Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Since you asked

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’m generally happy to answer questions from anyone, if I think they’re interesting enough. Recently the following seven questions were brought to my attention. I thought they merited a response, so here goes. The answers given below are my own; readers are free to disagree if they wish.

1. Does a spider web, a bee hive, a mole burrow, a bird nest, a termite mound, or a beaver dam have “biological function”, and do they have “information”?

All of the above structures combine the characteristics of high probabilistic complexity (i.e. it is difficult for natural processes lacking foresight to generate them) and low descriptive complexity (i.e. they are easy to describe in a few words). Hence they all contain complex specified information (CSI). Insofar as they are useful to the creatures that make them, they could also be said to have a function. However, I wouldn’t say that these structures have a “biological function.” Biological function, properly speaking, belongs to organs or systems inside an organism’s body, which enable the organism to perform some useful task.

2. Does a tool that is made and used by a bird, a chimpanzee, other non-human primates, any other organism that isn’t human, or a human, have “information”, and does it have “biological function”.

Complex specified information, yes. Biological function, no.

3. Does the organism understand and/or generate information when building a nest, web, hive, dam, etc.?

The organism certainly generates complex specified information when building these structures. Does it understand this information? No. It cannot explain and justify its actions. It cannot say why it built these structures this way and not that way, so I’d say it lacks understanding.

4. Does the organism understand and/or generate information when making and using a tool?

Same as for question 3.

5. Apply the same questions to an organism, such as a bird, a non-human primate, or a human, but substitute tools that are not made by the organism. For instance, natural objects that the organism doesn’t modify, but does select and use as a tool.

Owing to their specificity and suitability for a particular job, these natural objects contain a certain amount of complex specified information (in most cases, a small amount). However, no new information is generated here.

6. If there’s information in any of the things I mentioned above (web, hive, dam, nest, tool, etc.) is it “functional complex specified information”?

No. None of the structures in questions 1 to 5 exhibit functional complex specified information, because they are not patterns embodied in structures that enable the structures to perform some function or useful task. Functional complex specified information can on the other hand be ascribed to systems in an organism’s body that are biologically useful.

And one more question:

7. When a cephalopod changes its shape, texture, or colors, does it understand and/or generate information (is it functional complex specified information?), and does that change of shape, texture, or colors have biological function?

I’d say this is a genuine case of functional complex specified information. The patterns are inside the organism, and they enable it to perform a biologically useful task.

Recommended reading:
here, here and here.

