Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread Alberto G. Corona
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.


2013/3/2 William R. Buckley bill.buck...@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-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.





-- 
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-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.




Re: Generalized Löb's Theorem

2013-03-05 Thread advancedguidance

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:53:12 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: 

 Hi Stephen, 

 On 25 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote: 

  
 Have you seen this? What implications does it have? 
  
  http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.5340.pdf 

 If the result is correct (which I think it is) it is a nice   
 generalization of Löb's theorem. It makes it somehow more solid, and   
 valid for a large set of consistent extension. I avoid the need of   
 this by making the strong soundness assumption; + the comp assumption.   
 But it confirms the feeling that Löb's works also on many divine   
 entities. Other results by Solovay gives similar suggestions. 
 Bu I have to study it closely to be verify what I say here in the   
 detail. Thanks for the link. 

 Best, 

 Bruno 



  
  
  -- 
  Onward! 
  
  Stephen 
  
  
  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google   
  Groups Everything List group. 
  To post to this group, send email to 
  everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. 

  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@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. 
  
  

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 

 
 

 *AMS Sectional Meeting AMS Special Session*

http://www.ams.org/meetings/sectional/2210_program_ss17.html#title


 Spring Western Sectional Meeting
 University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 
 April 13-14, 2013 (Saturday - Sunday)
 Meeting #1089 

*Special Session on Set Theory and Boolean Algebras*
*An posible generalization of the Löb's 
theorem.*/amsmtgs/2210_abstracts/1089-03-60.pdf 
*Jaykov Foukzon**, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel 
(1089-03-60)
 

-- 
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.




Re: Generalized Löb's Theorem

2013-03-05 Thread advancedguidance

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:16:15 PM UTC+2, advanced...@list.ru wrote: 


 On Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:53:12 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: 

 Hi Stephen, 

 On 25 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote: 

  
 Have you seen this? What implications does it have? 
  
  http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.5340.pdf 

 If the result is correct (which I think it is) it is a nice   
 generalization of Löb's theorem. It makes it somehow more solid, and   
 valid for a large set of consistent extension. I avoid the need of   
 this by making the strong soundness assumption; + the comp assumption.   
 But it confirms the feeling that Löb's works also on many divine   
 entities. Other results by Solovay gives similar suggestions. 
 Bu I have to study it closely to be verify what I say here in the   
 detail. Thanks for the link. 

 Best, 

 Bruno 



  
  
  -- 
  Onward! 
  
  Stephen 
  
  
  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google   
  Groups Everything List group. 
  To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@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. 
  
  

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 

  
  

 *AMS Sectional Meeting AMS Special Session*

 http://www.ams.org/meetings/sectional/2210_program_ss17.html#title


 Spring Western Sectional Meeting
 University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 
 April 13-14, 2013 (Saturday - Sunday)
 Meeting #1089 

 *Special Session on Set Theory and Boolean Algebras*
 *An posible generalization of the Löb's 
 theorem.*http://amsmtgs/2210_abstracts/1089-03-60.pdf 
 http://www.ams.org/amsmtgs/2210_abstracts/1089-03-60.pdf

 *Jaykov Foukzon**, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel 
 (1089-03-60)
  


-- 
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.




Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:27:21 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:

 Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure 
 the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the 
 research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual 
 neural pathways. How does that invalidate mechanism?


It's not that wild of a conclusion. The experiment shows that we cannot 
assume that vision is the result of a passive process that relies on a 
one-way path leading from light to eye to optic nerve to brain. The brain 
actively shows that there is a path leading the other way as well, as the 
whole organism seeks to see through the eye. This shows that there is 
sensory-motor activity going on within the micro-level of the tadpole as 
the rather under-signifyingly termed plasticity knows exactly what the 
eyeball is, and finds a way to use it.

Try that with your computer. See what happens when you try plugging a 
microphone into a DRAM slot, or listening to your car radio through the 
transmission.

Craig

-- 
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.




Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:43:26 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:



 On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure 
 the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the 
 research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual 
 neural pathways. How does that invalidate mechanism?


 Yes, I was confused at first by the statement in the first paragraph that 
 the eyes can confer vision without a direct neural connection to the 
 brain (maybe Craig was confused by this too?), but it seems that by 
 direct neural connection they just mean an optic nerve wired directly to 
 the brain, bypassing the spinal cord like the optic nerve normally does, 
 since later in the article they do mention the eyes were connected 
 (indirectly) to the brain via the spinal cord: No one would have guessed 
 that eyes on the flank of a tadpole could see, especially when wired only 
 to the spinal cord and not the brain.

