NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?

How do they do that? What form does this communication of information take?

It is information/data that can be perceived, measured and interpreted.

I contend the information/data does not exist in the object. I contend the information/data does not exist until the object is perceived and measured within the mind. I contend the information/data is created and exists only in the mind.Then the information can be analysed, interpreted and conclusions drawn.The object is not even an onion field until a mind concludes it is an onion field regardless of what the configuration of the matter/energy may be.

Sorry, is this correct? If science did not assume that life consists only of matter, then wouldn't we have satisfactory answers to any and all data? With no constraints on theory, it's simple to overfit any finite set of data.I think science only works because we assume that all things are guided by natural laws, and aim to discover the laws.Edited by Ben!, : No reason given.Edited by Ben!, : gotta get the quoting right!

Science did not assume the conclusion that everything in matter/energy before its studies.Science concluded that everything is matter/energy after observing a whole big bunch of things and never finding anything that is not matter/energy.That conclusion is still only tentatively held pending any further observations to the contrary. However, our confidence in that conclusion is now so high that we can logically legitimately, tentatively consider it to be true in any further study until given a strong, a very strong, reason to question it.Science works because we assume nothing and follow the data, and only the data, wherever it goes.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Hate to be pedantic, but could you provide some support for this? As a scientist, I believe this is incorrect. Here's why:

quote:

---

The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.

​

Source: Scientific method - Wikipedia

---

In science, we have to start with a hypothesis. I believe the underlying hypothesis of science is: we can explain the observable universe via empirical laws. When we fail to do so, we never EVER jump to "it must be metaphysical". Instead, we keep iterating on empirical laws. Easy counter-example: consciousness. No physical theories, sorry. Yet, we have not moved to assuming there's a "soul", nor accepted eastern explanations for consciousness.

What I wrote in RLW(215) is

quote:

---

1+1=2 can be operated by electronic circuits in calculators or smartphones and biological circuits in our brains.
If only the natural laws play roles, can calculators, smartphones or our brains perform this operation?

---

While what you quoted in AZPaul3(217) of what I wrote in RLW(215) is

quote:

---

1+1=2 can be operated by electronic circuits in calculators or smartphones and biological circuits in our brains.
can calculators, smartphones or our brains perform this operation?

---

Have you found the difference?

When designing/making player piano, do only natural laws play a role?The 1+1=2 is just for a question: do only natural laws play a role in our daily life? In fact, many issues will cause the same question.
When you write your posts in English, do only the natural laws play a role? What about English vocabulary and grammar?
When you decide to travel to A or B, do only the natural laws play a role? What do you think of these factors: schedule, transportation, weather, meal, These examples come from our daily life, everyone has experience. I use these issues just for asking questions. Human neural network of humans is so complex that we cannot obtain clear answers on these questions. Therefore, I’ll discuss genetic information in detail, because the processes of genetic information are essentially understood.

quote:

---

When designing/making player piano, do only natural laws play a role?

---

Now you are really getting into unanswered questions, and abandoning your claim that you were only going to talk about genetic information, too. I think that the question of consciousness is really going beyond the topic and too far into speculation.Nevertheless, the player piano, like the cell phone, like the calculator functions according to natural law - and relies on natural law to function.

quote:

---

Therefore, I’ll discuss genetic information in detail, because the processes of genetic information are essentially understood.

---

Certainly they are better understood. But again, that’s where your ideas run into trouble,

The early scientists/alchemists like Galileo and Newton made no such assumptions but only followed their data, right? After hundreds of years study we now accept naturalism as the default but not as a dogma.Scientific method:

quote:

---

First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

​

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.

​

--Richard Feynman

---

We start with a hypothesis of the problem not any hypothesis of Science.There is no underlying hypothesis to science. I find nowhere in Popper, Hume, Feynman or any other philosopher were any "underlying hypothesis to science" is assumed.Yes, we are quite confident that naturalism is the default but science, by its very nature, eschews any such absolute dogma. You mean consciousness (mind) as an emergent property of the complex electro-chemical operations of a brain? That sounds pretty physical to me. See Gerald Edelman, Antonio Damasio and Daniel Dennett.

Sorry. I'm being dense. Please explain.

Thanks for the replies, I appreciate the time. At the same time, my general feeling is that you're not only getting my point, you don't want to get my point.I find good conversations steel-man each other's arguments before finding counter-examples. It's not happening here, and I have way too limited time to engage at the depth necessary to get what I wish out of this conversation.Again, appreciate the efforts, and will look elsewhere for more collaborative conversations.

This sounds something like the observer principle in QM, so now we are once again way beyond my pay grade. Maybe you can help me out here Ben. Are you saying then that we require a non-physical consciousness to create data/information?

Sorry you feel that way. If I don't get your point it is not for the lack of trying. And, on such subjects, I have my own points to make. Did you do this prior to your quick countering with "consciousness" to begin with?Besides, the discussions here are not all that complex where steel-manning is more useful.Unless you didn't express yourself properly.You did mean to say science assumes naturalism as dogma, right? The "underlying hypothesis", yes? And I appreciate your candor. If you tire of collaborative and want more challenge then please come back and I'll see if I am up to it.

I'm saying data/information are human constructs and exist in the mind not in the object.And I very much doubt there is such a thing as a non-physical consciousness.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.