On Saturday, March 2, 2013 2:06:41 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
>
>
>
> From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> 
> [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] On Behalf Of Craig 
> Weinberg 
> Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 6:02 AM 
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> 
> Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information 
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 2, 2013 12:37:15 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
> On 3/1/2013 8:39 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: 
> > And therein do you see the arbitrariness of either choice. 
> > 
> > The universe is subjective, not objective. 
>
> Is that just your opinion...or is it objectively true. 
>
> It's an educated guess, and a provocation. On what basis do we presume 
> that 
> objectivity is possible? Because our subjective experience is used to 
> thinking of it that way? 
>   
>
> WRB-  BINGO!!! 
>
>
> > 
> > Read on semiotic theory as it will give much enlightenment 
> > on this issue, that is *meaning* versus *information* 
>
> Was there something that I said which would suggest that I hadn't read 
> semiotic theory? 
>   
> > 
> > The fact that the interpreter can interpret means that the 
> > interpreter already knows the meaning of any accepted 
> > informational form.  Isn't this how compilers and interpreters 
> > in a computer work? 
>
> There is no "the meaning", there are many meanings in various sensory 
> modalities: 
>
> Optical forms = visually informing - subconscious 
> Graphic forms = phonetically informing - learning makes conscious 
> experience 
> subconscious. (MIS-IS-IP-EE = Mississippi = funny word) 
> Grammatic forms = semantically informing - learning matches optical, 
> graphical, and verbal forms to conceptual experiences.(Mississippi = river 
> in the US). 
> Beyond the explicit message, the context of the messaging, and of the 
> interpreter can become more important that the explicit message. 
> Mississippi 
> could be a safe word in some kind of sex scandal about to expose a 
> politician, or it could trigger a post-hypnotic suggestion a la Manchurian 
> Candidate. 
>
> How compilers and interpreters work is nothing like this. The computer 
> stack 
> looks like this: 
>
> Physical forms = wires and microprocessors. There is no optical or audio 
> experience here, only the electronic or mechanical connection between 
> microelectronic events. 
> Mathematical functions = physical properties of transistors allow for 
> basic 
> switching and checking the status of switches. 
> As we might build a castle out of toothpicks, mathematical functions can 
> be 
> used to take on various technological facades - from dot-matrix printing 
> that reminds us of letters to video screens with cartoons which remind us 
> of 
> people. 
>
> In all of these cases, unlike a person, the computer does not grow to 
> learn 
> meanings, only to match characters and words to their statistically likely 
> consequences. If you say Bonjour to the computer - it recognizes your 
> input 
> and searches the most likely output, but it has no idea what it is saying 
> or 
> who it is talking to. There's not person there, it's just a bunch of very 
> small windmills. 
>
>
>
> WRB- There is no difference between your acceptance of information and the 
> acceptance of information by a computer; that is, unless you hold to 
> notions 
>
> of intelligent design. 
>

Well, we know that it is possible for us to accept low level information 
and simulate higher level  information depending on the end 
user/interpreter. I can use a phonetic transliteration to recite an Arabic 
prayer without even knowing what words are being spoken, let alone the 
meaning of those words. Since this is the way that we have programmed all 
computers, to digitize bottom up modules of information, I see no reason to 
expect that another computer could receive any high level meaning, 
especially when it is going to hit the cpu at a binary level, rather than 
one of evocative sensory content which is tied to personal experience.

I don't know what intelligent design would have to do with that, but our 
own experiences do wind up shaping our genetic health, so I have no reason 
to assume that in the comsos there is only a one-way street of bottom up 
mutation causing natural selection. I would say that the more public the 
phenomena we focus on, the more evolutionary (teleonomic) and the more 
private the phenomena, the more teleological and participatory concerns 
drive outcomes.

This is an interesting bit of research today: 
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-dartmouth-neuroscientist-free-neural-basis.html

"Recent neurophysiological breakthroughs reveal that neurons evaluate 
> information they receive, which can change the way that other neurons will 
> evaluate information and "fire" in the future. Tse's research shows that 
> such informational causation cannot change the physical basis of current 
> information, but it can change the neuronal basis of future mental events. 
> This gets around the standard argument against free will that is based on 
> the impossibility of self-causation."
>

Recent neurophysiological breakthroughs reveal that neurons evaluate 
information they receive, which can change the way that other neurons will 
evaluate information and "fire" in the future. Tse's research shows that 
such informational causation cannot change the physical basis of current 
information, but it can change the neuronal basis of future mental events. 
This gets around the standard argument against free will that is based on 
the impossibility of self-causation.

