On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:32:21 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
>
> The sign is what it is and contexts react to signs.
>

What is it though?

This sentence... is it words? Letters? Pixels on a screen? Images in our 
visual experience? photons? All of these require detection and 
interpretation.

The sign or text is just a perturbation of a given context.

 
>
> The other words you use in your argumentation 
>
> are unnecessary at the very least, and I think they 
>
> lead to muddled thinking on your end.
>

No, in my experience they lead to perfect clarity.
 

>  
>
> The sign takes no action; it simply is.
>

It takes no action, but nothing simply is. A sign is an experience which 
interpreted as linking one experience to another - nothing more. It has no 
independent existence. 
 

>  
>
> The context takes all action, to include the action 
>
> of doing nothing at all.
>
>  
>
Once the signal is given by the transmitter, then sure it is up to the 
receiver of the signal to interpret it. How the transmitter formats the 
signal will influence the receiver's reception and interpretation 
possibilities though.
 

> Meaning is no more nor no less than the action 
>
> taken by the context.
>

Not sure I get what you mean. A signal can still be meaningful even if you 
never take action on it. Your favorite baseball hero says hi to you and you 
remember it as meaningful. What does that have to do with any action taken 
or not taken?

 
>
> The sign does not have some magical character 
>
> called **sensitivity to detectability**
>

I agree, the sign is a figurative entity. It has no physical presence or 
capacities.
 

>  
>
> Semiotics has nothing to do with Shannon’s
>
> information transmission problem.  The reason 
>
> for this is that Shannon assumes that both 
>
> transmitter and receiver share a common 
>
> context.  You, on the other hand, don’t have 
>
> that luxury.
>

It makes sense to assume a common context if you are designing a 
communications system. I don't have an opinion on whether Shannon and 
semiotics are unrelated. Depends how you want to consider them.

Craig
 

>  
>
> wrb
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 07, 2013 8:17 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
> *Subject:* Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
>
>  
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:09:28 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
>
> Now we are getting some place.
>
>  
>
> Exactly.  There is simply action.
>
>  
>
> Contexts react to sign.
>
>
> They react to their interpretations of a sign. The sign itself is a figure 
> - a disposable form hijacked by the intention of the transmitter. The sign 
> depends on sensitivities to be detected. When it is detected, it is not 
> detected as the sign intended by the transmitter unless the semiosis is 
> well executed, which is up to both the transmitter and receiver's 
> intentional and unintentional contributions.
>
> Craig
>  
>
>  
>
> Nothing more.  Nothing less.
>
>  
>
> The complexity of action is open ended.
>
>  
>
> wrb
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On 
> Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:12 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
>
>  
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:48:19 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
>
> Craig:
>
>  
>
> The mistake you make is clearly stated in your words:
>
>  
>
> “…doesn’t mean that they communicated with judgment.”
>
>  
>
> You are anthropomorphizing.  The value is no more nor no 
>
> less than the action taken upon signal acceptance.
>
>
> That's ok, but it means there is no value. There is simply action.
>
> Craig
>  
>
>  
>
> wrb
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On 
> Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:27 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
>
>  
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:07:00 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
>
> The fact that a machine can act in a discriminatory based 
>
> upon some signal (sign, information) input is demonstration 
>
> of value judgment.
>
>
> Only in our eyes, not in its own eyes. It's like telling a kid to say some 
> insult to someone in another language. The fact they are able to carry out 
> your instruction doesn't mean that they communicated with judgment.
>  
>
>  
>
> Just as there is no **in** in a machine, so to there is no **in** 
>
> in a biological organism; they both, machine and organism, 
>
>
> But there is an 'in' with respect to the experience of an organism - only 
> because we know it first hand. There would seem to be no reason why a 
> machine couldn't have a similar 'in', but it actually seems that their 
> nature indicates they do not. I take the extra step and hypothesize exactly 
> why that is - because experience is not generated out of the bodies 
> associated with them, but rather the bodies are simply a public view of one 
> aspect of the experience. If you build a machine, you are assembling bodies 
> to relate to each other, as external forms, so that no interiority 
> 'emerges' from the gaps between them.
>  
>
> are forms that treat other forms in certain proscribed ways.
>
>  
>
> You cannot demonstrate otherwise.
>
>
> Sure I can. Feelings, colors, personalities, intentions, historical 
> zeitgeists...these are not forms relating to forms.
>
> Craig
>  
>
>  
>
> wrb
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On 
> Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:37 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
>
>  
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:53:31 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> Let´s say that what we call "information" is an extended form of sensory 
> input. What makes this input "information" is the usability of this input 
> for reducing the internal entropy of the receiver or increase the internal 
> order. The receiver can be a machine, a cell, a person or a society for 
> example. If the input do not produce this effect in the receiver, then that 
> input is not information.
>
>
> The increase of internal order of the receiver is a symptom of an 
> experience of being informed but they are not the same thing. It's not 
> really even relevant in most cases. I would not call it an extended form of 
> sensory input, but a reduction of sensory experience. Input is not a 
> physical reality, it is a conceptual label.
>
> Consider Blindsight:
>
> I hold up two fingers and ask how many fingers? 
>
> "I don't know.'
>
> Guess
>
> 'two'.
>
> This example tells us about information without tying it to decreased 
> entropy. My two fingers are a form. I am putting them into that form, so 
> the process of my presenting my fingers is a formation of a sign. 
>
> The sign is not information at this point. It means something different to 
> an ant or a frog than it does to a person looking at it. If you can't see, 
> there is no formation there at all unless you can collide with my fingers.
>
> When the patient responds that they don't know how many fingers, it is 
> because they personally have no experience of seeing it. They are not being 
> informed personally by the form of my fingers in front of their face 
> because they have blindsight.
>
> When they guess correctly, they still have not been informed. Only we know 
> that the information is correct. At this point you could say that there is 
> some decrease in information entropy of the receiver as far as we are 
> concerned, but in fact, for the receiver themselves, they have not 
> increased any internal order.
>
> A machine has blindsight about everything. They can be queried and produce 
> valid responses to inform us, but they are never informed themselves. There 
> is no 'in' in a machine, it is an organization of forms which treat other 
> forms in a proscribed way. Forms are copied, transformed, and presented in 
> a context that it has no experience of. My computer sees nothing that I see 
> on this screen. It reads nothing that I type here. It doesn't know what the 
> Everything List is - not even Google knows what it is - only that the 
> string of characters in the name is to be associated with an ip address.
>
> Craig
>
>  
>
> 2013/3/2 William R. Buckley <bill.b...@gmail.com>
>
>
> >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 Uexküll 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>  
>
> -- 
> Alberto. 
>
> -- 
> 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.
> 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.
> 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