If the code frame is for instance a conventional alphanumeric list, like ASCII, or UNICODE, or whatever, then any given sequence corresponds to one only binary number and viceversa. In other words if you have a binary sequence, or decimal, hex, or any numeric convention, and your reference is for instance the UNICODE set of characters, then a given number corresponds exclusively to a given sequence in its counterpart list Unless you change the reference list, you will only have an unique number and an unique sequence in the given list. That is an universal equivalence. Of course if you change the UNICODE by ASCII, or decide to express colours or music, then you are in a different context.
I refer to the address concept in this sense. There is one number only when you refer to an address. The address is that unique position referred by that number or any other conventional sequence. And that position is universal regardless the conventional list, numbers, or whatever you use in order to point its location in a given space An URL serves as an example, it is the same concept by the way. A number limited by a reference frame. Of course I'm not referring to 'meaning', since I agree then you have the human part, different languages or whatever you choose as the interpreter. I'm only saying that the address is universal and occupies an unique reference within certain space. In other words, that address cannot be elsewhere. It is an abstraction and as that a discrete element, there are not any continuum possibility in a conventional list. There is no universal equivalence between binary data and any other form > unless we say there is. It can be expressed in ASCII as well as it could be > 24 bit color pixels, Hieroglyphics, dance moves, whatever. Any two > sequences could be mapped to the same number as easily as unique numbers. > Genetic codons work this way, with many redundant amino acid outcomes to > different binary sequences. . > http://lifeofplant.blogspot.com/2011/04/genetic-code.html > > Also, it's important to not that converting the string "Fungiculture in > the insect world is practiced by ants, termites, beetles and gall midges" > into an understandable concept requires a human being who can understand > English well enough to convert that alphanumeric string into something > meaningful. > > Craig > > On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:44:46 PM UTC-4, einseele wrote: >> >> Well, if I say this segment in a binary language that will be the same I >> pasted below >> In other words, this is a number, expressed as a binary string and means >> exactly the same interesting fungiculture idea. >> Want to try? visit any text to binary conversor and copy paste the binary >> below >> A binary number or any othe numeric base, or any natural language >> sequence expressed as a number is an address and as that is unique and >> universal, since not two identical sequences are expressed by a different >> number. >> I just included the sequence: >> "Fungiculture in the insect world is practiced by ants, termites, beetles >> and gall midges" >> ... just to save room >> >> 010001100111010101101110011001110110100101100011 >> 011101010110110001110100011101010111001001100101 >> 001000000110100101101110001000000111010001101000 >> 011001010010000001101001011011100111001101100101 >> 011000110111010000100000011101110110111101110010 >> 011011000110010000100000011010010111001100100000 >> 011100000111001001100001011000110111010001101001 >> 011000110110010101100100001000000110001001111001 >> 001000000110000101101110011101000111001100101100 >> 001000000111010001100101011100100110110101101001 >> 011101000110010101110011001011000010000000001101 >> 000010100110001001100101011001010111010001101100 >> 011001010111001100100000011000010110111001100100 >> 001000000110011101100001011011000110110000100000 >> 011011010110100101100100011001110110010101110011 >> >> On Saturday, March 10, 2012 8:53:55 AM UTC-3, archytas 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/gNhIDw2onykJ. 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.
