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
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
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)
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