- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhitehead
What we call morality is a complex concept largely consisting of behaviours that encourage cooperation. To a large extent is it post justification for our natural instinct.
Our natural instinct has a number of key features that we see played out in what we call morality.
We not only post justify our actions. We also post condemn our actions.
A majority society cooperated with Adolf Hitler in the Final Solution. Afterwards the actions followed with herd like cooperation, were sorely condemned. If they were running on instincts, those instincts were post condemned.
But not all Germans waited until after the Holocaust to condemn it. Some pre-condemned it. They refused to justify it beforehand.
A society cannot always [i[WAIT[/i] until a "post" time to morally evaluate something. A society often has to go ahead of the proposed policy to condemn or justify it. If need be they would protest to stop it.
1. The concept of helping / and not harming others but only if it doesn't come at significant personal cost.
You believe that the nervous system evolved to a certain point that this non-material consciousness emerged ? A certain level of complexity in the nervous system caused this level of mun manipulation of abstract concepts to emerge - either individually or group wise.
But mind is not matter. Conscience is not matter. Moral judgments are not matter.
Will or decision to cooperate is not matter.
Neither is non-cooperation or maverick attitude matter. Physicalist Paul M. Churchland admits the problem of the existence of mind to physicalism.
The important point about the standard evolutionary story is that the human speciess and all of its features are the wholly physical outcome of a purely ohysical process ... If this is the correct account of our origns, then there seems neither need, nor room, to fit any nonphysical substance or properties into our theoretical account of ourselves. We are creatures of matter." [quote]
[ Matter and Consciousness , Churchland, pg 21 ]
[quote]
2. The concepts surrounding what to do when people do not help / avoid harming others. So all the notions of 'justice' etc. ie how do we react to non-cooperative behaviour and try to encourage cooperation in others.
Again, the "concepts" are not material and not matter. And Physicalist D.M. Armstrong states something similar to Churchland above.
It is not a particularly difficult notion that, when the nervous system reaches a certain level of complexity, it should develop new properties. Nor would there be anything particularly difficult in the notion that when the nervous system reaches a certain level of complexity it should affect something that was already in existence in a new way. But it is a quite different matter to hold that the nervious sustem should have the power to create something else, of a quite different nature from itself, and create it our of no materials."
[ A Materialist Theory of the Mind, D.M. Armstrong, pg 30 ]
This quote is an old one, going back to 1968. I don't think the problem for the physicalist has gone away yet.
3. The concepts surrounding relation and group behaviour. We not only accept that people are more likely to help their close relations or group but to some extent include group dynamics in morality, so that things like national pride or dying for your country becomes the moral thing to do.
Again, "national pride" is not matter.
You may have a desire to make science of the behavior of physical things such as chemicals, atoms, molecules, etc. the ultimate and perhaps only source of knowledge. So you appeal to very "complex" network of physical causes does anything, including anything in the psychological and moral realm of people.
We've been though something like this before. You would have to show that in atoms or somewhere down there in the subatomic world mental potentialities exist. You would have to break down matter or chemicals to the degree that the mental capabilities are discovered, isolated, measured, weighed and treated as any other physical entities describable by the laws of physics.
Some people are laboring in this area some call panpsychism, a belief that the mind is ultimate.
The above is just a rough summary, it would take a whole book to really go into it all.
I can understand that what you wrote is just a few concise concepts. But are you really going down the right road ?
J.P. Moreland. on Richard Swinburne -
" ... one could no longer hold that physical laws could exhaustively describe the causal processes of the universe. Richard Swinburn discusses this problem in some detail and argues that science will never be able to explain where mental properties come from or why they emerge when they do. He says,
What of mental properties? Take the simplest such property - sensations. There can be a physico-chemical explanation of how an animal's genes cause his nervous system to have a certain structure, and how a mutation in a gene can cause the nervous system in his offspring to have a different structure. It can explain how an animal comes to have organs deferentially sensitive to light of this and that range of wavelengths, sensitive to temperature or bodily damage, sensitive to these things in the sense that it responds differently to light of this wavelength and so on. But what physics and chemistry could not possibly explain is why the brain-events to which the impinging light gives rise, in turn give rise to sensations of blueness (as opposed to redness), a high noise rather than a low noise, this sort of smell rather than that sort of smell - why sodium chloride tastes salty, and roses look pink. And the reason why physics and chemistry could not explain these things is that pink looks, high noises, and salty tstes are not the sort of thing physics and chemistry deal in. These sciences deal in the physical (i.e. public) properties of small physical objects, and of the large physical objects which they come from - in mass and charge, volume and spin. Yet mental properties are different from physical properties. ..."