Comments
Unless of course you agree that your stomach has more CSI then you do!
My stomach has more CSI than you do.Mung
July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
vjtorley,
Short answer: a human. The human body contains about 250 different cell types (see this article ). An onion has far fewer cell types, so it’s easier to specify.
I think I may need the long answer then. If we are to judge "more or less" CSI by, in this example, the number of cell types then there are some problems with that I think. The main one is something we both share. Our gut flora. It is estimated that these gut flora have around 100 times as many genes in aggregate as there are in the human genome. In addition there are between 300 and 1000 different species in the gut,with most estimates at about 500. So if a human contains 250 cell types and a human's gut contains up to 1000 or perhaps more species of bacteria with 100 times the number of genes then it takes to make a human then is it not reasonable to conclude that your stomach contains more CSI then you do in the rest of your body? For example, imagine that aliens invent a CSI detector and go out into the universe looking for other living beings. They get to earth and immediately attempt to hold peace talks with the contents of a cow's stomach! So given that it's silly that your gut flora can have more CSI then a human being is there another measure that would allow the true situation to be objectively measured? Unless of course you agree that your stomach has more CSI then you do!WilliamRoache
July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
hi vjt, In your a through c, without a mind, in what sense does that information exist? Now it seems to me that by your (b) you seem to mean a thing with a readily discernible function and that by your (c) you intend a thing without a readily discernible function. Would that be correct? So all that seems to me to be saying is that in the case of (b) we have more knowledge or information than in the case of (c). IOW, there is no readily discernible function apart from background knowledge and prior information.Mung
July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
The Origin of Information Now if it is in fact the case that information can exist within physical/material objects, why should it not also be the case that physical/material processes can in fact generate information? Why, if information can exist in the physical/material world, should the information contained in DNA pose any 'problem' for the materialist? It seems to me that "the problem of information" presupposes that information comes from Mind and only mind, is immaterial, and cannot arise from anything in the material/physical world. By allowing that it can or does, why are we not handing the argument over to the materialists?Mung
July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Mung (#184), You have a point. I would distinguish, however, between (a) information having a meaning in its own right; (b) information which doesn't have a meaning in its own right, but whose meaning an intelligent observer can readily apprehend from its function; and (c) information which has to be wrested from the object by a process of painstaking investigation by an intelligent agent. I would put the information in DNA in category (b), and the information we extract about prehistoric man from fossils and other leftovers in category (c).vjtorley
July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Hi Elizabeth, I have to say that backwards digit span sounds like a very good example of a measurable mental capacity. I shall ponder that one. Definitely food for thought. Thanks.vjtorley
July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Meaningless Information The idea that there can be information that that has no meaning is patently absurd. Even given the preferred definition of some according to which information produces a specific effect that should be blatantly obvious.Mung
July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Form The form of a thing is its organizational structure; something irreducible to the sum of its parts. Platonic realism about form holds it to exist completely independently of either the mind or the material world. Aristotelian realism takes it generally to exist in some sense only "in" the things it informs. From Ed Feser's book Philosophy of Mind. Ilion: The Forms are immaterial entities (as Plato conceived them, they are essentially “unthought thoughts” or “thoughts that think themselves”). i.e., exist independently of minds. Ilion: Plato says that the world is made of/by Unthought Thoughts. Aristotle denies this; in contrast, he says that the world is made of/by Unintended Intentions. I am a disciple of neither of these gentlemen. vjt: (4) You say that you are a disciple of neither Plato nor Aristotle. Plato held that Forms are ideal entities which exist independently of matter, and that material objects are but pale imitations of these ideals. Aristotle held that forms do not exist independently of matter, but are instantiated in matter. Is there a third way? I’m curious to hear what your position is. Plato also held that Forms exist independently of Mind. As did Aristotle. The third way would be that neither were correct. That's my analysis anyways.Mung
July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
So I think that information is "temporal." It brings about its effect and then it's gone. No need to continue to exist. The mind upon which it had it's effect however continues to exist. So information is not something that's stored. But what sense does it make to say that something immaterial is temporal? Information cannot be contained nor stored. It's fleeting. I think of information more as something that happens. Does any of this make sense?Mung
July 10, 2011
July
07
Jul
10
10
2011
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Sorry, messed up the blockquote tags in my post to Ilion above: My words begin at "What on earth are you talking about?"Elizabeth Liddle
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Having a go at the OP: I'm going to try to use two different definitions of information, and see whether any of your examples, seem to fulfil the criteria for one or the other. A is something like Dembski's definition of Complex Specified Information: it must be complex, in the sense of having lots of bits/unlikely to be drawn from some common probability distribution, and it must be compressible, in the sense of offering ease of description. B is inspired by Upright BiPed, and is something like: it must involve the transmission from a sender to a receiver; it must result in a change in behaviour or state of the receiver, and the form of the information must be in some arbitrary code (i.e. not a simple template.
