The falling tree makes sound, the wind make sound, the . makes sound

regardless of your presence (or the presence of others) to hear that sound.

 

To argue anything else is utter nonsense.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 7:34 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

 



On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:52:32 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:

I do not hold that the acceptor must exist, for then I 

am making a value judgment, and I have already scolded 

Craig for the same thing.

 

Think of it this way.  A volume of gas has a measure of 

entropy.  This means that the molecules are found in 


found by what?
 

a specific sequence of microstates, and those microstates 

constitute an information state of the molecules.  


Who is it constituted to though? Empty space? The molecules as a group? Each
molecule? What is validating that these molecules exist in some way - that
there is a such thing as a microstate which can be detected in some way by
something... and what is detection? How does it work?

When these things are taken as axiomatic, then we are just reiterating those
axioms when we claim that no acceptor must exist. In my understanding, exist
and acceptor are the same thing.

 

Alter 

that microstate sequence (as by adding or removing 

entropy) and the description of the microstate sequence 

changes correspondingly; entropy is information.


Only if something can detect their own description of the microstate as
having changed. We cannot assume that there is any change at all if nothing
can possibly detect it. For example, if I take make a movie of ice cubes
melting in a glass, even though that is a case of increasing thermodynamic
entropy, we will see a lower cost of video compression in a movie of the
glass after the ice has melted completely. In that case the image
description can be made to follow either increasing or decreasing
information entropy depending on whether you play the movie forward and
backward. There is no link between microstate thermodynamic entropy and
optical description information entropy.

Craig

 

Acceptors and signals; contexts and signs; .

 

wrb

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> ] On Behalf Of John Mikes
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:13 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> 
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

 

Dear Bil B. you probably have thought in these lines during similar long
periods as I did. It was ~2 decades ago when I defined 

i n f o r m a t i o n  as something with (at least) 2 ends: 

1. the notion (in whatever format it shows up)  - and

2. the acceptor (adjusting the notion in whatever context it can be 

    perceived - appercipiated (adjusted>). 

I have no idea how to make a connection between information (anyway how one
defines it) and the (inner?) disorder level of anything (entropy?). I
dislike this thermodynamic term alltogether. 

 

Later on I tried to refine my wording into:

RELATIONS and the capability of recognizing them. That moved away from a
'human(?)' framework. E. g. I called the 'closeness of a '(+)' charge to a
'(-)' potential an information so it came close to SOME consciousness (=(?)
response to relations), no matter in what kind of domain. 

 

Do you feel some merit to my thinking?

 

John Mikes

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:06 AM, William R. Buckley <bill.b...@gmail.com
<javascript:> > wrote:

There is information (I take information to be a
manifestation of entropy) and it is always represented
in the form of a pattern (a distribution) of the units
of mass/energy of which the Universe is composed.  I
think that semiotic signs are simply specific bits
of information; I will use the terms synonymously.

Information has meaning only within context.  For many
people, context is taken to mean one piece of information
as compared to another piece of information.  I do not
take this meaning of context when I discuss semiotics.
Instead, I take semiotic context to be the acceptor of
the information.  Hence, all meaning resides a priori
within information acceptors.

What you know you have always known; the sign merely
serves to bring that knowledge to your conscious mind.

That you may have intention and so comport your delivery
of information to another acceptor has not bearing upon
the subsequent acceptance or rejection of that information
by the target acceptor.  Acceptance or rejection of
information is determined solely by the accepting or
rejecting context (acceptor).

Your mere presence sends information regardless of some
conscious intent.  Indeed, your absence does equally
deliver information, for the target acceptor will see
a definite difference in available information sources
whether you are present or not.

Consider a line worker in a bean processing plant where
the task is to cull *bad* dried beans from *good* dried
beans as they go by on a conveyor belt; the *bad* beans
are removed by hand, so the line worker is constantly
looking for *bad* beans while constantly being aware
of the fact that not many of the beans are *bad*.  The
consciousness is aware of both that which is present
and that which is not present.

Further, what any information that you emit means to
you is irrelevant to the meaning that another may take
for that information.  Indeed, it is via reliance upon
-Cultural Norms- that your point regarding Morse Code
becomes relevant.  It is perfectly reasonable for an
ornery person to simply reject such norms and act
otherwise; your expectation originates in you, not
the targets of information you broadcast.

>>The truth of your statement is no reply to my claim,
>>that how another receiver of signs responds is
>>irrelevant to your knowledge, save the one case of
>>conveyance of knowledge between semiotic units;
>>where you intend for knowledge to be conveyed.  In
>>that case, it is behooving of the sender to ensure
>>that the receiver can receive and understand the
>>message. 
>
>I'm not sure what you are bringing up here, but I
>would say that my point is that all messages have
>multiple levels of reception, perhaps as many levels
>as their are receivers in the universe. At the same
>time, if we are assuming human senders and receivers
>and a content range which is highly normative and
>practical (i.e. Morse code alphabet rather than
>emoticons, inside jokes, etc), then the information
>entropy is reduced dramatically.
>
>Maybe you can give me an example of that you mean
>by the irrelevance of the receiver's knowledge. Does
>that include the expectation of the possibility of
>there being a receiver?
> 
>>In all other cases, the recipient response is
>>irrelevant; all values and measures originate in
>>the sender of the message.
>
>I would tend to agree with that, although the
>expectation of the recipient response informs the
>motives, values, and measures of the sender -
>otherwise there would be no message being sent.
>
> 
>>The receiver of transmitted information is
>>irrelevant to the mechanics of that transmission.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean. Again, maybe an example
>would help. We expect that human audiences can see,
>so we have TV screens to provide optical stimulation.
>If we didn't have eyes, there would be no mechanism
>of TV.
>

The word should have been *reception* - receipt of
information (acceptance of a sign) is a function of
the value that the acceptor puts on that sign.  That
value is most certainly not tied to the delivery
mechanism, even if some delivery mechanisms are
preferred over others.

What matters to information acceptance is disposition
of the acceptor to that acceptance.  If the acceptor
does not *like* the sign, it will reject the sign; of
course, this means that all signs are accepted just
long enough to decide if they are sufficiently meaningful
or not; if so, they are accepted else they are rejected.

>Craig
>
>>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 <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-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.
 
 

-- 
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