It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 38
14
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


After repeating the same fallacies page after page after page, ridicule is pretty much the only option left. You won't listen to rational arguments and scientific facts, you won't offer counterpoints that are related to the posts you respond to, and you won't provide factual evidence to back up your claims. You respond to questions with unrelated questions and fallacies. Essentially, that is plugging your ears and going "LALALALALA!". XYZ wasn't posting that to prove you wrong. If he did, it would be a fallacy. He posted it, because it's true and you still won't admit that you don't know the answer to origin of DNA. Personally, I just don't understand how you can be so critical of science experiments, dismissing them because of insignificant details, but you throw all reasoning out the window when it comes to believing in god. Philosophy and word games don't trump science.
edit on 26-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
And he didn't bother to address my posts on information science and why is belief is irrelevant since a conscious state can't exist without cause. This forum should have ban rules for such level of intentional and repetitive dishonesty.. (this being my own opinion of course).. He's basically spamming the fora with logical fallacies at this point, and that includes quote mining people out of context since he didn't even bother to read any academic material to begin with to understand how baseless his arguments from ignorance are. It's just spammed intentional ignorance at this point, and I think he feeds of the negative reactions as some sort of fulfilling amusement. Hence, can we consider him internet trolling at this point?

I don't even think he grasps that he's the one making an unsupported claim, and when making such assertions and claims, he needs to prove them vs cast magic assertion that it's a magical fact for a pseudo of winning a debate. He's provided nothing of value, or worthy of academic consideration.
edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
And he didn't bother to address my posts on information science and why is belief is irrelevant since a conscious state can't exist without cause. This forum should have ban rules for such level of intentional and repetitive dishonesty.. (this being my own opinion of course).. He's basically spamming the fora with logical fallacies at this point, and that includes quote mining people out of context since he didn't even bother to read any academic material to begin with to understand how baseless his arguments from ignorance are. It's just spammed intentional ignorance at this point, and I think he feeds of the negative reactions as some sort of fulfilling amusement. Hence, can we consider him internet trolling at this point?

I don't even think he grasps that he's the one making an unsupported claim, and when making such assertions and claims, he needs to prove them vs cast magic assertion that it's a magical fact for a pseudo of winning a debate. He's provided nothing of value, or worthy of academic consideration.
edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


Information Science at its best!

Enjoy



So where did the Information came from?

Atheists and evolutionists will admit - We Don't Know.

You though - I will say philosophically speaking - information created itself as existence is creator of us.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The idiot in that video doesn't comprehend that information involves data, and data is bits of information.. That video is such an utter fail, and proves it self wrong and your argument wrong within the first minute.. The rest of it is an appeal to ignorance.. And clearly you don't try to argue information theory and science with someone whom is actually studying the subject on an academic level. So again you deposit poor arguments that had done nothing to address anything I've stated. You should also look up digital physics and how energy and information are two side of the same coin and are interchangeable in such discussions. Especially when getting into a discussions on cognitive systems theory.. Yep, an entire field in which your video fails to address. And no, information doesn't need a sender and a receiver for there to be an inertia of information..Hence, someone doesn't even comprehend what chaos theory is, or how order can arise higher complex from interacting parts to where forces meet in harmony with feedback in the system. This to where no sending or receiving is required to obtain a higher order of complex. That argument in the video rests on transmitting communications, and information networks such as verbal, wifi, or the internet as examples, to which themselves are complex systems required to support a cognitive system.

And I see you didn't read my posts that actually went into information science, and information theory... Yep, you just spout of a video with a guy that not only contradicts himself, but shows himself to be completely ignorant of what information science and theory is. He's resting his definition of "information" on a definition that has been out dated for a very very long time now. It has no baring on how science deals with information, especially regarding it in systems theory.

Everything must contain, and have information to exist.. Everything must have informational value greater than zero. It's a fundamental property of existence itself.