1. Does a spider web, a bee hive, a mole burrow, a bird nest, a termite mound, or a beaver dam have “biological function”, and do they have “information”?
A: Yes. They are complex (unlikely to be drawn randomly from a pdf), but also specifed (compressible), in that they can be easily described: you do not need to know the location of every twig to understand the essence of a beaver dam. B: No. There is no clear sender or receiver, and no symbolic or quasi symbolic rendering of a message.
2. Does a tool that is made and used by a bird, a chimpanzee, other non-human primates, any other organism that isn’t human, or a human, have “information”, and does it have “biological function”.
A: No. Most tools are very simple, indeed may not be modified by the user at all. So not complex (the chips on an ant poking sticks could easily arise by chance), even if readily compressible. B: No. There might be a sender and receiver (a mother chimp may show her daughter the tool and its use) but there is no evidence of symbolic message coding.
3. Does the organism understand and/or generate information when building a nest, web, hive, dam, etc.?
A: Yes (see above). B: No (see above).
4. Does the organism understand and/or generate information when making and using a tool?
A: yes. The patterns of brain activity associated with the planning, short term memory, and long term memory (long term potentiation) necessary to make and use a tool are almost certainly both complex and specified (compressible).
5. Apply the same questions to an organism, such as a bird, a non-human primate, or a human, but substitute tools that are not made by the organism. For instance, natural objects that the organism doesn’t modify, but does select and use as a tool.
See above (because I inadvertently covered it - for actual made tools, I can't think of one that would satisfy the criteria for complexity).
6. If there’s information in any of the things I mentioned above (web, hive, dam, nest, tool, etc.) is it “functional complex specified information”?
By A, yes - the tools and constructions clearly have a function (mostly to obtain food) in relation to the organism (mostly to obtain food). By B: no. None of these examples contain information at all.
7. When a cephalopod changes its shape, texture, or colors, does it understand and/or generate information (is it functional complex specified information?), and does that change of shape, texture, or colors have biological function?
A: Yes. The patterns are both complex and specified (compressible). B: Yes. There is a sender (the cephalopod), a receiver (predator), and a symbolic encoding of a message (the predator learns, either through life or through evolution) that the coloration pattern "means" danger, even though the colour itself is not dangerous. It is also functional because it helps the cephalopod survive (just as the webs and dams do). By the B definition, it doesn't matter if the cephalopod itself has no clue what it's doing.Elizabeth Liddle
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Tearing down the house! If information is "contained" in Ilion's house, what is that information about? I think the house exhibits "something" which lead us to believe that information was involved in its construction. But is that "something" the same as information? Is it the same as the information that went into building the house? Something like a house does not come into existence without information about how the bits and pieces of matter would be arranged relative to each other and to the foundation, and which bits and pieces of matter would be used at which location. But what happens to that information as the house is built? Does it get transferred from the mind of the builder into the house? What does it mean to say a thing has lost its form? If Ilion's house contains the information for its form, how can it lose it's form? Does it lose it's form by losing the information that was contained therein?Mung
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Ilion: I don’t seem to understand — or perhaps I just don’t care — the meaning of the strange and amusing things I assert: “My point, of course, is that mind is immaterial, just as any verb denotes something immaterial: “running” is immaterial, but legs are not.” Verbs don’t denote immaterial entities, though nouns may. Verbs denote actions, usually (though, not always), physical actions — I’m pretty sure I saw that someone has already explained this grammatical difference to you, perhaps in a different thread. “… “running” is immaterial, but legs are not.” ‘Running’ — the noun — denotes a concept, which is an immaterial mental entity; ‘Running’ — the verb — denotes a physical/material action, performed by an agent making use of physical/material legs as the means to perform the action. === According to “I don’t care what I say“, ‘mind’ is a “verb” — “I think myself it is best to think of mind as a verb rather than a noun … mind is what the brain does” — but what a special kind of “verb” it is, for it is not the action of an agent, but merely the activity of an organ. According to “I assert that I do not even exist“, the mind does not even rise to the level of “a buzz in the brain,” but only a change in physical brain-states, which changing gives rise to the buzz. I don’t know, maybe the buzzing is what “thoughts” are. Aren’t materialists just the most amazing entities? Sometimes, one might almost believe that they are persons. I don’t seem to understand — or perhaps I just don’t care — the meaning of the strange and amusing things I assert: “My point, of course, is that mind is immaterial, just as any verb denotes something immaterial: “running” is immaterial, but legs are not.” Verbs don’t denote immaterial entities, though nouns may. Verbs denote actions, usually (though, not always), physical actions — I’m pretty sure I saw that someone has already explained this grammatical difference to you, perhaps in a different thread. “… “running” is immaterial, but legs are not.” ‘Running’ — the noun — denotes a concept, which is an immaterial mental entity; ‘Running’ — the verb — denotes a physical/material action, performed by an agent making use of physical/material legs as