Is social media killing Wikipedia?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 24, 2017

Culture, Darwinism, Media, Naturalism, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Creative Commons

From Hossain Derakhshan at Wired:

Wikipedia has never been as wealthy or well-organized. American liberals, worried that Trump’s rise threatened the country’s foundational Enlightenment ideals, kicked in a significant flow of funds that has stabilized the nonprofit’s balance sheet.

That happy news masks a more concerning problem—a flattening growth rate in the number of contributors to the website. It is another troubling sign of a general trend around the world: The very idea of knowledge itself is in danger.

…

Now the challenge is to save Wikipedia and its promise of a free and open collection of all human knowledge amid the conquest of new and old television—how to collect and preserve knowledge when nobody cares to know. Television has even infected Wikipedia itself—today many of the most popular entries tend to revolve around television series or their cast. More.

<em>Teapot</em> Cobalt Blue Well, like we’ve said before, when a king cobra mixes it up with a giant sidewinder, it’s hard to know which side to back…

We think naturally of Wikipedia “disappearing” paleontologist Gunter Bechly and diminishing engineering prof Walter Bradley. Social media can, of course, also zap whoever the employees anticipate that Mark Zuckerberg and cronies don’t like. But they don’t pretend to be reference sources.

Wikipedia’s lofty goals were conceived in apparent ignorance of the usual ways human beings behave. One could be getting the opinions of experts, however motivated by the politics of a discipline, as with all encyclopaedias throughout history. But, in a new development, one could just be getting the opinions of trolls —information landfill. Some of it may be salvageable but who’s going to go to the trouble of digging in deep to find out?

Also: At “Wikipedians diminish another high achiever sympathetic to ID,” a commenter writes “Larry Moran isn’t in Wikipedia” (either). News replies,

ET at 3: The fact that Larry Moran isn’t in Wikipedia is not a good defence for that source. He has been quite active in recent evolution discussions. He was in Forbes in 2015 on that very topic, just for example.

If one wants to know what is happening, Wikipedia is not the place to look. But if a kid wants to sloven through homework in a failing school system and that’s okay with the folks at home, it’s ideal.

Note: Hossein Derakhshan (@h0d3r) is an Iranian-Canadian media analyst who was imprisoned in Iran from 2008 to 2014.

See also: Wikipedians diminish another high achiever sympathetic to ID. Yes, there is sometimes useful information in Wikipedia. But one can say that of the supermarket tabloids as well. It’s a question of how likely that is, relative to stuff we can’t evaluate or should avoid, averaged against the value of one’s time sorting it out.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Comments

Upright Biped: Of course, there is now a good deal of information on subjects such as the role that miRNAs and other small molecules play in development and cell maintenance, but as you suggest, this only pushes the question up a notch.
Indeed, many epigenetic factors are being identified. How do they work and how do they work in concert? Only God knows. Take the mysterious histone for example:
After a few histone tail modifications were found to be rather distinctly associated with active or repressed genes, the forlorn hope arose that we would discover a precise, combinatorial “histone code.” It would provide a kind of fixed, digital key enabling us to predict the consequences of any arrangement of modifications. But this was to ignore the nearly infinite variety of all those other factors that blend their voices in concert with the histone modifications. … Each histone tail modification reshapes the physical and electrical structure of the local chromatin, shifting the pattern of interactions among nucleosome, DNA, and associated protein factors. … Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that the collaborative process mentioned above involves not just one table with “negotiators” gathered around it, but countless tables with countless participants, and with messages flying back and forth in countless patterns as countless “decisions” are made in a manner somehow subordinated to the unity and multidimensioned interests of the organism as a whole. [Talbott]

Upright Biped: I think that infinite regress may be an inevitable part of the territory — if materialists refuse to consider acts of intelligence, then both infinite regress and non-falsifiability will naturally fall out from the forcing of materialist ideology into the observations.
A materialist ideology they defend tooth and nail. It doesn’t matter to them that they cannot come up with a coherent view on life. They are holding the fort one day at a time.Origenes_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

