by godsgurl 48 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Either God wants information of a particular specificity preserved for human eyes to perceive or he doesn't.
What if he wants information specifically preserved for human eyes to perceive, but he doesn't want them to necessarily perceive it a particular way? Wouldn't that ALSO account for the results, Terry?
Either God wants information of a particular specificity preserved for human eyes to perceive or he doesn't.What if he wants information specifically preserved for human eyes to perceive, but he doesn't want them to necessarily perceive it a particular way? Wouldn't that ALSO account for the results, Terry?
Information is information if it has no identifiable content? Hardly!
Imagine taking a vital prescription from your doctor to the local pharmacist to fill and he can't read it? Or, worse; he thinks it may mean this or this or this? Each pharmacist you show it to comes to a slightly differing conclusion!
You wan't to try all those variant medications?
Guess what? The pharmacist cannot call your doctor to verify. Why? His number is unlisted!
You get the idea.
Okay, Terry. You heard it here, folks. Art is not information. I never knew. Poetry is also not information, being a form of art. It must fit certain criteria and communicate specific ideas, with perfect contextual clarity, to be information. REAL information can't be interpreted and mean different things to people at different times in their lives, or different things to humanity at different ponts in their development.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, Terry. I am very glad Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
1 aobsolete: an endowing with form bobsolete: the act of animating or inspiring cobsolete : training, discipline, instructiond: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
There are subjective qualifying words in some of the other definitions available, such as "reliable"; then the definitions related to ratting someone out; then we find this description of the process:
5: the process by which the form of an object of knowledge is impressed upon the apprehending mind so as to bring about the state of knowing
This is followed by what I believe YOU were getting at:
6: a logical quantity belonging to propositions and arguments as well as terms and comprising the sum of the synthetical propositions in which the term, proposition, or argument taken enters as subject or predicate, antecedent or consequent
Note, there is a synthesis of propositions comprised of term, proposition, and/or argument. The perceived accuracy of all of these are subjective. Knowledge, itself, is cognizant awareness—an INTERNAL thing, entirely subjective and dependent wholly on perception of stimuli.
According to the dictionary, ANYTHING that impresses you or causes you to know something is information.
Does the Bible qualify as information? Absolutely.
Does information have to be perceived by everyone uniformly, or with proximate uniformity, in order for it to qualify as information? Absolutely not.
Imagine taking a vital prescription from your doctor to the local pharmacist to fill and he can't read it? Or, worse; he thinks it may mean this or this or this? Each pharmacist you show it to comes to a slightly differing conclusion!
This would only apply to the Bible IF you believe it must be understood a certain, specific way in order to be helpful, effective, or useful. I don't believe the Bible is like a prescription, therefore I don't believe your analogy has any merit whatsoever. Do YOU believe the Bible is like, or should be like, a prescription? If not, pray tell why you would be so disingenuous as to pretend that you do by comparing the two?
Imagine reading a poem and getting a different thought from it, gleaning a bit of knowledge from it, that the writer never even intended to communicate. Will pandemoneum ensue? Will people die? Or, is this a commonplace human reality when it comes to gleaning knowledge and insights from poems?
I wonder, do you consider poems "information"? From your posts, I suspect not; which would explain a lot about why you don't see the value of the Bible.
Information as a messageInformation is the state of a system of interest. Message is the information materialized.
Information is a quality of a message from a sender to one or more receivers. Information is always about something (size of a parameter, occurrence of an event, etc). Viewed in this manner, information does not have to be accurate. It may be a truth or a lie, or just the sound of a kiss. Even a disruptive noise used to inhibit the flow of communication and create misunderstanding would in this view be a form of information. However, generally speaking, if the amount of information in the received message increases, the message is more accurate.
This model assumes there is a definite sender and at least one receiver. Many refinements of the model assume the existence of a common language understood by the sender and at least one of the receivers. An important variation identifies information as that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message. However, in requiring the existence of a definite sender, the "information as a message" model does not attach any significance to the idea that information is something that can be extracted from an environment, e.g., through observation, reading or measurement.
Information is a term with many meanings depending on context, but is as a rule closely related to such concepts as meaning, knowledge, instruction, communication, representation, and mental stimulus. Simply stated, information is a message received and understood. In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn. There are many other aspects of information since it is the knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction. But overall, information is the result of processing, manipulating and organizing data in a way that adds to the knowledge of the person receiving it.
