In the linked thread, Contrapuntal challenged my post regarding spiders and “knowledge”. I’ve opened up a new thread as it’s really a seperate debate.
On the word “knowledge” which I used in the previous thread:
I basically agree that the dictionary definitions do not match my usage of the word, although one could argue that evolution is a form of gaining experience but I’m not interested in arguing that, I’m more interested in the meat of the debate.
Can we use the word “information” to include both instinct and learned information? If not, please choose a word that we can both use.
Is There A Distinction Between Inherited vs Learned Information
Originally I was going to respond to multiple points, but this is really the heart of the debate.
Prior to writing my quoted post I agreed that the word “knowledge” was not the best word. Additionally I did not use the word “knowledge” in the quoted post, I used stimulus/response (attempting to represent merely the neural activity).
So I ask again because I think it’s an important question, why make a distinction between neural activity that is due to structures coded genetically vs neural activity due to structures that were grown/modified through experience?
It seems to me that you are begging the question again, or at least using a non-standard definition. The “information” that a spider has is encoded in its genes. The spider has no access to the information. The spider cannot alter the information. It is only “information” in the language of genetics.
I am not sure that there is a word that inludes both instinct and learned information. Instinct describes behavior. Learned information is essentially knowledge. Sorry.
“Neural activity that is due to structures coded genetically” covers a lot of ground. Response to pain, for example. Response to heat, cold, light, pressure as well. These responses require no ability to reason or remember. They are involuntary. They do not represent information that can be shared.
I must admit that I am at a bit of a loss in trying to to understand your point. What you describe as “information” applies equally well to plants. A tree is genetically encoded to be phototropic. Does the tree *know *to turn its leaves to the sun?
Do I know how to grow fingernails? Does a dog know how to shed hair? Does an amoeba know how to replicate?
Whatever instincts we are born with are static, limited, and finite. Learned information is dynamic, and potentially unlimited. Theoretically, a person could learn forever, if he could live live forever. How much more of a distinction could there be?
It may originate in it’s genes but ultimately the genes cause the creation of neural structures that also encode the information and allow external and internal stimulus to act on neurons thus creating the output of “building a web”.
I would disagree in the sense that the information is inherently accessible as it is part of the neural structure of the brain.
Again I would disagree. The information can and does get altered, this is a study regarding learning in spiders w.r.t. web making, etc. (I guess I was wrong about no cites available for spider brains)
Once the genes have produced the brain, then we are really talking about how the information is stored in the brain at that point, not realy at the genetic level anymore, even though that was the source.
But both are based solely on the neural structure of the brain (and chemical content, etc.) right?
Whether the connections between the neurons was arrived at due to genes, or arrived at due to learning, if the structure is the same, it represents the same information, right?
You’re making a distinction between the process of acquiring the information, but once acquired, it’s the same information isn’t it?
So far you have failed to answer any of my questions regarding instinctive behavior, or plant behavior. They go to the heart of my point. Not every behavior is a result of learned information. The map is not the terrain. You can continue to insist that if specimen x performs behavior y instinctively, it possesses the same knowledge that specimen z has, even though specimen z learned it. What you are completely missing is the process. The ability to learn is not the same thing as genetic coding for beahvior. Not even close. Trees are genetically coded to grow. Do they know how to grow? Do you know for a fact that learned behavior utilizes the **exact **same neural pathways as instinctive behavior? If not, how can you contend that they represent the same thing?
This is essentially incoherent. You take circular reasoning to a new level. Tell me exactly how a spider can access the web-building part of its brain. And by access, I mean “retreive on demand.”
Where you have gone wrong is thinking that your cite has anything to do with web building. Did you even read it?
Huh?
So?
Don’t tell me. Let me guess. You have a non-standard definition for “the same”, right? How do you know they are “the same”? (My definition is “identical in every respect.”)
Again with the equivocating. If you learn how to knit, and I learn how to knit, do we possess the “same information”?
Genetic information is not the same thing as knowledge, even though knowledge can be referred to as “possesing information.” A whirlwind romance is not a weather phenomenon. Baked Alaska is not a state. The green apple quickstep is not a square dance. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.
I am just going to copy my statement again, in hopes that you will answer the actual questions.
I completely agree that not every behavior is a result of learned information.
Great, so we have agreement on this point.