[ Scaling the Secular City. J P Moreland, Baker Academic, pg 101,102 ]
You are asking whether in group cooperation the majority can be wrong. In a simplified form of morality where 'cooperation=right' and 'not cooperating=wrong' then if the majority are cooperating for the good of the group then they are right and if they are not cooperating for the good of the group then they are wrong. The latter does occur.
What I suspect you are getting at is the age old question of whether or not morality is decided by the majority. I am saying that no, morality isn't decided at all, morality is about cooperation.
Regardless, "the good of the group" is in another category of things besides physical things. You're saying it emerged from matter. a certain level of network complexity caused psychological considerations of "the good of the group" to emerge.
Physicalism has to locate in the atoms, the chemistry, the molecules or on a quantum level the potentiality of moral decision making.
Originally posted by sonshipNo really sure what you are on about there so I will skip over that part. You certainly don't appear to be disagreeing with me.
We not only post justify our actions. We also post condemn our actions.
You believe that the nervous system evolved to a certain point that this non-material consciousness emerged ?
Yes. You know that. Why bother asking?
A certain level of complexity in the nervous system caused this level of mun manipulation of abstract concepts to emerge - either individually or group wise.
Yes. I think.
But mind is not matter. Conscience is not matter. Moral judgments are not matter.
Will or decision to cooperate is not matter.
Neither is non-cooperation or maverick attitude matter.
Agreed.
Physicalist Paul M. Churchland admits the problem of the existence of mind to physicalism.
I am uninterested in arguments from authority. If you have an argument present it. Do not try to hide behind people with big titles that you think will impress me. They do not.
This quote is an old one, going back to 1968. I don't think the problem for the physicalist has gone away yet.
Except there isn't and never was a problem. All your quotes do is express incredulity. They do not present an argument.
You may have a desire to make science of the behavior of physical things such as chemicals, atoms, molecules, etc. the ultimate and perhaps only source of knowledge.
I have no such desire. Science is about more than physical things, and always has been, and I am more than happy with it staying that way.
Once again, I ask you not to try to practice mind reading. You are not good at it.
So you appeal to very "complex" network of physical causes does anything, including anything in the psychological and moral realm of people.
Please rewrite that sentence in English, and I will respond.
We've been though something like this before.
Yes we have, which makes it interesting that you apparently learned nothing the last time and are trotting out the same tired old nonsense again and expecting a different result. They are still wrong, just like last time.
Regardless, "the good of the group" is in another category of things besides physical things. You're saying it emerged from matter. a certain level of network complexity caused psychological considerations of "the good of the group" to emerge.
Yes.
Physicalism has to locate in the atoms, the chemistry, the molecules or on a quantum level the potentiality of moral decision making.
No, it doesn't, as well you know, as we have been through this multiple times before. Or do you have amnesia?
Please try and present clear concise arguments without rambling on about Hitler or quoting irrelevant nonsense from people with big titles.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhitehead
Physicalist Paul M. Churchland admits the problem of the existence of mind to physicalism.
I am uninterested in arguments from authority. If you have an argument present it.
I am quoting someone i think is on your side of the issue. All quotations are not "arguments from authority. " They simply show how others had wrestled with certain problems.
The important point about the standard evolutionary story is that the human species and all of its features are the wholly physical outcome of a purely physical process .
If you don't share the thought, just say so.
If you do, agree, what does it matter if you say it or someone else in your camp says it?
Do not try to hide behind people with big titles that you think will impress me. They do not.