We must swallow a lot of non-established premise before viewing the Bible as containing information.
1.We must assume it came from the sender identified as God.
2.We must assume the transcendace of the sender and of the message.
3.We must assume the message is for the mind of man and for his benefit.
4.We must assume that the resultant reaction of the receiver of the message includes comprehension.
5.We must assume that the message is comprehensible as instruction for ourselves.
I assert that none of the above are provable or even testable. Further, I posit that no other form of message from a sender which is received and understood produces diverse and antithetical opinions as to the selfsame content.
What have you said to dissuade me?
Redefining "information" to make it lose identity content is a sorry way to commence apprehension of content.
Art is not information.
I get kind of lost when you serious thinkers start these kind of discussions.
Art can convey information, but art is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
The information it conveys can be different to differing receivers.
Art can be ugly or deceiving, it can be awe-inspiring and powerful.
The Bible can be viewed as art. The Bible can be viewed as information.
I think Terry's point lends itself to saying that the Bible is not absolute.
The Bible is different in the eye of a different beholder.
That makes it difficult to believe that it is a message of absolute truth for mankind.
Am I on the right track here? Don't try to keep me up to speed with you serious
thinkers.
Etymology According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest historical meaning of the word information in English was the act of informing, or giving form or shape to the mind, as in education, instruction, or training. A quote from 1387: "Five books come down from heaven for information of mankind." It was also used for an item of training, e.g. a particular instruction. "Melibee had heard the great skills and reasons of Dame Prudence, and her wise information and techniques." (1386)
Part of your cited reference work you apparently skipped entirely. I will draw your attention to it so you won't miss it. Oddly, this came before the bit you quoted.
Here's are three bits after the bit you quoted, each of which demonstrate information in a context other than the singular one you provided:
Information as a pattern Information is any represented pattern. This view assumes neither accuracy nor directly communicating parties, but instead assumes a separation between an object and its representation. Consider the following example: economic statistics represent an economy, however inaccurately. What are commonly referred to as data in computing, statistics, and other fields, are forms of information in this sense. The electro-magnetic patterns in a computer network and connected devices are related to something other than the pattern itself, such as text characters to be displayed and keyboard input. Signals, signs, and symbols are also in this category. On the other hand, according to semiotics, data is symbols with certain syntax and information is data with a certain semantic. Painting and drawing contain information to the extent that they represent something such as an assortment of objects on a table, a profile, or a landscape. In other words, when a pattern of something is transposed to a pattern of something else, the latter is information. This would be the case whether or not there was anyone to perceive it.
But if information can be defined merely as a pattern, does that mean that neither utility nor meaning are necessary components of information? Arguably a distinction must be made between raw unprocessed data and information which possesses utility, value or some quantum of meaning. On this view, information may indeed be characterized as a pattern; but this is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
An individual entry in a telephone book, which follows a specific pattern formed by name, address and telephone number, does not become "informative" in some sense unless and until it possesses some degree of utility, value or meaning. For example, someone might look up a girlfriend's number, might order a take away etc. The vast majority of numbers will never be construed as "information" in any meaningful sense. The gap between data and information is only closed by a behavioral bridge whereby some value, utility or meaning is added to transform mere data or pattern into information.
When one constructs a representation of an object, one can selectively extract from the object (sampling) or use a system of signs to replace (encoding), or both. The sampling and encoding result in representation. An example of the former is a "sample" of a product; an example of the latter is "verbal description" of a product. Both contain information of the product, however inaccurate. When one interprets representation, one can predict a broader pattern from a limited number of observations (inference) or understand the relation between patterns of two different things (decoding). One example of the former is to sip a soup to know if it is spoiled; an example of the latter is examining footprints to determine the animal and its condition. In both cases, information sources are not constructed or presented by some "sender" of information. Regardless, information is dependent upon, but usually unrelated to and separate from, the medium or media used to express it. In other words, the position of a theoretical series of bits, or even the output once interpreted by a computer or similar device, is unimportant, except when someone or something is present to interpret the information. Therefore, a quantity of information is totally distinct from its medium.
