The aspiration of ants certainly bears comparison with that 'human motivation' alleged necessary in our economic system Awori! I presume ants don't read binary or anything else in our general sense, though Carlos' point is on some other track. There was a time before ants, though this presumably bore the information to create ants and their chemical gardening abilities, and our meaning giving skills. Meaning is generally within a form of life, so Carlos' binary is probably of different meaning to an ant, or between me and my friend (though I guess of it mattered he could bring me up to his speed). If Carlos sends me a letter I can say, in some sense, where its information came from, but this clearly leaves out history of a photon stuff. We can speculate on the history of a photon, and no doubt on some other "particle" if we lived off energy from dark matter and had evolved in such circumstances. We might even be able to communicate with such a society. Wittgenstein once described using language as like climbing a ladder in the clouds! I wonder what our speculation would be at a time when we've built an Alcubierre warp-drive, found a way to protect its inner bubble from Hawking radiation and are off to 'eat some dark food'? Information does not seem static, but to do with a context being built.
On Mar 18, 12:05 pm, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