I don’t think I’ve missed anything, I’m very aware that some behaviors are the result of genetics and some are the result of learning.
However, when analyzing the information stored in the brain, how it got there is not really important. If we reduce the problem to comparing 2 different very simple neural networks that are identical but arrived at by different means, does that make them different NN’s? Mathematically they are the same, and it seems like we can extend that to our brains as well.
No, althopugh they have the information required to allow them to grow.
No I can’t, that’s why this is a debate.
However, I think it’s a reasonable position to take that they are the same and I would be interested in knowing specifically why you think they probably aren’t.
When the spider’s brain needs the information regarding building a web, it accesses it. Not sure what else to call it, if you have a better word, please suggest it.
I quickly read the summary while at work and saw the relationship between number of webs built and mistakenly thought it said something different, please ignore.
You stated it’s only information in the language of genetics, so I explained why that is incorrect.
I had to run an errand and missed a couple points:
I stated that because you stated previously that instincts were genetic and only information in the language of genetics, so I’m trying to understand where we agree and disagree.
Do you agree that information stored genetically that drives instincts, etc. is stored in the brain as neural structures and chemicals?
Do you agree that information learned through experience is also stored in the brain as neural structures and chemicals?
Your definition will work just fine for the question. Look, I was hoping for an exchange of ideas and a debate that might possibly shed new light on this topic, but when I ask a simple reasonable question and you respond the way you did without even offering an answer, it makes me think we have different goals.
In a debate titled “There A Distinction Between Inherited vs Learned Information” you can’t seriously be saying that how information arrives in the brian isn’t important. How the information arrived is the heart of the distinction between learned and inherited information.
You can’t just declare that the primary distinction is unimpoortant. That’s batant equivocation.
And if we call a tail a leg then a dog has 5 legs. Nonetheless dogs have four legs.
You just can’t define away core issues like this. The problme is in no way akin to comparing twoo neural networks. The problem is akin to comparing a circuit board with top-of-the-line RAM. Both devices can arrive at the same outcome, but that doesn’t mean that both are circuit borads or both are RAM.
No you can’t. You can’t just say that two events can be compared by a recuctionist analaogy, and then extend that analogy back to the orighinal events. That’s a hasty induction and an illicit minor all in one go.
Buckingham palace can be compared to a barbecue because both are made of bricks. And because each brick weighs half a pound both Buckhingham palace and a barbecue must weigh half a pound. Ergo Buck House and a barbecue weigh the same amount.
That is totally invalid, yet essentially what you just tried ot do.
More equivocation.
They don’t have that information. That information exists within the entity but the entity doesn’t have that information.
If we utilise your equivocal use of “have information” then we have to conclude that Alexander thre Great had a complete knowledge of the process of mitosis. After all the information existed within the entity known as Alexander. Of course this is nonsense since Al could neither comprehend nor exploit the knowledge he contained.
This is a slothful induction. never mind the neuroscience.
We have two phenomena. One is largley invariant within species, can not be modified, is routinely centred outside the primary cephalic centre, manifests regardless of opportunity for mimickry and so forth. The other is individually variable, only manifests within the cephalic centres, can be modified easily, only manifests with acccess to mickry or experience etc.
It is an extremely slothful induction to conclude that such phenomena are manifestations of exactly the same process. Such a position is not only unreasonable, it’s illogical.
How about you use the correct word or phrase for what you mean? It’s bad form to expect your opponent to guess what you mean.
There is no evidence that the spider’s brain accesses the information. Rather the information has already affected the physical structure and biochemistry of the brain leading to certain actions. If you have any evidence to the corntrary then by all means present it.
No, I don’t agree. The information is stored within the cell nucleus. The structure is just the result of the application of the information. Can you really not see that a structure is not information?
Plans and blueprints and schematics for a building are information. They are representations that can be used to transmit and translate material that can later be reconstructed. That is information.
A building is not information. A building is a structure. It was made utilising all sorts of information, but it is not information itself in any meaningful sense of the word.
Once again I think that your equivocation is confusing you. You seem to have gone from “DNA is information” to “the structures created from DNA are information” without even realising it.
Also? This is blatantly begging the question.
Do you agree that illegal drugs are dangerous?
So you must agree that the cocaine you sold to those schoolkids this morning is also dangerous, since it is an illegal drug.