So where did information come from? .. Existence itself. And the conscious state is an emergent property of informational processes just as much as the image displaying on your computer screen is. At the end of the day, Existence is a self-organizing and self-generating system. And things like cognitive systems definitely, of all things, would require a tremendous amount of cause to even function at all. There is a reason why there is a difference between a rock, and a conscious entity. Unconscious states require less cause to exist than a conscious state. This is an obvious fact you need to learn to deal with.
edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2
 


After repeating the same fallacies page after page after page, ridicule is pretty much the only option left. You won't listen to rational arguments and scientific facts, you won't offer counterpoints that are related to the posts you respond to, and you won't provide factual evidence to back up your claims. You respond to questions with unrelated questions and fallacies. Essentially, that is plugging your ears and going "LALALALALA!". XYZ wasn't posting that to prove you wrong. If he did, it would be a fallacy. He posted it, because it's true and you still won't admit that you don't know the answer to origin of DNA. Personally, I just don't understand how you can be so critical of science experiments, dismissing them because of insignificant details, but you throw all reasoning out the window when it comes to believing in god. Philosophy and word games don't trump science.
edit on 26-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





Personally, I just don't understand how you can be so critical of science experiments, dismissing them because of insignificant details, but you throw all reasoning out the window when it comes to believing in god. Philosophy and word games don't trump science.


Like I said many times already - thanks to science and the scientific breakthroughs of scientist we have a better understanding of the universe and ourselves. Through science we're able to understand the inner workings of the DNA molecule or the structures of atom in sub-atomic levels. Through science we're able to understand how galaxies and planets interact. So science IS NOT the question here but the claim not supported by science. That is where I question and critical of science.

Heck I even use science to question my belief - the existence of an Intelligent Being who created LIFE.

If science can prove that Intelligent Life forms can't arise from non-living materials without Intelligence then IT MUST BE TRUE! Correct?

But the fact is science have already proven time and time again the opposite of the claim.

SO what can we conclude from it?

Life or to be precise Intelligent Life MUST be a product of an Intelligent Creator.

The evidence of this is many innumerate.

Simple as that.

Of course to you this is nonsense because you've already concluded that there's no other alternative but to believe without an ounce of evidence - even by the scientific methods you claim uphold - that intelligent life is a product of blind chance.

But like I said - if it makes you happy then more power to you...



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   


Heck I even use science to question my belief - the existence of an Intelligent Being who created LIFE.


Well, until you can catch it in the process of doing so, or get to take a video camera in and make a scientific documentary ect.. There is just "faith".. And I don't even argue against the possibility of an intelligent being being capable of inducing a big bang that gives rise to life. If you want to believe that, fine, but it doesn't mean you have to ignorantly dismiss evolution to which is a well founded science. Most people get confused that evolution is both a scientific theory, and a scientific fact. It's a fact that it happens, and it's an on going theory because things never cease stop changing and evolving in some form or another.



If science can prove that Intelligent Life forms can't arise from non-living materials without Intelligence then IT MUST BE TRUE! Correct?


Since when is any one given material "living"? Individual atoms are not living organisms, and they together make up all living organisms. In fact, life is an expression of the atoms and the fundamental forces of nature that govern them. Mostly governed by electromagnetism as most everything else is other than gravity, or pressure waves. Existence is a self-organizing system that even allows for intelligence to be possible..Hence, its exactly what science states it as.


But the fact is science have already proven time and time again the opposite of the claim.


Which claim? And please provide peer reviewed academic material.. And when proving things wrong, it's usually a wise idea to study why something was proven wrong. And 9 times out of 10 its an extension of the preexisting theory to where a better and more complete understanding is given.



SO what can we conclude from it?


Well, if you believe in GOD, you can first question it by perhaps starting with the basics of information theory and cognitive systems theory. Remember, your actual goal is to solve infinite regress, and to establish a true origin, or universal set of all sets.



Life or to be precise Intelligent Life MUST be a product of an Intelligent Creator.


This is a bad form of logic. You can only exist in a quantized existence, so no matter what, everything will be precisely as they are. However, that also brings up the fact that things are not precise in the context I think you are trying to infer here. Earth doesn't even have to be precisely where it is to harbor or have life. There is over a million miles we could be in and still be here.