Read more at: 
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-dartmouth-neuroscientist-free-neural-basis.html#jCp
Recent neurophysiological breakthroughs reveal that neurons evaluate 
information they receive, which can change the way that other neurons will 
evaluate information and "fire" in the future. Tse's research shows that 
such informational causation cannot change the physical basis of current 
information, but it can change the neuronal basis of future mental events. 
This gets around the standard argument against free will that is based on 
the impossibility of self-causation.

Read more at: 
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-dartmouth-neuroscientist-free-neural-basis.html#jCp
"


>
>
>
> Sure.  The Mars rover interprets the image of a rock because it was 
> programmed to or 
> learned to so interpret the image. 
>
> It's program knows nothing about images or rocks. It knows the data which 
> has been defined. We are the ones who defined them that way to correspond 
> to 
> our experiences of images in the rocks. As with all machines, the Mars 
> Rover 
> is forever in the dark. 
>   
>  Its interpretation is realized by its behavior in 
> going around the rock showing that for the rover the 'meaning' of the rock 
> was 'an 
> obstruction'.  If the rock had looked differently or been in a different 
> place it might 
> have been interpreted as a 'geological specimen'. 
>
> Then when we test the Rover with a fake rock, produced by a subroutine in 
> the rockless lab, it's identical behavior of going around the rock that 
> isn't there shows that there was never any meaning for rocks or 
> obstructions 
> or geological specimen. It's responding to programs, not to presences. 
>
>
> WRB-  As with the Einsteinian Elevator experiment, the Rover control 
> software can't tell 
> if it is a real rock, in the real world, or a fake rock in a computational 
> space.  For you 
> to hold otherwise suggests that you don't understand semiotic theory. 
>

No, I agree, that's my point. The software has no local interpretation of 
realism, it will respond in the expected way to any given data stream 
regardless of origin.  While we might respond to conditions in a similar 
way as a brain in a vat, we cannot assume that information generates our 
sensory experience (i.e. stimulating the visual cortex of a congenitally 
blind person results in tactile rather than visual experience, so that 
quality is not innate and local to brain tissue or data structures).


Craig
 

>
>
>
> Craig 
>   
>
> Brent 
>
> > 
> > wrb 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message----- 
> >> From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything- <javascript:> 
> >> li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb 
> >> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 7:11 PM 
> >> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> >> Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information 
> >> 
> >> On 3/1/2013 5:27 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: 
> >>>> Thinking about how information content of a message 
> >>> Big mistake.  Information is never contained with but 
> >>> exactly one exception, an envelope. 
> >>> 
> >>> I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a 
> >>> statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information 
> >>> is represented but not contained in that representation. 
> >>> That marks of chalk upon slate may be taken to represent 
> >>> information at a meta level above the reality of streaks 
> >>> of a deformed amorphous solid has nothing to do with 
> >>> the information represented by that deformation, nor the 
> >>> increase of entropy associated with the greater disorder 
> >>> obtained from that deformation; these are but three of 
> >>> the *informations* to be found upon review of those 
> >>> streaks.  Entropy is how nature sees information (not 
> >>> yet an established fact but I think the tea leaves read 
> >>> clear enough) but that has (presumably) nothing to do 
> >>> with how intelligent individuals see information, or 
> >>> as von Uexk�ll called such phenomena, signs. 
> >>> 
> >>> Most definitely the information is not to be found 
> >>> within the material of its expression, its representation. 
> >>> Rather, the information is already to be found within the 
> >>> interpreter. 
> >> But where is it found within the interpreter?  When the Mars Rover 
> >> receives photons in 
> >> it's camera which it interprets as an obstructing rock that 
> >> interpretation is "just" 
> >> physical tokens too. So isn't it a matter viewpoint whether to look at 
> >> the causal chain of 
> >> tokens or look at the behavior and call it interpreting information? 
> >> 
> >> Brent 
> >> 
> >>> That which is information is so by virtue of the acceptor 
> >>> of that information; else, it is noise. 
> >>> 
> >>> And, write the information on a piece of paper and seal 
> >>> the paper within an envelope and you may justifiably 
> >>> claim that the information is contained; else, you are 
> >>> deluding yourself. 
> >>> 
> >>>> has an inversely proportionate relationship with the 
> >>>> capacity of sender and receiver to synchronize with 
> >>>> each other. 
> >>>> 
> >>> ....<snip> 
> >>> 
> >>> wrb 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> -- 
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> >> Groups "Everything List" group. 
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> >> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. 
> >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything- 
> >> list?hl=en. 
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
> > 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group. 
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. 
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. 
>
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
>   
>   
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to