Much to agree with or try and play with Craig. Strapped for time today. I watched a few illusions at New Scientist earlier and wondered what the 'information' was - the 'actual' or my distorted version. I'll get back - it's good to think upside down.
On Feb 8, 5:21 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 8, 10:30 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I tend to the feeling that information is real and we access an > > information world to get it. > > I think that being informed is real, but that there is no information > world, only a single concrete world which is divided by sense into > subjective, objective, microcosm, macrocosm, time, space, etc. > > > Quite a few biologists have tended to > > this. We can safely say the bloody stuff is everywhere for something > > 'unreal'! > > Or it may be wherever we look because informing is what looking does > for us. If you look at the universe through a microscope, you can only > see a microscopic world. > > > Appreciate your arguments Craig and often find Carlos good > > for the soul. Life seems to do a lot of information exchange without > > human consciousness being involved (until we get to know) - > > Definitely. That doesn't mean that non-human awareness isn't involved. > Indeed human consciousness arising from mere information independently > of the life forms which the body is made of doesn't really make much > sense in terms of reality. If it were the case that consciousness were > only a kind of information exchange, then we should expect all forms > of matter to be equally likely to host human consciousness. > > > epigenetics being the most obvious and probably the best candidate we > > have as the mover in evolution - here what we generally term the > > environment affects what the genes will build. The built-in > > adaptation can suggest an intelligent design, though I deplore > > attempts to link such to ancient religious pisswitter. Much is > > probably not what it seems to us as Craig entertains. Animals live in > > our world without particle physics and even plants have learned > > complex abilities without consciousness as we have it. A monkey > > ain't gonna switch on the whole works of the Bard on a hard disk let > > alone relish the stuff (I'm no fan either), but this doesn't mean the > > stuff ain't there > > If it informs you, then it's not 'there', it's 'here'. > > >- it's certainly more there than on an "empty" > > disk. > > Something is there, but it's not literally information. It's literally > pits and grooves or dots, lines, etc. It is the sense and motive of > the subject who interprets those generic bits as information who > decides whether it is more there figuratively than on an empty (or > meaninglessly scratched) disk. > > > We may well be living in the history of an electron and all > > that as Wheeler suggested. I'm not sure it helps but is interesting. > > Rocks (other than through metaphor) don't make good hard disks and I'm > > struck that 'space' might be as structured as a hard disk. Some maths > > even suggests distance is an illusion. > > Yes. I think distance is a function of how mater makes sense of it's > division, not a Cartesian framework of emptiness. Think of it this > way; if you had nothing in the universe but a single billiard ball, > there can be no sense of space, no size or scale without something to > compare it to. No difference between movement and stillness. Without > something outside of it to observe some spatial perspective relative > to the observer, there is no distance; everywhere to the billiard ball > is 'here' or nowhere. > > > Information can be sent at the > > speed of light > > I think because it's not being sent anywhere literally. It is being > discovered at any number of locations simultaneously within any given > inertial frame. The speed of light is really the relative latency of > space (which is what you find if you research what the figure we use > for the speed of light is based on: permittivity and permeability. The > inertial drag of space when mass is set to zero.) Electronic > transmissions are certainly subject to latency but not because they > are physically moving through space. It is figurative movement. > Electromagnetism is not something which occurs in space, rather space > can be thought of as something which seems to occur through > electromagnetism. > > 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.