Of course to you this is nonsense because you've already concluded that there's no other alternative but to believe without an ounce of evidence - even by the scientific methods you claim uphold - that intelligent life is a product of blind chance.


When consciousness can't exist without cause, blind chance is actually the answer because it begins with it in the first place.The chances of intelligence is also lower than the natural emergence of non-intelligent life. That's is a major part to this to which you are not grasping here. I didn't talk about cognitive systems, information science, and information theory because I felt like playing with the words.. :/



But like I said - if it makes you happy then more power to you...


It's not about having power here :/ . I can't change facts, I can only try to convey them to you. It's up to you if you want to listen or take the time to understand what it is I, or anyone for that matter is saying to you.
edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



you mean the "I Don't Know - We Don't Know" responses?

No I mean.."I don't know"...yet.



you mean your ridiculous pathetic responses?

I don't know what your talking about.



These are the what you call "excellent intelligent responses"? If so, then you got nothing substantial to offer.

Grow up... you know I was talking about the overall debate.



Why you can't even answer a simple question: who are the Intelligent people correspond to in the abiogenesis world?

What does this have to do with anything? or more important how would prop up your ID argument.



No wonder your only response is a childish ridicule.

I can't have any fun at the expense of your ignorance?




Like I said - study up more before you engage in a adult conversation, maybe by then you can present your side intelligently.

I have not once seen an accurate depiction of facts or observations that actually supported the hypothesis of Intelligent Design beyond competing hypotheses.
Your entire argument seems to boil down to interference or guidance of an intelligent agent. The fact that chemistry is not at all random or arbitrary does not mean that it is intelligently guided. Mutation and natural selection are also not arbitrary.
your personal incredulity doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Your argument is called the Argument from Incredulity, and it's a logical fallacy.
Your failure of ID is not down to its lack of spin, but to its lack of substance. So when you come up with something I can chew on I will be glad to embarrass you further .



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Let me try to help be one to find a common ground here..

1. You don't need to have an idea of an impossible GOD in order to consider something a GOD

2. You don't need to deny reality, evolution, or how the Universe works to the best of scientific knowledge to believe in an entity you might call GOD. see 3

3. You could believe, without assertions of fact, that it's plausible and possible that some intelligent entity could have induced a Big Bang that self-generates and evolves to which gives rise to human kind ect.. Hence, science can't rule it out, but you also can't assert it as fact.

4. You don't have to give up the above idea knowing said entity could not exist without cause.., especially if it's an conscious one. We could even argue the possibility of it being the first ever conscious entity to evolve just to play along here. This entity could be billions of years old perhaps...?

5. However, you can't also discount natural emergence that doesn't involve a conscious entity, or rule out the plausibility of our universe being a particle of another massively larger universe to which governs their laws of physics. Hence, we could perhaps be their Higg's Boson and we wouldn't even know it, and they wouldn't even know we exist.. And this of course being all speculation in regards to Occam's Razor.

6. Despite number 5, it doesn't not mean we can not assess the properties of existence, or how things work in accordance to them. After all, we are literally a part of it, and thus we can literally measure, assess, and build working models according to it. We can even figure out it's base laws ect..

7. Now if you want to assert something, I suggest providing something tangible and worthy of academic consideration. Ideas are great, beliefs to, but they only go so far in relevancy when they reside solely on "faith".. Hence, if you want to be taken seriously academically, you need to provide more than "I believe".




edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


And so you repeat the ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE once again....unbelievable


You know, repeating the same god of the gaps argument over and over again by saying "science can't explain that, ergo god did it" is incredibly dumb. After all, the "god did it" track record is incredibly bad



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


I know enough about the subject to tell you that spontaneous generation of life is a DEAD issue...I also know you can set your experiment up and have it...get back to us with the result in a couple of billion years or so...



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Science has performed experiment after experiment concerning abiogenesis. Not one of them has resulted in LIFE from NOTHING! And they never will. Because it is impossible.

By the way, you show me a single post where I have come down on one side or another...You sure group people pretty fast and make assumptions...