Information as sensory input Often information is viewed as a type of input to an organism or designed device. Inputs are of two kinds. Some inputs are important to the function of the organism (for example, food) or device (energy) by themselves. In his book Sensory Ecology, Dusenbery called these causal inputs. Other inputs (information) are important only because they are associated with causal inputs and can be used to predict the occurrence of a causal input at a later time (and perhaps another place). Some information is important because of association with other information but eventually there must be a connection to a causal input. In practice, information is usually carried by weak stimuli that must be detected by specialized sensory systems and amplified by energy inputs before they can be functional to the organism or device. For example, light is often a causal input to plants but provides information to animals. The colored light reflected from a flower is too weak to do much photosynthetic work but the visual system of the bee detects it and the bee's nervous system uses the information to guide the bee to the flower, where the bee often finds nectar or pollen, which are causal inputs, serving a nutritional function.
Information is any type of sensory input. When an organism with a nervous system receives an input, it transforms the input into an electrical signal. This is regarded information by some. The idea of representation is still relevant, but in a slightly different manner. That is, while abstract painting does not represent anything concretely, when the viewer sees the painting, it is nevertheless transformed into electrical signals that create a representation of the painting. Defined this way, information does not have to be related to truth, communication, or representation of an object. Entertainment in general is not intended to be informative. Music, the performing arts, amusement parks, works of fiction and so on are thus forms of information in this sense, but they are not necessarily forms of information according to some definitions given above. Consider another example: food supplies both nutrition and taste for those who eat it. If information is equated to sensory input, then nutrition is not information but taste is.
Information as an influence which leads to a transformation Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose.
When Marshall McLuhan speaks of media and their effects on human cultures, he refers to the structure of artifacts that in turn shape our behaviors and mindsets. Also, pheromones are often said to be "information" in this sense.
Any of these latter three would amply qualify the Bible as information, but you picked the ONE that would require the criterion you stipulated and ignored the rest. Have you no shame? I had hoped you only cherry-pick data from the Bible, but it seems to be a habit with you. Tsk.
What a person of remarkable intellectual integrity you are proving to be!
OnTheWayOut,
Art can be inspiring and inspired, and still convey different things to different people. Or even different things to the SAME person at different times or during different situations in their lives.
Art is, likewise, inerrant. Art is also not responsible for the decisions and choices made by anyone who considers it.
Art is also NOT absolute, despite being information. Terry is imposing upon the Bible a standard the Bible doesn't ever claim to meet; one which it has no need to meet in order to accomplish the intent of the artist.
Art is information. The Bible is information. It just isn't the sort of information Terry and I were raised to expect it to be. He seems angry that it isn't the kind of information he was taught. I am content that it is a kind of information, and can appreciate its infinite wonder in that context quite contentedly. But, in this case, I have reality squarely on my side while I chuckle at Terry attempting to swing at it using a mallet made of air.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Anyways, back to the topic.....
Here are some comments on English bible translations. Reader, do understand that ALL translations will be imperfect. To understand better, learn the source language. To get a full understanding, be a contemporary of the writer and be a native speaker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations
http://www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/bible_translations.html
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
In other words, any translation will be imperfect.
Good point, jgnat.
I like to apply the rule of thumb: Does it seem the translator was intending to change the text for the purposes of supporting dogma?
By that rule of thumb, the NWT is a miserably poor translation.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
I am not done with the side point, JGnat. But please carry on with the main point as
I continue to swerve off course here.
Terry is imposing upon the Bible a standard the Bible doesn't ever claim to meet; one which it has no need to meet in order to accomplish the intent of the artist.
Art is information. The Bible is information. It just isn't the sort of information Terry and I were raised to expect it to be.
If the Bible is not intended to convey information that is to be understood, then what is the intent
of the artist(s)? I am using a plural because I don't believe an almighty God was THE artist, but
several men were.
This kinda sticks to the main point, because if art is in the eye of the beholder, and the Bible is art which can
convey differing meanings to differing peoples, then the NWT is one group's result of what they beheld.
That makes it just as valid as any translation, and accuracy would be irrelevant. I behold the NWT as a
flawed copy of the original and look for those flaws like an art critic instead of just trying to appreciate the beauty
that Fred Franz and some of the boys created.
You see how this can be over-analyzed. The question is valid. The pieces of what we today call the Bible had
original writers that were conveying some information of some type or were writing stories for others' entertainment.
What we read today is not the original, it has been changed. Language has changed and our understanding of
ancient terms is debateable. This "art" stuff is just a total side track.
That would mean, to me- there is no real underlying message in the Bible. It would make it no more relevant to
Mankind than the Koran or the Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel.