Don't you hide behind "What twhitehead writes is Oh So Original, no one else expresses the exact same ideas." Face it. Others have shared your ideas.
I'll quote someone , big title, small title or no title if i think what they said is significant to the matters discussed.
me:
Except there isn't and never was a problem. All your quotes do is express incredulity. They do not present an argument.
" But it is a quite different matter to hold that the nervous system should have the power to create something else, of a quite different nature from itself, and create it out [edited] of no materials."
Then your next post can explain why there is no problem. The nervous system evolves and causes something new - mind and/or moral consciousness and moral decisions to emerge.
No problem at all BECAUSE ______________________ ?
I know this style of exchange annoys you. But it the most logical way for you to explain, rather than just assert, there is no problem.
The exchange above went -
me: You believe that the nervous system evolved to a certain point that this non-material consciousness emerged ?
you: Yes. You know that. Why bother asking?
So "non-material consciousness" you now say was NOT something new emerging ?
Evolution caused non-material consciousness as a NEW thing to emerge. Yes?
Evolution did not cause non-material consciousness to emerge NEW. it was an old thing already in existence ?
Which do you believe ?
Once again, I ask you not to try to practice mind reading. You are not good at it.
I am not practicing mind reading. i am practicing remembering things you have written in the past.
Unless you have changed your opinion, thoughts are physically stored in the grey matter of the brain is what you argued a couple of years back.
You argued for the brain being a storage unit and thoughts were coded somehow physically in this storage unit. Have you changed your opinion about what you previously fought for then ?
me:
So you appeal to very "complex" network of physical causes does anything, including anything in the psychological and moral realm of people.
Please rewrite that sentence in English, and I will respond.
Yea, That was sloppy. Ignore it.
me: We've been though something like this before.
Yes we have, which makes it interesting that you apparently learned nothing the last time and are trotting out the same tired old nonsense again and expecting a different result. They are still wrong, just like last time.
Well, if it is all that mundane to you, new observers are probably reading along, you should have been able to refine your "teaching" to make it all the more convincing.
Let's see if we can get you to commit to one or the other -
Evolution caused something NEW as consciousness to emerge or it did not.
me: A certain level of complexity in the nervous system caused this level of mun manipulation of abstract concepts to emerge - either individually or group wise.
Yes. I think.
Compared to
[quote] " But it is a quite different matter to hold that the nervious system should have the power to create something else, of a quite different nature from itself, and create it out [edited] of no materials."
You: Except there isn't and never was a problem.
If there was no problem why was the author occupied to have to come up with - A Materialists Theory of the Mind ? as a thesis ? If there was no problem, there should have been no special need to come up with a theory.
me:
Physicalism has to locate in the atoms, the chemistry, the molecules or on a quantum level the potentiality of moral decision making.
No, it doesn't, as well you know,
As well I do not know.
Who is "mind reading" now ?
as we have been through this multiple times before. Or do you have amnesia?
Or do you have a case of Denial ?
Do you think your opinion is physically stored and can be examined under a microscope ?
Your deciding to adopt one view or the other, Is that a logic gate somewhere to be located physically in your brain ?
Your cells replace themselves every seven or so years. How does your opinion or your identity remain the same over ten or twenty years ? Materially you are not what you were twenty years ago.
If you argue today for a non-material mind then I do not have amnesia. I remember quite clearly that you fought for a physical storage medium holding such things as personality, thoughts, and subsequently moral judgments too.
You did argue for some hopeful research and futuristic promises of what computers WILL do someday. But we're talking right now.
Is it that now you recognize a non-material mind or soul of man ?
Please try and present clear concise arguments without rambling on about Hitler or quoting irrelevant nonsense from people with big titles.
I didn't use any titles. I referred to some names and some titles of BOOKS. Why not give credit where credit is due ?
I mentioned Churchland, Moreland, Armstrong, Hitler. NO titles were included.
Maybe you mentally inserted some titles from your imagination.
Or you don't like the label Physicalist ? I accept the label "Christian" or "Theist".
