On 25 Oct 2012, at 04:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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.
Not cult. Just a medical practice, and a belief in a form of
reincarnation. But comp, well understood, makes cult and idolatry non
sensical.
But accepting blood transfusion, or even hearing glass is based on the
same idea, that nature has exploited functions, and that brain's
function consists in interpreting a person and interface it with its
most probable environment.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
