Trashing natural selection as a special case.

I would describe mind as an abstraction referring to information processing. 

The trouble with that, is that you can either define information as Shannon did - a definition which is good for communications engineering, or you can recognise that information is something that only humans can recognise and appreciate. Imagine you have two books, one on advanced math, the other a fake written in the same style. The only way you could decide which book held information would be to give them to an advanced mathematician!

In other words, a non-Shannon definition of information has to involve one or more humans, so that it is circular to define mind in terms of information.

The common view is that it is biological information processing.  Single cell organisms detect food and dangerous conditions and respond appropriately.  This is mind.  Non-biological objects don't observe and respond purposefully, unless they contain information processing equipment (your b).

Well I guess I am arrogant enough to say the common view is wrong! In any case my point is that in order for life to get started, you need a lot of careful design work. I only outlined what would be involved, because there would be an enormous mental effort required to design the biochemistry to decode the DNA/RNA code, replicate the code, provide the energy to power the various processes etc.

I know you are getting all these ideas from the Third Way, and I wish you could get one of those guys to come and debate on here.

David

I would describe mind as an abstraction referring to information processing.  The common view is that it is biological information processing.  Single cell organisms detect food and dangerous conditions and respond appropriately.  This is mind.  Non-biological objects don't observe and respond purposefully, unless they contain information processing equipment (your b).

Information is not material, although information structures (such as codes or historical effects of activity) can be inferred empirically in materials.  Is there non biological information processing in an informational environment?  An environment that is wave-like rather than particular.  I believe so.

If correct, then minds as functioning structured information objects (observers of real-world probabilities) existed before they encoded materials.  And once active (as consciousness) within a person, can exist after biological death.

Your explanation fails to show in any sort of detail how the high intellectual and creative intelligence required to design an example elaborate irreducibly complex biological machine (the bacterial flagellum) that I outlined in at least a little nitty gritty detail in #27 (https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...7#pid57057) could even possibly be produced by the minimal intelligence of single cells, in the sort of "cells and life in general design themselves" scenario you outlined in broad generalities. It is hard to get any sort of grip on exactly how your proposed scenario works.

In order for your exposition to be credible you need to account for the details (the old adage "the Devil is in the details"). Do you claim that somehow the design process does not at all require high creative focused intelligence? If so, then where does the resulting detailed and irreducibly complex design information come from? Is it by some form of magic?

functional complex specified information (fsci)

This term might require [its] own thread...

Have to admit I'm a bit lost on what is exactly being debated.

I get that one side is arguing for Cosmic Fine Tuning *and* Intelligent Design in biology...

@stephenw - Are you against the idea of Intelligent Design at the biological level? It seems to me you are more neutral on that and focusing on the scientific measuring of Information as a way to support mental causation?

This term might require [its] own thread...

Have to admit I'm a bit lost on what is exactly being debated.

I get that one side is arguing for Cosmic Fine Tuning *and* Intelligent Design in biology...

@stephenw - Are you against the idea of Intelligent Design at the biological level? It seems to me you are more neutral on that and focusing on the scientific measuring of Information as a way to support mental causation?

I am trying to make my peace with the ideas of Bill Dembski.  My stance is that living things preform information processing that exhibits intelligence.  I may endorse a designer that designs top-level systems that support and promote intelligence in living things.  This removes the need for (most) direct interaction at the physical level, but focuses on evolution at deeply spiritual levels.   To accept this, one loses the magical and embraces Heavenly Design beyond human thought.

It strikes me funny that a sophisticated, multi-disciplined approach to functional information (in the article) is ignored when FUNCTIONAL COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION is used to respond.  It would appear to me that all functional information uses a base of interconnected and specified information.  And yes, what is important is that the complexity, interconnectedness and functional output are all measurable in information science terms. 

I am trying to make my peace with the ideas of Bill Dembski.  My stance is that living things preform information processing that exhibits intelligence.  I may endorse a designer that designs top-level systems that support and promote intelligence in living things.  This removes the need for (most) direct interaction at the physical level, but focuses on evolution at deeply spiritual levels.   To accept this, one loses the magical and embraces Heavenly Design beyond human thought.

It strikes me funny that a sophisticated, multi-disciplined approach to functional information (in the article) is ignored when FUNCTIONAL COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION is used to respond.  It would appear to me that all functional information uses a base of interconnected and specified information.  And yes, what is important is that the complexity, interconnectedness and functional output are all measurable in information science terms. 

The most important factor here seems clearly to me to be the mystery of the source of all this information built into living organisms. Do you or do you not endorse that focused conscious sentient creative intelligence (apparently discarnate) is the source of the obvious design in living organisms? If not, you need to specify what exactly that source is, a credible alternative. In the latter case your credible alternative natural undirected explanation has to cover all the apparently designed highly organized information with important characteristics especially including irreducible complexity.

I am trying to make my peace with the ideas of Bill Dembski.  My stance is that living things preform information processing that exhibits intelligence.  I may endorse a designer that designs top-level systems that support and promote intelligence in living things.  This removes the need for (most) direct interaction at the physical level, but focuses on evolution at deeply spiritual levels.   To accept this, one loses the magical and embraces Heavenly Design beyond human thought.

