Information: The material physical Cause of causation

[TheJackel]

Hello my fellow HAF members,

I would like to present this interesting topic of discussion to which has followed the many deep discussions and debate I have had with Creationists, Theists, or even our fellow Atheists. This seems to belong in both Philosophy and Science, but the MODS can move it if they feel that it doesn't fit the bill for science. I am curious as to what many of you think in regards to the article I have posted below to which addresses Information as the material physical cause of causation. I think it has very strong evidence to support it scientifically to where it can be considered a valid theory. However, this theory is not that of my own since I have discovered that others have conceptually conceived of it before I myself have thought about it. But, I did add in my own input, and formatted it into an easy to understand context to share with all of you

[hackenslash]

Dunno. I think you're running a bit too far with 'information'. Information is merely the observational data with regard to a system. Something only becomes information where there is perception.

Have you read much about information theory? I recommend doing some reading on Shannon, Chaitin, Nyquist and Kolmogorov.

[TheJackel]

Dunno. I think you're running a bit too far with 'information'. Information is merely the observational data with regard to a system. Something only becomes information where there is perception.

Have you read much about information theory? I recommend doing some reading on Shannon, Chaitin, Nyquist and Kolmogorov.

Hello hackenslash:)

I have, and I also read about physical information. I didn't limit my argument to one concept or type of information though. Perception is based solely on the processing of information not much different than the idea of a computer processing information in a material-physical sense. Hence, it is factual that things can not exist with zero informational value. It also deals with pattern and sequences of matter and energy such as grains of sand that form through a system of chaos to become sand dunes. Hence, each grain of sand can be considered apart of the informational structure and complexity of the sand dune. And technically speaking information is merely the arrangement of material-physical energy in different states and complexities to which include the necessary components to supporting things like consciousness I am curious though as to what your take on perception is though.

[hackenslash]

Hence, it is factual that things can not exist with zero informational value.

Absolutely and categorically wrong. Information can only exist in the presence of something to be informed, namely a mind. No mind, no information. If the universe existed without minds to perceive it, it could not constitute information, because there is nothing to be informed. Information is simply, at the risk of repeating myself, the observational data with respect to a system. If there is no observation, there is no information.

This is very simple information-theoretic stuff, so if you've read the material, especially the Shannon and the Kolmogorov, you should understand this.

[TheJackel]

Hence, it is factual that things can not exist with zero informational value.

Absolutely and categorically wrong. Information can only exist in the presence of something to be informed, namely a mind. No mind, no information. If the universe existed without minds to perceive it, it could not constitute information, because there is nothing to be informed. Information is simply, at the risk of repeating myself, the observational data with respect to a system. If there is no observation, there is no information.

This is very simple information-theoretic stuff, so if you've read the material, especially the Shannon and the Kolmogorov, you should understand this.

Hello again:)

I think that is a false position, you are thus making the argument, that for instance, the mind can magically be made of nothing itself. However, existence doesn't require a mind to appreciate it in order to exist. It exists simply because non-existence / nothing can not ever be an existing object, substance, person, place, or thing. Concepts of non-material Hackenslash are pretty much logical fallacies It's a literal impossibility. So you require a place to exist, or a "where" to exist in since you can not exist in a place of literal no-where! Things thus come before consciousness to where it takes more cause to support consciousness that it does to support unconscious material-physical existence.

So I do reject the premise of non-material entirely in a physical sense, especially when the concept was solely only coined at describing the state of energy that is not in the current state of matter that people generally associate with as being solid matter. IE your desk, or the Earth itself. So I think the key element you are not looking at in my article is that We are made of the same stuff as any form of information is, or what existence itself is made of. Thus information and energy are =/=. We can not have one without the other.

However, I do understand your position of demoting  substance, patterns, or sequences of energy to non-information when no mind is present. But that really doesn't technically change what it is. you do have a semi good point there, but that was not the focus of the article I had written. information =/= energy in different states, structures, and complexities. Its basically saying, we can not exist without material-physicality, structure, or complexity of which we are made from. This falls under the theory of physical information. The theory that states all of existence has informational value, structure, pattern, or complexity with or without us. Hence, patterns do not require our appreciation to exist or be a pattern, structure, or sequence.

[hackenslash]

I think that is a false position, you are thus making the argument, that for instance, the mind can magically be made of nothing itself.

No, I'm not. Not only am I not making that argument, that doesn't remotely represent anything like what I said. Read it again.

