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
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
An interpreter is something that acts intelligently on the information.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at