On 10/24/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

        That's right.  The meaning, the what is represented, is given by 
        (including speech) with the environment (including others).  So only a 
        with the ability to interact can seem intelligent and therefore 
conscious and
        only one that interacts intelligently with people (a robot) can have 
        intelligence that we can infer from behavior.

    It's not. The data of an mp3 file is interacted with in the same way by a 
    whether it is formatted as something we can see or hear, but the computer 
has no
    experience of either one. Blindsight also shows that qualia is not an 
    result of interaction.

    I agree with what Max said (two years ago!):

    "Information requires interpretation.  The magic isn't in the bits.
    The magic is in the interpreter."

It's 'magic' because you aren't trying to explain it, you're just accepting a ghost in the machine to produce meaning.

Max's post was 23 hours ago. It is Rex Allen's post from two years ago that you and Brent are quoting and responding to.

Note that I too agree with that bit about the interpreter of information being needed for information to have any objective meaning.

But that's just a semantic "explanation" since "interpreter" and how we would know whether or not something is an "interpreter" is left unexplained. An interpreter is something that acts intelligently on the information. And that's what gives it objective (3p observable) meaning.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to