By using the word “also” you have forced anyone answering to accept that the structure of the brain produced by DNA expression is stored information. This is a major point you need to establish. you can’t simply assume it in the premise.
This whole line of argument seems to be nothing but an undistributed middle. Correct me if I’m wrong but your argument in essence runs:
The structure of the brain produced through DNA expression results in specific neural structures and chemicals.
The structure of the brain produced through learning results in specific neural structures and chemicals.
Therefore DNA expression and learning are exactly the same thing.
You can’t do that. A bulldozer and a hurricane both produce the same effect on a building. That doesn’t make a hurricane a bulldozer and vice versa.
More pertinently if we reverse your argument then we have to conclude that learning is a form of DNA expression, which is clearly a load of bollocks.
To speak on behalf of Contrapuntal, I imagine his goal is to fight ignorance, as is mine and that of most people here.
However we can only achieve that if you are willing to see where your position has derived form logical fallacies.
Ok, fair enough. In what way is the information stored in the brain that arrived genetically different than the information stored in the brain through learning? Isn’t it all just neural connections and chemicals? and to have the same information within that brain, didn’t it have to result in the same neural structures, etc.? If not, what are the differences and why do you assume there would be differences?
It is certainly possible that multiple neural structures could produce the same output, but Contrapuntal really seemed to be saying that inherited information is either not information or it is not based in neural structures, I’m still not sure what exactly the position is.
Which core issues did I define away? Why is the problem not similar to comparing 2 neural networks?
Would you agree that our brain is a large network of neurons?
How else can attempt to define where we disagree without just using generalities?
Is the information contained within the brain or not? If yes, then I think it is fair to say the brain “has” the information, but I am willing to use whatever word we can agree on.
Basically, the question is: What word describes the state of containing information within a neural network?
Actually, the only thing I was proposing so far, is that information is stored within a brain via the structure of the brain (connections, chemicals, etc.), and that both inherited information and learned information is stored in the brain via the structure of the brain.
I don’t have an opponent. I enjoy exchanging ideas. I don’t have to be right.
I didn’t introduce the word “access”, that was Contrapuntal
If the information was not accessed, then how did the spider build the web?
Clearly the spider is not constantly being affected by the web making information otherwise it would never stop building webs which seems to say it “uses” the information only at specific times, would you agree?
Are you proposing that neural networks do not contain any information?
While the DNA contains information, the structures in the brain created due to the DNA also contain information. I recommend reading up on this before you dispute it further.
Actually, Contrapuntal’s response of “so?” appeared to be agreement, so I was verifying the 2 key points and I connected them with an also.
A reasonable response would be separate out the 2 issues and agree or disagree individually.
You may be trying to fight ignorance, I’m just trying to understand why you think inherited information in our brain is different from learned information, and how they are different once they are there.
Here are some questions:
Do you think inherited information is expressed in the brain as neural structures? If no, where and how is it stored?
Do you think learned information is expressed in the brain as neural structures? If no, where and how is it stored?
If yes to both 1 & 2, do you think there is a difference in the nature of these structures? If so, what is the difference?
Have you been reading this thread? We’ve listed half a dozen at least. I can’t be bothered retyping it all so I’ll just cut and paste.
The spider has no access to the information. One is largley invariant within species, can not be modified, is routinely centred outside the primary cephalic centre, manifests regardless of opportunity for mimickry and so forth. The other is individually variable, only manifests within the cephalic centres, can be modified easily, only manifests with acccess to mickry or experience etc.
Fallacy of composition combined with a slothful induction.
A neutron star and a model T ford are all just quarks. We can’t conclude that Model T’s are identical to neutron stars purely because they share a single common feature. Similarly you can’t conclude that instinct and learned response are identical because they share a single common feature.
You then follow that by ignoring all the points in which they are different and claim that because they are the same in one single respect they must be identical. Needless to say the argument is illogical and the conclusion is flawed.
Of course not. If we followed this “logic” we would need to conclude that Beethoven and a parrot have exactly the same neural structure because both could whistle “the Marseilles”. Clearly both brains contain the same information in terms of replication and outcome, but you surely don’t believe that a parrot has identical neural structure to Mozart.