 Jesse


I don't think it was confusing, just that it suggests that biological 
sensory systems are robust and independent, not relying on a single fragile 
mechanism that has evolved.


Craig


  


 --
 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.comjavascript:
 .
 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.




Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:06:20 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley 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 can agree that information could be considered a manifestation of 
entropy, to the extent that entropy is necessary to provide a contrast 
space for a distribution. To string an ellipses together, you need one dot, 
repetition, space, and a quality of measurement which yokes together the 
three dots aesthetically. Beyond that, you also need human observer with 
human visual sense to turn the distribution into a 'pattern'. Without that, 
of course, even distribution cannot cohere into a distribution, as there 
is no scale, range, quality, etc to anchor the expectation. If we are a 
microbe, we may not ever find our way from one dot to the next.


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. 


Agree. Well, transmitters form the signs from their own sense of meaning as 
well. That's how we are having this discussion.
 


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


Right. I mean it might be a bit more complicated as far as novelty goes. I 
don't know if the state of unconscious information is really what I have 
always known but that this particular constellation of meanings reflects 
the Totality in a way that it is only trivially novel. Like if you hit a 
jackpot on a slot machine - that may not have happened before, but the slot 
machine is designed to payout whenever it does. The jackpot already exists 
as a potential and sooner or later it will be realized.
 


 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). 


Agree. But the converse - the acceptor can only accept information which 
has been included for delivery by intention (or accidentally I suppose).
 


 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. 


Yes, the expectation is key. I call that the perceptual inertial frame. 
There is an accumulated inertia of expectations which filters, amplifies, 
distorts, etc.


 Further, what any information that you emit means to 
 you is irrelevant to the meaning that another may take 
 for that information. 


Then how does art work? Music? Certainly it is pretty clear that what 
emitting Iron Man meant to Black Sabbath is different from what emitting 
the Four Seasons meant to Vivaldi. I agree that the receiver bears the 
brunt of the decoding, but why deny that the broadcaster can do intentional 
encoding, when they know the audience?
 

  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 
 

Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:


 On Monday, March 4, 2013 8:11:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:

  I am responsible for my
  actions because I know what I am doing and I choose to do it. If I
  break the law I will be punished because the fear of punishment will
  deter me and others who are thinking of doing the same thing. This is
  all consistent with determinism.
 
 
  Why would any of that be consistent with determinism?

 Because it all still holds if determinism holds:
 I know what I am doing - yes.
 I choose to do it - yes.


 In what way do you choose to do it? What does choose mean?

To choose between two options is to consider each one and to decide on the
one you think is best. You can do this whether your brain is deterministic
or probabilistic. In fact, people and animals have been doing this for a
long time without the faintest idea what deterministic or probabilistic
mean.

 If I break the law I will be punished - yes.
 The fear of punishment will deter me and others - yes.


 What does it mean to be deterred? In a deterministic universe, it doesn't
 matter how you feel about what you do, you are simply along for the ride,
 witnessing yourself doing it.

So you say, but I don't care if the universe is deterministic or not. All I
know is I don't want to go to prison. Maybe I don't want to go to prison
because that's the way my brain is wired, but I still don't want to go
there.

  What difference would it make how you feel about what is determined to
  be
  done. There is no choice - it is simply done. If you are deterred by
  fear
  that is still your choice, still up to you, not something which is
  literally
  determined *for you* by extra-personal conditions.

 I chose to drink coffee today because my brain is a particular way.


 In a deterministic universe, your brain would have made that decision
 without you. There would just be a brain coordinating a body's access to
 coffee. There could be no conceivable phenomenon of a choice, only a
 process in a queue of unconscious actions being executed.

There is a choice, even if it's determined. You can define choice as no
choice if determined, but most people don't care.

 If
 tomorrow the coffee is no good, my brain will be different and I may
 choose tea instead.


 Why would you choose anything? Your body will simply drink tea if that is
 the action which scores highest on whatever statistical model has been
 established.

That's right, and that is what a choice is. Most people would remain quite
happy and go about their lives normally if it is explained to them this way.

