When it can not be communicated it is not information...that is the essence of vacuum. Hence information must be capable of intelligent abstraction. A painting must communicate subjective meaning; sub-atomic forces hidden and overt energy forms and dimensions which in turn influence observable/unobservable phenomena....which give rise to meaning or what we call 'discoveries'. On Dec 17, 2011 2:34 AM, "Craig Weinberg" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 8:53 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > > Great. Information = consciousness = being. The only claim you have to > > consciousness is being aware... > > That is the only claim that is required, which is why it is primitive. > All other claims are a consequence of awareness. > > > awareness/sensory perception ...is > > information. > > Not the way I understand those terms. Information is a generalization > about perception which conceives it as a-signifying and independent of > medium. If I count to ten, what am I counting? Nothing. It's just a > cognitive rhythm and expectation with numerical names attached to > them. > > Perception is an organic physical reality. It is the native subjective > experience of feeling, seeing, thinking, etc. If I am a fish, I > perceive fish information. Information implies an objective phenomenon > independent of a perceiver, but there isn't any such thing. Perception > is always a relation between the perceiver and the perceived. It's the > context from which information (texts) arise. Texts by themselves > cannot exist. > > > Inability to abstract information from physical > > stimuli..invalidates its existence. So, information is a subjective > > inpu/output of the conscious....with no claim to existence. A plant > > absorbs and uses light energy, but does not visualize light. It has no > > 'information' about the existence of light. > > Sense isn't beholden to information. It is possible to have a feeling > that you cannot understand or identify, but the feeling still exists. > Information however, depends on sense to have any meaning. > > A plant probably doesn't visualize light in the way that we do, but > it senses light, maybe in a tactile way, similar to how we feel > warmth. Plants bend to grow into the light. Flowers open and close > with the light. They have complex and beautiful visual patterns, so > that could mean something to them. If there were nothing on Earth but > flowering plants, it would be odd for the planet to be overflowing > with florid beauty that was utterly undetectable to anything in the > universe. Doesn't that seem a bit unlikely? Humans and plants both > have experiences of light, but probably very different ones. > Illuminated matter informs them differently. > > Craig > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
