Hi Craig Weinberg 

Although I don't follow Dawking's views on life and God, 
I think his idea of "semes", which are like genes but ideas instead,
is a very good one. If the logic follows through, then
man is the semes' way of propagating itself through society.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-06, 13:39:10
Subject: The Unprivacy of Information


(reposting from my blog)

If I? right, then the slogan ?nformation wants to be free? is not just an 
intuition about social policy, but rather an insight into the ontological roots 
of information itself. To be more precise, it isn? that information wants to be 
free, it is that it can? want to be anything, and that ownership itself is 
predicated on want and familiarity. Information, by contrast, is the exact 
opposite of want and familiarity, it is the empty and generic syntax of 
strangers talking to strangers about anything.
I propose that information or data is inherently public such that it lacks the 
possibility of privacy. Information cannot be secret, it can only be kept a 
secret through voluntary participation in extra-informational social contracts. 
It is only the access to information that we can control - the i/o, we cannot 
become information or live in information or as information.*

Information spreads only as controlled changes in matter, not independently in 
space or non-space vacuum. Information is how stuff seems to other stuff. 
Computation exploits the universality of how many kinds of stuff make sense in 
the same basic ways. It is to make modular or ?igital? collections of 
objectified changes which can be inscribed on any sufficiently controllable 
substance. Not live hamsters or fog. They make terrible computers.
To copyright information or to encrypt it is to discourage unauthorized control 
of information access. This underscores the fact that information control 
supervenes on (requires) capacities of perception and intent rather than the 
capacities of information itself. We have to be shamed or frightened or tempted 
into agreeing to treat information as proprietary on behalf of the proprietor? 
interests.We can? train information not to talk to strangers.


The data itself doesn? care if you publish it to the world or take credit for 
writing Shakespeare? entire catalog. This is not merely a strange property of 
information, this is the defining property of information in direct 
contradistinction to both experience and matter. I maintain however, that this 
doesn? indicate that information is a neutral monism (singular ground of being 
from which matter, energy, and awareness emerge), but rather it is the neutral 
nihilism - the shadow, if you will, of sensorimotive participation divisible by 
spacetime. It? a protocol that bridges the gaps between participants (selves, 
monads, agents, experiences), but it is not itself a participant. This is 
important because if we don? understand this (and we are nowhere near 
understanding this yet), then we will proceed to exterminate our quality of 
life to a hybrid of Frankenstein neuro-materialism and HAL 
cyberfunction-idealism.

To understand why information is really not consciousness but the evacuated 
forms of consciousness, consider that matter is proprietary relative to the 
body and experience is proprietary relative to the self, but information is 
proprietary to nothing. Information, if it did exist, would be nothing but the 
essence of a-proprietary manifestation. It has no dimension of subjectivity 
(privacy, ownership, selfhood) at all. It is qualitatively flat. Information as 
a word is a mis-attribution of what is actually, ontologically, ?ormations to 
be interpreted? as code, to be unpacked, reconstituted, and reconstituted as a 
private experience.
*Who and what we are is sensorimotive matter (or materialized participation if 
you prefer?here are a lot of fancy ways to describe it: Meta-juxtaposing 
afferent-efferent phenomenal realism, or private algebraic/public-geometric 
phenomenal realism, orthogonally involuted experiential syzygy, etc.)
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bymuNo_xJ2QJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to