the means to perform the action. === According to “I don’t care what I say“, ‘mind’ is a “verb” — “I think myself it is best to think of mind as a verb rather than a noun … mind is what the brain does” — but what a special kind of “verb” it is, for it is not the action of an agent, but merely the activity of an organ. According to “I assert that I do not even exist“, the mind does not even rise to the level of “a buzz in the brain,” but only a change in physical brain-states, which changing gives rise to the buzz. I don’t know, maybe the buzzing is what “thoughts” are. Aren’t materialists just the most amazing entities? Sometimes, one might almost believe that they are persons. I'm not sure what all this is about, Ilion, but it appears to be a response to one of my posts. What on earth are you talking about? What is so difficult about the concept that a process is a different category of referent from a thing? Or that an abstract referent, for example, the signified that corresponds to the signifier "mind" might not be a physical entity yet still result from physical processes? That is all that I am saying - that the claim that the "mind" is a signifier that denotes the results of brain activity, not brain activity, does not require that those results be physical objects (such as a "secretion"). Perhaps you could suspend your disbelief that any "materialist" could write anything other than nonsense and actually try to see what I am saying? Whether you agree with it or not.Elizabeth Liddle
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
vjtorley:
Elizabeth, Just a quick question. What properties of mind as such would you consider measurable?
Well, the most interesting aspects of mind are more readily described qualitatively rather than quantitatively, but most things can be measured somehow, if imperfectly! Working memory capacity is probably the most stable thing you can measure - how many digits, for example, can you hold in mind while you manipulate them in someway ("backward digit span") for instance. Essentially cognitive aspects of mind are easier to quantify than, say, emotional aspects, or creativity (notoriously difficult to measure). Of course, you may not consider these properties of mind, but I do! I do distinguish between mind and brain, and cognition and emotion I would regard as mental capacity and mental state, not brain capacity and brain state, which would refer to something quite different. For instance if we were talking about working memory, I might describe it in mental (i.e. mind terms) as your backward digit span. In brain terms, I might describe it in terms of lateral inhibition between specific neural circuits. Similarly with mood: I might describe your mood state as "happy". I would never describe your brain state as "happy" - I would describe it in terms of neural activation patterns. Brains are not happy; people are. That does not mean (I am arguing) that happiness does not arise from the physiological state of the brain. It just means that happiness is the property of a person in a particular mood state, not the property of the brain.Elizabeth Liddle
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
fG: Some clarifications of my point of view. When I speak of consciousness, I don't mean "self-consciousness". I just mean the existence of conscious representations, of a perceiving I. I don't understand well your use of the word "mind". How can a mind exist and not be "conscious"? OK, maybe you mean "self-conscious". If a mind does not reflect on itself, we could say that it is not "self-conscious", at least not in the sense we speak of that for the human mind. But if conscious representations are there, cosnciousness is anyway present. Let's go with examples. A book is not, as far as we know, conscious. If it contains information, it's only because a conscious being inputted it in the book, and a conscious being can recognize it in the book. IOWs, the book is a vehicle, but it has no fundamental role in the creation, least of all in the retrieving, of the information it contains. Searle's chinese room example is a good way to understand that difference. Take a physical law, for example. As a law, it is a mental object in our mind: the recognition of regularities, to which we give meaning. Whatever natural laws may be in the Noumenon, for us they are mental things, which exist only in cosnciousness. DNA is not different from the book. It is a vehicle. The information in it, for instance the sequence of a functional protein, has sense only if some cosncious observer (us humans) recognizes it as information, and is aware of its function. Why is that information there, for us to recognize? For me, the answer is simple: some other conscious being put it there, so that that particular function could be present in the living cell. DNA, again, is only a vehicle. As a molecule, it has no relationship with the final function of the protein, no more than paper and ink have any connection with the story they tell us. Its sequence bears the information for the protein, passively and unconsciously. But the functional information for the protein was consciously willed and searched and cognized before it came into existence, and it is cosnciously recognized by us now. You ask if a gearbox contains information. It certainly does. But a gearbox is more similar to the protein, the final effector. A gearbox project would be more similar to DNA. DNA not only contains information, it contains symbolic digital information which has no relationship with its essential biochemical status. Functional information can apparently be present in things non designed, but that is only a form of pseudo-function (a function not willed by a conscious being), and it can happen only if the information building the function is simple. That's whi in ID we only take in consideration complex specified information, in one of the many definitions we can give. Complex specified information exists only as the output of a conscious being, directly or indirectly. It allows us to detect design, that is the intervention of a conscious being. It's as simple as that.gpuccio
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