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


I know enough about the subject to tell you that spontaneous generation of life is a DEAD issue...I also know you can set your experiment up and have it...get back to us with the result in a couple of billion years or so...


Given that a ton of scientists still research the field your statement is clearly wrong. And they had quite a bit of success too.

Either way, they already have more evidence than the "God did it" crowd ever had...



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Barcs
 


Science has performed experiment after experiment concerning abiogenesis. Not one of them has resulted in LIFE from NOTHING! And they never will. Because it is impossible.

By the way, you show me a single post where I have come down on one side or another...You sure group people pretty fast and make assumptions...


Nobody ever claimed life from "nothing".. And you can't make things from something that doesn't exist. Show us a life form made of nothing.. Oh yeah, show us a life form missing its atoms.. What? You can't? Well your argument is pretty much in the toilet bowl flushing itself down the drain. It amazes me how dumb some people can intentionally be, and how they can't grasp basic reality that life is entirely made of non-life (atoms) that are governed by electromagnetism, and shaped by other environmental electromagnetic forces to which includes non-electromagnetic forces such as pressure waves ect. Man you people are the worst when it comes to intellectual integrity and honesty.. You have absolutely no regard for it what-so-ever. People like you can't seem to stop creating logical fallacies, lying, making straw man arguments, or engaging in dishonest discourse. It must feel great to be so intentionally stupid at the same time.

People that say evolution doesn't happen are like people saying it's impossible for atoms to rearrange them selves to form new pattern and sequences.. The amount of sheer ignorance that takes is astounding to say the least. It's intentional retardation because there is a fantasy to protect at all costs to which includes sacrificing all of ones honor, integrity, honesty, life, savings, family, selves, or even to the point of killing others because they are so psychologically screwed up and brainwashed to fear and worship the imaginary..

Now that might sound harsh, but I do think at this point it's quite deserving giving the sheer amount of dishonesty we are seeing in these threads. Yeah, truth hurts...., learn to deal with it, and learn to deal with reality.


Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.[1] The subject may use:

simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether


And the key to spotting them is those making magical assertions of truth that can not back up their claims with anything. They sit their and deny anything and everything.. People here in denial of evolution are actually far more in denial of reality than even Flat Earthers.. All for a religious cult that survives literally on ignorance, and the preying on ignorance. Classic of a few posters here I need not name.



By the way, you show me a single post where I have come down on one side or another


The one you just posted should more than suffice.
edit on 27-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Barcs
 


Science has performed experiment after experiment concerning abiogenesis. Not one of them has resulted in LIFE from NOTHING! And they never will. Because it is impossible.

By the way, you show me a single post where I have come down on one side or another...You sure group people pretty fast and make assumptions...


Yes I group people that attack science into the science deniers category, and try to show where they went wrong. I like to deny ignorance. Why do you think life came from nothing? That isn't even close to what abiogenesis is about. You are completely misrepresenting the science experiments and what constitutes as proof. Just because they haven't replicated the entire abiogenesis process yet, doesn't mean its been conclusively proven false. It is a work in progress, a hypothesis. If it was conclusively false, they wouldn't still be experiment with it. There are many things we don't know yet. That doesn't mean they are all impossible. It means we don't know yet.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
The idiot in that video doesn't comprehend that information involves data, and data is bits of information.. That video is such an utter fail, and proves it self wrong and your argument wrong within the first minute..



Dr. Don Johnson has earned Ph.D.s in both Computer & Information Sciences from the University of Minnesota and in Chemistry from Michigan State University. He was a senior research scientist for 10 years in pharmaceutical and medical/scientific instrument fields, served as president and technical expert in an independent computer consulting firm for many years, and taught 20 years in universities in Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Europe. Don is currently a speaker, consultant and author. His latest book Programming of Life examines the information of life and was the basis for the video Programming of Life.


You think he doesn't know? You are talking about the host I think.


www.programmingoflife.info...
www.amazon.com...

