A wonderful article Neil, as from time to time you send for us to enjoy. You and Georges have something in common (believe it or not). You both like to write. :-)
Writing is may be the mother of all arts (although she wanted to be like music). Poor Science she does not admit she also wants to be literature. Instead she decided to tell us: Look, I'm not kidding, this is serious... Science is the serious sister of Fiction, sentenced to look for the truth, or something like that. Fiction instead, does not need her sister's frustrations And talking about mothers we also have Nature, does she write as well? I believe so. DNA is since human beings so declared, a text. Who/what writes and who/what reads. I like to be reductionist here, I believe that everything is writen and read by the same, this email, all books, DNA, CERN conCERNS, etc Allow me to quote you here "...I would say some particles carry information..." Upside down I would say information plays with particles There is no God here, there is a vacuum instead. The answer to the question "who reads DNA?" is better answered by Fiction. Science is too serious to my understanding On 14 dez, 09:25, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Georges turning the question upside down trick is a good one here. We > are always talking about 'some shit that was before' - I'd leave it in > these graceless terms. I'm sort of with you at base Carlos, but I can > do little with a change in particle spin as changing information in > the sorry world I would put right (or perhaps retire from in > disgust)! I would say some particles carry information, as in when we > blow them up into other particles at CERN or Fermilab - though there > is clearly more to this. Books do require readers, yet one can > envisage a time in which 'reading' has gone but the books remain and > their meanings logically and painstakingly reconstructed (perhaps as > one can imagine Georges quipping, 'only to find there was nothing > worthwhile in them')! Alternate notions of information were around in > biology when I still did any. This was usually to split into a > material world and a world of information. I have no sense of contact > with the latter without the former. I used to like notions of > consciousness as emergent properties of life, but we could be tuning > into to something pre-existent of life, the development requiring > both. Your account is reductionist, though none the worse for that. > I can see where it goes in terms of what we might call 'unstable > computing', but can't grok with it on a wider basis. > > I'm sure we'd both be aware of the category leap once I start saying > I'm sure most people don't really know what information they give out > when they are saying anything, its reception is likely to be equally > vacuous or mundane and that misinformation is everywhere. I doubt > there is a 'Georges' Razor' to apply (though something like one > applies in science in terms of getting a better grok on what we are > dealing with). My guess is to go with defeasible reasoning, another > computer connected term. > > Reasoning is defeasible when the corresponding argument is rationally > compelling but not deductively valid. The truth of the premises of a > good defeasible argument provide support for the conclusion, even > though it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion > false. In other words, the relationship of support between premises > and conclusion is a tentative one, potentially defeated by additional > information. > > Much has been wittered already on the nature of consciousness. I find > myself interested in what reductionist science is telling us because > there is little to believe in religion and tradition. This still > leaves me interested in my consciousness of this vast universe, > plethora of them 'whizzing' above my head but unseen and potentially > contactable by gravity measurements and so on. Not only might there > be a world of information that is immaterial, there could be material > worlds not material to us. In a more day-to-day sense, we might make > more of what we refer to as consciousness, if we could develop > understandings about decision-making supposedly occurring very quickly > before apparent rational intervention, facts that might let us bring > new argument to rationality and how we are conscious. > > On 12 Dec, 10:59, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Neil > > > Now you added a little word "exchange", socratus talks about > > "information" and you added "information exchange" > > Indeed particles are exchanged, do you think information consists in > > the particles? > > > Without a reading instance there is no information. When you say > > information exchange you are correct, but you moved the focus to the > > exchange part of the statement > > > One can say there is no information without the "particles", and that > > is true as well > > > Information is made of three: > > > 1 - particle > > 2 - code (the instance which "understands" where the particles point) > > 3 - distance > > > On 11 dez, 20:52, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Information exchange has been construed as particle exchange Carlos. > > > Perhaps everything is a series of addresses, seen from a particular > > > address. It just doesn't seem to help me get through the day. > > > > On 5 Dec, 20:17, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I dont understand why many people want the information to be a sort of > > > > "thing", like electron/wave or any other substrate. > > > > > For instance, Time. is it time like...what. Do any body believe time > > > > is of substance. Time can even be questioned as really being. > > > > > At any rate time (and this is just an example) is a tough concept. Now > > > > believe that time is of information, just look around if not. > > > > > But this is not about exceptions, this does not mean that Time, > > > > whatever means, is an exception when looking at information. > > > > > There are not a single example, none, of material information, of > > > > information being a substance, a thing, It is even difficult to say > > > > it. > > > > > What you call here Consciousness, it is of course information, but > > > > what else. And if your theory is that Consciousness is a particle, > > > > then is not information sir, it is a particle. (which I doubt BTW) > > > > > On 5 dez, 03:42, socratus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The Information ( some basis of Consciousness) can be transfer > > > > > to you in our terrestrial world only by Electromagnetic waves. > > > > > Lorentz proved: there aren’t Electromagnetic waves without Electron. > > > > > Therefore I say, > > > > > only Electron can be the Quantum of Information/ Consciousness. > > > > > We don’t have any other theory of Information’s transfers. > > > > > ========== . > > > > > SOCRATUS -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