Why not indicate that I think this should be person who agrees with your philosophy?
You too good to be camped with anyone else ?
Look again at the post and tell me if you see a Dr or the mention of a degree of any kind. Publishing companies are not titles. Sometimes in the past you wanted the source of a quotation, I think I recall. So why whine about me including the publishing company and the page ?
Sloppy typos, I'll work on.
Watch out for that wild imagination of yours - reading things into my posts.
10 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipStop lying.
I am quoting someone i think is on your side of the issue.
All quotations are not "arguments from authority. "
I am well aware of that. But yours, clearly are.
They simply show how others had wrestled with certain problems.
Who cares how others had wrestled with certain problems? Please stop quoting such people when addressing me. It does not aid the conversation in any way.
If you don't share the thought, just say so.
If you do, agree, what does it matter if you say it or someone else in your camp says it?
It takes up unnecessary space and makes it much harder to respond to your posts. Or is that your aim? Kill the thread with waffle?
Don't you hide behind "What twhitehead writes is Oh So Original, no one else expresses the exact same ideas." Face it. Others have shared your ideas.
I am sure others have shared my ideas. I do not hid behind them when presenting my ideas. I do not present my ideas under someone elses name in the hope of deniability.
You have even gone as far as to pretend that the ideas you presented were on my side of the issue - a further attempt to present ideas that you will not stand behind.
I'll quote someone , big title, small title or no title if i think what they said is significant to the matters discussed.
Please don't do it in posts addressed to me. I obviously can't force you to discuss things reasonably, but I will point out when you deliberately try to obfuscate because you don't have the honesty to stand behind your claimed convictions.
Then your next post can explain why there is no problem. The nervous system evolves and causes something new - mind and/or moral consciousness and moral decisions to emerge.
Information is, and always has been, non-physical. The process of evolution itself is non-physical. To claim that physical processes (the 'process' part of which is really information) are entirely physical and thus cannot give rise to information is clearly false, so it is you that needs to demonstrate the existence of a 'problem' when there is none.
To give an analogy to help you:
Water flows down hill. It creates rivers. Rivers follow certain patterns and on relatively flat areas start to meander. It eventually creates ox-bow lakes. Although ox-bow lakes are physical objects, the concept of ox-bow lake is not. The pattern is not physical. The pattern has emerged from just water flowing down hill. THERE IS NO PROBLEM.
I am not practicing mind reading. i am practicing remembering things you have written in the past.
You are not good at that either. In fact you almost always get it wrong.
Unless you have changed your opinion, thoughts are physically stored in the grey matter of the brain is what you argued a couple of years back.
You argued for the brain being a storage unit and thoughts were coded somehow physically in this storage unit. Have you changed your opinion about what you previously fought for then ?
No, I have not changed my opinion on that. But that is not what you said. In no way does that equate to:
You may have a desire to make science of the behavior of physical things such as chemicals, atoms, molecules, etc. the ultimate and perhaps only source of knowledge.
Not even close.
Who is "mind reading" now ?
Not mind reading. We have been through this all before, multiple times.
Or do you have a case of Denial ?
No.
Do you think your opinion is physically stored and can be examined under a microscope ?
Yes. But this doesn't translate to the statements I was disputing.
Your cells replace themselves every seven or so years. How does your opinion or your identity remain the same over ten or twenty years ?
It doesn't.
I remember quite clearly that you fought for a physical storage medium holding such things as personality, thoughts, and subsequently moral judgments too.
Correct, yet you seem to have tagged on a hole lot of other stuff to that that I never claimed.
Is it that now you recognize a non-material mind or soul of man ?
You seem very very confused about the difference between information and storage.
Let me help you out.
This post, is information. It is stored in computers all over the world and presented on your screen. Nevertheless it contains non-material concepts. Do you deny these two claims?
In your next post I expect you to explain how you can understand that about a post, but totally fail to understand that about a brain.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Sep 16
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou called me a liar again. Expect reciprocation in kind in this reply.
So you don't like arguments from authority unless of course the authority is yourself.