KF,
DS, there is a lurking categorical error which I have noticed in cases where the example has been used to dismiss serious arguments by in effect caricaturing them — a far too common tactic, almost a standard rebuttal. That strawman tactic should not stand unremarked. KF
Do you have examples? I don't know if I have seen anyone use the spaghetti monster seriously in that way.daveS_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

Origines, decisions may be mechanised -- as algorithms show -- but in the end a true decision implies a choosing mind, which is self-moved. KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Ahh, thanks Origenes, I needed the frame of reference. Your question is indeed weighty. The short answer is that I have no answer. I keep a fairly narrow focus on the symbolic requirements to start the heterogeneous cell. Of course, there is now a good deal of information on subjects such as the role that miRNAs and other small molecules play in development and cell maintenance, but as you suggest, this only pushes the question up a notch. I think that infinite regress may be an inevitable part of the territory -- if materialists refuse to consider acts of intelligence, then both infinite regress and non-falsifiability will naturally fall out from the forcing of materialist ideology into the observations. Dynamics can’t explain the measurement function, or control. Only in the OoL would anyone suggest such a thing.Upright BiPed_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

DS, there is a lurking categorical error which I have noticed in cases where the example has been used to dismiss serious arguments by in effect caricaturing them -- a far too common tactic, almost a standard rebuttal. That strawman tactic should not stand unremarked. KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped @47 Thank you for your kind words. Allow me to rephrase my question. The cell can make hundreds of different proteins, but what is it that makes the decision on which particular protein must be produced? What is it that controls/chooses which of the many DNA sequences is up for translation into proteins? What selects? What is the "first cause"? That's what I meant when I asked in #36: "who or what controls the information embedded in DNA?" HH Pattee is a naturalist, so, obviously, he believes that there is a naturalistic answer to this question. It seems to me that there are two possibilities, more or less, consistent with naturalism.
(1) If blind particles are in control, whence cometh the coherence of the organism? IOWs why is the information applied coherently? (2) If higher-level information is in control, then what controls that information? Higher-higher-level information? Do we escape an infinite regress?
IOWs either blind particles decide which proteins are produced and which not, or there is another (higher) layer of information doing the choosing, which leads to the question "and what controls that?"Origenes_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

KF,
PS: The notion that one can compare God with an inherently composite material entity is where the ignorance problem lies. And if one knows better but then uses this for rhetorical effect that is even worse: deceitful manipulation.
The whole thing is supposed to be ridiculous. It's a joke.daveS_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

PS: The notion that one can compare God with an inherently composite material entity is where the ignorance problem lies. And if one knows better but then uses this for rhetorical effect that is even worse: deceitful manipulation.kairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

DS, yes, with no commitment to a physical actual infinite. KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

KF, I will interpret "quasi-infinite" as "vast or infinite". Will that do?
This, BTW, is one reason why the flying spaghetti monster parody is rooted in deepest ignorance. KF
I think it's comically absurd by design, not necessarily due to ignorance.daveS_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit @51
MatSpirit: RIGHT, they SAY that God is not made. No other evidence or authority, just their say-so.
There is compelling logic behind it, relating to First Cause arguments. Also, obviously, if God was made, He would not be the (true) God.
MatSpirit: Again, they SAY God is simple.
Again, there is compelling logic behind it. For instance: (1) God, as a first cause, is fundamental (to everything). (2) If God is divisible in the sense that he is constituted from parts, then those parts are fundamental to God. Therefore, (3) God is simple.
MatSpirit: They SAY that God contains no information.
Do they? I would expect them to claim that God is fundamental to information and not vice versa. There is a difference.
MatSpirit: But they also SAY that God has a mind, that He can think, that He can listen to your prayers, etc. They could get away with that until a few centuries ago when we began to understand what a mind is and how much well-ordered information is necessary to have a mind, or think, listen to prayers, etc.
Here thoughts and perceptions should be regarded as aspects of the indivisible unity that is God, rather than separable modules; comparable to parts of the human brain. Note that the same mental unity is observable in yourself. Plotinus (204-270 AD) was well aware of it:
It is clear from the following that, if the soul were a body (soma), there could be no perception. . . . If something is going to perceive anything, it must itself be one and must take hold of it in one act, both if several impressions are [perceived] through many sense-organs, or many qualities [are perceived] in one object, or if one senseorgan [perceives] a complex object, for example, a face. For there isn’t one [perception] of the nose, and another of the eyes, but one identical [perception] of all of them together. And if one [sense-object] enters through the eyes, and another through the hearing organ, there must be some one thing to which they both go. Otherwise, how could we state that they are different from each other, if the sense-objects did not all come together to one and the same [percipient]? Therefore, this [unified percipient] must be like a center point, and the perceptions coming from all places, like the lines coming from the circumference of the circle, must terminate there. And what takes hold of these must be of this kind, truly one. [Plotinus]
More broadly: (1) Unification of representations takes place. (2) Only a simple, unified substance can unify representations. Therefore, (3) The human soul or mind is a simple unified substance.Origenes_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