I display the same picture on my TV screen from my X-box that I can display on my LCD monitor from my digital camera. Both pictures have exactly the same information. Does that allow me to conclude that both pictures must have resulted from the same structure? Do you honestly believe there is no difference in physical structure, mode of data acquisition or mode of application between a J-peg on a DVD and a live feed from a digital camera? Yet both contain exactly the same information.
We might get to my somewhat limited understanding of the differences later. For now we really need to remove the more obvious logical fallacies form your argument.
Because they manifest in different ways, in different physical locations, through different stimuli and in different species amongst many other reasons. Only you seem to want to ignore all these differences and concentrate on the fact that all are the result of quarks.
If you accept this then why did you just argue that to have the same information within that brain it has to result in the same neural structures. Which is it? Do you believe that the same information output can result from multiple neural structures, or do you believe that the same information output has to result in identical neural structures?
It seems clear enough to me. He has been arguing all along that inherited information such as geotropism isn’t available information no matter what it is based on. IOW Alexander the Great possessed information on mitosis no matter what structures his brain have possessed.
Once more the problem stems from your equivocating on what you mean when you talk about an organism “having information”.
Most obviously you defined away any differences between inherited and learned information by saying that they end results are identical, just arrived at differently. You can’t do that since it is the very point you are trying to establish.
For the reasons I outlined in depth. GO back and look at the many objections I raised that you simply ignored. Start with the fact that you can’t just say that two events can be compared by a reductionist analogy, and then extend that analogy back to the original events. That’s a hasty induction and an illicit minor all in one go.
Yes.
Obviously by looking at the points where we disagree and constructing logically valid argument?
There’s no point arguing that all information comes from arrangements of quarks, therefore all information is identical. You have focussed on a point where we all agree and then leapt into a logical fallacy. It achieves nothing.
Define what you mean by “information contained within the brain”. If you are arguing that Alexander the Great’s Brain contains information on mitosis then no, that information is not contained in Alexander’s brain in any useful sense.
No the question, and one you have ducked several times, is “What do you mean when you say the neural network contains the information”.
Alexander the Great’s brain was a neural net.
Alexander the Great’s brain contained structures produced by genetic code that dealt with mitosis.
Following your argument we are forced to conclude that Alexander’s brain contained information on mitosis. This is clearly absurd.
No, you’ve proposed much more than that, including proposals that the information is identical.
You do have an opponent. This forum is called “Great Debates” and you yourself aknowledged this is a debate. You have an opponent.
It doesn’t matter who introduced the rod. You used it.
This is like asking how a building stays up if it can’t access the load bearing information in the plans. It makes no sense. Once something is built it continues to exist with no further reference to the information used to build it
No I don’t; agree.
Firstly I don’t agree that a spider’s physical brain structure is information any more than I agree that a building is information.
Secondly you are conflating “affected by” and “make use of” in the most blatant manner.
I am not affected by car sickness most of the time. That doesn’t mean that I “use” car sickness information on those occasions when I do suffer. That particular behaviour is something hardwired in my brain, not something that is “used”.
Impossible to say since, as I’ve pointed out, you have been equivocating with the word “information”. Which definition of information are you using here?
The definition which forces us to accept that Alexander the Great had a comprehensive knowledge of mitosis?
Or the definition that requires information be available for extraction and translation by the possessor?
Neural networks all contain information by the former definition, but such a definition is clearly absurd. Neural networks often do not contain any information by the latter definition.
I recommend that you answer my simple query so that you can learn where you are equivocating. Equivocation is a logical fallacy. Your whole argument falls to pieces because it relies entirely on equivocation.
Let’s try again.
You wish to argue that structures in the brain created due to the DNA contain information. A large amount of the structure in the brain created due to DNA concerns mitosis. So by your argument aren’t we forced to conclude that Alexander the Great’s brain contained comprehensive knowledge of mitosis? Or do you perhaps dispute that Alexander’s brain contained structures created expressly for the process of mitosis?
As you will see when you respond to this query you are simply equivocating. You are using “contains information” in two totally different ways and so arriving at a flawed conclusion. Alexander had no knowledge of mitosis despite his brain containing information for that purpose.
I don’t believe he was agreeing, but he can speak for himself on the issue.
We’ve given numerous examples of difference. Even you have conceded that there are differences. I thought that this issue was resolved. Are you once again attempting to argue that the two are identical in every respect?
