If that's the case, does any communication actually occur? I mean, if information only exists when observed by the receiver, isn't that merely an observation, rather than communication?
Isn't communication more than merely the observation at the receiver's end? Doesn't communication imply meaning being transferred from the sender to the receiver? Cheers! Sam Carana On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting, the 'letter' is only literally a letter when a conscious mind > somewhere is able to abstract meaning out of the mutually understood lingual > (alphabet etc) code it contains. Otherwise it's just a lost piece of paper. > > On Dec 17, 2011 10:46 PM, "Sam Carana" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > When it can not be communicated it is not information... >> >> What about a letter that never gets sent, or gets lost in the mail? >> >> Cheers! >> Sam Carana >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:32 AM, awori achoka <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> -- >> 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. -- 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.