However, existence doesn't require a mind to appreciate it in order to exist.

Which precisely demonstrates why your definition of existence as information is fatally flawed. Information is merely the observational data with regard to a system. No observation, no information. That doesn't equate to no observation, no existence.

I'll not deal with the rest of your post, as it's rooted in this fundamental misunderstanding of what I actually stated, and is therefore irrelevant. Please read my post again and try to understand what I actually wrote, which contained no ambiguity, no hidden meaning, and cannot be translated the way you have translated it. I meant only what I said, and nothing else.

[TheJackel]

Which precisely demonstrates why your definition of existence as information is fatally flawed. Information is merely the observational data with regard to a system. No observation, no information. That doesn't equate to no observation, no existence.

It's not. And you are going by one philosophy that is inherently flawed because it doesn't address what all information is made of. It's like arguing that patterns aren't patterns if no mind is present to perceive it as if that would magically make a pattern or sequence be non-existent. That is technically incorrect. It's well stated under Wiki and by others in information theory as to why that position is technically a false position/argument. It's at best an irrelevant argument of semantics because in either case, it really doesn't change the premise of my article.

**** 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.

***** Another link is demonstrated by the 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. Another, more philosophical, outcome is that information could be thought of as 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.

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."

---

I'll not deal with the rest of your post, as it's rooted in this fundamental misunderstanding of what I actually stated, and is therefore irrelevant. Please read my post again and try to understand what I actually wrote, which contained no ambiguity, no hidden meaning, and cannot be translated the way you have translated it. I meant only what I said, and nothing else.

I addressed that at the end (yes I realized I had forgotten to address that). But I don't think you are grasping the focus of the article at all. But again, I do see the play of semantics there, and I can see where you might think that is a relevant point However, information as a concept is not solely defined by one philosophical view when it does not include the understanding of what information is made of, nor addresses it specifically in the proper context of it's physicality (physical value).

[hackenslash]

It's not. And you are going by one philosophy that is inherently flawed because it doesn't address what all information is made of.

And that's precisely the flaw in your thinking. Information isn't made of anything other than the perception of it. Information doesn't actually exist except in the Platonic sense.

It's like arguing that patterns aren't patterns if no min is present to perceive it.

Is it bollocks. It's like presenting an argument that information cannot exist independently of something to be informed.

That is technically incorrect. It's well stated under Wiki and by others in information theory as to why that position is technically a false position/argument.

Then please present a cogent argument to support your position. So far, all we have is an assertion of information having some special kind of existence. Not yet supported at best, and categorically wrong at worst.

It's at best a an argument of semantics.

That has to be my least favourite argument ever. Semantics is important, because it goes to the heart of what is meant by certain terms. You cannot have a discussion without clarity of language, the core of which is semantics. This non-argument is erected like a get-out-of-jail-free card whenever an argument begins to go South because terms are incorrectly used or defined.

I have defined what information actually is, and in a way that is conversant with its usage in information theory, something I actually do know something about, as I use it daily in my work.

I addressed that at the end (yes I realized I had forgotten to address that). But I don't think you are grasping the focus of the article at all.

It doesn't matter a bit what the focus of the article is when the core of the argument is rooted in an incorrect definition and a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes information or, more accurately, what information constitutes. I seriously doubt that your understanding of information theory is remotely what you suggest it is, not least because you're flat-out wrong with regard to what kind of existence information actually has.

Information has no independent existence, and relies on mind.

[TheJackel]

And that's precisely the flaw in your thinking. Information isn't made of anything other than the perception of it. Information doesn't actually exist except in the Platonic sense.

This is making the argument that something can be made of nothing. That is entirely incorrect. Perception is stated as a physical process of energy processing energy..AKA information processing information. The article is only equivocating them to be two sides to the same coin.  You here are trying to make the argument that such things are in the context of "nothing".  Ideas, thoughts, emotions, actions, processes ect are not magically "Non-material". Your argument is like trying to say energy doesn't exist except in a Platonic sense.

Is it bollocks. It's like presenting an argument that information cannot exist independently of something to be informed.

You are saying you have to be informed of a color patter such as a rainbow in the sky in order for the rainbow to exist? It sounds like you are trying to make the tree falling argument in regards to sound while ignoring what sound-waves are.

Then please present a cogent argument to support your position. So far, all we have is an assertion of information having some special kind of existence. Not yet supported at best, and categorically wrong at worst.