To dovetail into Dembski and Marks's work on Conservation of Information;,,, LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ ,,,Encoded classical information, such as what we find in computer programs, and yes as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'transcendent' quantum information by the following method:,,, This following research provides solid falsification for Rolf Landauer’s contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it; Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm ,,,And here is the empirical confirmation that quantum information is 'conserved';,,, Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html ================== Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 =========================bornagain77
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
fg you state: 'Is DNA really that special? I can think of many physical configurations of matter that enable it to perform a function.' Yes DNA is that special!!! it turns out that, now, a 'non-local' cause (aka transcendent 'spiritual' cause, a mind) must be supplied to explain, not only, the classical information in DNA, but also the non-local quantum information; Falsification of neo-Darwinism; First, Here is the falsification of local realism (reductive materialism). Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of ‘local realism’, or the failure of reductive materialism, to explain reality: The Failure Of Local Realism – Reductive Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for ‘spooky’ forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) And yet, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the complete description of reality, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ The relevance of continuous variable entanglement in DNA – July 2010 Excerpt: We consider a chain of harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. The binding energies between entangled and classically correlated states are compared. We apply our model to DNA. By comparing our model with numerical simulations we conclude that entanglement may play a crucial role in explaining the stability of the DNA double helix. http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1 Quantum Information confirmed in DNA by direct empirical research; DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011 Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420 i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy space/time) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the energy/matter particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘specified’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must falsify Alain Aspect, and company’s, falsification of local realism (reductive materialism)! ,,, As well, appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology ends up destroying the very possibility of doing science rationally; BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ ,,,Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever. “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook =================bornagain77
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
vjtorley, you say that 'The information in DNA is a pretty special case: a physical configuration of matter that enables it to perform a function.' Is DNA really that special? I can think of many physical configurations of matter that enable it to perform a function. Just to name one: a gear box. Now, the interaction here is physical rather than chemical, yet clearly the matter is configured to perform a function. I doubt though that anyone would say that a gearbox contains information. Why do chemical interactions appear to us sometimes so 'mysterious' when compared to physical ones? Are the laws underpinning them not essentially the same? Or is it that they are less tactile and therefore we have less of an instinctive affinity with them? Before you object that a gearbox is product of intelligent design, yes, of course it is. That is not the point here, though. The point is that people endow DNA with 'information' because it does all those wonderful things, yet when other physical entities also produce wonderful things but through physical, rather than chemical interactions, we consider them as an entirely different and somehow lesser class of phenomena. I wonder why that is. fGfaded_Glory
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
faded_Glory, Thank you for your posts. I would like to echo gpuccio's and bornagain77's point that consciousness precedes information. Even if we consider the information that exists "out there" in DNA, we need to recall that it would not be information if the universe did not conform to certain regularities that we call laws of nature. These laws are more than merely descriptive statements; they are also prescriptive. They define how matter should behave. If this were not so, then we should not be surprised if they are violated or suspended. Laws of nature are God's rules for the cosmos, and without them DNA could not embody information of any sort, and neither could any other material entity.vjtorley
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, Just a quick question. What properties of mind as such would you consider measurable?vjtorley
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
fg you state; 'I am not so sure that conciousness is required before there can be information.' ,,,Yet consciousness is required before there can be any reality at all!!! ,,, infinite information is needed to define a photon in its superposition state:,,, Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred (instantaneously) to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf ,,,, and 'consciousness' is needed to explain quantum wave collapse from its superposition state to its 'uncertain' particle state,,, "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. http://eugene-wigner.co.tv/ Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries: Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm Moreover, 'reality', even in its collapsed 'uncertain' particle state, is 'information theoretic' in its nature; Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx In the beginning was the bit - New Scientist Excerpt: Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron's spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/links/newscientist/bit.html 'Quantum Magic' Without Any 'Spooky Action at a Distance' - June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm ================= further note: Quantum mind–body problem Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/ It is interesting to note that some materialists seem to have a very hard time grasping the simple point of the double slit experiments, but to try to put it more clearly; To explain an event which defies time and