How can a good God allow suffering

@Olivier5,

Not really. Alternative models have already been proposed, and irrespective of their success, their appearance is prompted by the idea that computaional models are ultimately limited.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

And fresco. I'm not dodging the fact that what we observe in nature is information. The periodic table of the elements quite obviously reveals that matter in its construction is very systematic just like an alphabet. The information in the universe existed long before we invented the periodic table Of the elements to describe the patterns. You guys are dodging the fact that these complex patterns have existed ever since matter existed and the extreme amount of information in those paterns were an idea before they came into existence. ( just like when you think of an idea today and then use matter to share it with somebody )

0 Replies

@fresco,

Computational model? You mean the kind of simplistic digital metaphor peddled by Leadfoot? That's not really the idea here. The idea is simply that one cannot understand life without taking into consideration its information management aspect. Life is essentially form bossing matter. Even the concept of autopoiesis that you presented implies the generation of new forms, i.e. information creation.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Of course 'information theory' is an aspect of 'computational models', just as 'gravity as a force' is an aspect of Newtonian Physics. I have not said that the 'information' concept does not yield useful results, like, for example, the genetic triggers for some diseases. But ask yourself 'whose information is it ?' , and surely the answer is the researcher's !
And this is the very point which underpins the demolition of the ID twaddle on this thread. Unless Brian and co. play the game of 'Man created in the image of an intelligent God' and not vice versa, attempts at the separation of 'information' from 'us' is futile.
There seems to be no point in pursuing our different povs further. I completely understand the niche biologist's use of the concept of 'information', but those like Maturana who also aspired to 'philosophy', did some interesting thinking outside the box, which rings bells for me.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

But ask yourself 'whose information is it ?'

Why would information 'belong' to anyone?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

The Data Protection Act prevents me from discussing it further ! Wink

1 Reply

@fresco,

That's the limit in trying to define truth as consensus: you can't believe or argue anything outside the present consensus. You're not comfortable with your own dissenting opinions... :-)

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Of course 'information theory' is an aspect of 'computational models', just as 'gravity as a force' is an aspect of Newtonian Physics. I have not said that the 'information' concept does not yield useful results, like, for example, the genetic triggers for some diseases. But ask yourself 'whose information is it ?' , and surely the answer is the researcher's !

The information existed before the researcher was born. He is just offering his understanding according to his interpretation of the information that existed long before he existed.

Quote:

And this is the very point which underpins the demolition of the ID twaddle on this thread. Unless Brian and co. play the game of 'Man created in the image of an intelligent God' and not vice versa, attempts at the separation of 'information' from 'us' is futile.

The information we understand as quantum mechanics and explain with charts like the periodic table of the elements existed before men came up with tools to explain it.

Just because, someone understands the information in a structure and can explain how something works, doesn't mean they can take credit for creating or organizing the information it contains.

When a researcher uses information theory to how explain biological systems work does not give him the right to take the credit for the information in the system he is describing. Especially when he can't even replicate building the system.

Or could you explain why the researcher suddenly gets ownership of the information in a system by merely being someone who understands the information that existed long before he came into existence.

0 Replies

Sorry guys. I can't get down to the level where the verb 'to inform' is seperated from the concept of an observer who 'wants or needs to be informed'.
It is screamingly obvious to me that 'information' cannot be divorced from an observer's 'need for answers'.
Q. Is this mark on my bedroom window 'information' ?
A. Yes if I need to check on the window cleaner. No if it merely one of the myriad of potential exemplars I am aware of which might illustrates the 'irrelevence' point.
Q. Is it 'information' that a helium atom has two electrons ?
Yes if it helps me fulfil a need to predict the properties of helium. No if I have no interest in helium. And since 'electrons' have only been conceptualised for a century or so, who is to say that that the utility of that concept of 'electrons', even for a chemist,will not be superceded in years to come?

So having done the screaming, I will now withdraw from what I consider to be this facile discussion. But thank you all for the mental exercise. At my age it is marginally superior in that respect to doing crossword puzzles, but only just.

2 Replies

@fresco,

That may be true but the "observer" doesnt need to be human. It could be anything living, even a bacteria.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Yes if it helps me fulfil a need to predict the properties of helium. No if I have no interest in helium. And since 'electrons' have only been conceptualised for a century or so, who is to say that that the utility of that concept of 'electrons', even for a chemist,will not be superceded in years to come?