Once again, you need to clarify which definition of “information” you are employing. I totally reject the implication that Alexander’s brain contained most of the information your argument forces us to believe it contained. Since the information isn’t present it can’t be expressed in any way at all.
In small part. In large part it is stored biochemically as responsiveness and sensitisation with absolutely zero change to neural structure. Do a search on some of the early research using Aplysia which demonstrated this.
To attempt an analogy (aware, at the same time of the failings of such):
Consider this simple electronic circuit; it’s an astable multivibrator and can be used to make a light flash on and off, or generate a square-wave musical note in a loudspeaker.
Those tasks (flashing a light, or making a beep) can also be carried out by a microprocessor running a simple program.
So the external function of the two processes may be identical, but in the first one, the system is ‘hard-wired’ to do a dedicated task - if you want to do a different task, you have to reconfigure the hardware.
In the second one, the system is not dedicated to any specific task and can be made to perform a different task by simply changing the instructions.
I’m sure that what is going on in a spider’s nervous system is different in many ways to the above and there might even be grey areas between what is hardwired and what is configurable, but in general terms, instinct is hardwiring, knowledge is a meta-process based on the flexible configuration of many sub-processes (sub-processes which may themselves be composite and may include aspects of hardwiring)
My key point was that both use the same mechanism to store information and that is the structure of the neurons in the brain (neurons, connections, chemicals, etc.), wheras Contrapuntal seems to want to make a distinction between the two, to the point of stating that instinct is not information stored in the brain and is really just at a genetic level.
I’m not sure that they do use the same mechanism; nervous systems capable of a limited range of innate actions are not necessarily all that similar to nervous systems capable of adaptive or learned actions, and they aren’t necessarily even configured in the same kinds of way when they do happen to be performing similar actions.
Information theorists, computer scientists and mathematicians all think that neural networks store information. This is not a new position I am proposing.
While the information regarding mitosis is certainly stored within each cell, I don’t know of any reason to assume that specific neurons and connections are created in the brain to encode that information, so it’s not the best example. But the spider web we do assume is in the brain because it is the only mechanism we are aware of for controlling that type of complex behavior.
What if, in my mind I don’t have an opponent, then do I still have an opponent?
But do you believe it contains information? If not then I would refer you to google.
Can you find a cite to support your position? I think if you just do some googling and read the results (there are literally millions of pages on this topic), you will realize that the accepted view is that neural network contain information.
Researchers would disagree with you. Current data shows that learning is a result of growing new connections between neurons and strengthening existing connections.
I am going to yield to **Blake **for the bulk of the debate as he is doing a much better job exposing your many logical fallacies, but I will respond to this.
It isn’t about what I want. It is about how you, deliberately or otherwise, continue to dissemble as to the meaning of words. You originally claimed that spiders know how to build webs. You then conceded that the word ‘knowledge’ was problematical, and suggested the word ‘information,’ while continuing to insist that one term can desrcibe both instinctive and learned behavior. Your justitification for this, as far as I can tell, is the assertion that neural pathways and structures are identical for identical behaviors. So far, this assetion is unsupported by facts or evidence. Thusly, it only rises to the level of a belief. At any rate, you cannot us it both as your premise and the proof of your premise. It is circular logic.
Furthermore, you continue to misunderstand what I mean when I say that information, when it refers to ‘that which is encoded in the genes’ is not the same thing as ‘things we know, or knowledge.’ In the former sense, it is really no more than jargon specific to a certain branch of science. In the latter, it refers to what is generally understood to be information; a dictionary definition, for example. The point is, they are not the same thing, yet you insist on pretending that they are. Information that is out there in the world, or stored as memory in my brain, is accessible. By this I mean that it can be retreived, manipulated, lost, found, altered, etcetera etcetera etcetera. Gentic information shares none of these characteristics.
We can agree that an encyclopedia contains information, yes? If I own an encyclopedia, I can be said to ‘have’ information. But if it is locked in a safe and the combination is lost, it is useless to me. I can’t get at it. I can’t access it. I can’t use it. My genetic ‘information’ is equally useless to me. It is what it is. I have no control over it. I can’t take bits and pieces of it a string together new information, as I can with an encyclopedia. I can’t add and subtract parts and come up with something new, as I can with a recipe. I can’t experiment with color and postion and texture, as I can with a work of art.