space, as the quantum erasure experiment clearly does, you cannot appeal to any material entity in the experiment like the detector, or any other 3D physical part of the experiment, which is itself constrained by the limits of time and space. To give an adequate explanation for defying time and space one is forced to appeal to a transcendent entity which is itself not confined by time or space. But then again I guess I can see why forcing someone who claims to be a atheistic materialist to appeal to a non-material transcendent entity, to give an adequate explanation, would invoke such utter confusion on their part. Yet to try to put it in even more 'shocking' terms, the 'shocking' conclusion of the experiment is that a transcendent Mind, with a capital M, must precede the collapse of quantum waves to 3-Dimensional particles. Moreover, it is impossible for a human mind to ever 'emerge' from any 3-D material particle which is itself semi-dependent on our 'observation' for its own collapse to a 3D reality in the first place. This is more than a slight problem for the atheistic-evolutionary materialist who insists that our minds 'emerged', or evolved, from 3D matter. In the following article Professor Henry puts it more clearly than I can: The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdfbornagain77
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Ilion, Thanks for your responses. Just a few points: (1) You ask how I would measure the length of a day. Answer: with a clock. You ask how long it is. Answer: 24 hours, if you're talking about a mean solar day; 23 hours 56 minutes 4.099 seconds, if you're talking about a sidereal day. You ask how I would compare the duration of one minute with that of another. Answer: by comparing the amount of motion that takes place in each. A second is officially defined as the time needed for a cesium-133 atom to perform 9,192,631,770 complete oscillations. A minute is 60 seconds. Any two intervals with the same number of cesium-133 oscillations are of equal length. Or as Aristotle would say: "Time is the measure of motion." (2) I do not maintain that information has spatial or temporal extension per se. What I do maintain is that if information doesn't have spatio-temporal extension, then I simply do not know what you mean by saying that the mind contains it, or that it is in the mind. You say it is a metaphor. I ask: a metaphor for what? (3) I also maintain that at least some kinds of information (e.g names of more than one letter, telephone numbers) are necessarily composite. That's why I don't think they can be in the simple mind of God. God has immediate epistemic access to these kinds of information, without them being in Him. (4) You say that you are a disciple of neither Plato nor Aristotle. Plato held that Forms are ideal entities which exist independently of matter, and that material objects are but pale imitations of these ideals. Aristotle held that forms do not exist independently of matter, but are instantiated in matter. Is there a third way? I'm curious to hear what your position is. (5) You ask:
If I build a house, do not my plans (the conception of my desired result) inform the result? Does not my labor inform the result? According to your odd, or amusing, reasoning, my plans and my labor are *in* the house, right? Not metaphorically, but actually physically present, with spatial and temporal extension, right?
I would say that the form of the house exists as a concept that you have, and that it also exists in the house itself - but not spatially (see (2) above). The house is a physical instantiation (or realization) of your plans, and a product of your physical labor. However the form is not inside the house - which is why you can't find it when you disassemble the house. The form is realized in the configuration of the raw materials. When you disassemble the house, you destroy the configuration, so the form disappears. Strictly speaking, then, we should not say that the house contains information; it would be better to say that the house instantiates or realizes information, by virtue of its configuration. The verb "contains" is appropriate only if used in that sense. (6) There are different kinds of information. The information in DNA is a pretty special case: a physical configuration of matter that enables it to perform a function. That's quite different from: (i) the information that stone tools can yield when archaeologists date them to 38,000 years ago or identify their makers as right-handed; and (ii) the information in a book. In case (i) there is no symbolic code and the information obtained is entirely the result of the heavy-duty thinking on the part of the archaeologists. I would certainly not say that the information obtained here is in the tools, even as a realization. The information is created by the archaeologists applying their minds to an object, to learn its history. In case (ii), there is a symbolic code, but no functionality. The information in a book doesn't do anything, and it exists purely as a result of human conventions such as the alphabet and the phonic code. In the case of DNA, however, no human convention is required; any alien with sufficient nous could work out the code and what it does. "Information" has several distinct usages in these cases, and we need to be careful not to confuse them. (7) I will conclude by asking you what your definition of information is, Ilion. Mung, to his great credit, has grappled with this question. Where's your definition? I think we all agree that there is no knowledge in DNA, and no inherent meaning either. But there seems to be an obvious qualitative distinction between the DNA code, which enables DNA to perform a specific function, and, say, the pattern of flaking on a stone tool, which enables archaeologists to deduce that its maker was right-handed. There is a real sense in which DNA tells other molecules what to do, by virtue of its digital code. Lastly, I should point out that even Professor Edward Feser (no friend of Intelligent Design), in his book Aquinas (Oneworld Publications, Oxford, 2009, pp. 45-46) writes of DNA:
"Descriptions of this famous molecule make constant reference to the 'information,' 'data,' 'instructions,' 'blueprint,' 'software,' 'programming' and so on contained within it, and for good reason, since there is simply no way accurately to convey what DNA does without the use of such concepts."
So there you have it. A Thomist philosopher acknowledges that there is information in DNA. Or would you maintain that Professor Feser is too friendly towards Intelligent Design?vjtorley
