Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
tgpeeler provides an example of what i was trying to say a few posts above
| Quote | 403
tgpeeler
03/29/2011
3:00 pm
mg @ 392 “There are a number of information theorists who would beg to differ.”
I’m sure there are. They’d be wrong, too. I will say again, boldly, if I may, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to account for the phenomenon of information in terms of the laws of physics.
Why do I say this? Because symbols, rules (language), rationality (logic), free will (freely assembling symbols according to the aforementioned language specific rules and laws of rational thought), and intentionality (for a reason, to communicate a message) are ALL necessary for human information/communication. Materialism or naturalism or physicalism, whatever ilk your particular version is, all fail to account for human language and information because the only “tool” they have to explain anything and everything are the laws of physics (embarrassingly, they happen to be immaterial but I’ll leave that alone for now).
Therefore, as metaphysical projects, all of these “isms” utterly fail. The “assumption” that the natural or material or physical is all there is is clearly and obviously false. Whatever incarnation of the naturalistic story of life is currently being discussed is just false. They are all false. It is impossible for any naturalistic account of life to be true. Anybody who can string a couple of thoughts together should be able to track this with no problem. I know this includes you. So if I’m wrong, tell me how I’m wrong. Then I’ll change my mind. But until you bring an actual argument to rebut the argument I’m making I’m afraid I will remain unmoved in my opinion that trying to explain information of any kind without symbols and rules is sheer lunacy.
If you would STOP and THINK about this for a moment before dashing off a dismissal of one kind or another, you would see that I am correct about this. Analyze your own posts. Do they not obey (generally) the laws of reason? Yes. You make use of the law of identity. Do you not freely use English symbols, arranged according to arbitrary convention, to purposefully communicate a message? Yes, you do.
I get it that this is a bold claim. Perhaps even grandiose. But that doesn’t make it any less true. The materialist project is defeated. That game is over. You can restart it by communicating something without using a language. Good luck with that. |
This is the same ontological silly boogers game that Frill likes to play, where he winds up stuck with "you can't simulate gravity without having the computer fall out of the airplane".
Like, "this shit over here is not material and nothing known about matter applies to it and nothing known about it applies to matter but it really matters more than you will ever know, Darwinist, for you are without excuse". something along those lines I believe
If somehow "the laws are physics are immaterial" makes sense to you, apply the dorsum of the nearest hand profusely about thy head and ears
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
