Jump to content


Photo

Is The Cell Intelligent?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 18 June 2017 - 10:47 AM

 

Mike Summers said:I have never observed information (its physics). How much does a thought weigh? What are it's dimensions?

Aeylyn said: I have observed flames but they don't weigh anything. I've never observed Pluto but I hear it weighs quite a bit. Weight isn't the end-all be-all of existence you knowI

You may have given yourself a satisisfactory answer but not me. Flames have physics. Moroevr you know to keep your distance from flames unless you wan to burn. Give me the physics of information or admit you know of none.

 


You mean like... ?

"Thermodynamics of information", Juan M. R. Parrondo et al, Nature Physics 11, 131–139 (2015)

"The role of quantum information in thermodynamics—a topical review", John Goold et al, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, Volume 49, Number 14

 

 

Honestly I don't even know what "flames have physics" even means. They have been described by physicists? They have physical properties?

 

 

@Sleepy House: thank you for clarifying, my curiosity is sated. For now.  :D



#42 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 18 June 2017 - 11:48 AM

Aeylyn said:?

Thermodynamics def:
the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy.

As you can see, there is no mention of information involved in thermodynamics. Information has its own identity. You have yet to define the characteristics in terms of the physics of information. How tall is a piece of information? What are its length and width. How much does it weigh? That's what I mean by physics.

Honestly I don't even know what "flames have physics" even means. They have been described by physicists? They have physical properties?

if you have ever seen a flame that would indicate it has physics! It is sometimes called rapid oxidization. According to the laws of thermodynamics energy can be changed from one form to another. Flames are an example of energy changing from one form to another.
 
 



#43 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 18 June 2017 - 01:24 PM

Thermodynamics def:
the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy.

As you can see, there is no mention of information involved in thermodynamics. Information has its own identity. You have yet to define the characteristics in terms of the physics of information. How tall is a piece of information? What are its length and width.


Wow, I hadn't realized all of thermodynamics was encompassed in a two-line definition! My links to actual research papers looking at the physics of information look silly now. I can understand why you didn't feel the need to address any of their contents.
 

How much does it weigh? That's what I mean by physics.

 
Clearly that is not what you mean by physics, because you claim flames have physics but flames don't weigh anything. Or do they?
 

if you have ever seen a flame that would indicate it has physics! It is sometimes called rapid oxidization. According to the laws of thermodynamics energy can be changed from one form to another. Flames are an example of energy changing from one form to another.


Energy? How much does that weigh, and when's the last time you saw one? How tall is rapid oxidization?

There are tons of entities in physics that have various measures. None of them have all the measures, and plenty of them lack the specific measures of weight, or height, or length, or interactions with light that give them a visual appearance... But it's true that every entity recognized by physics needs to have some measure, or is itself a measure (for example weight itself doesn't have weight or height or width, it's basically an amount, but it's clearly part of physics). And information has at least one possible measure: entropy.

Also, very interesting paper claiming that information can be converted to energy and vice-versa (making the question of whether energy "has physics" all the more relevant to the discussion):

"Information heat engine: converting information to energy by feedback control", Toyabe et al, Nature Physics. 6 (12): 988–992.
https://en.wikipedia...ion_is_physical

#44 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 June 2017 - 01:59 PM

 

 

Aelyn: There are tons of entities in physics that have various measures. None of them have all the measures, and plenty of them lack the specific measures of weight, or height, or length, or interactions with light that give them a visual appearance... But it's true that every entity recognized by physics needs to have some measure, or is itself a measure (for example weight itself doesn't have weight or height or width, it's basically an amount, but it's clearly part of physics). And information has at least one possible measure: entropy.

 

Incorrect. Information doesn't have entropy as a measure. Entropy may affect the medium by which the information is represented, such as the ink and paper or the brain may suffer entropy but only the physical medium is suffering the effects of entropy, the thought in Mike's head isn't affected by entropy, which is where the information truly resides.

 

As he has explained before, probably several times by now and his logic is 100% correct, it is because the information itself is mental, and therefore not affected. 

 

Example; By consensus we accept that a piece of wood shaped like a square means we are hungry, and a triangle of wood means we are tired. Yes, it is true, weathering might eventually destroy the wood but the information is not affected because logically we could make a new shape and the meaning of the information would remain in our mental state even if you destroy the wood. 