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
gpuccio, I am not so sure that conciousness is required before there can be information. As I said above, I do believe that the concept of information requires a mind somewhere associated with it, but is consciousness required? Are all minds conscious? Are animals conscious? Most animals use information in one way or another, and surely many of them have minds, and surely many have purposes, but do they have consciousness in the sense of self-awareness? Do animals perceive themselves? I think the jury is still out on that one. My perception is that minds and consciousness come in types and gradations and are not a simple matter of either/or. Animals often use information in ways far superior to humans, and if they do so without having self-consciousness, does that mean that the information they use is not 'real' information anymore? fGfaded_Glory
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
fG: The big difference, and the hard to understand uniqueness of mind, is that unlike a symphony it is self-aware. But that is an entirely different discussion. And this is the only truly important point. The existence of consciousness and of conscious representations is the fundamental thing which cannot be explained by any reductionist theory. Consciousness can only be accepted as an empirical fact. I believe that what we call "mind" corresponds to a specific set of conscious representations, be it more or less "material". Frankly, I don't even understand the emphasis with the concept of "material". Anyone familiar with quantum mechanics can perhaps share my perplexities. However, let's say that consciousness represents things. It can represent some map of the "outer world" (whatever it is), or some map of the "inner world" (whatever it is). But, without consciousness, those representations would not be representations at all, but only a pool of events, devoid of any meaning or purpose, at least until some consciousness is there to "perceive" it. So, the "perceiving I" is all. Without it, there is no consciousness, there is no mind. No meaning, no purpose, no information, no models, no cognition. IOWs, nothing of what is really important for us.gpuccio
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
I don't seem to understand -- or perhaps I just don't care -- the meaning of the strange and amusing things I assert: "My point, of course, is that mind is immaterial, just as any verb denotes something immaterial: “running” is immaterial, but legs are not." Verbs don't denote immaterial entities, though nouns may. Verbs denote actions, usually (though, not always), physical actions -- I'm pretty sure I saw that someone has already explained this grammatical difference to you, perhaps in a different thread. "... “running” is immaterial, but legs are not." 'Running' -- the noun -- denotes a concept, which is an immaterial mental entity; 'Running' -- the verb -- denotes a physical/material action, performed by an agent making use of physical/material legs as the means to perform the action. === According to "I don't care what I say", 'mind' is a "verb" -- "I think myself it is best to think of mind as a verb rather than a noun ... mind is what the brain does" -- but what a special kind of "verb" it is, for it is not the action of an agent, but merely the activity of an organ. According to "I assert that I do not even exist", the mind does not even rise to the level of "a buzz in the brain," but only a change in physical brain-states, which changing gives rise to the buzz. I don't know, maybe the buzzing is what "thoughts" are. Aren't materialists just the most amazing entities? Sometimes, one might almost believe that they are persons.Ilion
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
fG:And regarding minds - like Elizabeth I also think that brains generate minds, but not in the way Ilion suggests as some sort of ‘secretion’ but as a process. Consider a symphony created by an orchestra. A symphony is immaterial and cannot be understood by merely reducing it to sound waves generated by individual instruments and players. It exists at a different level of analysis, yet it can not exist without the physical instruments and the players. A symphony is an emerging property of the orchestra that plays it. Likewise a mind is an emerging property of the brains that produce it.” Translation: minds are illusions; minds are “a buzz in the brain”. fG:Obviously this is not meant to be a full analogy. The big difference, and the hard to understand uniqueness of mind, is that unlike a symphony it is self-aware. …” Translation: the prior paragraph is utterly meaningless blather and BS (and I [fG] know it is, but good luck on getting me to admit that). fG:A symphony is immaterial and cannot be understood by merely reducing it to sound waves generated by individual instruments and players. It exists at a different level of analysis, yet it can not exist without the physical instruments and the players. A symphony is an emerging property of the orchestra that plays it. ...” Even this (over-all) assertion is not true. * True - “A symphony is immaterial …” * True - “… and cannot be understood by merely reducing it to sound waves generated by individual instruments and players” * True - “It exists at a different level of analysis …” * False - “… yet it can not exist without the physical instruments and the players” * False - “A symphony is an emerging property of the orchestra that plays it.” A symphony is a conception; it exists originally in the mind of its composer. It exists before it is played by an orchestra; it exists if it is never played by an orchestra. A symphony does not “emerge” (*) from anything; it is created by a mind. (*) “emergence” is a Magickal word of materialists, used to transmogrify the immaterial into the material. Like all Magick, it is powerless to actually do anything; its power exists entirely in the belief-system of the materialist Magican. It's "all in his head," so to speak. fG:... Likewise a mind is an emerging property of the brains that produce it.” Translation: On the basis of a multi-part assertion, which happens to be false, I [fG] draw a false analogy and present the analogy as the truth about your very nature. fG:Obviously this is not meant to be a full analogy. The big difference, and the hard to understand uniqueness of mind, is that unlike a symphony it is self-aware. …” 'Mind' is "hard to understand" because you materialists insist upon trying to (metaphorically) cram them into a box for which they are too big. 'Mind' is "hard to understand" because you materialists insist upon reducing minds to material entities. 'Mind' is "hard to understand" because you materialists insist upon denying the reality -- and fundamental reality, at that -- of minds. 'Mind' is not made of something else; 'mind' cannot be reduced to something more basic: minds are minds, they are themselves.Ilion
