On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:09:16 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 10/24/2012 6:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> 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. >> > > 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 > disagreeing. > > > I don't know. I don't think Craig would accept the air vibrations as > meaningful even though they are objective. >
Everything is meaningful in some sense, the question is the quality of the meaning. What we get out of an mp3 from an audio device is maybe 10^18 times as meaningful as it is to the semiconductors in the iPod, maybe 10^12 times as meaningful as it is to the membrane of the the headphones or the air in the room, etc. It's all about the qualitative significance. > 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 should read my post I added about 'What If A Zombie Is What You Need'. If that doesn't bury Comp once and for all, I think that I will have to consider Comp a legitimate religious cult. Craig > > Brent > -- 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/-/Mp9OzmUZamEJ. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.