You're still a fraud.
It takes up unnecessary space and makes it much harder to respond to your posts. Or is that your aim? Kill the thread with waffle?
Once again. I don't consult with you in order to get coaching how to present my argument.
I do not hid behind them when presenting my ideas. I do not present my ideas under someone elses name in the hope of deniability.
Actually you don't always present your ideas. You tell me not to be a mind reader. But often a mind reader is just what you want. You want to assume it is so obvious to everyone that you are right, and why you are right is left unsaid. I guess we just have to read your mind. So you give some abbreviated little quip like " It doesn't" " It is not a problem" etc. Then you passively wait like someone wanting his teeth pulled out.
"Read my mind for the detail of what is so obviously right"
As for "hiding" behind other's statements; You link to other discussions. I didn't accuse you "hiding" behind all those websites supposedly talking about the future of computing when we discussed thought storage.
From now on any links you refer me to I will take as your hiding behind someone else's statements.
You have even gone as far as to pretend that the ideas you presented were on my side of the issue - a further attempt to present ideas that you will not stand behind.
I don't pretend ideas are on your side. I assume you're saying somewhat the same thing. Face it. Others have wrestled with the issues before either of us.
I am not going to stop referring to what others wrote. I don't have to reinvent the wheel. And there is plenty of discussion out there.
Please don't do it in posts addressed to me.
Then you in turn refer me to no other articles of websites.
I obviously can't force you to discuss things reasonably,
There is nothing unreasonable about referring to quotations.
What kind of warped thinking holds quoting people is unreasonable ?
but I will point out when you deliberately try to obfuscate because you don't have the honesty to stand behind your claimed convictions.
You're still a fraud and a liar. I quote in order to crystallize and clarify not to obfuscate.
I may not always succeed. I may at times misrepresent what you believe. Often you wait till others read your mind to figure out what you withhold stating which is suppose to be so self evidently correct.
I quote to clarify the lines of distinction in the issues argued.
I accuse YOU of obfuscating with your little supposedly self evident, supposedly intuitive obvious quips.
While you complain about me being a mind reader, I think you selectively complain.
I.e. " Read between the lines and see that i am so self evidently correct here."
Information is, and always has been, non-physical. The process of evolution itself is non-physical. To claim that physical processes (the 'process' part of which is really information) are entirely physical and thus cannot give rise to information is clearly false, so it is you that needs to demonstrate the existence of a 'problem' when there is none.
Your statement assumes two things;
1.) there is a universally agreed upon definition in philosophy of the word "information".
There is not in spite of the fact that plenty of dictionaries are around
And you don't want me to quote, so you don't GET one.
2.) Morality and what one ought to do is just "information".
Your cells replace themselves every seven or so years. How does your opinion or your identity remain the same over ten or twenty years ?
It doesn't.
Read mind for the rest of explanation.
Twenty years ago you were twhitehead.
You still are. And you probably still have many of the same strong opinions.
Let me help you out.
This post, is information. It is stored in computers all over the world and presented on your screen. Nevertheless it contains non-material concepts. Do you deny these two claims?
Explain how whether I ought be rude and call you a name like you did to me or whether I ought to refrain from returning insult for insult - is information.
Yes, the issue is non-physical.
What are the syntax or binary representation (or what ever kind code) if any, in the physical brain storing the information about whether I OUGHT or OUGHT NOT call you a liar in thus injuring your character ?
You seem very very confused about the difference between information and storage.
Does Evolution run on information ?
Was information in existence before the Evolution process began ?
Who or what had this information if so ?
In your next post I expect you to explain how you can understand that about a post, but totally fail to understand that about a brain.
In yours you can tell us if Information preceded material or the other way around.
It amazes me to what lengths you atheists will dehumanize man to get away from a Creator.
And I don't have time right now to correct all the typos. "till" should be "until" above.
10 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipNot unexpected, but not excusable either. Evil in response to perceived evil is still evil.
You called me a liar again. Expect reciprocation in kind in this reply.
I am tired of lengthy posts responding to every little bit, so instead I will try a new format.
