On 10/24/2012 6:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

    Note that I too agree with that bit about the interpreter of information 
    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.

It is a process acting on the information. With enough analysis, we could determine what that process is or isn't aware of, and what the information "means" or (does) to the process. We could perhaps predict how that interpreter would have acted differently had it processed different information, etc. Thus there can be an objective understanding of the meaning of that information. To use Craig's favorite example, we can see how an ipod interprets an mp3 file, and then the information content of that mp3 file has a clear meaning in terms of how it leads to certain vibrational patterns in the air.

    An interpreter is something that acts intelligently on the information.  
And that's
    what gives it objective (3p observable) meaning.

So are you agreeing with what I said?  It seemed previously that you were 

I don't know. I don't think Craig would accept the air vibrations as meaningful even though they are objective. I think we'd have to watch the iPod some more to see if it acted intelligently (it's pretty limited) and I think I would conclude it's not smart enough to count as intelligent.


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