Sooner or later Carlos, we end up with the toss of hair and all sots of other stuff barely going through the 'intelligent agents' amounting to what we label young love rather than rutting. Our old cat growled at the stairlift I installed a couple of days ago, before shooting up the stairs faster than he has in a while. We have renamed it the 'stair monster' (I suppose I have to tell you 'not the cat' to remove uncertainty - or 'entropy' as Shannon calls it). Socratus mentioned a book on the electron, a chapter of which considers electrons bringing structure in chaos. I haven't read it, but will if it crosses my path. I tend towards science bulletins because they are cheap. I agree that it likely that we could one day be selling tiny chips containing wonderful information machines and be held back because we haven't made fusion power portable too. Though it is also true that a single human being met by his antiparticle person would produce an output similar to one of the WW2 nukes (so in some sense we already are such a machine and its power supply).
I think science is already challenging the identity of 'I'. When we simulate the dances done by bees and cockroaches using brass look-a- likes, we simulate the dance not all the beast. We can certainly confuse the poor critters. I'm not really after some digital solution and though I don't fancy juggling 32 planets I can imagine the simulation of lots of information is relevant to a less subjective understanding. I can sometimes rather like Georges' notion of nature being never met, but this leaves many problems and too many balls to juggle for my simple mind. On 24 Jan, 12:30, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Neil > > I brought to the table an example from IT, because it looks to me the > most obvious field to deal with, and certainly not because I consider > IT, or concepts coming from digital theories the right approach to the > subject, much on the contrary I consider computing sciences the last > step in the wrong direction. > > IMO huge resources are spent in the name of technology which > interchanges "information" at light speed, which does not compare to a > cockroach, which it is a cheap biological system which does much more > at fluid speeds. > > In terms of "information", we would need a nice power plant just to > maintain cold the super computer needed to simulate that poor bug. > I dont really know, but I can imagine that my back yard, including my > old dog and a few bees would require within these terms, energy able > to speed significantly global warming. > > The current paradigm is like having to hold 32 planets.... ??? > > The joke is like this: > > Case 1: Please hold these 32 planets so we dont lose this information > > instead of > > Case 2: Please remember number 32 > > Resources needed in case 1 are quite different that those needed in > case 2 > > Well, the current paradigm uses case 1 to point # 32, instead of case > 2, (which I suspect is the case Nature uses.) > > > > > I have long suspected the subjective, partly because people professing > > this have a general trait of miserable self-interestedness, even if > > this comes out in stories of their wonderful inner experience of god. > > This never does me as much good as a car manual (etc.) should I be > > trying to do anything. We can get to the digital and concepts of > > space and points in it and a shed load more by using equations of > > entropy in information theory, but we seem to have to get over a > > distant mountain range to reach understandings different from the self- > > centred individual peeking out at a world from some contemplative > > position. I haven't had much chance to read Floridi, but I like the > > notion of trying to find out what we have really been doing with > > 'thought'. We eat a lot of DNA, which suggests blockers in systems to > > the action of information. Re-ontologising the infosphere just sounds > > cool at the moment, but I sense something Einstein-like in terms at > > getting at something basic because the experiments of life seem to > > turn out so contrary to those explainers that can be trusted. > > > On 23 Jan, 11:44, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Mark R. Dennis, Robert P. King, Barry Jack, Kevin O'Holleran and Miles > > > J. Padgett. Isolated optical vortex knots. Nature Physics, 17 January > > > 2010 > > > > "In a light beam, the flow of light through space is similar to water > > > flowing in a river. Although it often flows in a straight line -- out > > > of a torch, laser pointer, etc -- light can also flow in whirls and > > > eddies, forming lines in space called 'optical vortices'. > > > "Along these lines, or optical vortices, the intensity of the light is > > > zero (black). The light all around us is filled with these dark lines, > > > even though we can't see them." > > > > Elsewhere, there is a squid that can 'see' with an organ other than > > > its eye. Biology is now full of 'information exchange analogy' with > > > protein messaging and the rest. > > > > How much of all this demands or even passes through an "I". > > > > On 23 Jan, 11:29, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I understand that even light has 'gaps' in it, though we don't see > > > > them. They are now 'knotting light'. > > > > > On 21 Jan, 16:05, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello Neil > > > > > > Have I already mentioned about your skills as a writer, I believe so. > > > > > Again thanks for a good reading today.. > > > > > > When medicine says for instance that an hormone is a "chemical > > > > > messenger" the idea behind the expression is