Ants do engage in a 'form of war' - a cruder example would be to look at a bee hive raid by Japanese hornets. They behead the opposition in thousands - almost like short-sword killings by victorious infantries of the past or maybe the Rwandan genocide. Nature is red in tooth and claw. The consensual harmony of insects is ruthlessly enforced by hygiene operatives - dissenters are subject to high pitched screaming and killings if this doesn't work (bees).
It wasn't unusual for quantum physicists to ponder on whether their abilities put them in touch with the universe's quantum code. I don't stray that far from Carlos' address frame really - but there's a kind of 'so what' about this - it wouldn't be in my mind much in devising experiments to see, say, what gene activity is caused by exercise, other than in the background thinking of it all as a study of an information exchange system. How these things have built up through what we call time remains fascinating and what I find important (a big issue in information) is the possibility human nature can escape the worst of our genetic machines. On Mar 20, 4:52 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > Partly the problem has to do with the definition of knowledge as 'what we > know'. This selfish exclusivist approach presurposes that 'others do not > know'. It partly informs our flawed approach, to the search for other > 'intelligences'. > > Ants after deductive study pick a path to the source of nutrients....they > all cumulativetively use that path until something ugly interferes with > their pursuit. They share that space with harmonious regularity...no > quarrels no wars over Who has more say or right. Humans, begin by excluding > others, imposing hierarchy and soon greed overcomes reason. Why this > flawed, primitive encoding in us? > 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.