 To me, that's a choice. I doubt that there are
 many people in the world who, if they believed that their brain
 functioned deterministically, would decide they didn't have a choice
 in anything and become depressed.


 Huh? Why would they become depressed because of an unmet expectation which
 could not possibly exist in a deterministic world.

Well, it seems that you would become unhappy, if not actually depressed, if
it were demonstrated to you that contrary your current beliefs the world is
in fact deterministic.

  I don't think that the term 'deterministic' is meaningful to describe
  the
  brain is all.

 A system is deterministic if its future behaviour is fixed by its
 current state, and random or probabilistic otherwise.


 Yes. Since many of states of the brain are driven by intention directly,
 there is no way to entirely determine its future behavior. It's no
different
 than trying to predict the stock market by precisely modeling the workings
 of a standard stock ticker.

But intention is determined by chemistry, and so to the extent that
chemistry is deterministic, so is intention. Intention does not change
chemistry, as you think it does, since that would be magic and we would see
evidence of it.

 I didn't finish the paragraph, sorry. What you are saying is that you
 know that you feel free. I've no objection to that. But then you go on
 to say that because of this feeling, you know that the brain cannot be
 deterministic,


 It's not because of the feeling, it's because the feeling makes no sense
as
 a phenomenon in a deterministic universe. I'm not saying I like
chocolate,
 therefore chocolate must be real.', I am saying that the fact that I like
 anything is not compatible with a universe in which liking has no causal
 efficacy. The post Libet experiments on free will go further to suggest
that
 how much people like chocolate actually influences how much chocolate
brown
 residues are found in their teeth.

What you KNOW is that you have the feeling of free will. What you CONCLUDE
from this knowledge is that the world cannot be deterministic. The ONLY
fact you use to conclude this is that you have the feeling of free will.
For if the conclusion were based on other, empirical facts such as
scientific experiments, these facts could by 

Re: Generalized Löb's Theorem

2013-03-05 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/5/2013 6:23 AM, advancedguida...@list.ru wrote:


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:16:15 PM UTC+2, advanced...@list.ru wrote:


On Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:53:12 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Stephen,

On 25 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote:


Have you seen this? What implications does it have?

 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.5340.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.5340.pdf

If the result is correct (which I think it is) it is a nice
generalization of Löb's theorem. It makes it somehow more
solid, and
valid for a large set of consistent extension. I avoid the
need of
this by making the strong soundness assumption; + the comp
assumption.
But it confirms the feeling that Löb's works also on many divine
entities. Other results by Solovay gives similar suggestions.
Bu I have to study it closely to be verify what I say here in the
detail. Thanks for the link.

Best,

Bruno

*AMS Sectional Meeting AMS Special Session*

http://www.ams.org/meetings/sectional/2210_program_ss17.html#title
http://www.ams.org/meetings/sectional/2210_program_ss17.html#title


Spring Western Sectional Meeting
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO
April 13-14, 2013 (Saturday - Sunday)
Meeting #1089 


*Special Session on Set Theory and Boolean Algebras*
/_An posible generalization of the Löb's theorem._/
http://amsmtgs/2210_abstracts/1089-03-60.pdf
http://www.ams.org/amsmtgs/2210_abstracts/1089-03-60.pdf

*Jaykov Foukzon**, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
(1089-03-60)



Hi advancedguidance,

Same paper...

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.




Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.

2013-03-05 Thread Telmo Menezes
Hi Craig,

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:27:21 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:

 Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure
 the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the
 research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual
 neural pathways. How does that invalidate mechanism?


 It's not that wild of a conclusion. The experiment shows that we cannot
 assume that vision is the result of a passive process that relies on a
 one-way path leading from light to eye to optic nerve to brain.

No, it just shows that we cannot assume that the eye has to be
connected to the optic nerve specifically.

 The brain
 actively shows that there is a path leading the other way as well, as the
 whole organism seeks to see through the eye.

The brain is always looking for patterns in its inputs that could be useful.

 This shows that there is
 sensory-motor activity going on within the micro-level of the tadpole as the
 rather under-signifyingly termed plasticity knows exactly what the eyeball
 is, and finds a way to use it.

Or, the brain is just capable of recognising old patterns from a new source.

 Try that with your computer. See what happens when you try plugging a
 microphone into a DRAM slot or listening to your car radio through the
 transmission.