 

Only if you destroy the mental state/sentient being, can you destroy the information. The representatives of the information (wood) aren't the information, they are only the candidates for our symbols.

 

In the same way, you can destroy all code for giraffes and they will go extinct, but the design for the giraffe isn't destroyed because intelligent beings still know that if certain physical measures are met, you will get a giraffe according to those measures. A little bit like baking a cake.

 

Where did the information for the giraffe come from? It wasn't in the giraffe! It was in the mind of the one that designed it, and still is, this is why it is said "the lion will lie with the lamb", and notice if all lions and lambs go extinct this won't affect God's ability to make new lions and lambs!

 

 

 

 

 

 



#45 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 18 June 2017 - 04:32 PM

Excellent! And spot on Mike!

Sometime ago an information specialist made an attempt to explain information by stating there was no weight change in a compact disc with recorded information on it. He said a recorded disk weighed as much as a blank disc. He then went on to claim information had no physics. But there is a problem with his example. If we look at a blank disk, we will find it smooth and shiny. Moreover, our information specialist is confusing information with code. We record code to a blank disk not information. In doing that, the physics of the disk is changed. A laser Burns microscopic pits in the surface of the disk. These pits represent digital code. Code has physics and information doesm't.

There is another mistake that Shannon made in his theory. He didn't create the concept of a bit. A collegue did. However, he publicized it quite extensively as part of his theory of information. Shannon claimed a bit was the smallest unit of information. In reality, a thought is the smallest unit of information. A bit has physics and represents either a yes or a no--on or off electrically. 8 combonations of 0's and 1's is considered a byte. A byte depening on its on and off sequences represent a specific apha numeric symbol. Thus our entire alphabet and punctuation symbols can be represented via this code system (AFSCI Code). Code represnts code! LOL

Shannon also spoke about compressing information. But as Mike pointed out there is no entropy to information. Shannon is talking about compressing the code that represents information. I have constructed below a simple example of
Shannon entropy. I would correct it to say the entropy of code.

I am going to compress the following sentence; "My name is Mike Summers."
Let A="My name
Let B=is
Let C=Mike Summers."
Result in compressed code, ABC="My Name is Mike Summers." It's not the information that is being comprised but the code that represents information.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#46 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 June 2017 - 10:28 PM

i think my thread ordering analogy explains some of what is being discussed here.
all of the information and data is present for the different orderings.
so, you choose one specific ordering.
what happened to the information for the other orderings?
it's still there, in the program, but your actions disabled it.
this is a perfect example of what epigenetics does.

can anyone point to this information?
the only thing they can do is whip out the program and say "here it is".

another example:
you have 2 transmitters.
one broadcasts regular radio programs.
the other just transmits a carrier, IOW nothing but the carrier.
which one contains "information"?
they both do.
the first one is obvious.
the second one contains information for the simple fact that the carrier is present which proves there is a transmitter there.

#47 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 June 2017 - 02:13 AM

Information doesn't have entropy as a measure. Entropy may affect the medium by which the information is represented, such as the ink and paper or the brain may suffer entropy but only the physical medium is suffering the effects of entropy



It isn't only the medium by which the information is "represented"; any system known to physics that encodes, decodes, stores, interprets or acts on information requires thermodynamic work to do so.



The thought in Mike's head isn't affected by entropy, which is where the information truly resides. As he has explained before, probably several times by now and his logic is 100% correct, it is because the information itself is mental, and therefore not affected.


How does one determine whether something mental is or is not affected by thermodynamics?



Only if you destroy the mental state/sentient being, can you destroy the information.


And all mental states/sentient beings currently known to physics require thermodynamic works to sustain themselves as mental states or sentient beings (let alone generate, interpret and generally process information).



In the same way, you can destroy all code for giraffes and they will go extinct, but the design for the giraffe isn't destroyed because intelligent beings still know that if certain physical measures are met, you will get a giraffe according to those measures. A little bit like baking a cake.