I do not object to you quoting relevant people or linking to relevant material. I object to you quoting people solely for the sake of 'argument from authority'. You quote someone you think will impress me who disagrees with me. But the quote contains no actual argument. Instead, if I question the claims in the quote you will deny supporting them and tell me to go take it up with the person you quoted. That is what I object to. Make an argument yourself, and stand by it. Don't be such a coward.
I am not the same person I was 20 years ago. I am quite different. I do retain some characteristics, and for good reason. Brain structure can outlive individual cells.
Information is independent of matter, but nevertheless stored in matter. Information is also a property of matter Neither preceded the other.
Evolution is very much about information flow. Information is a necessary part of evolution.
You complain that you are forced to mind read. That is not so. I have never refused to answer questions as well you know. If you are not satisfied with an answer, then ask for clarification. In the example you gave, you actually ignored the answer. That is on you.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Sep 16
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Not unexpected, but not excusable either. Evil in response to perceived evil is still evil.
So with you it is only " perceived evil." But with me its just evil.
I don't buy that self excusing rationale for a moment.
Identify the "lie" in my post. That's a deliberate misrepresentation.
Quote the lie.
I am tired of lengthy posts responding to every little bit, so instead I will try a new format.
I do not object to you quoting relevant people or linking to relevant material.
They have to come pass your OK on whose "relevant" ?
Maybe people who expose errors in your thinking you deem to not be "relevant".
Fraudulent detached objectivity.
I object to you quoting people solely for the sake of 'argument from authority'.
I quoted a man who I thought shares some of the ideas you are espousing.
I quote problems they may have the honesty or insight to admit.
You can educate them and me to your better view.
You quote someone you think will impress me who disagrees with me.
So what's wrong with trying to impress you ?
You're not trying to impress me ?
Actually, in a debate, to convince the opposing side is not the desired goal.
It is to convince the audience.
Do i think you're going to change your mind about anything here ? No, I do not.
I expect you to double down.
But the quote contains no actual argument.
Hypocrisy.
Many of your one liners are nothing more than an appeal - "trust me".
Ie. No need for explanation, just trust me. Read between the lines and see twhitehead is so self evidently correct.
And what STYLE of communication WOULD you approve of here? Probably NO style of discussion disagreeing with you would come up to your standard. You're not arguing for me. You're arguing for you.
Any style of argument I present would only be approved of by you if it exposed no errors in your thinking. I am not waiting for you to approve of any style of rebuttal I write to your points ( if I disagree ).
Instead, if I question the claims in the quote you will deny supporting them and tell me to go take it up with the person you quoted.
You'd have to give an example that doesn't call for reaching back months or years into archived.
If I qualified some limitations on concurrence with someone else, I'm pretty sure you do the same.
That is what I object to. Make an argument yourself, and stand by it. Don't be such a coward.
Quoting indicates cowardice now ?
In this exchange point out someone i quoted and subsequently said it was not my opinion also ?
I am not the same person I was 20 years ago. I am quite different. I do retain some characteristics, and for good reason. Brain structure can outlive individual cells.
Information is independent of matter, but nevertheless stored in matter. Information is also a property of matter Neither preceded the other.
So without physical storage there is no information ?
Evolution is very much about information flow. Information is a necessary part of evolution.
Flow of information implies to me a flow FROM point A to point B. Flow means to me transfer or movement.
Do you think the material universe was eternally in existence ?
If you believe so then you must believe in an infinite regress of information flow.
From medium to medium ( I suppose) you would argue that neither material storage nor information came first. But in an infinite regress they circled around.
i want to know if the absence of a physical storage medium means information cannot exist. Yes or No would be helpful.
i want to know if matter is eternal or came into being.
And if it did come into being, ie. start to exist, I want to know WHERE was the information describing it properties.
If you are not satisfied with an answer, then ask for clarification. In the example you gave, you actually ignored the answer. That is on you.
I asked if Evolution runs on information ?
Now if I say it appears that you are saying it does NOT, do I misrepresent your view ?