F/N Z: I should observe on divine simplicity, that the point is that God is not made up of component parts assembled together in some pattern that then results in God. Such a composite entity is inherently contingent and cannot be a necessary being. This, BTW, is one reason why the flying spaghetti monster parody is rooted in deepest ignorance. KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

F/N2: All of which was foreseen in Plato's Republic, through the parable of the Ship of State. KF PS: FYI, the parable:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

F/N: A capital example of unintended irony in the cited article; regarding encyclopedias as reflecting and perhaps helping shape radical secularist agendas . . . while missing out the notorious evidence on where the case in point ended up:
In Europe, the quest to compile a modern encyclopedia started with the Enlightenment in the 18th century. (Immanuel Kant coined a fitting Latin motto for the movement: “Sapere aude,” or “Dare to know.”) French Enlightenment thinkers like Francis Bacon and Denis Diderot began compiling ambitious encyclopedias, inspiring others throughout France, Germany, England, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The religious ruling class’s discomfort with the effort only helped its financial feasibility; there was an obvious market for these massive collections, often published in numerous volumes, for an increasingly secular middle-class. The first volume of Encycopedie was sold in 1751 to 2,000 subscribers, who would go on to receive the entire twenty-eight-volume set. Notable revolutionary thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu were involved in the editing of the work and several even ended up in prison. Only 17 years after the publication of the last volume in 1772, the French revolution began, leading to perhaps the most secular state in human history. That trend toward rationality and enlightenment was endangered long before the advent of the Internet.
I see you one French Revolution and raise you one guillotine. Multiply by a generation of expansionist wars under colours of liberty, equality, fraternity. Not to mention, modern Dictatorship as pioneered by Napoleon. KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

BTW, on the OP, by definition Wikipedia is itself a form of social media pivoting on the notion of a collective effort producing a planetary knowledge base. Predictably, given the power of making a crooked yardstick the standard for straightness and accuracy, nihilistic ideologues manipulated it to seize power over what they were interested in, self-appointing themselves as the new magisterium. Then, if crookedness is now the institutional yardstick, what is really straight and accurate will NEVER pass the crooked test and will be rejected. To solve this we need plumb-line truths that are naturally straight and truly vertical, which can then expose crookedness. But those who are entrenched in power and profit from perpetuation of the crooked yardstick system will fight the breaking of their power tooth and nail. As is ever so evident from too many Wikipedia horror stories. A post modern world is a world in which folly clothes itself as wisdom and insists on leading a global march straight over the cliff. And that is a challenge that another social medium, a blog with forum elements, faces. KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