There is an unimaginably large amount of configurations matter can take in the Universe; the odds of an intelligent being thinking of a configuration similar enough to a giraffe to be recognizable as a giraffe by coincidence is on par with the odds of a broken egg reassembling off the ground and flying back onto the shelf. An intelligent being reproducing a giraffe would need to gather data about giraffes and follow chains of reasoning to figure out what they might have been like just to figure out what it is they're making, let alone make it. All of which requires thermodynamic work.



Where did the information for the giraffe come from? It wasn't in the giraffe! It was in the mind of the one that designed it, and still is, this is why it is said "the lion will lie with the lamb", and notice if all lions and lambs go extinct this won't affect God's ability to make new lions and lambs!


Possibly not, but it doesn't follow that it wouldn't take thermodynamic work for God to make new ones, or to have made the first ones to begin with. I am interested in your demonstration that it wouldn't.



#48 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 June 2017 - 02:18 AM

@Mike Summers: That is a long list of assertions we're supposed to accept as true on your say-so. Are you planning on addressing any of the papers I linked to? Not even the one where physicists claim to have experimentally demonstrated the interconvertibility of energy and information? Surely you can show how they're wrong (none of the authors of any paper I listed is Shannon btw)

One of those assertions did pique my interest though:



In reality, a thought is the smallest unit of information.


Do all thoughts contain the same amount of information, that they could be considered a "unit" of information?



#49 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 June 2017 - 05:54 AM

 

 

Aelyn: And all mental states/sentient beings currently known to physics require thermodynamic works to sustain themselves as mental states or sentient beings (let alone generate, interpret and generally process information).

 

You've changed the goal posts here. My argument was that, "Entropy may affect the medium by which the information is represented, such as the ink and paper or the brain may suffer entropy but only the physical medium is suffering the effects of entropy, the thought in Mike's head isn't affected by entropy".

 

The "mental states" sustaining themselves because of laws of physics, is a begging-the-question fallacy because it assumes that those mental states cease if the brain ceases.

 

So the hidden assumption in your argument is the assumption that the mental state ceases to exist completely once the medium ceases.

 

If you read carefully, I said the medium is affected.

 

Logically we can circumvent the physical also, by making mental information educative. For example, two thousand years ago Aristotle figured out some things he was able to teach to others or to represent as code. An old man can teach a young man something then the young man will have the information the old man had. When the old man dies the young man can become old then teach someone else, showing that even though the brain storing the information has ceased the information is unaffected.

 

 

checkmate.

:acigar:


  • Mike Summers likes this

#50 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 19 June 2017 - 12:17 PM

You've changed the goal posts here. My argument was that, "Entropy may affect the medium by which the information is represented, such as the ink and paper or the brain may suffer entropy but only the physical medium is suffering the effects of entropy, the thought in Mike's head isn't affected by entropy".

The "mental states" sustaining themselves because of laws of physics, is a begging-the-question fallacy because it assumes that those mental states cease if the brain ceases.

So the hidden assumption in your argument is the assumption that the mental state ceases to exist completely once the medium ceases.


You are mistaken. You seem to think I've been making a positive case for information being physical, but I have not done so. From the start I've been responding to (either by rebutting, answering or asking for clarification) arguments for the claim that information isn't physical. As you know a rebuttal to one specific argument for X isn't the same thing as an argument against X; a question about an argument for X or an answer to a question even less so. It usually doesn't even contradict X, just that one specific argument.

The closest I've come in this discussion to arguing that information is physical is when I said that entropy is one possible measure for information, and even there I didn't do it, because of the "possible". Saying something can possibly be X is a good rebuttal to the claim that nothing can be X, but it isn't equivalent to the claim that something is X.

In my response to you in particular I did not assume anywhere that mental states cease after death. I didn't even assume mental states are subject to entropy, which isn't the same thing. What I did was respond to your assertions that they aren't subject to entropy by asking you to demonstrate that assertion. Or put another way, I didn't claim mental states are subject to entropy, I asked how we could tell either way.

In summary, I believe your argument was the following:
1a) Information can have physical substrates that are subject to entropy, BUT
1) Information is mental in nature
2) Things that are mental in nature aren't subject to entropy [implicit claim that's necessary for the conclusion to follow]
3) Therefore, information isn't subject to entropy.


My response was mainly about figuring out how one could demonstrate (2), beyond just saying it. I asserted that all known physical manifestations of information are subject to entropy not to argue that information subject to entropy, but to establish the context in which a demonstration that it isn't has to exist.