Already did.. patterns do not require your perception to be a pattern. Sand dunes will exist with or without your perception of them. Wind patterns will effect sand dune formation to where it is classified as patterns effecting the transformation of other patterns. And technically, that is how your mental processing works (in the highlighted txt), and how consciousness becomes an emerging property. You can also try posting a reply without information (matter, energy, material-physicality). This has to do with chaotic systems with feedback.

That has to be my least favourite argument ever. Semantics is important, because it goes to the heart of what is meant by certain terms. You cannot have a discussion without clarity of language, the core of which is semantics. This non-argument is erected like a get-out-of-jail-free card whenever an argument begins to go South because terms are incorrectly used or defined.

Language is a form of information.. and surprisingly that isn't made of anything either according to your argument above. Sorry, but It's just another emergent pattern of energy, just like your very thoughts are.

I have defined what information actually is, and in a way that is conversant with its usage in information theory, something I actually do know something about, as I use it daily in my work.

That's funny, so has everyone else I quoted above. You have not put up and argument that will separate energy patterns from information patterns. When you can do that via example, we can then discuss the validity of your position.

I addressed that at the end (yes I realized I had forgotten to address that). But I don't think you are grasping the focus of the article at all.

It doesn't matter a bit what the focus of the article is when the core of the argument is rooted in an incorrect definition and a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes information or, more accurately, what information constitutes. I seriously doubt that your understanding of information theory is remotely what you suggest it is, not least because you're flat-out wrong with regard to what kind of existence information actually has.

Incorrect. it focuses on the fact that all information is nothing more than patterns of energy in different states, complexities, sequences, arrangements, or structures. It's equivocation of them being one in the same thing. Your argument seems that information has absolutely no relation what-so-ever to this.

Information has no independent existence, and relies on mind.

Physical patterns do not require perception and do not rely on the mind. That is all the mind technically is, and I'm not sure if you're understanding that in regards to physical information theory.

--

Off topic, I would like to thank you for keeping this civil and in the form of a good aggressive debate, even if we don't come to agreeable terms.

[hackenslash]

This is making the argument that something can be made of nothing.

No it bloody well isn't. Do you have much success with inventing arguments for people that bear no connection whatsoever to what they've actually said? Let me know how that works out for you. Please work a little harder on understanding unambiguous English. It is making the argument that information is the observational data with regard to a system. No more, no less.

You are saying you have to be informed of a color patter such as a rainbow in the sky in order for the rainbow to exist?

No, I'm saying that it DOESN'T CONSTITUTE INFORMATION IN THE ABSENCE OF A MIND TO BE INFORMED.

This is very plain, and has been made plainer multiple times. Please try to read what I actually write.

Oh, and language is energy? This is getting silly.

[TheJackel]

No it bloody well isn't. Do you have much success with inventing arguments for people that bear no connection whatsoever to what they've actually said? Let me know how that works out for you. Please work a little harder on understanding unambiguous English. It is making the argument that information is the observational data with regard to a system. No more, no less.

I didn't invent those arguments, I put them together in one article with some input on their concepts. Secondly you stated that:

"information isn't made of anything"

perhaps you can explain that for us since your every post here is proving that to be incorrect.

No, I'm saying that it DOESN'T CONSTITUTE INFORMATION IN THE ABSENCE OF A MIND TO BE INFORMED.

So you are equivocating energy patterns of consciousness being necessary for other energy patterns to exist as information? Seriously? Even if you remove the classification semantic Hackenslash they are entirely =/= . (just emerging patterns of energy). There is no fundamental differences what-so-ever in that regard, except in regards to difference in pattern. So what exactly makes the mind magically any different than a rainbow? Or is your argument that any energy pattern not obtained, processed, and stored as a base of inquiry for further processing by another complex structure of energy (your brain) some how not information?

Scientifically they can be all just equivocated to just energy in different patterns, complexities, processes, states, and structures. That include yourself, your thoughts, your language, your ideas, your dreams, your emotions, your entire existence in every way. There can be no phenomenon without material-physicality! That includes information!

Oh, and language is energy? This is getting silly.

No it's not getting silly. Every word you know is nothing more than a pattern of energy. Not much different than the data on a hard disk in concept. Language is a physical structure of developed patterns. Your argument is like suggesting that binary code isn't an energy pattern. The word "Language" is just another material physical pattern assigned to other patterns as a title to such things.

example:

Is an image of an apple in your mind a material-physical object? Yes it is! And so is the entire construct of language.

