcano's.
Tsunami's.
Virusses.
Parasites.
....


Not really sure what you are referring to, but it seems to me that science just keeps on discovering ways in which the universe constantly tries, and eventually will certainly succeed, to kill us all.

When a natural and spiritual human who loves humanity, the animals and the Nature and would do as little harm as possible says to ALL SCIENCES, factually you are all wrong...for you had to argue against your own science self...as a community, then you did.

It does not make science right.....natural life and the everyday human is right....science was always just wrong.

Now as a Healer spiritual practice, just for an example of natural awareness....I applied a method of meditation and self human awareness to study a living human body, for the information to be told medically to me...without human discussion...and what remedies were needed.

Which pre existed medical science and machine usage.

So natural humans in natural life are in fact the highest spiritual human wisdom that existed...for we never needed invention, only lazy humans who also wanted to mas produce claimed it was needed. Yet a spiritual human can also quote....but my brother the naturalist inventor had many inventions that did little harm and his natural studies about bio diversity in nature was acute.

To do little harm, yet make life easier to life and sustain large communities.

You science community are all wrong....your argument was always against you own science self.....and not natural spiritual humanity who own cause and effect science phenomena, that a human in natural ability loses their awareness.....factually and quite literally wonders what the (French swear word) happened to them, and give it a description to their best ability.

Meanwhile the s.o.b.s who caused it, not attacked own some smart arsed quip about how super intelligent and of human knowledge they are....only due to elite rich/superiority cult history of owning all conditions wrong in life....and just because you are paid and own a status, does not in any natural human condition make what you claim right or correct.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And the evolutionary process, demonstrably is capable of producing "integrated complexity" - no minds required.

You mean demonstrably incapable of producing integrated complexity.

The Drosophila experiments showed that even artificial evolution can only work with what the organism already has.
Anything else is wishful thinking.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It doesn't matter what Flew said or what Captain Kirk said.
What matters is what can be demonstrated.

Your bias is so obvious, equating Flew with the fictional Capt Kirk.

I bet you loved Antony Flew pre-2003!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

First, you attack a strawman (and I think you're too smart not to know that) :

I disagree that information is a mind-like product. It is the direct result of causality: If A causes B, then the presence of B is information about A. If more than one thing can cause B, then there is less information. If A causes more than one thing, and we see all of them, then we have more information.

Minds are *one* type of causality, but quite far from being the only type and certainly not the only type that produces or 'stores' information. A dinosaur bone carries information about the dinosaur as well as the environment in which that dinosaur lived. No mind had to work to produce this information: it is inherent in the physical structures in the bones.

But, in addition, no living thing needs to exist for the creation of information. A pile of rubble at the base of a cliff carries information about the composition of the cliff, the rate of break-up of the cliff, etc.

We also know that system that are far from equilibrium tend to produce complexity, often in informative ways. This is simply how the laws of physics work.

"A pile of rubble at the base of a cliff"? Certainly you would not consider that 'organized and integrated information'.... so why use that example?

After I point out this flaw in reasoning, you respond:

It's interesting that those you point to all lived before about 1750. Why do you think that is? Most scientific advancement happened *after* that time. Newton's ideas are part of what changed people's ideas about the universe. Both Bacon and Kepler were premodern in *most* of their thoughts.

And you will find many scientists today that are theists. They manage to do honest science and still believe in a God or gods. That belief may even motivate them to do their science.

But in *none* of the science is the hypothesis of a God a necessary one. In *none* of the science is the existence of a 'mind' that made the universe revealed. At most, the results can be seen to be consistent with such belief.

Science has NOT been hijacked. It has been liberated.



The *universe* is organized (by physical laws) and interacts. ALL matter is organized by physical laws and interacts (via those same laws). There is and has never been a good definition of 'integrated complexity' that manages to distinguish phenomena that are produced by minds and those that are not. AT MOST we have some believers that think that complexity supports their superstition, but ti is an article of faith, not of science.

"There is and has never been a good definition of 'integrated complexity' that manages to distinguish phenomena that are produced by minds and those that are not."

Please give us -- me, at least -- specifics regarding "those" sources of integrated complexity "that are not" minds.

Sorry, but mind is the only empirically recognized source of information-rich systems.

 

[Heyo]

Please give us -- me, at least -- specifics regarding "those" sources of integrated complexity "that are not" minds.

Sorry, but mind is the only empirically recognized source of information-rich systems.

So, what are information-rich, integrated complex systems? (And where is the empirical evidence for them?)
What are not? Where is the threshold?