Admittedly, this assumes that such a demonstration involves finding some physical manifestation of information that isn't subject to entropy (hence the relevance of the claim that such examples will be hard to find), which isn't necessarily true. But the examples you were giving involved physical manifestations of information so it seemed like it might be a shared assumption. If you have a demonstration that doesn't involve appeals to physical examples then of course it's another story.


Note that the specific assumption that mental states disappear after death was all the less present in my post that I wasn't even thinking of that when I wondered how one would demonstrate that mental states aren't subject to entropy. I was thinking things more like, if information does exist independently of matter/energy and can survive the disappearance of any physical substrate, how do we prove that it doesn't change or decay on very long timescales, like billions or trillions of years, or doesn't require energy inputs or outside intervention to be maintained?




Logically we can circumvent the physical also, by making mental information educative. For example, two thousand years ago Aristotle figured out some things he was able to teach to others or to represent as code. An old man can teach a young man something then the young man will have the information the old man had. When the old man dies the young man can become old then teach someone else, showing that even though the brain storing the information has ceased the information is unaffected.


This is a terrible example for your point: it is well-known that memory is fallible, and the oral traditions that manage to be passed on with the most fidelity put an enormous amount of effort (from which we cannot exclude thermodynamic work) into memorizing the information to be passed on. And they never reach 100% fidelity over the long term; oral histories absolutely are affected by the passing of time and generations.



#51 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 June 2017 - 04:55 PM

Aelyn

 

Posted 19 June 2017 - 03:18 AM
@Mike Summers: That is a long list of assertions we're supposed to accept as true on your say-so.

But if you think about it at some time in our reasoning we do have to accept some things as true unless we are diety.

 


Are you planning on addressing any of the papers I linked to? Not even the one where physicists claim to have experimentally demonstrated the interconvertibility of energy and information? Surely you can show how they're wrong (none of the authors of any paper I listed is Shannon btw)

No. They are not germain to this discussion. The authors seem to believe code and information are interchadwable. Code is a variable. Information is not. Turn the following code into energy ABCDEGHIOLPIERD! Get the point!
I think you are ignoring the laws of identity. Can informattion be used to do work? That's essentially the claim.

 


One of those assertions did pique my interest though:


Mike Summers, on 18 Jun 2017 - 6:32 PM, said:

In reality, a thought is the smallest unit of information.

Do all thoughts contain the same amount of information, that they could be considered a "unit" of information?

Thought is a term of convience. It's code. Sorry all I have is words (code) to comunicate with you. lol You may think it vague but none of us knows everything. But I think you are mixing physics with the non-physical and it seems the physical more "precise" to you. I believe the opposite of that. I think the mental world is more real! Code is only a representative of th mental world.



#52 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 19 June 2017 - 07:17 PM

Sometime ago an information specialist made an attempt to explain information by stating there was no weight change in a compact disc with recorded information on it.

this might be true for media such as magnetic tape, floppies, or hard drives, but it isn't true for compact discs.
for the reason why, keep reading.

A laser Burns microscopic pits in the surface of the disk.

this is a very microscopic amount, but it DOES weigh something.
 

A byte depening on its on and off sequences represent a specific apha numeric symbol.

it can.
it can also represent a BCD digit (binary coded decimal), a 2's complement number (negative number representation), gray code (used in manufacturing), straight binary (0 through 255), mnemonic code (used in assembler), or like you said ASCII

you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get the letter "A", or any other symbol, out of a cpu so a human can see it.
you will no doubt say "all i gotta do is press the letter "a" on my keyboard, and out it pops".
trust me, it's a lot more complex than that.
just take a gander at the innards of the machine you are typing on.

#53 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 20 June 2017 - 10:39 AM

Aelyn

Are you planning on addressing any of the papers I linked to? Not even the one where physicists claim to have experimentally demonstrated the interconvertibility of energy and information? Surely you can show how they're wrong (none of the authors of any paper I listed is Shannon btw)


No. They are not germain to this discussion. The authors seem to believe code and information are interchadwable. Code is a variable. Information is not. Turn the following code into energy ABCDEGHIOLPIERD! Get the point!
I think you are ignoring the laws of identity. Can informattion be used to do work? That's essentially the claim.


Again, you must be confusing the papers I linked to with some other papers that dealt with something different because the papers I linked don't equate information with code. The one where they look at the conversion of information into energy involves the information of measurement results, not code.

#54 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 June 2017 - 11:44 AM

Aelyn said:

Again, you must be confusing the papers I linked to with some other papers that dealt with something different because the papers I linked don't equate information with code. The one where they look at the conversion of information into energy involves the information of measurement results, not code.

You are right. I went to the site again and made sure I read the correct papers.

feedback control
Shoichi Toyabe, Takahiro Sagawa, Masahito Ueda, Eiro Muneyuki, Masaki Sano
(Submitted on 27 Sep 2010 (v1), last revised 29 Sep 2010 (this version, v2))
In 1929, Leo Szilard invented a feedback protocol in which a hypothetical intelligence called Maxwell's demon pumps heat from an isothermal environment and transduces it to work. After an intense controversy that lasted over eighty years; it was finally clarified that the demon's role does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, implying that we can convert information to free energy in principle. Nevertheless, experimental demonstration of this information-to-energy conversion has been elusive. Here, we demonstrate that a nonequilibrium feedback manipulation of a Brownian particle based on information about its location achieves a Szilard-type information-energy conversion. Under real-time feedback control, the particle climbs up a spiral-stairs-like potential exerted by an electric field and obtains free energy larger than the amount of work performed on it. This enables us to verify the generalized Jarzynski equality, or a new fundamental principle of "information-heat engine" which converts information to energy by feedback control.

A paricle is code. Think of it this way; an intelligent entity capable of thought created a particle. Doing so required cognition or mental activity. The physical was created from the-non physical not the other eay arround.
My Article 2 comment:

Nothig can be more probableistic or random than the actions of an intelligent being. An intelligent being can act to prevent a duplicate occurence (probablism) and can also act to insure a random. We make theories and not theories us.
Is there more? Because the above blurb gives no method for coverting information to energy. Nor that it has ever been done!

#55 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 20 June 2017 - 12:24 PM

A paricle is code. Think of it this way; an intelligent entity capable of thought created a particle. Doing so required cognition or mental activity. The physical was created from the-non physical not the other eay arround.


I'm confused; is this an argument meant to convince me, or a statement of your beliefs? The "think of it this way" makes it sound like the former. But wouldn't you agree that an argument can only convince someone if it goes from premises the someone in question agrees with?
 

Is there more? Because the above blurb gives no method for coverting information to energy. Nor that it has ever been done!


I appreciate you engaging with the article, thank you. There is a link to a PDF of the paper on the page (a pre-publication version, the final version as appeared in Nature Physics might also be findable but I haven't looked).

Now that I see your argument wasn't limited to computer code but to any physical system (which is how I understand "a particle is code") things are a bit clearer for me I think.

To summarize, you asked me to give you "the physics of information". I pointed out some papers by physicists in which information was described as a physical quantity and its properties apparently investigated as such.

I didn't really understand the relevance of your response at the time, but now would I be right to say that your response is basically "the 'information' that those physicists deal with isn't the real 'information'"?

If that is accurate, do you know of a way to demonstrate that the information you consider real is different from what those physicists are describing as "information"? Or put another way, how can one demonstrate the existence (and hopefully describe the properties) of information independently of any physical manifestation thereof?



#56 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 June 2017 - 01:21 PM

Aelyn said:

I'm confused; is this an argument meant to convince me, or a statement of your beliefs? The "think of it this way" makes it sound like the former. But wouldn't you agree that an argument can only convince someone if it goes from premises the someone in question agrees with?

Absolutely! Well said!
I would say you need to be more aware of your ownm sovereignty. I do not claim the ability to convince you of anything. That's your job. Rather, I offer you alternative points of views. We are both creators. Far be it for me to try to out create another creator!  

I appreciate you engaging with the article, thank you. There is a link to a PDF of the paper on the page (a pre-publication version, the final version as appeared in Nature Physics might also be findable but I haven't looked).

Now that I see your argument wasn't limited to computer code but to any physical system (which is how I understand "a particle is code") things are a bit clearer for me I think.

