There are some fairly standard arguments on information in semantics. How data can come to have an assigned meaning and function in a semiotic system in the first place is one of the hardest problems in semantics. One can turn to whether data constituting information as semantic content can be meaningful independently of an informee. Data (as relata) can have a semantics independently of any informee. Before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, Egyptian hieroglyphics were already regarded as information, even if their semantics was beyond the comprehension of any interpreter. The discovery of an interface between Greek and Egyptian did not affect the semantics of the hieroglyphics but only its accessibility. That is, meaningful data being embedded in information-carriers informee-independently supports the possibility of information without an informed subject. Meaning is not (at least not only) in the mind of the user. This is the weak end of such claims, to be distinguished from the stronger, realist thesis, supported for example by Dretske [1981, Knowledge and the Flow of Information, Oxford: Blackwell], according to which data could also have their own semantics independently of an intelligent producer/ informer.
I tend to the realist hypothesis (as in structural realism). The Bar- Hillel-Carnap Paradox states that a self-contradictory message even contains too much information to be true! I must admit the argumentation gets so complex I go with Sam's (not quite) notion of poking a stick at the singularity! On Mar 7, 10:59 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Craig - I'm just passing a spare minute or two - had a quick read and > will try to get back. Physicists are to be found (we do the pub > together on the odd Friday) talking of information leaking from our > causal patch in the universe into others, allowing our part of the > universe to "decohere" into one state or another, resulting in the > universe that we observe. I usually quibble from some empiricist > point by asking how they can set up experiments of observations to > prove such, and they hiss 'chemistry bastard' on the way to get me > another pint. I go with your under-standing - within it I still stick > with the reality hypothesis believing I structure this only in part > and through 'design' I don't construct but carry. > > On Mar 6, 1:16 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 1:47:18 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > The idea that information comes into being in a receiver sort of precludes > > > the idea of radio. > > > That still models information as an object. I'm suggesting that it doesn't > > 'come into being' but rather comes into *a* being... if that being's body > > is equipped with the proper antenna and the being itself has the proper > > previous experience to make some sense out of it. > > > In the case of radio, we have no antenna to hear the vibration of the > > broadcast tower directly, but the receiver we are using does. The radio > > antenna imitates the tower, the tower imitates the amplifier, the amplifier > > imitates the microphone (or recorded microphone, computer chip, etc), the > > microphone imitates the vocal chords. We aren't hearing radio, we are > > hearing a speaker imitating vocal chord vibration - which means our inner > > ear is imitating vocal chords, and our neurons, in their way, are imitating > > the entire inner ear. It's not a model of 'information' or 'data', it's a > > concrete feeling that happens when the inner ear jiggles. > > > > I know Wheeler said the Sun wouldn't radiate if there was nothing to > > > receive the radiation > > > Yes! I keep asking this question but nobody seems able to give me a > > straight answer: > > > "If I have two thermometers, one being hot and one being cold, and there is > > nothing else in the universe but a vacuum, will the temperatures average > > out the same eventually regardless of how far the thermometers are placed, > > or will some energy be lost (ie the total temperature of the two > > temperatures do not add up to 100% of the total of the average of the two) > > if you move them far apart?" > > > I suspect that the truth is that there is nothing lost in transit, and that > > no matter how far apart the two thermometers are, one cannot go down unless > > the other goes up, and that the total will always equal the same. > > > , but this doesn't help me with the idea the Goon Show isn't on World > > > > Service because I'm not listening to it or my radio is on in another room. > > > We can't see how it works very well using our own experience as an example. > > Our ears and auditory cortex give us a particular range of > > whole-person-scaled experience. It doesn't mean that the tissues of our > > body or our entire skull as a whole can't pick up radio. Maybe sometimes > > our brain uses teeth as an ear? > > (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/657/is-it-possible-to-hear-r...). > > > > I accept my students may well get very different information from what I > > > intend or the actual content of what I'm saying-doing. I don't know what > > > the heat from dark matter is, but would no doubt warm my feet at its fire > > > if suitably adapted. > > > I agree with Rupert Sheldrake that dark matter and dark energy are likely > > fictional. Their most amazing quality is to plug up the holes in a > > mechanistic worldview that we have found longer makes sense but refuse to > > consider the alternatives (http://vimeo.com/37792854 > > > Dispelling the Ten Dogmas of Materialism and Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry) > > > > Molecules have managed to get into information exchange without us even > > > if we have found ways to explain some of this and change some of what > > > happens. Affect one end of a molecule and different information appears > > > at > > > the other end. > > > Yes, everything in the universe has some kind of sense experience, > > independently of our own. In a single molecule, maybe it only occurs when > > something happens, or maybe it's every molecule of a certain type > > experiencing one vast macrocosmic experience.. who knows. We can't try to > > make sense of the experience of things quintillions of times more primitive > > than ourselves. I suspect there is a primordial sense of holding/receiving > > and releasing but that's only a guess. We can only know our version of > > something else's version. The only way we can know our native sense > > directly is internally. > > > > Jon Frum cargo cultists no doubt glean different information from a > > > convenient plane crash than I would. We used to say it was all about > > > information exchange and the hard facts of observation were probabilities. > > > Now we are 'detecting' stuff we can't sense as our 'reception devices' > > > become more driven by theory to ground the information in our > > > understanding > > > - but our assumptions are still that the information was there before we > > > could get at it. Maybe our understanding of what is 'out there' is still > > > too primitive and information is not something we can yet 'see' in > > > operation and will become a redundant concept. > > > I don't think there is any information 'out there'. There is only > > experiences which enable us to make sense of out there 'in here'. Making > > sense of it means bridging the gap, connecting the dots, taking a leap of > > faith, making a guess, etc, and in our case it is happening on many levels > > by billions of entities at the same time. Educated guesses upon > > meta-educated meta-guesses. In this way the separation between the sense we > > make and the sense the phenomena makes is figuratively elided on one level. > > We are figuratively united with the thing, it becomes part of us, which I > > think is what under-standing means (comes from PIE root *nter, as in > > entero...a settling within). In another sense of course, we remain > > separated literally from everything about the phenomena which we do not, > > and cannot understand because we are ourselves and not a radio antenna. > > Think of information not as a positive object but as a negative hole in > > 'everythingness'. Like scratching black wax to see the bright colors > > beneath. This is why precognition is not uncommon. We are informed through > > many scales of 'now', some large enough to seem like the future to our > > other, more tightly focused experiencers of smaller nows. > > > 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.