[hackenslash]

I didn't invent those arguments, I put them together in one article with some input on their concepts.

I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about the nonsense words you keep putting into my mouth, which do not remotely represent what I actually wrote.

perhaps you can explain that for us since your every post here is proving that to be incorrect.

Oh, for pity's sake. My posts here do not constitute the entirety of information. What actually makes my posts information is the mind that perceives them. Rigorously defined, information is simply 'reduction in uncertainty'. This definition is conversant with every treatment of information theory, including all the ones already cited. Certainty is a function of mind. Ergo: There is no such thing as information in the absence of mind.

So you are equivocating energy patterns of consciousness being necessary for other energy patterns to exist as information?

I'm not equivocating anything, I am consistently employing a single definition of information, and one that is conversant with a rigorous treatment thereof.

Seriously? Even if you remove the classification semantic Hackenslash they are entirely =/= . (just emerging patterns of energy). There is no fundamental differences what-so-ever in that regard, except in regards to difference in pattern. So what exactly makes the mind magically any different than a rainbow?

What the holy fuck are you going on about here? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Or is your argument that any energy pattern not obtained, processed, and stored as a base of inquiry for further processing by another complex structure of energy (your brain) some how not information?

Not somehow. I don't understand remotely why you're struggling with this. Information has no existence outside of mind. That is the entire argument. It requires no further dressing up, or translation. That is it.

No it's not getting silly. Every word you know is nothing more than a pattern of energy.

Nonsense. Words are not energy. They are conceptual constructs designed to transmit information.

Not much different than the data on a hard disk in concept. Language is a physical structure of developed patterns.

Except, of course, that language is not physical. Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Your argument is like suggesting that binary code isn't an energy pattern.

It isn't. It's a conceptual construct.

Language is just another material physical pattern assigned to other patterns as a title to such things.

Thank you for playing. Language is neither material nor physical.

example:

Is an image of an apple in your mind a material-physical object? Yes it is!

No it isn't, and this demonstrates that you don't actually have any clue of what you're talking about. An image of an apple is entirely conceptual. Certainly it requires a physical substrate for its existence, but it has no physical substance of its own.

[AnimatedDirt]

What the holy fuck are you going on about here? This makes no sense whatsoever.

[TheJackel]

I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about the nonsense words you keep putting into my mouth, which do not remotely represent what I actually wrote.

That was never my intention. I was trying to make sense of your position from my own. I do apologize if that is what seems to have occurred.

Oh, for pity's sake. My posts here do not constitute the entirety of information. What actually makes my posts information is the mind that perceives them. Rigorously defined, information is simply 'reduction in uncertainty'. This definition is conversant with every treatment of information theory, including all the ones already cited. Certainty is a function of mind. Ergo: There is no such thing as information in the absence of mind.

I am aware of that position. I told you that had little to do with me equivocating information to just patterns of energy The basic principle was just equivocation.

What the holy fuck are you going on about here? This makes no sense whatsoever.

It's all material physicals patterns obtained by your senses and processed by your brain..

Not somehow. I don't understand remotely why you're struggling with this. Information has no existence outside of mind. That is the entire argument. It requires no further dressing up, or translation. That is it.

information in the mind is a material-physical pattern of energy. I find it irrelevant if it's in the mind or if it's transmitted over radio-waves, or even propagates though light.

Nonsense. Words are not energy. They are conceptual constructs designed to transmit information.

incorrect, even the concept itself is a pattern of energy produced by your mind. That includes the very idea of the term concept and all the the information from your construct of language that gives all the meaning behind it. That includes physical states of emotions your brain attaches to them. There is also a reason why you have to physically feel emotion in order to have the feeling of emotion! Three is not a single thing here that isn't an emerging property or phenomenon of a chaotic physical system.  

concept [ˈkÉ'nsÉ›pt]
n
1. an idea, esp an abstract idea the concepts of biology
2. (Philosophy) Philosophy a general idea or notion that corresponds to some class of entities and that consists of the characteristic or essential features of the class
3. (Philosophy) Philosophy
a.  the conjunction of all the characteristic features of something
b.  a theoretical construct within some theory
c.  a directly intuited object of thought
d.  the meaning of a predicate
4. (Engineering / Automotive Engineering) (modifier) (of a product, esp a car) created as an exercise to demonstrate the technical skills and imagination of the designers, and not intended for mass production or sale

Except, of course, that language is not physical. Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Actually it is. You might want to consider the evolution of language before making that argument though. Nothing more than brainwave patterns, or the firing of neurons. Language was constructed by the use of sounds and drawings or symbols to which are remembered and stored as physical information by a physical system and process. Like I said, your argument would be like trying to say your computer operates and stores or even recalls information without material-physicality.  That is a false position if that is what you are trying to argue.

It isn't. It's a conceptual construct.

Incorrect. the concept is materially physical regardless if it's in your head or on a computer hard disk. This even includes the meaning of concept, how it's represented in your mind, and the word itself.

lan·guage  (lnggwj)
n.
1.
a. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
b. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.
c. Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.
2.
a. A system of signs, symbols, gestures, or rules used in communicating: the language of algebra.
b. Computer Science A system of symbols and rules used for communication with or between computers.
3. Body language; kinesics.
4. The special vocabulary and usages of a scientific, professional, or other group: "his total mastery of screen languagecamera placement, editingand his handling of actors" (Jack Kroll).
5. A characteristic style of speech or writing: Shakespearean language.
6. A particular manner of expression: profane language; persuasive language.
7. The manner or means of communication between living creatures other than humans: the language of dolphins.
8. Verbal communication as a subject of study.
9. The wording of a legal document or statute as distinct from the spirit.

Thank you for playing. Language is neither material nor physical.

All evidence suggests otherwise.

example:

No it isn't, and this demonstrates that you don't actually have any clue of what you're talking about. An image of an apple is entirely conceptual. Certainly it requires a physical substrate for its existence, but it has no physical substance of its own.

Nope, that suggests your ignorance or denial of brain waves, brain function, and the firing of neurons. Do you realize that they can even pull imagery from your brain and display it? I think it would be rather interesting to watch someones dreams like a movie,..Perhaps a new way to produce Hollywood movies? Fuck CGI man! I want brain rendered movies!

http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scienti ... rom-brain/

And that would take serious denial of things such as:

The brain is comprised of roughly 100 billion cells interconnected in a network of neurons. The interesting thing about this fact is that no single neuron or brain cell is capable of consciousness or self-awareness. This means there is no "I" in team here, and that it takes a massive collective effort to support consciousness. If we were to cut away some brain cells from your brain, we could cultivate them and even teach them new tricks, or even program them. They can even learn on their own. So here are some very interesting video when considering brain activity, material physical phenomenon, and consciousness.

Computer Chips Fused with Brain Cells

[youtube:3kbrmyyx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Ci3QCgPxg[/youtube:3kbrmyyx]

Robot controlled by braincells
[youtube:3kbrmyyx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0eZytv6Qk[/youtube:3kbrmyyx]

The very fact that we can even communicate, teach, or program cultivations of brain cells is amazing enough without even going that step further into cybernetics, and robotics. Much about consciousness is understanding Emergence, and how positive and negative feed back loops to which are seemingly electromagnetically driven function within a Neuron network.

We can also explore :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromag ... sciousness

But the one thing I will surely deny you Hackenslash is your attempt to state something as "non-material", or something that can magically be made of nothing. It's a total and literal contradiction.

And we can explore other fundamental reasons why it's all a physical system can be shown literally with simply sharing a couple of videos on the effect of G-lock. This is also similarly related to the effect of Deep Water Blackouts.

[youtube:3kbrmyyx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUBrH1ER7K0[/youtube:3kbrmyyx]
-
[youtube:3kbrmyyx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK8U8RZyzsM[/youtube:3kbrmyyx]

[hackenslash]

Much confusion of map with terrain here. Physical representations of concepts are not the concepts themselves, and nor are the substrates upon which they rest, i.e. the mind. Words are not material, although their representations might be. The same is true of pretty much everything else you've said here. Likewise, information is entirely conceptual, and has no physical existence, although our representations of it can certainly be, as can the strata on which they reside.

A concept of a banana is not physical, but the processes and material that generate the concept can be.

Nope, that suggests your ignorance or denial of brain waves, brain function, and the firing of neurons. Do you realize that they can even pull imagery from your brain and display it?

And this demonstrates that you're still not getting it. Here you're conflating the substrate upon which something resides with the thing itself. The thoughts are the result of physical processes on material strata, but they are not actually physical.

Like I said, the map is not the terrain. Learning the distinction between the two is the key to understanding why you're wrong.