Here's a recent paper from the "Idiot".
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Prescriptive Information is much more than intuitive semantic information. PI requires anticipation, "choice with intent," and the diligent pursuit of Aristotle's "final function" at successive bona fide decision nodes. PI either instructs or directly produces formal function at its destination through the use of controls, not mere constraints. Once again, PI either tells us what choices to make, or it is a recordation of wise choices already made. David Abel


You have confused information theory, with information science, No empirical science has ever shown formal symbolic(non physical) functional code to emerge from natural forces, electromagnetic or any other. If I'm wrong please supply the citation.

I don't like to use wikipedia, it's ok with non controversial subjects.


Information science should not be confused with information theory, the study of a particular mathematical concept of information

en.wikipedia.org...


Information is the central theme of several new sciences, which emerged in the 1940s, including Shannon's (1949) Information Theory and Wiener's (1948) Cybernetics. Wiener (1948, p. 155) stated also: "information is information not matter or energy". This aphorism suggests that information should be considered along with matter and energy as the third constituent part of the Universe; information is carried by matter or by energy.

We can outline a hierarchy to distinguish between data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. Data are sensations, facts, figures, etc, that are independent and atomic in nature. Information can be described alternately as organized data, the patterns that exist in data, or the underlying meaning of interrelated pieces of data. Knowledge is the ability to comprehend and use information. Wisdom is the ability to make the best use of knowledge.

en.wikipedia.org...

Data, information, knowledge and wisdom are all elements are all elements of the genetic code by these definitions. DNA contains logic gates, configurable switch variables, multi layers of code, self correcting and repair progammes, and a formal system of symbolic code. It is also is a read write memory sytem, information flows both ways so it can adapt. Cells can refine a random mutation search based on feedback and tiggers from the environment. Some cells can swap genes through HGT and transposition and rearange ther own genetic code.

The writing is literaly on the wall. World view is the only barrier.
edit on 27-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Don Johnson's worldview presupposes naturalism, he's a presuppositionalist - which means that he believes there is no 'neutral' ground. You cannot 'prove' worldviews per say, you can only show which ones are consistent.
He uses the terms like naturalist, materialist, and empiricist interchangeably.
"man cannot reason autonomously, he must think God's thoughts after him."

Look up Van Til, Gordon Clark, Greg Bahnsen.

Typically their argumentation consists of assertions, not evidence and definitely not reason, they construct straw men of the atheistic positions and then attack them.

It's hogwash, but it's quite sophisticated Christian reformed theology.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Materialism presuposes naturalism, Don Johnson does not.

Materialism is a presupposition.

I'm not really interested in opinions on the man, when one attacks the person without giving answers it's clear the attack is because they have no answers. Nor have they read anything he has written. Their world view prevents it.

I agree it is all about world views. This is why the arguments are ignored and the ridicule stands as some sort of replacement for having to respond intelligently.

Still no one has provided a citation for a functional code that has naturally occured. This is the crux of the argument and it is avoided at all costs.

edit on 27-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   



Prescriptive Information is much more than intuitive semantic information. PI requires anticipation, "choice with intent," and the diligent pursuit of Aristotle's "final function" at successive bona fide decision nodes. PI either instructs or directly produces formal function at its destination through the use of controls, not mere constraints. Once again, PI either tells us what choices to make, or it is a recordation of wise choices already made. David Abel


You have confused information theory, with information science, No empirical science has ever shown formal symbolic(non physical) functional code to emerge from natural forces, electromagnetic or any other. If I'm wrong please supply the citation.


Wrong.. I have not confused information science with information theory... And information theory is a subcategory of information science. And yes they have.. You might want to google protein folding as just one example. Other examples I have pointed out and linked to would be on Biochemical self-organizing cycles. And you seem completely ignorant that all of that is essentially electromagnetic phenomenon.. And what you don't seem to grasp is that in information science, atoms are considered bits of information that can self-organize in electromagnetic interactions. Sequencing of atoms, like that to which forms something like a rock, is equivalent to an informational structure and sequence to which has self organized.. And PI doesn't need "anticipation", it needs feedback in the system between interacting forces and parts. In fact, anticipation can not function without a system with feedback at all. And you are trying to compare cognitive systems with reactionary systems...And you might want to learn something about Chaos theory and what it has to do with cybernetics:

www.youtube.com...