We know of many algorithms (possibly equivalent) that could be used to
achieve something like that. They could require human assistance -- is
this what you want me to do? -- but so do humans. This, of course,
provided you are willing to disregard interface incompatibilities that
are outside of the control of a normal computer. But I can't see why
hardware without such incompatibilities could not be built. It's just
that there isn't any incentive to do it at the moment.

Notice that I'm not attacking your theory, I don't grok it well enough
for that. I'm just objecting to this specific argument, because I find
there are simple explanations within the realms of we already know
about the brain. For example, we know that entire sectors of the brain
can be repurposed after an injury.

Best,
Telmo.


 Craig

 --
 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.




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:27:29 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:



 On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 
  On Monday, March 4, 2013 8:11:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
 
  On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
   I am responsible for my
   actions because I know what I am doing and I choose to do it. If I
   break the law I will be punished because the fear of punishment will
   deter me and others who are thinking of doing the same thing. This is
   all consistent with determinism.
  
  
   Why would any of that be consistent with determinism?
 
  Because it all still holds if determinism holds:
  I know what I am doing - yes.
  I choose to do it - yes.
 
 
  In what way do you choose to do it? What does choose mean?

 To choose between two options is to consider each one and to decide on the 
 one you think is best. You can do this whether your brain is deterministic 
 or probabilistic. In fact, people and animals have been doing this for a 
 long time without the faintest idea what deterministic or probabilistic 
 mean.


Uh, yes, people and animals do it because they have intention. It baffles 
me how I can ask you what choosing is and you respond that it's just 
choosing ('deciding') and not notice that such a thing is utterly 
incompatible with determinism. Does a stone choose to role down a hill? 
Does it decide? All you are doing is clinging to a completely arbitrary 
assumption that the universe is deterministic and then begging the question 
of determinism by claiming that anything which obviously contradicts 
determinism must not be a contradiction, because we already know the 
universe is deterministic. But my point all along is that we don't know 
that at all, and what's more, I have a better way of understanding 
*exactly* how intention and determinism relate to each other.
 


  If I break the law I will be punished - yes.
  The fear of punishment will deter me and others - yes.
 
 
  What does it mean to be deterred? In a deterministic universe, it doesn't
  matter how you feel about what you do, you are simply along for the ride,
  witnessing yourself doing it.

 So you say, but I don't care if the universe is deterministic or not. All 
 I know is I don't want to go to prison. 


How could you prefer anything in a deterministic universe? What would be 
the point of preferring some condition over another in a universe where 
nothing has any say in what happens?
 

 Maybe I don't want to go to prison because that's the way my brain is 
 wired, but I still don't want to go there.


Want makes no sense in a deterministic universe. Things happen because they 
have no choice, and that's it. They are determined to happen. Nothing can 
have an opinion about it. It's ironic to talk about prison especially, 
since prison has no meaning except to constrain free will. There is no 
punishment for prison in a deterministic universe, since there is nothing 
which needs to be or can be imprisoned - everything just does what it is 
determined to do.
 


   What difference would it make how you feel about what is determined to
   be
   done. There is no choice - it is simply done. If you are deterred by
   fear
   that is still your choice, still up to you, not something which is
   literally
   determined *for you* by extra-personal conditions.
 
  I chose to drink coffee today because my brain is a particular way.
 
 
  In a deterministic universe, your brain would have made that decision
  without you. There would just be a brain coordinating a body's access to
  coffee. There could be no conceivable phenomenon of a choice, only a
  process in a queue of unconscious actions being executed.

 There is a choice, even if it's determined. You can define choice as no 
 choice if determined, but most people don't care.


No, choice and determination are mutually exclusive. A rock has no choice 
rolling down a hill, and nothing can give it a choice. A person's body can 
be put in prison, but they are still free to choose what to think.
 


  If
  tomorrow the coffee is no good, my brain will be different and I may
  choose tea instead.
 
 
  Why would you choose anything? Your body will simply drink tea if that is
  the action which scores highest on whatever statistical model has been
  established.

 That's right, and that is what a choice is. Most people would remain quite 
 happy and go about their lives normally if it is explained to them this way.


That's not a choice, that's a rock rolling down a hill - ricocheting off of 
different bumps depending on the speed of its roll./
 


  To me, that's a choice. I doubt that there are
  many people in the world who, if they believed that their brain
  functioned deterministically, would decide they didn't have a choice
  in anything and become depressed.
 