It strikes me funny that a sophisticated, multi-disciplined approach to functional information (in the article) is ignored when FUNCTIONAL COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION is used to respond.  It would appear to me that all functional information uses a base of interconnected and specified information.  And yes, what is important is that the complexity, interconnectedness and functional output are all measurable in information science terms. 

I know you are a fan of The Third Way, so this is for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLRKP9NW8I&t=405s

Please rewind to the start of the video, and watch the start, where he dismissed Rene Descartes concept of Dualism. This is vital. Descartes was no fool, and science has discovered nothing since his time that justifies Noble's dismissal of Descartes.

This is the point at which I (and I think others here) differ from you.

I think Descartes was right to split up reality into the physical and mental realms. I would say Prof Noble waffles after this point. As I have already pointed out, the concept of information of the non-Shannon type only makes sense with reference to a mind - human or conceivably animal.

Therefore when he talks about information he is obfuscating rather than clarifying!

Put another way, people like Dawkins would be correct and insightful if reality was purely physical - but it obviously isn't.

David

I know you are a fan of The Third Way, so this is for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLRKP9NW8I&t=405s

Please rewind to the start of the video, and watch the start, where he dismissed Rene Descartes concept of Dualism. This is vital. Descartes was no fool, and science has discovered nothing since his time that justifies Noble's dismissal of Descartes.

This is the point at which I (and I think others here) differ from you.

I think Descartes was right to split up reality into the physical and mental realms. I would say Prof Noble waffles after this point. As I have already pointed out, the concept of information of the non-Shannon type only makes sense with reference to a mind - human or conceivably animal.

Therefore when he talks about information he is obfuscating rather than clarifying!

Put another way, people like Dawkins would be correct and insightful if reality was purely physical - but it obviously isn't.

David

I'd rather hoped you might have reacted to this - or maybe you are trying to persuade someone from TTW to argue this topic! I'd enjoy debating with someone like that - even if I lost - LOL!

David

I'd rather hoped you might have reacted to this - or maybe you are trying to persuade someone from TTW to argue this topic! I'd enjoy debating with someone like that - even if I lost - LOL!

David

Back from a mini-vacation with my wife.  Had to mow the lawn this morning.  Sorry to not respond.  Denis Noble is a hero to me, as a emeritus physiologist, he challenged Dawkins and emerged on top.

I will watch the video soon and return with thoughts.

Please rewind to the start of the video, and watch the start, where he dismissed Rene Descartes concept of Dualism. This is vital. Descartes was no fool, and science has discovered nothing since his time that justifies Noble's dismissal of Descartes.

This is the point at which I (and I think others here) differ from you.

I think Descartes was right to split up reality into the physical and mental realms. I would say Prof Noble waffles after this point. As I have already pointed out, the concept of information of the non-Shannon type only makes sense with reference to a mind - human or conceivably animal.
David

Descartes was 400 years ago.  Since then Physics, Chemistry, Quantum Theory and Information Science have entered and dominated the scene.  His math was outstanding, but his Science and Metaphysics are sorely out of date.

Today modern science has developed a deep understanding of "Bodies" and the abstract term physical.  There is no magic in Physiology (note Dr. Noble).  Physical substances are defined and quantified.  The basic processes that are behind bodily functions, equally so.  The term "body" is fully characterized by physical processes.  The idea that there is any "perfect" magic substance is lost and people understand that their bodies are made only of known elements that were assimilated from the physical environment.  They understand that complex compounds are made creatively from only these elements, as functions of electrochemical regulation and development.  This is the transformational view of modern science.  The chemistry of bodies is a subset of basic chemicals in the environment.

 Denis Noble CBE FRS FMedSci MAE is a British physiologist and biologist who held the Burdon Sanderson Chair of Cardiovascular Physiology at the University of Oxford from 1984 to 2004 and was appointed Professor Emeritus and co-Director of Computational Physiology.

The abstract term mind has the same trajectory, but developed more recently.  It still includes, in the public worldview, magical experiences.  While I think these are very valid experiences, in science fields these are not part of the whole.  Many scientists and theorists are happy for these experiences to be part of spiritual phenomena and leave mind to science.  I am one of those.

Matching the modern view about the physical body, mind can be defined and measured as processes of information science.  Mind, as an abstraction, includes the specific processes of detection and selection.  I strongly agree that "information of the non-Shannon type only makes sense with reference to a mind".  Think of mind doing things just like a body.  Minds are engaging and importing meaning and regulating it to a first person view.  The information processing of living things doesn't ooze personal meaning, but transform it from the ambient information arrayed in their information space.  Just like physical objects, information objects have been transformed from the environment.

Dualism is a Metaphysical conceptualization.  In the tradition of C.S. Peirce and William James, I take a pragmatic stance and embrace 3 environments.  The physical and informational environs are open to measurement and systems analysis.  Experiences with a Divine component are outside of these.

In the latter case your credible alternative natural undirected explanation has to cover all the apparently designed highly organized information with important characteristics especially including irreducible complexity.

When reading your responses, you don't seem to understand my points, yet feel free to try to dictate my choices of explanations.  Darwin included Lamarckian adaptation in his theory.   That is when an organism is adapting purposefully to identifiable challenges in their environment.  That was explained well - by Dr. Noble, if you listened to the link from David.  I, in no uncertain terms, reiterate that I reject undirected bio-evolution!!!!  Why do you keep saying things like I am promoting it???