To summarize, you asked me to give you "the physics of information". I pointed out some papers by physicists in which information was described as a physical quantity and its properties apparently investigated as such.

Of course they would describe it that way. They refuse to acknowledge the mental world we all live in. We participate in both a mental world and a physical world. What they are doing is failing to accept Aristotle's rules of non contrafiction and identity. Two things with different characterisitics merit their own identity.

You say there are physics to information but can't give its physics. Think!

I didn't really understand the relevance of your response at the time, but now would I be right to say that your response is basically "the 'information' that those physicists deal with isn't the real 'information'"?

They confuse code and information.

If that is accurate, do you know of a way to demonstrate that the information you consider real is different from what those physicists are describing as "information"? Or put another way, how can one demonstrate the existence (and hopefully describe the properties) of information independently of any physical manifestation thereof?

It is not a matter of real vs unreal. Both information and code are real.

Here is an experiment you can do. Read this to yourself without aidibly verbalizing it.
We all think with pure information. Now read it outloud.

When you read it to yourself turn on a recoder. Continue recording and use your speech mechanism to represent the pure information in your mind with code. Playback the tape. The silent part of the recording shows there is no physics to pure information. The audible part of the recordinnmg demostrates the physics of code.

 



#57 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 23 June 2017 - 05:10 AM

It is not a matter of real vs unreal. Both information and code are real.

Here is an experiment you can do. Read this to yourself without aidibly verbalizing it.
We all think with pure information. Now read it outloud.

When you read it to yourself turn on a recoder. Continue recording and use your speech mechanism to represent the pure information in your mind with code. Playback the tape. The silent part of the recording shows there is no physics to pure information. The audible part of the recordinnmg demostrates the physics of code.


This demonstrates that thoughts cannot be measured by an audio recorder. If instead of using speech as the code to represent the information I used sign language, the tape would be silent from end to end but it does not follow that sign language isn't physical: one's immediate response would be "do it again using a video camera instead of an audio recorder".

If thoughts were physical, I'm pretty sure most people agree they would occur in the brain; the general consensus seems to be that they'd consist of patterns of neurons, their interconnections and their activation behaviors in the brain. Even most neurologists who believe thoughts aren't physical would agree I think that if they were physical, that is what they would physically be. Obviously an audio recording device or video camera cannot measure the behavior of neurons inside the brain; they can't even detect through the skull. The thing is, we don't currently have tools that allow to detect the exact patterns of neuron connections and behavior in a human brain. The best we have are tools to measure the activities of handful of neurons in cases where we can put electrodes in the brain, and measuring blood flow and electrical activity in general regions of the brain when we can't. And those tools already allow scientists to measure plenty of aspects of thought-like entities.

In light of this, would you argue that it is impossible in principle to measure the activities of all neurons in a human brain, or would you argue that it is possible in principle, if maybe not in practice right now, and if such a tool were applied to my brain while I was reading the text to myself it would not pick up on those thought words like the recorder picked up on the spoken ones? Or would you maybe argue that the tool would pick up on the text I am thinking, but that the brain activity it picked up and successfully interpreted as said text being thought to oneself wouldn't be the actual thoughts themselves?



#58 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 June 2017 - 02:45 PM

Aelyn Said:

IT is not a matter of real vs unreal. Both information and code are real.

Here is an experiment you can do. Read this to yourself without audidbly verbalizing it.
We all think with pure information. Now read it outloud.

When you read it to yourself turn on a recoder. Continue recording and use your speech mechanism to represent the pure information in your mind with code. Playback the tape. The silent part of the recording shows there is no physics to pure information. The audible part of the recordinnmg demostrates the physics of code.

This demonstrates that thoughts cannot be measured by an audio recorder. If instead of using speech as the code to represent the information I used sign language,

You would only be substituting visual code for audible code. Both have physics.

the tape would be silent from end to end but it does not follow that sign language isn't physical: one's immediate response would be "do it again using a video camera instead of an audio recorder".

What? Sign language is physical.
And you put the microphome up to your head and so you would have to point the camera at your head because that's where information resides.