 
  Huh? Why would they become depressed because of an unmet expectation 
 which
  could not possibly exist in a deterministic 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 04 Mar 2013, at 17:06, John Clark wrote:


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a  
simulated flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a  
simulated object.


 No, that argument is bogus. There is only one physical level.

HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?! And even if there is a ultimate reality  
level and not a infinite number of nested realities how the hell do  
you know that you've been living your like at that foundational  
physical level and not at another one? Nick Bostrom at Oxford wrote  
an interesting paper on this subject and concludes that there is a  
strong likelihood that we're already living in a simulation: This is  
from the abstract:


 This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions  
is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before  
reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is  
extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of  
their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are  
almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that  
the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day  
become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we  
are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences  
of this result are also discussed.


For the entire paper goto: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html


Not bad. This is based on computationalism. It is not original, and it  
is not entirely correct. With comp we are in an arithmetical  
emulation, no matter what, AND in a simulation made by our descendant,  
but the probability to wake up there, from here depends on what we  
will do now. If we blow up the planet, it is will be small, if we  
teach comp and computer science to the kids, it will be higher, for  
example.







 It is entirely up to the programmer's whim how the laws of physics  
will work,


Exactly.

 or indeed if they are lawful at all in any given sim,

Yes, although a sim without laws would be a very dull simulation  
indeed and I don't see the point of making one.


Keep in mind that the Universal Dovetailer, or if your prefer the  
arithmetical laws entails the existence of all simulations, even the  
very dull one.






 Simulated flame can work for 10,000 levels of simulation, but not  
a single one of those simulated flames can access the physical level


True again, but that would matter little to you if you did not exist  
at the foundational physical level, and you might not.


 ...because they aren't real -

But you may not be real either, whatever that means.

 they are figures..symbols...facades engineered to fool our body's  
public senses.


And what makes you think something hasn't been fooling your body's  
senses from the day you were born?


 There is no such thing as real arithmetic.

I detect a pattern, whenever fact X contradicts your ideas you  
simply say  There is no such thing as X.


 It's all a simulation.

Could be.


The word simulation is ambiguous. Bostrom use it for  a simulation  
made by us in some physical reality that he assumes. That makes sense  
with comp, but we are in all case in the simulations existing by  
virtue of the arithmetical truth, that we need to assume to even talk  
about computation and simulation.


Bruno






 Only an eye or ear made of meat will be 100% satisfying - which is  
why the quality of the implants are crap.


When electronic ears improve and deaf people report that they are as  
good or better than meat ears will you admit your ideas were wrong?  
No of course you won't, you'll just dream up some new excuse for  
your ideas making incorrect predictions.


 Nobody has found anything in the human brain that didn't strictly  
follow the laws of physics either.


 That has nothing to do with the dependence of computer programs on  
a script.


Your brain's operation, that is to say your mind, cannot depart from  
the script that the laws of physics has written.


 we control physics directly and consciously.

Right, that's why I can fly, I just tell the law of conservation of  
momentum and gravity to stop working while I take my flight.


  I can predict that if that program doesn't work, it will never  
fix itself.


More than 20 years ago when my first computer's hard drive was not  
working properly the computer's defragmentation program would fix it.


 I can predict that if you don't write the program, one will not  
sprout from the realms of Platonia to fill the void.


For years computer programs have been able to write programs  
(compilers, assemblers and interpreters) in machine code after  
telling the program what you want using English words and a  
simplified grammar.


 I can judge that the quality among human experience varies widely  
and idiosyncratically.


No you can not, you have no way of knowing the quality of experience  
of your 

Re: Generalized Löb's Theorem

2013-03-05 Thread advancedguidance

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:33:28 PM UTC+2, Stephen Paul King wrote: 

  On 3/5/2013 6:23 AM, advanced...@list.ru javascript: wrote:


 On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:16:15 PM UTC+2, advanced...@list.ru wrote: 


 On Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:53:12 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: 

 Hi Stephen, 

 On 25 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote: 
  
 Have you seen this? What implications does it have? 
  
  http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.5340.pdf 

 If the result is correct (which I think it is) it is a nice   
 generalization of Löb's theorem. It makes it somehow more solid, and   
 valid for a large set of consistent extension. I avoid the need of   
 this by making the strong soundness assumption; + the comp assumption.   
 But it confirms the feeling that Löb's works also on many divine   
 entities. Other results by Solovay gives similar suggestions. 
 Bu I have to study it closely to be verify what I say here in the   
 detail. Thanks for the link. 