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
fG:To answer Mung’s point about information not weighing anything, and not having dimensions, that’s of course correct. Not the information itself, but the elements that make up the information are physical and have such properties, however their configuration is not. Information is non-material, but I think that information does require physical elements, just like it requires a mind.” I’d just about bet that fG is one of those persons who repeats, sometimes perhaps even with conviction, the silly phrase that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” Here, however, he is saying that “the whole is less than the sum of its parts.” Here, he is saying that while it is true that information is not physical, it is nevertheless made up of stuff that is physical – take some physical/material stuff, configure it just so, and viola! it-all, the sum of the individual physical/material stuff, becomes non-material “information”.Ilion
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
I can say whatever I wish: "Ilion, since when was “a glandular secretion” a verb?" Ah!!! The "mind" is the glandular secreting by the brain of something or other; possibly "thoughts" or “mental states”. So glad to have cleared that up! Apparently, brains secrete "thoughts" and/or "mental states"; and this state of secreting [whatever it is that is secreted] is what people have historically, in an example of "folk psychology", called "minds." Whatever I say, it all as meaningful: "Could you try reading my posts for meaning?" Why would I waste my time looking for what cannot be there -- as you have already told us? More than once. Still, it is amusing to see you expressing moral indignation (however misplaced).Ilion
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
Ilion:
EL @ 133: “I think myself it is best to think of mind as a verb rather than a noun (though people here will disagree!) That mind is what the brain does.” Ah, yes! A charming insight: “the mind is a glandular secretion of the brain.”
Ilion, since when was "a glandular secretion" a verb? Could you try reading my posts for meaning? My point, of course, is that mind is immaterial, just as any verb denotes something immaterial: "running" is immaterial, but legs are not. Frankly, I think this is where this conversation is foundering - on the idea that if a noun doesn't have a concrete referent (like "information" or "mind") that referent is a) evidence that materialism is wrong and b) the referent is somehow mysterious and unquantifiable. It isn't. It's just that we are capable of describing the world using abstract concepts, and both "mind" and "information" are two such, and both refer to processes (IMO) rather than material entities, although though the processes themselves are instantiated in matter. My now hackneyed example is ocean waves, which consist of neither water nor are, but of an abstraction - the interface between the two - but which, nonetheless, have perfectly good quantifiable properties. Same is true of information, IMO, and of minds. You can't weigh them, any more than you can weigh an ocean wave (or a glandular secretion) but you can measure other properties - wavelength, amplitude and precession, for instance. Same with information. Mind is trickier to measure but just as tractable to straightforward description. So, Mung: yes, information can be stored, even though it cannot be weighed. In fact, you could argue that if it could not be stored, it would not be information! No point in learning a new fact if you instantly forget it; and how would you transmit information if it could not be stored in the transmission medium? Indeed, how would it exist if it could not persist?Elizabeth Liddle
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT
Hello all. If I may offer a slightly different perspective on the discussion, I'd say that information is essentially a configuration of elements. Not any arbitrary configuration, but one that (potentially) causes interest or surprise. In that sense I agree with Ilion in that information requires involvement of a mind, somewhere, and therefore it has a subjective component to it, although it doesn't necessarily only exist 'inside' a mind (scarequotes because I don't think a mind is something that can have anything 'inside' it - more below). To answer Mung's point about information not weighing anything, and not having dimensions, that's of course correct. Not the information itself, but the elements that make up the information are physical and have such properties, however their configuration is not. Information is non-material, but I think that information does require physical elements, just like it requires a mind. And regarding minds - like Elizabeth I also think that brains generate minds, but not in the way Ilion suggests as some sort of 'secretion' but as a process. Consider a symphony created by an orchestra. A symphony is immaterial and cannot be understood by merely reducing it to sound waves generated by individual instruments and players. It exists at a different level of analysis, yet it can not exist without the physical instruments and the players. A symphony is an emerging property of the orchestra that plays it. Likewise a mind is an emerging property of the brains that produce it. Obviously this is not meant to be a full analogy. The big difference, and the hard to understand uniqueness of mind, is that unlike a symphony it is self-aware. But that is an entirely different discussion. I just mean to remind ourselves how we often talk about non-material processes as if they have an existence of their own, independent on any material substrate, whereas in reality they cannot exist without such. Reification comes naturally but may be misleading. Configurations, processes - these are key concepts of how immaterial entities can emerge from material ones. fGfaded_Glory
July 9, 2011
July
07
Jul
9
09
2011
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply