How do you assess these effects?
Not in any objective verifiable way – that is for sure!
and yet, we rely on words (testimony from human beings) to discuss spiritual matters. Is this not information with meaning?
Completely subjective!
So you want to use the word abstraction rather than meaning here and say there’s a qualitative difference between the two? We’re going in circles now. Whether they exist with or without their medium is irrelevant. The fact is that they exist.
Another thing I believe is true about information that comes to mind:
It can be lost. Once we know it, we own it in our minds, but only for a time. Following that train of thought, I believe that all of the information human beings have recorded in this entire world, can be lost.
However information first exists outside of ourselves and remains unchanged, regardless of our understanding of it, or what we do with it. Information is just there, in that it is the truth about the properties of every thing.
Once a thing exists, it carries with it the information about itself.
Just some thoughts 
Pretty interesting topic, thanks for starting this thread 
2 Likes
Sure information exists. BUT only because the medium exists. Information is nothing but a pattern in that medium.
And meaning exists also. But only because human beings attach meaning to things in their mind. Just because something is in the human mind doesn’t make unreal but it is just as wrong to think that this means it has an existence of its own outside the human mind.
Which is not to say that some things in the human mind do not represent things which are real whether physical things such as electrons and quarks or spiritual such as God. I just don’t think ideas, universals, mathematical equations, and such are among those things which exist outside the mind except perhaps as descriptions or properties of other things.
What is the difference between subjective and objective? Is math objective or subjective? Is Jesus Christ is Lord objective or subjective?
In my opinion they are both real, because they can both be verified. Objective vs. subjective is a bogus distinction. The only real question is, Can something be verified?
Matt, I think that I agree with what you are saying, but the problem with what you are saying is that you are saying that words or information are not material, but not what they are.
I am trying to build a new philosophy that does away with nominalism and realism, because meaning and reality are based on relationships or The One and the Many. See my paper on Using The One And The Many to Reconcile on Academia.edu.
That which is objective is true for everyone regardless of what they believe. This is found in science because it provides written procedures which give the same result no matter what you believe.
That which is subjective is a matter of personal experience even though it may not provide you a shred of proof by which you can expect others to accept it as fact also.
The objective is something of an abstraction because all of our experiences are immediately subjective. It is only by finding out what is the same for everyone like the results of people following the written procedures of science can we construct an objective version of things separate from the subjective experiences we all have.
The findings of mathematics are certainly objective because they provide procedures anyone can follow to get the same result no matter what you believe. But this does not mean that mathematical objects and equations exist independently apart from representations. And the fact that they can be communicated with everything from hand signals to amplitude modulated electromagnetic waves according to agreed upon standards for interpretation doesn’t change this in the slightest. That findings and equations are true independent of particular reprentations doesn’t imply any non-physical reality or existence. And I say this despite the fact that I DO believe in a non-physical existence or aspect of reality.
While I have no difficulty with this, science is confined to objects, but life depends more generally on humans as witnesses who provide testimony on matters more general. We are thus constrained to true/false, and beyond reasonable doubt. This may lack at times the verifiability of the sciences, it is nonetheless more applicable to life and our experiences.
Does science trump life? Should we focus on honesty and deceit amongst ourselves (or decide science will do it all)?
That’s true. There are many attempts to say what they are–qualia, Platonic Forms, items in a superseded ontology, memes, etc. I’m just trying to say what there not, and to say that this is an objective, testable, falsifiable fact.
McKain, it’s been a pleasure 
I’m going to have to bow out for now.
It’s been a lot of fun everyone. My younger son’s birthday is tomorrow, and then I’m preaching on Sunday. And then things really get going 
.
BTW, I explored (with help from this discussion) these questions–the who, what, when, where, how of words here:
Have a great weekend.
It certainly does not! BUT there lies the difference between objective and subjective knowledge. The latter is clearly what is going to rule the living of your own life. But only the former gives you any reasonable expectation that others should agree with you. Thus upon this divide we accept diversity in both human thought and lifestyle.
Yes, also @mattconnally; and in a poem we may see how maths (rhythm and rhyme) and words (feelings) enable us at least momentarily to see a unity/oneness in humanity.
@mitchellmckain and @mattconnally
First of all science is based on belief, so you cannot sway that science provides asway to communicate information “no matter what you believe.” If you have no belief in science objective scientific results carry no weight.
Second, physical science covers only a relatively small amount of information about the world We see in the case of the Cold War that two societies were ready to destroy each other and the world even though they are technologically sophisticated Today it remains to be seen what will happen when North Korea and Iran have the Bomb.
By labeling scientific knowledge as objective one seems to make it more important than "subjective knowledge, which is false. “Subjective” knowledge makes the world go around, or fails to make the world go around. Non-believers say that the future of the world lies with science without evidence and this is false.
The best that can be said about this claim is that science is based on a Christian world view, so that if the world is converted to a scientific world view that would have a superficial Christian world view. However if they do not have a Christian belief system and value system, then we are still in deep trouble. As I said before there are many folk today who have a “scientific” world view without Christian morality and values.
That which is subjective is a matter of personal experience even though it may not provide you a shred of proof by which you can expect others to accept it as fact also.
Third, you are right in saying that science is able to re3gularize the discovery and communication of ideas by the establishment of regular procedures for research and sharing that information. The best way for philosophy and theology to do the same is establish similar procedures, but by saying that there is no objective experiential basic for this you say that there is no basis for theology and philosophy.
But this does not mean that mathematical objects and equations exist independently apart from representations.
Fourth, the Western dualism that you espouse does not provide the basis for a real philosophical understanding of Reality, because numbers and mathematical equations are not things, but language. They are not a One or a Many, but an And.
By the way, this argument doesn’t challenge evolution science–at least not the evolution of organisms. But of course it does mean that our minds are not material and thus could not have evolved. Although we can theorize how the brain evolved, it would be meaningless to ask how the nonphysical conscience evolved–just as meaningless as asking what the physical properties of Euler’s Identity are, or asking what the physical properties of infinity or of any of the constants of nature are.
But could not our brains have evolved to produce our minds? Is there any reason to wish minds to be unbeholden to evolution?
1 Like
It has nothing to do with wishful thinking:
- If there are nonphysical/immaterial phenomena in the universe, then there is no way that our brains/bodies could “know” it. There is no way the 3-lb organ in our skulls could perceive something that cannot be directly or indirectly seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled. (The example of such a phenomenon that we explored above is Euler’s Identity. It cannot ever have any physical qualities. It cannot be seen or heard, only translated from one media to another.) That is the bottom-line reason that we can say, for example, that calculators don’t comprehend arithmetic any more than dictionaries comprehend English. “The eternal mystery of the universe,” wrote Einstein, “is its comprehensibility.”
- Therefore, if we do in fact perceive nonphysical phenomena in the universe, then we must likewise be nonphysical. Our nonphysical minds must be using our brains, in principle, the same way we use our hands and our laptops and our rocket ships. (I talk about this not as the mind-over-matter mystery but rather as the mind-before-matter mystery.)
- If our minds are nonphysical, it is meaningless to speculate on how they evolved. We can talk about how the physical brain evolved, but not a nonphysical mind. (Indeed, this leads to a host of questions that I think are pointless to speculate on. It’s firmly in the realm of what we call spirituality.)
Euler’s identity, ergo it is a scientific fact our minds could not have evolved. QED.
It was transparent where this was going from the whole dvd copying information nonsense in the OP. The choir will love it; don’t be surprised if there are few takers elsewhere.