 Best, 

 Bruno 


  

 *AMS Sectional Meeting AMS Special Session*

 http://www.ams.org/meetings/sectional/2210_program_ss17.html#title


 Spring Western Sectional Meeting
 University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 
 April 13-14, 2013 (Saturday - Sunday)
 Meeting #1089 

 *Special Session on Set Theory and Boolean Algebras*
 *An posible generalization of the Löb's 
 theorem.*http://amsmtgs/2210_abstracts/1089-03-60.pdf 
 http://www.ams.org/amsmtgs/2210_abstracts/1089-03-60.pdf

  *Jaykov Foukzon**, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel 
 (1089-03-60)


 Hi advancedguidance,

 Same paper...

 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

 Yes.

-- 
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.




Re: Generalized Löb's Theorem

2013-03-05 Thread advancedguidance

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:48:10 PM UTC+2, advanced...@list.ru wrote: 


 On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:33:28 PM UTC+2, Stephen Paul King wrote: 

  On 3/5/2013 6:23 AM, advanced...@list.ru wrote:


 On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:16:15 PM UTC+2, advanced...@list.ru wrote: 


 On Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:53:12 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: 

 Hi Stephen, 

 On 25 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote: 
  
 Have you seen this? What implications does it have? 
  
  http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.5340.pdf 

 If the result is correct (which I think it is) it is a nice   
 generalization of Löb's theorem. It makes it somehow more solid, and   
 valid for a large set of consistent extension. I avoid the need of   
 this by making the strong soundness assumption; + the comp assumption. 
   
 But it confirms the feeling that Löb's works also on many divine   
 entities. Other results by Solovay gives similar suggestions. 
 Bu I have to study it closely to be verify what I say here in the   
 detail. Thanks for the link. 

 Best, 

 Bruno 


  

 *AMS Sectional Meeting AMS Special Session*

 http://www.ams.org/meetings/sectional/2210_program_ss17.html#title


 Spring Western Sectional Meeting
 University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 
 April 13-14, 2013 (Saturday - Sunday)
 Meeting #1089 

 *Special Session on Set Theory and Boolean Algebras*
 *An posible generalization of the Löb's 
 theorem.*http://amsmtgs/2210_abstracts/1089-03-60.pdf 
 http://www.ams.org/amsmtgs/2210_abstracts/1089-03-60.pdf

  *Jaykov Foukzon**, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel 
 (1089-03-60)


 Hi advancedguidance,

 Same paper...

 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

 Yes.

 
   
 

Stephen Paul King wrote: What implications does it have? 
 Post reply
[image: More message actions]
  Jan 25
  Other recipients: 
   
 
 

-- 
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.




Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 04 Mar 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/4/2013 4:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Mar 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/2/2013 11:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

So you admit that what you say contradicts the fact that you are
intentionally saying it?

Intentional, as far as I can understand its use in philosophy, is
more or less equivalent to mental or conscious. You seem to  
take
it as an a priori fact that something that is either  
deterministic or
random cannot have intentionality. This seems to me obviously  
wrong.


Me too.  Intentionality just consists in having a hierarchy of  
goals which drive actions.  To say something is done intentionally  
just means it is done pursuant to some goal.  When the Mars rover  
steers around rock it does so intentionally in order to reach some  
place beyond which is a higher level goal.


I agree too, but of course some non-computationalist will argue  
that intention needs consciousness (which i think is wrong), and  
that goal driven algorithm can be non conscious (which i think is  
possible).


I am a bit astonished that some people still believe that  
indeterminacy can help for free will.


Some randomness can be useful, if only to solve the problem of  
Buridan's ass.


I see what you mean, but some could argue that when you use a random  
device (like a coin) to make a decision, you abandon free will. Indeed  
you let a coin decide for you, when free will meant more that you are  
the one making the free decision.





But effective randomness is easy to come in the complex environment  
of life.


On the contrary, deterministic free will make sense, because free  
will comes from a lack of self-determinacy, implying hesitation in  
front of different path, and self-indeterminacy follows logically  
from determinism and self-reference.


