Thank you for this comparison, I've been observing the behavior of ants...their ability to communicate and adapt to changing environments is a marvel. Why do they keep doing this? Do they aspire to be anything special? On Mar 10, 2012 2:53 PM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Consider this in terms of 'where information comes from?'. > Fungiculture in the insect world is practiced by ants, termites, > beetles and gall midges. Ants use the antibiotics to inhibit the > growth of unwanted fungi and bacteria in their fungus cultures which > they use to feed their larvae and queen. Ants not only evolved > agriculture before humans but also combination therapy with natural > antibiotics. Humans are just starting to realise that this is one way > to slow down the rise of drug resistant bacteria - the so called > superbugs. These antibiotics are produced by actinomycete bacteria > that live on the ants in a mutual symbiosis. > > As humans we often make much play of the idea that our rational minds > do the inventing - yet we are clearly borne in more than that and > 'science' in some senses is afoot without us. > > > On Mar 8, 7:23 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > The bit on why everything would not be information was more or less > > the point of many who taught me Craig - the position being 'everything > > is information exchange' which seemed to me as helpful as > > methodological solipsism. Data is always capta to some extent, but > > this is a distraction from really doing stuff and not very important > > in most contexts - philosophy so rarely is. If we wanted 'tortuous' > > I'd recommend dynamic semantics. I don't see modern realism as > > mechanistic and though I agree with your thrust, don't see our > > consciousness as necessarily much to do with anything that matters > > (though I retain the hope it might be and this may be the mental > > equivalent of 'warp technology'). It may be that there is no > > information world that we entangle in some analogue of sensing as we > > do what we more easily regard as real, but then this 'real' is less > > real than we once regarded it. So where does information come from? > > It seems to pre-date us as a species, and may be coming from Lord > > knows where in this universe or another. We carry the stuff in our > > genes and these are in interaction with the environment to the extent > > of massive activity in our DNA as a result of exercise, changing what > > gets switched on and off. I'm led to suspect another 'meta- > > information world' that somehow organises information's interactions > > in the environment it finds. > > > > I don't do philosophy largely because I can't shake a stick at it, but > > sometimes I appreciate some of its products. I quite like Snell and > > Lugwig on such matters as there being no 'leap' from alleged > > mechanistic Newton to quantum ideas - however pedantic the explanation > > it seems to me deductive and painstaking in the good sense. Of > > course, lots of argument is really just people taking sides over what > > doesn't matter. One might consider the future of information and what > > it might be if we could experience both 'ends' of distant objects in a > > wave equation at once. > > > > On Mar 7, 4:40 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 10:42 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > It seems like that only if we use a model of semiotics which presumes > > > only single layer of semantic content. What I propose looks more like > > > this: > > > > >http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/slide19.jpghttp:. > .. > > > > > We can tell that Egyptian hieroglyphics seem like human language texts > > > because our frames of human experience include making sense of iconic > > > visual signals. A cat is not going to be able to tell that > > > hieroglyphics or Greek seem like language - writing is above the > > > anthropological threshold. A cat may be able to tell if you are angry > > > at it (a dog even more) but probably not a cockroach. > > > > > This indicates to me not that information exists independently of a > > > subject, but rather that subjects have many different channels of > > > sense which they share and do not share with other subjects. I think > > > that is it a mistake to take perception for granted - to assume that > > > because we do not understand an explicit cognitive meaning from a > > > given text that we are not already interpreting a variety of visual > > > semantic cues which allow us to categorize the text in a general way. > > > > > What could 'information' or 'data' be without some capacity to detect > > > it? What causal efficacy could it have? Nothing. Information that does > > > not inform something in some way is not anything at all. > > > > > > Meaning is > > > > not (at least not only) in the mind of the user. > > > > > Right, it's in the sense experiences of the whole person, body, > > > organs, cells, and molecule. The way that sense works is that it is > > > not contained by volumes of matter, rather it is the interior > > > experience available through matter. It uses matter as an antenna and > > > tendril. It is subtractive rather than additive, so that when we turn > > > on the light in a room, rather than being bombarded with trillions of > > > 'photons' or 'bits' of information which have to be assembled into > > > static images, our visual sense actively sees the concrete optical > > > environment of the entire room as it appears from our anthropological- > > > level perspective. > > > > > We see a continuous world which corresponds with our other sense > > > channels, thus tapping into a presentation of realism 'in here' which > > > faithfully (as far as such a complex and cumbersome thing can relate > > > as a single subject) recapitulates the conditions 'out there'. This is > > > not a solipsistic projection, although there is projection going one. > > > It is not veridical reception, as we are not universal receivers of > > > all truths of all perspectives. Instead it is the appropriate > > > interiority of the human organism that we are to relate to the many > > > worlds potentially accessible through our experiences as human beings > > > and even as individuals. Each of us may have extended sense ranges or > > > even budding sense channels which are not yet recognized by the > > > species at large. > > > > > > 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! > > > > > I think it's impossible to understand what information is if we are > > > working from a mechanist model. There really is no plausible > > > explanation as to why, if information were concretely real, there > > > would be anything besides information, or how physics and information > > > would interact. What would be the purpose for all of the transductions > > > from one modality to another - ie, why have any senses at all if you > > > can simply download information from your environment directly? What > > > possible difference would it make to a computer, regardless of how > > > sophisticated, whether a given resource was seen, heard, smelt, > > > tasted, etc.? > > > > > With a sense-based realism model, information is revealed as an inside- > > > out model of realism. A shadow or silhouette of concrete experiences > > > on many different levels in which coherence is related through > > > accumulated experience ('time') rather than space. Information is only > > > a name for our experience of detecting similar patterns which we > > > understand as being common to multiple contexts. Our consciousness is > > > ultimately the common denominator of all that we consider to be > > > information. If we are trying to actually understand consciousness, I > > > think it is a catastrophic mistake of inversion to conceive of > > > 'information' itself as an independent agent. It's a modern equivalent > > > of magic spells or phlogiston...an exercise in tortured reasoning to > > > prop up a mechanistic model which is expiring. > > > > > 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.