If thoughts were physical, I'm pretty sure most people agree they would occur in the brain; the general consensus seems to be that they'd consist of patterns of neurons, their interconnections and their activation behaviors in the brain. Even most neurologists who believe thoughts aren't physical would agree I think that if they were physical, that is what they would physically be. Obviously an audio recording device or video camera cannot measure the behavior of neurons inside the brain; they can't even detect through the skull. The thing is, we don't currently have tools that allow to detect the exact patterns of neuron connections and behavior in a human brain. The best we have are tools to measure the activities of handful of neurons in cases where we can put electrodes in the brain, and measuring blood flow and electrical activity in general regions of the brain when we can't. And those tools already allow scientists to measure plenty of aspects of thought-like entities.

In light of this, would you argue that it is impossible in principle to measure the activities of all neurons in a human brain, or would you argue that it is possible in principle, if maybe not in practice right now, and if such a tool were applied to my brain while I was reading the text to myself it would not pick up on those thought words like the recorder picked up on the spoken ones? Or would you maybe argue that the tool would pick up on the text I am thinking, but that the brain activity it picked up and successfully interpreted as said text being thought to oneself wouldn't be the actual thoughts themselves?


We have taken a brain out of a skull and can use an electron microscope to look at synaptic configurations but that's code and no one knows what information the code is supposed to represent! Somewhere aamomng all those connections is supposed to be all the iformation that made up the person. Yet we can't tell so much as a persons name by looking at their brain.



#59 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 27 June 2017 - 10:55 PM

Aelyn Said:

the tape would be silent from end to end but it does not follow that sign language isn't physical: one's immediate response would be "do it again using a video camera instead of an audio recorder".

What? Sign language is physical.
And you put the microphome up to your head and so you would have to point the camera at your head because that's where information resides.

 


That's what I'm saying. Sign language cannot be picked up by an audio recorder but it is physical all the same, and it can be picked up by a different measuring tool. Thus, "it cannot be picked up by an audio recorder/one specific tool" isn't sufficient proof that something isn't physical. You have to not be able to pick it up with any conceivable tool.

Cameras cannot see through the skull, or resolve single cells, so pointing it at the head is pointless if you want to make sure there is no information to be detected in the brain.
 

 

If thoughts were physical, I'm pretty sure most people agree they would occur in the brain; the general consensus seems to be that they'd consist of patterns of neurons, their interconnections and their activation behaviors in the brain. Even most neurologists who believe thoughts aren't physical would agree I think that if they were physical, that is what they would physically be. Obviously an audio recording device or video camera cannot measure the behavior of neurons inside the brain; they can't even detect through the skull. The thing is, we don't currently have tools that allow to detect the exact patterns of neuron connections and behavior in a human brain. The best we have are tools to measure the activities of handful of neurons in cases where we can put electrodes in the brain, and measuring blood flow and electrical activity in general regions of the brain when we can't. And those tools already allow scientists to measure plenty of aspects of thought-like entities.

In light of this, would you argue that it is impossible in principle to measure the activities of all neurons in a human brain, or would you argue that it is possible in principle, if maybe not in practice right now, and if such a tool were applied to my brain while I was reading the text to myself it would not pick up on those thought words like the recorder picked up on the spoken ones? Or would you maybe argue that the tool would pick up on the text I am thinking, but that the brain activity it picked up and successfully interpreted as said text being thought to oneself wouldn't be the actual thoughts themselves?


We have taken a brain out of a skull and can use an electron microscope to look at synaptic configurations but that's code and no one knows what information the code is supposed to represent! Somewhere aamomng all those connections is supposed to be all the iformation that made up the person. Yet we can't tell so much as a persons name by looking at their brain.

 


Using an electron microscope on a brain is like using it on a violin and trying to deduce what's the last piece of music it played. Again, not the tool for the job. There are tools that are able to look at the brain's activity as a person is conscious and doing mental tasks involving thoughts and information. They're very imperfect but they beat an electron microscope, which cannot do that.

The things we seem to be able to do with such imperfect measuring tools so far includes allowing people to control computer interfaces, brain-to-brain communication of information, detecting features of imagined speech including syllable rhythm or vowel/consonant discrimination...


I'll ask my questions again. Which of these three sentences do you agree with, if any:

1) It is impossible in principle to measure the activity of all neurons in a live, conscious human brain
2) If we had a tool that could measure the activity of all neurons in a live, conscious human brain, and we used to to measure my brain activity as I read a text to myself, it would be impossible to deduce the text from the measurements.
3) If we had such a tool then it might be possible to deduce the text from the measurements, but the measurements nevertheless aren't measurements of the actual thoughts I had.