So having done the screaming, I will now withdraw from what I consider to be this facile discussion. But thank you all for the mental exercise. At my age it is marginally superior in that respect to doing crossword puzzles, but only just.

That is fine if you made a completely honest and open mended attempt to understand. Some people don't feel the need to understand why there is such thing a as quantum mechanics. They are happy with quantum mechanics existing , they understand how they work but, could care less why someone created a world to share information using the alphabet that is established by quantum mechanics.

The problem is that last why question is very important in determining purpose, "right and wrong" and objective truth.

So go ahead and bury your head but, you will never understand "how a good God can allow suffering"?

And the reason for suffering is to show what happens when you don't use the universe for the reasons it was designed for. The great thing is someday we will be done learning, it will be put back to perfection, and there will be no suffering for the one's that are willing to learn "why" the designer did it this way.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Point of information (for me at least!)
For Maturana, all 'observers' are human, because all we call 'observation' as opposed to 'automatic response', involves verbalization (what Heidegger called 'considering'). Thus for Maturana there are no predators 'observing' their prey...that's merely an anthropomorphic picture of 'the mind of a predator'. There is potentially only 'a chasing' involving the automatic 'structural coupling' of two living systems.
So good look with your bacteria as 'observers'.

1 Reply

@fresco,

That's a pre-Darwinian take. In my view humans are not fundamentally different from other animals. Animals have senses and take decisions based on the information their senses collect.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Biological continuity is one thing, the ability to 'make decisions' via verbal thought is another. Verbalization importantly allows for 'the capacity to delay a response' by internal processing, and that capacity is the definition of 'intelligence' for some psychologists. It is a truism that human language is uniquely different from the communication systems of most (if not all )other animals because it allows for generation of potentially infinite semantic strings. It is an emergent and even transcendentaspect of human social interaction which reifies social institutions.
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human processes (like information processing) to non humans. Structural simularity does not necessarily imply functional similarity.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I see no reason to assume that human language is a precondition for information management.

Quote:

A single-celled organism capable of learning

For the first time, scientists have demonstrated that an organism devoid of a nervous system is capable of learning. A team from the Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition Animale(CNRS/Université Toulouse III – Paul Sabatier) has succeeded in showing that a single-celled organism, the protist Physarum polycephalum, is capable of a type of learning called habituation. This discovery throws light on the origins of learning ability during evolution, even before the appearance of a nervous system and brain. It may also raise questions as to the learning capacities of other extremely simple organisms such as viruses and bacteria. These findings are published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B on 27 April 2016.

http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/2751.htm

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

From the article...

Quote:

Initially reluctant to travel through the bitter substances, the molds gradually realized that they were harmless

If this isn't blatant anthropmorphism, I don't know what is ! Laughing

'Habituation' is merely the decrease of an automatic response process through the depletion or 'wearing out' of its chemical constituents. For example, in neural systems, individual neurones exponentially diminish their 'firing rate' . We experience such effects in, for example, the 'after images' caused by decrease in retinal activity due to lengthened exposure. It seems likely that such simple depletions are just as natural in non neural processes allowing for major tropisms to eventually redominate.

1 Reply

@fresco,

The use of anthropomorphic language is just a way to explain what was found to lay people.

The behaviorists believed that human learning could also be described in terms of the mecanical result of tropisms and habituation. They were wrong alright, but the point is that there isn't such a huge difference between animal and human learning.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Of course aspects of what we call 'learning' are applicable across species. So what ? The argument here is whether the word 'information' (as used by Brian) is appropriate. My psychology degree, completed in the years before the proliferation of 'computer speak', satisfactorily dealt with 'learning'.

We are well off topic as far as the OP is concerned except perhaps in debating what constitutes any 'explanation'. We can argue forever about 'the exploitation of analogy' (Hempel) or 'language on holiday' (Wittgenstein), but the the central issue for me is to expose the epistemological ignorance of
ID-ers. So unless we bear that in mind, we will be merely continuing our historical personal feuding about 'the literature' over our years on this forum.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Learning is a form of information management, though.

Before the invention of symbolic language, Homo sapiens was already sapiens.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Read Maturana for an alternative view.
http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html

1 Reply

How can a good God allow suffering

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know