PPS: You need to also look at the inherent limits of computational entities, contrasting with minds. Where you seem to be making an idiosyncratic use of "information" that locks it down to only physical instantiation on some modulation or encoding scheme. That needs to be reassessed, including i/l/o evidence of an actually finite past observed world and the challenges implicit in suggesting a quasi-physical world that is infinite in the past and has descended by finite stage causal succession to our world today. Proposed or implied traversal of endlessness by finite stage succession, for one, is an evident futility. Nor does suggesting that at any given world stage an infinite prior past has already been traversed succeed in doing more than begging the question at stake. Indeed, the world-root is arguably finitely remote in causal stages.kairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

PS: Appeal to simplicity runs into the gap between what is simple but adequate and what is simplistic. Where what is to be explained includes the prior fact of our own existence as responsible, rational, significantly free beings in a world adequate to sustain us, which is also seen to be fine tuned from its physics on up. No world-root that fails to answer to this will be explanatorily adequate. The framework you just put up and appeals to improbability you make, run into serious difficulties here.kairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

MS, it is clear that, first, you have not seriously examined and reflected on the already linked worldviews introduction survey; where such is needed in an age where our education leaves huge unexamined gaps in our understanding of the world. In particular, the logic of being: non-being (a true nothing) vs being, possible vs impossible, contingent vs non-contingent (aka necessary and thus eternal). Linked, questions of cause and sufficient reason for being. It turns out that there must be a world root, as non-being has no causal powers. Such a root is framework to a possible world existing, and there are aspects that are framework to ANY world existing, e.g. distinct identity as pointed out last evening. Inasmuch as -- on pain of the collapse of responsible, rational discourse, we are responsible and rationally significantly free, this actual world constrains thought on world roots. In particular, OUGHT (moral government) is real and so the IS-OUGHT gap must be satisfactorily bridged, post Hume's guillotine argument. This can only be done at world-root level, and we may make and compare grand inferences as to which candidate world-root best accounts for reality. I have pointed out already that the only serious candidate -- after centuries of debate -- is the inherently good creator-God, a necessary (thus eternal and world-framework), maximally great (thus supreme) being. One worthy of our loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. This is not an arbitrary assumption, the explicit invitation is to put up an alternative that we can then compare on worldview level difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (elegantly simple but not simplistic, and not an ad hoc patchwork). Your offer is: ________ , and it passes the triple test as: ________ . I suggest, you are going to find it extremely difficult to put up a successful alternative, but feel welcome to try. Further, I must point out that a serious candidate necessary being has a peculiar property: impossible or else actual. That is, it has mutually contradictory core characteristics like a square circle and would be impossible of being, or else it is possible. That is, existing in some possible world. But as we speak of what is framework, in all worlds including our own. So, if you would dismiss the reality of God, your job is to show not a serious candidate or else to show an impossibility. Neither of these strategies succeeds on the scale of centuries of attempts. For the first, God is simply not in the class of pagan super-beings, nor is God comparable to the ill-informed flying spaghetti monster parody that has been a favourite rhetorical ploy of the new atheists. Appeals to such simply show ignorance. For the second, post Plantinga's free will defense, the proposed incoherence in the idea of God has collapsed, leaving on the table the challenge to account for the good and for morality including moral government of our very rationality. Likewise the evolutionary materialist scientism dressed up in a lab coat that lies behind the appeal to prestige of science rendering God as little more than a fairy tale superstition fails. First because -- as shown in outline above -- it is self-referentially incoherent and so not a serious worldview option. Second, it cannot account for responsible, rational freedom, a requisite for doing science, math etc. Third, it is inherently amoral and a gateway to nihilism. So, there are serious issues on the table. KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2017
October
10
Oct
31
31
2017
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 43: O: The argument that Christian theologians continually make is that God (nor His mind) is not made. God is the First Cause. RIGHT, they SAY that God is not made. No other evidence or authority, just their say-so. O: There is no information, matter or anything fundamental to God. God is simple — a unity. Again, they SAY God is simple. They SAY that God contains no information. But they also SAY that God has a mind, that He can think, that He can listen to your prayers, etc. They could get away with that until a few centuries ago when we began to understand what a mind is and how much well-ordered information is necessary to have a mind, or think, listen to prayers, etc. You can't be simple and unchanging and still be able to understand a prayer. And if you can't understand a prayer, then you're not the God Christians worship. But the more complex you are, the less likely you are to exist.MatSpirit_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

F/N: On Boltzmann brain worlds: https://winteryknight.com/2017/03/11/what-are-boltzmann-brains-and-what-challenge-do-they-pose-to-the-multiverse-hypothesis/ . . . lone fly on a wall-patch swatted by a bullet vs bullets hitting a section carpeted with flies. Local fine tuning is sufficiently challenging. KFkairosfocus_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

DS, quasi avoids the assertion of empirically warranting an actual infinite material cosmos. As in, yes we may see something vast but actually infinite? Whole 'nother kettle of fish. KFkairosfocus_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

MS, First, you seem obsessed with theologians. The existence of God is a worldviews issue and thus a matter of philosophy antecedent to any religious tradition. It would be appreciated if you will address the worldviews issue under the correct department. Second, you are simply assuming that mindedness is essentially computational. This runs into the basic problem that, inherently, no computational entity spontaneously rises above blind mechanical processing and/or blind chance events, to actually responsibly and rationally free inference, decision, thought, belief, warrant and knowledge etc. GIGO, on steroids. Computation is inherently a mechanical process and thus is dependent on input organisation, programming etc. It does not explain itself nor is it autonomous. Leibniz put this on the table nigh on 400 years ago in Monadology, through his analogy of the mill. Third, you have an existing population of the evidently responsibly and rationally free. Us. This is so on pain of the disintegration of responsible rational discourse towards truth, prudence and the right. Next, we have evidence of finely tuned, carefully organised physics and initial circumstances that set up a world fitted to our kind of life, c-chem, cell based, aqueous medium on terrestrial planets. Where, said life is morally governed (= responsible) and rational. Thus, governed by ought. Which requires that ought be bridged to from IS. Which, no blind material world-root can do. And, world-roots is the only level where the IS-OUGHT gap can be bridged, after that level it invariably pops back up. There is just one serious candidate: the inherently good creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. If you doubt, simply put up another candidate at world-root level which will meet the triple test of factual adequacy, coherence (the truths of a world must all be so together) and balanced explanatory power: neither simplistic nor ad hoc. Lastly, you have no basis for binding information to arrangements of matter. Arrangements of abstracta are a perfectly valid cluster of possibilities. Start with the von Neumann construction of numbers and extend to the continuum and complex numbers to see this. Where, no world is possible absent distinct identity thus two-ness bound up in A vs ~A, etc. which gives rise to the inevitability of the first three core principles of right reason as binding on any world. Also, such two-ness is a necessary being; thus eternal -- without beginning or possibility of end. Uncaused. And more. Which already suggests mind as prior to matter in the ontological sense. KF PS: Science is converging on no empirically grounded, observationally rooted view that we are part of a multiverse. What we have is ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism in the teeth of what the evidence does point to: cosmological fine tuning. But if one posits a quasi-infinite multiverse one can at least imagine there is enough resource to get rid of probabilities, or rather utter improbabilities. Which is a cure far worse than the disease. E.g. why do we not observe a Boltzmann brain world instead of what we see?kairosfocus_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

Origenes, I’ve thought a bit about your question, and wonder if I am just over-thinking it, or don’t get exactly what you are asking, or perhaps confused about the frame of reference. I really have a good deal of respect and admiration for your contributions here, so I must say that I am a little embarrassed to be puzzled by your question. I believe the coherence of an organism comes from a prior designing intelligence that implemented a semantically-closed information system -- where there is a functional relationship between the portion of the medium that describes the interpretive constraints within the system, and the remaining medium that establishes the specific conditions by which that medium is read and actualized. (all of that operating under physical law). I apologize in advance if I've misunderstood your question.Upright BiPed_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

If it was me doing it today, I’d stretch the original protein out straight and then I’d build a new one right next to it, making sure each amino acid I put down was identical to the one next to it.
Egads, this guy actually doesn’t see the flaw.Upright BiPed_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Matt at #38, my reading of your posts is spot on, demonstrated in your own words, recorded on this very thread for all to see. In your earlier post, you talked aboout how information is held in an arrangement of matter, and gave several examples of mediums of information, thus arranged. But when reminded that all mediums of information (DNA included) must be interpreted, you immediately switched to an anthropocentric/physicalist reification of “information” in order to cover your bases. The remainder of your post doesn’t warrant a response, but you might ask yourself why Stozak, Lincoln, Joyce, Venter, Sullivan, Koonin, etc., etc., etc., don’t follow your logic.Upright BiPed_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit: AND SO COULD EARLY LIFE! [copy a protein]

O: HOW??

MatSpirit: Show me what early life was like and I could answer.
So, your claim is empty. You don't know what early life looks like, but, nonetheless, you are willing to claim that it can make proteins without translation.
MatSpirit: If it was me doing it today, I’d stretch the original protein out straight and then I’d build a new one right next to it, making sure each amino acid I put down was identical to the one next to it.
And how is that relevant to what blind undirected chemistry can do?
MatSpirit: Upright seems to think this would be impossible without DNA and codes and stuff.
What is your alternative? Some protein copy making machine? You understand that this produces only one specific protein right? A copy machine cannot specify a protein among alternatives.Origenes_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit: Unfortunately for those Christian theologians, they had absolutely no idea of the incredible amount of information that is required to make even the simplest mind.
Do you seriously think that Christian theologians ponder the possibility that God is made — or should consider that as a possibility? The argument that Christian theologians continually make is that God (nor His mind) is not made. God is the First Cause. There is no information, matter or anything fundamental to God. God is simple — a unity.Origenes_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Origenes again: Me: AND SO COULD EARLY LIFE! O: HOW?? Show me what early life was like and I could answer. If it was me doing it today, I'd stretch the original protein out straight and then I'd build a new one right next to it, making sure each amino acid I put down was identical to the one next to it. Upright seems to think this would be impossible without DNA and codes and stuff. You also asked, "1) If blind particles are in control, whence cometh the coherence of the organism? IOWs why is the information applied coherently?" Because life started out extremely simple and then built complexity (including DNA and the whole DNA based reproductive system) very slowly, rejecting any change that interfered with reproduction. Again, give me samples of early life during this period and I'll tell you the exact steps.MatSpirit_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Origenes, sorry. Substitute "epistemic cut" for "cybernetic cut" in my message. My mistake.MatSpirit_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

KF @ 33: Christian theologians claim that this universe originates in God and that God has always existed. Unfortunately for their argument, they also claim God is a Being and a being is something that has a mind. Unfortunately for those Christian theologians, they had absolutely no idea of the incredible amount of information that is required to make even the simplest mind. Even a lowly human mind requires megabytes of information from its DNA to construct it and then many more megabytes are acquired from the environment as a new born baby interacts with the world, figures out how to control its body, learns a language, etc. The sum total of information a human mind needs to operate is at least in the megabytes and probably much more. A God-like brain would require much more. (Much much more if you claim God is omniscient.) So Christianity has inadvertently bet that the cause of this universe is a Being that contains megabytes or more of highly ordered information. Science is converging on a view that this universe and many many others wss created by a chaotic multi-verse that contains very little or even no information and imparts very little information to the universes it creates. Our own universe is known to have had very little information at the Big Bampng. Certainly less than a megabit and that may have been just random noise. So we have two possibilities for the source of our universe. Christian theologians say the Prime Mover was a Being that contains a large enough quantity of well ordered information to have a mind and that this Being just happens to have always existed. Science says that, looking at how simple this universe was at the Big Bang and how little information it contained at the BB, it could have been generated by something simple, low information and even chaotic that just happens to have always existed. Simple, low information chaotic things are more likely to exist than complex. That makes God extremely unlikely compared to chaos, even more unlikely if you claim God is all-knowing.MatSpirit_{October 30, 2017
October
10
Oct
30
30
2017
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply