On 8/9/2011 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 9, 9:48 pm, "Stephen P. King"<stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
May I chance the subject?
I think the fundamental point here is that computers do not have a
sense of self. Not a 'sense of self in the world or just a sense of
being. They just exist. I believe that the current notion of computers
is grossly oversimplified.
Exactly. Technically I would say that a microelectronic computer does
have sense, but it is the sense of a single large semiconductor
molecule, not of a single being that understands being.
As I see it, computation is 'the transformation of information" and
to limit the notion of information to just what can be represented by a
binary valued logical algebra is pathetic and sad. Why not consider the
idea that all forms of information, ala Bateson modulo Peirce: is 'a
difference between two referents that is a difference for a third
Sounds ok to me, although I would still say that the cosmos is more
than just information. I think of Sense (+chance) as the invariance
(+variance) between Essence (significance) and Existence (entropy).
Which would make Significance (information) the variance between Sense
and Existence. Entropy then would be the variance between Sense and
Essence, ie, what is not made significant through time is lost to
Of course. That information has to have a referent or at best it is
just randomness. But have you ever noticed that one thing about noise is
that you cannot distinguish one kind of noise from another (up to
isomorphisms of its power law scaling). It does seem to violate that
'difference that makes a difference"...
All of Shannon's ideas would still work as far as I can tell. This
yields Boolean algebras a a simple case. But consider a collection of
referents that have mutual differences and relations that cannot be
reduced to 2-logics? This would fall outside of the usual Turing
Sounds interesting. I would still say that potential for any
particular kind of awareness is at least 50% dependent upon the
referents themselves. With better algebras you can get a better
blueprint but you still can't build a glass skyscraper out of bricks
and expect the same results. Unless that's not what you mean.
I agree. We have the law of identity and all of our other basic
logical axioms at work. A glass skyscraper = a glass skyscraper, it has
the sense of being a glass skyscraper and nothing else. Algebras can
have subsets of their propositions that are similar up to identity and
in this way that can 'connect' but they cannot be completely identical
and not be one and the same and thus have identical Stone spaces. What
we observe as 'physical reality' is just the Stone dual of the
'information', the 'inside view" if you will.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at