And of course the video that was posted dishonestly points out things we know were made by people as some sort of fallacy argument to suggest everything else must have been made by some intelligent entity. It's utter nonsense.. It runs on the appeal to ignorance that everything appears to have explicit order and thus must have been designed by an intelligent creator.. Well, that is utter BS.. And anyone who knows what they are talking about knows it's BS.

Like comparing a penny to a rock and saying the penny was designed, and thus the rock to must have been. WTF?? Uhh NO!



You have confused information theory, with information science, No empirical science has ever shown formal symbolic(non physical) functional code to emerge from natural forces, electromagnetic or any other. If I'm wrong please supply the citation.


If you bothered to read my links, you would have realized that I had already outlined that.. Oh but of course you didn't.. You still trying to catch up eh?




Information is the central theme of several new sciences, which emerged in the 1940s, including Shannon's (1949) Information Theory and Wiener's (1948) Cybernetics. Wiener (1948, p. 155) stated also: "information is information not matter or energy". This aphorism suggests that information should be considered along with matter and energy as the third constituent part of the Universe; information is carried by matter or by energy.

We can outline a hierarchy to distinguish between data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. Data are sensations, facts, figures, etc, that are independent and atomic in nature. Information can be described alternately as organized data, the patterns that exist in data, or the underlying meaning of interrelated pieces of data. Knowledge is the ability to comprehend and use information. Wisdom is the ability to make the best use of knowledge.

en.wikipedia.org...


Yeah except we are well passed the 1940's and now live in the quantum age where energy and information are the same thing... You know, other modern theories that deal with chaos theory, and emergence.. Because in the modern era of today, there is only Physical information, and physical informational states of energy. Here let me help you with modern information science that isn't based on some guys 1940's understanding of information science and theory:

INFORMATION:



1) "Information is any type of sensory input and output or source to inquiry."

2) "Information as a concept has many meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. The concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, energy, perception, matter, and representation."

3) "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate the pattern.

edit on 28-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

** Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose. For example, Gregory Bateson defines "information" as a "difference that makes a difference".

**** In 2003, J. D. Bekenstein claimed there is a growing trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information itself (and thus information is defined in this way) (see Digital physics). Information has a well defined meaning in physics. Examples of this include the phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light. Information itself cannot travel faster than light even if the information is transmitted indirectly. This could lead to the fact that all attempts at physically observing a particle with an "entangled" relationship to another are slowed down, even though the particles are not connected in any other way other than by the information they carry.

** Maxwell's demon thought experiment. In this experiment, a direct relationship between information and another physical property, entropy, is demonstrated. A consequence is that it is impossible to destroy information without increasing the entropy of a system; in practical terms this often means generating heat. The direct outcome is that information is interchangeable with energy. Thus, in the study of logic gates, the theoretical lower bound of thermal energy released by an AND gate is higher than for the NOT gate (because information is destroyed in an AND gate and simply converted in a NOT gate). Physical information is of particular importance in the theory of quantum computers.


So let me break this down for you...

1. All information is Physical information
2. Energy and information are the same thing.
3. Information can only be expressed through physical expression, interaction, and force.
4. The inertia of energy is the inertia of information.
5. All things are bound to the first 4 rules.. Yes that includes cognitive systems
6. Everything other than Gravity and pressure waves are electromagnetic phenomenon and apply to all of the above.

And this goes right down to the atoms that make up a living organism. This applies directly to both information science and information theory equally. Hence, we no longer live in an era where information was regarded "immaterial.. Yes there is a difference between processes, but they are all physical processes. And a conscious state is entirely governed by physical information processes just as is evolution is. Both largely governed by electromagnetism.

edit on 28-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
"Materialism is a presupposition. "

Wrong, it's a fact of reality.. Things made of nothing don't exist. Immateriality is self-refuting presupposition. Hence if nothing existed, not even nothing would exist. Nothing can't contain or sustain information, value, or an existence of any sort.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join