Did Evolution bootstrap start on its own with no information prescribing how it should behave?
It seems to me that you have to argue for the eternality of MATTER.
The storage medium for information is matter.
The general picture I am getting from you is that the storage material always existed forever.
I further get that for you the flow of information had no starting point. In an infinite regress transfer of information has existed concurrently with the eternality of the storage device which is matter.
Are you arguing that the flow of information HAD NO STARTING POINT ?
10 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipI do not lie, nor deliberately falsely accuse you of lying. You on the other hand have several times deliberately and maliciously lied about me and been rude about me solely for the purpose of being evil (and you have admitted as such, without apology).
So with you it is only " [b]perceived evil." But with me its just evil. I don't buy that self excusing rationale for a moment. [/b]
And what STYLE of communication WOULD you approve of here?
I would approve of:
1. a more civil conversation.
2. less deliberate dishonest tactics.
3. less attribution of ideas to me that you believe I hold but that I have not stated I hold.
Quoting indicates cowardice now ?
No, that is clearly not what I said. If it is not clear what I said, please ask and I will clarify.
So without physical storage there is no information ?
Correct. But not something I was saying. It isn't particularly relevant. What is relevant, is:
1. that information can be physically stored.
2. but it is still information, not a physical object.
3. it cannot necessarily be understood by looking at the individual atoms.
4. information pervades all physical systems and hence 'arises' at all times, everywhere in all physical systems.
Flow of information implies to me a flow FROM point A to point B. Flow means to me transfer or movement.
It means the same to me.
Do you think the material universe was eternally in existence ?
I am sure I have told you my beliefs on that in the past: I simply do not know.
If you believe so then you must believe in an infinite regress of information flow.
I believe that is one possibility.
i want to know if the absence of a physical storage medium means information cannot exist. Yes or No would be helpful.
That depends on how you define 'physical storage medium'. I do believe information must be stored. There must be some medium. All mediums I know of are physical. I am not sure whether mediums that are not part of this universe exist or whether if they did exist they would be called 'physical'.
i want to know if matter is eternal or came into being.
I can't help you there. I am also certain that nobody can help you there as there simply isn't enough evidence either way at this point.
I asked if Evolution runs on information ?
No, that is not what I was referring to. I will drop this or we will spend twenty pages trying to work out who said what.
It seems to me that you have to argue for the eternality of MATTER.
And it seems to me that I do not have to argue any such thing. I do not know how the universe came about or if it is eternal. I do know that once the universe was in place, with all the laws of physics, evolution was, and is, possible. Evolution is easily simulated in a computer. There is no doubt whatsoever that it works. What came before is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it works. It works. That is a fact.
The general picture I am getting from you is that the storage material always existed forever.
No, that is the general picture you made up. I have not said anything of the sort, ever.
Are you arguing that the flow of information HAD NO STARTING POINT ?
No. I have no idea whether or not it had a starting point. I do know, for a fact that information exists, and that information flows, and that information predates evolution. That is all I need to know to understand that evolution can happen and evolution can give rise to complex structures including brains.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry I only read the first three words you wrote. I find it hard to believe that you have never in your life told even a white lie. Because if you have, the first three words you wrote are clearly a lie, which means everything else you wrote may also be a lie.
I do not lie, nor deliberately falsely accuse you of lying. You on the other hand have several times deliberately and maliciously lied about me and been rude about me solely for the purpose of being evil (and you have admitted as such, without apology).
[b]And what STYLE of communication WOULD you approve of here?
I would approve of:
1. a more c ...[text shortened]... nd that evolution can happen and evolution can give rise to complex structures including brains.[/b]
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28794
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe first 3 words he wrote were 'I do not...'
Sorry I only read the first three words you wrote. I find it hard to believe that you have never in your life told even a white lie. Because if you have, the first three words you wrote are clearly a lie, which means everything else you wrote may also be a lie.
If you read no further then these first 3 words then how did you know he was going to say 'lie?'
You are therefore either lying yourself about reading no further than his first 3 words, or you can't count beyond 3. Either way, you should be deeply embarrassed.