to force the imagination. > > > > > Thus, the metaphor suggests that a chemical substratum acts like a > > > > > postman. > > > > > > Insulin comes along and says: Hey you cell, the boss up there knew you > > > > > were hungry and says you could take some glucose, here you are... have > > > > > a nice day. > > > > > > You quoted Davidson and the triangulation. I'm not so sure about that > > > > > view, but I agree there are always three components in any information > > > > > system, the minimum system is made of three. Even binary structures > > > > > need three elements. > > > > > It is enough to have (1) a signal, (particle, wave, whatever), (2) > > > > > distance (space, length, absence), and (3) (code, language, whatever > > > > > instance able to see the difference). The difference between what? > > > > > Well the difference between the first 2 > > > > > > Information Technology (IT) is I believe the most obvious case. It > > > > > works with two signals: > > > > > > 1 - A dot somewhere > > > > > 2 - The absence of that dot within the same "somewhere" reference > > > > > 3 - Distance between both (this is notorious because this distance is > > > > > between a physic signal and its absence) > > > > > > Please do a simple test: > > > > > > In a piece of paper draw 7 circles, with any distance in between, > > > > > Black-Red-Red-Red-Red-Red-Red > > > > > > That is the only reference, and the instruction is, all circles have > > > > > the same radio, this is to say that the only difference between them > > > > > is their colour, and that they are separate by "-" > > > > > > This sequence fills certain space, and we by convention will know that > > > > > there is only one space available > > > > > The above sequence, in a binary notation is # 64, in other words: 1 0 > > > > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > > > > > Now delete all "-" and Reds, leave the Black alone. What do you see? > > > > > Black is the only physic component of this tiny system, within the > > > > > same space. Can we read 64?. Answer is Yes we can. We still have 7 > > > > > signs. > > > > > > Your computer does it all the time and prints @ on your screen > > > > > > So back to insulin, medicine tells me insulin is a chemical messenger, > > > > > I think about the message and feel that all messages must be the same. > > > > > No matter if we talk about chemistry, biology, politics or whatever. > > > > > > To think we humans (??) are made differently is to focus on the I part > > > > > of the cogito, > > > > > > I distruts subjectivism the most > > > > > > On 21 jan, 01:53, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Gadamer, following Heidegger, refuses to allow any fundamental split > > > > > > between what a subject represents as true and how the world > > > > > > actually, > > > > > > objectively, is. There is no denial of the possibility of error or > > > > > > ignorance. Our particular orientation toward the world, though > > > > > > necessarily limiting what we are able to grasp, is always also a > > > > > > manner of being open to the world. The notion of objective reality > > > > > > can > > > > > > have no other content other than this openness that the very > > > > > > perspectival nature of our understanding provides. Openness to > > > > > > objective reality shows itself in our ability to rearticulate our > > > > > > view > > > > > > of the world in rational dialogue (which I sort of doubt the > > > > > > existence > > > > > > of). Dialogue, however, is exactly an openness to others and to be > > > > > > open to the points of view of others. Language is the house of > > > > > > being. > > > > > > We understand language in so far as we are with others in a common > > > > > > and > > > > > > commonly known objective world. Donald Davidson holds that we > > > > > > understand others most basically by relating their words to the > > > > > > world > > > > > > around them, in what he terms Radical Interpretation. The contents > > > > > > of > > > > > > our own thoughts, and so of our very recognition of the words of > > > > > > others and the objects and events to which they refer, themselves > > > > > > depend on our sharing with others a pattern of interaction with the > > > > > > world. Davidson refers to this as triangulation. The idea is a > > > > > > dramatic break with the subjectivist tradition following Descartes, > > > > > > that ascribes a deep epistemic and ontological significance to the > > > > > > first-person perspective, the reflecting I. The resources of > > > > > > philosophical hermeneutics are deployed in an effort to break out of > > > > > > the epistemic, dualistic paradigms of modern philosophy, and to open > > > > > > new philosophical ground no longer haunted by the specters of > > > > > > relativism and scepticism, nor by the dream of foundational > > > > > > justification. There is a paradox here perhaps, but it may be > > > > > > fleeting. There may be a self-renewing power of tradition, of its > > > > > > dynamism, and its interpretability and reinterpretability. It is > > > > > > fundamentally a matter of perceiving a moving horizon, engaging a > > > > > > strand of dialogue that is an on-going re-articulation of the > > > > > > dynamically historical nature of all human thought. > > > > > > > I'm no fan of this type of writing or the writers. I do think there > > > > > > is something worth pursuing in it with respect to trying to think > > > > > > with > > > > > > stuff we believe to have been fairly well evaluated as science and > > > > > > history, > > > ... > > > mais » -- 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.