Baked Alaska is not a state. The green apple quickstep is not a dance. Genetic information is not knowledge. It simply isn’t, and using the term ‘information’ equivocably will not change that.
Information:
I am using it in the sense that mathematicians, computer scientists and information theorists would use it. Clearly this is the biggest part of our disagreement, I am using the word one way and you are using it a different way.
So, I’ll get to your point main point, which I think is that there is a difference in how that “information” (or whatever you want to call it) can be used, but for now can you answer 2 questions so we know where we agree and where we disagree?
(Using the definition of “information” from the sciences)
Do you agree that inherited information is stored in the brain as neural structures?
Do you agree that learned information is stored in the brain as neural stuctures?
It seems like your biggest issue with calling inherited “stuff” (I use the term “stuff” because so far we have not been able to agree on a word to use, but again, I’m open to suggestions) “information” is that we don’t seem to be able to retrieve that “stuff” in the same way we can retrieve and use “stuff” acquired through experience. Do I understand your position correctly?
Whether I understand or not I think this is a good question: Can the inherited “stuff” (or structure of our brain due to genetic influences) influence our thinking? Can it influence the neurons engaged in “conscious thought” in any way?
Inherited neural systems may actually be physically specific in configuration - your spinal reflex arc, for example is physically constructec in a way dictated by your genes - the same thing is true of the nerves that function to control your heart - your brain, on the other hand (or parts of it) are uncommitted at birth - their overall manufacture, layout etc is determined by your genes, but some of the complex functions they will come to perform are not wired in, they’re programmed on the fly.
So I think what we’re trying to say is that instincive behaviour may not be like having a brain that is born already programmed; it could be more like having a control system that is wired for a certain specific function.
It might seem like a trifling difference, but it’s the difference between our two-transistor multivibrator circuit and a microprocessor that just happens to be producing the same output. The latter system has ‘knowledge’ of how to make a light flash - the other one simply can’t help doing it.
No, *you *are using it *two *ways. Rather than allude to mathematicians, et.al, why don’t you define it?
I don’t know.
I don’t know.
These are your assertions. We are in GD. How about you defend them?
It is not my biggest issue. It is simply a qualitative difference. Since you are postulating that both kinds of stuff are “identical,” it presents a problem for you. Specifically, things that are different cannot be identical. By definition.
I have no idea. As stated, the question is rampant with undefined terms and false equivalences. You are all over the map. This is your debate. Take a position, define your terms, and defend it. It is not up to me do that for you.
For the record, this is my position: Spiders do no know how to build webs. It is inherent to the definition of *knowledge *that it is learned. I have provided numerous cites for this. You have admitted that your definition of knowledge is non-standard. Is that all this is about? Definitions? As **Blake **noted, if you define a tail as a leg then a dog has five of them. It doesn’t change anything about canine biology, however.
I am curious as to why you have not responded to the many claims in this thread that your text is rife with logical inconsistencies. It is the kind of challenge that is usually met head on. Can it be that basic logic is not one of your skills? Just wondering.
There are many, many cites and much research, articles, etc., here is just 1 for each:
Inherited information as neural structures Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby
“Principle 2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species’ evolutionary history.”
You introduced the word “idenitical” because I used the word “same”. The term “same” can be used to mean “substantially similar” or it can be used to mean “identical” and it can be used for an entire continuum of meanings in between those definitions. Why don’t we table this for the moment and come back to it if we need to.
If you have no idea, why do you believe that information contained within the brain due to evolution can have no influence on ones “beliefs”?
It seems that you would have to believe it is impossible for inherited information to have any influence on ones thinking.
Yes you have provided a cite regarding knowledge.
Yes I agreed with you regarding knowledge.
Yes I still do.
I don’t think it makes sense to keep returning to this.
Just in case it’s not clear, I agree, the term “knowledge” is not a good term to describe information that has been inherited.
Typically I avoided those claims because they were surrounded by such a complete lack of understanding by all parties as to what the other believes and/or is trying to say that we weren’t even to the point where we could make logical inferences very well. Not sure we are there yet if you are still looking for definitions of “information”.
In addition, some of those were in posts where absurd claims where being made. For example: Neural networks do not contain/have/store (whetever you want to call it) information. Why discuss “slothful induction” when a more basic problem exists?
Probably, hopefully you can overlook that and help me out when we get past the basic definitions and move on to the portion of this debate that will require logic.