#60 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 28 June 2017 - 06:22 AM

Aelyn said:
France
Posted 27 June 2017 - 11:55 PM
Mike Summers, on 27 Jun 2017 - 4:45 PM,
 

the tape would be silent from end to end but it does not follow that sign language isn't physical: one's immediate response would be "do it again using a video camera instead of an audio recorder".
What? Sign language is physical.
And you put the microphome up to your head and so you would have to point the camera at your head because that's where information resides.
 

That's what I'm saying. Sign language cannot be picked up by an audio recorder but it is physical all the same, and it can be picked up by a different measuring tool. Thus, "it cannot be picked up by an audio recorder/one specific tool" isn't sufficient proof that something isn't physical. You have to not be able to pick it up with any conceivable tool.



Your logic is failing you in that you fail to acknowledge that code is made of matter and you will not recoord information either way. Braile is often used as code. It's "touch" code. But it's still code.

Code and information are to different things. My experiment proved that information has no physics thatrt we know of!
 

Cameras cannot see through the skull, or resolve single cells, so pointing it at the head is pointless if you want to make sure there is no information to be detected in the brain.


But there are ways of doing that.
 
 

If thoughts were physical, I'm pretty sure most people agree they would occur in the brain; the general consensus seems to be that they'd consist of patterns of neurons, their interconnections and their activation behaviors in the brain. Even most neurologists who believe thoughts aren't physical would agree I think that if they were physical, that is what they would physically be. Obviously an audio recording device or video camera cannot measure the behavior of neurons inside the brain; they can't even detect through the skull. The thing is, we don't currently have tools that allow to detect the exact patterns of neuron connections and behavior in a human brain. The best we have are tools to measure the activities of handful of neurons in cases where we can put electrodes in the brain, and measuring blood flow and electrical activity in general regions of the brain when we can't. And those tools already allow scientists to measure plenty of aspects of thought-like entities.

In light of this, would you argue that it is impossible in principle to measure the activities of all neurons in a human brain, or would you argue that it is possible in principle, if maybe not in practice right now, and if such a tool were applied to my brain while I was reading the text to myself it would not pick up on those thought words like the recorder picked up on the spoken ones? Or would you maybe argue that the tool would pick up on the text I am thinking, but that the brain activity it picked up and successfully interpreted as said text being thought to oneself wouldn't be the actual thoughts themselves?

We have taken a brain out of a skull and can use an electron microscope to look at synaptic configurations but that's code and no one knows what information the code is supposed to represent! Somewhere amomng all those connections is supposed to be all the iformation that made up the person. Yet we can't tell so much as a persons name by looking at their brain.
 

Using an electron microscope on a brain is like using it on a violin and trying to deduce what's the last piece of music it played. Again, not the tool for the job. There are tools that are able to look at the brain's activity as a person is conscious and doing mental tasks involving thoughts and information. They're very imperfect but they beat an electron microscope, which cannot do that.


Sound is a mental function we create music from atmospheric presure diffentials.
We were looking for the physics of informmation and you have demonstratred that our mental state has to be engaged to allow us to be concious of information. You still have not given any physics to information.
 

The things we seem to be able to do with such imperfect measuring tools so far includes allowing people to control computer interfaces, brain-to-brain communication of information, detecting features of imagined speech including syllable rhythm or vowel/consonant discrimination...


It's not the tool is imperfect for what it is designed to do. It's just that it has a mission that it can't achieve.
 

I'll ask my questions again. Which of these three sentences do you agree with, if any:

1) It is impossible in principle to measure the activity of all neurons in a live, conscious human brain
2) If we had a tool that could measure the activity of all neurons in a live, conscious human brain, and we used to to measure my brain activity as I read a text to myself, it would be impossible to deduce the text from the measurements.
3) If we had such a tool then it might be possible to deduce the text from the measurements, but the measurements nevertheless aren't measurements of the actual thoughts I had.


We don't! And we do. We are aware of what we are thinkikng. We just don't find any physics to it! Perhaps you could "create" a tool to do it! LOL






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users