First person indeterminacy can be used easily to convince oneself  
that indeterminacy cannot help for free will. Iterating a self- 
duplication can't provide free-will.


As Dennett says deterministic free will is the only free will worth  
having.


I agree with him on that. My pint above illustrate that. Random choice  
are not really free choice.



Why would anyone want to make decisions that were not determined by  
their learning and memories and values.


Indeed. But even more when they feel such value as being universal or  
close to universal.





But based on your experience with salvia, Bruno, you seem to think  
there is a you which is independent of those things.


Not just salvia. The 8 hypostases describes already a you (with 8  
views), which are more (semantically) and less (bodily or  
syntactically) than memory. The value are not necessarily part of the  
memory (as opposed to their instantiations).
Salvia can help to illustrate this in a vivid way, by an hallucination  
of remembering having been that kind of things for all time.


It is comparable to the realization that you don't die when you stop  
doing something which was part of what you take as an important  
personality trait, like when people succeed in stopping tobacco. They  
can remind how they felt and were before taking tobacco, for example.



 Isn't it more likely that the drug simply makes your narrative  
thoughts less able than usual to trace their sources? So it is like  
the Poincare' effect writ large?


I am not sure. Perhaps. If you make that idea more precise, I might  
concur. Is it consistent with what I just say here?


Bruno




Brent



--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.




Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:39:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

 Hi Craig, 

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 
  On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:27:21 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: 
  
  Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm 
 sure 
  the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the 
  research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual 
  neural pathways. How does that invalidate mechanism? 
  
  
  It's not that wild of a conclusion. The experiment shows that we cannot 
  assume that vision is the result of a passive process that relies on a 
  one-way path leading from light to eye to optic nerve to brain. 

 No, it just shows that we cannot assume that the eye has to be 
 connected to the optic nerve specifically. 


Yes, but I think that's only part of what it shows. It also shows that the 
brain and spinal cord have the general intelligence to recognize and 
integrate the eye as an eye. It's an active system. It's not just a matter 
of saying that you can receive mail at more than one address, it is that 
your mail will figure out where you are living without having instructed 
the post office.


  The brain 
  actively shows that there is a path leading the other way as well, as 
 the 
  whole organism seeks to see through the eye. 

 The brain is always looking for patterns in its inputs that could be 
 useful. 


a computer is always scanning its ports and slots for activity also. That 
doesn't mean you can just solder a DRAM card somehwere on the motherboard 
and expect to use it.
 


  This shows that there is 
  sensory-motor activity going on within the micro-level of the tadpole as 
 the 
  rather under-signifyingly termed plasticity knows exactly what the 
 eyeball 
  is, and finds a way to use it. 

 Or, the brain is just capable of recognising old patterns from a new 
 source. 


When you say that the brain is just capable of recognizing, that is 
already sense. You're not saying that this capability is just luck or 
telepathy, you are saying that there is a particular sense interaction in 
which neural tissue initiates ephaptic or other contact. It's not like the 
patterns are leaking out of the eye in some formless way, it has to be 
recognized that this organ as something which can be used as a sense organ 
before it can get any signals out of it. This brings up the question also 
of 'why have sense organs at all'? If the brain can just recognize old 
patterns from new sources, why not just use anything you can touch as an 
eye or an ear?
 


  Try that with your computer. See what happens when you try plugging a 
  microphone into a DRAM slot or listening to your car radio through the 
  transmission. 

 We know of many algorithms (possibly equivalent) that could be used to 
 achieve something like that. They could require human assistance -- is 
 this what you want me to do? -- but so do humans. This, of course, 
 provided you are willing to disregard interface incompatibilities that 
 are outside of the control of a normal computer. But I can't see why 
 hardware without such incompatibilities could not be built. It's just 
 that there isn't any incentive to do it at the moment. 


Sure, yes. The assumption of mechanism however, should lead us to expect 
that primitive organisms would be like the early machines that humans have 
built so far. Just as we have no incentive - why would biology have any 
different incentive? The opposite seems to be the case - human machines are 
founded on a rigid, unambiguous ontology, whereas biological organisms are 
founded on flexibility and ambiguous relation between generality and 
specialization.


 Notice that I'm not attacking your theory, I don't grok it well enough 
 for that. I'm just objecting to this specific argument, because I find 
 there are simple explanations within the realms of we already know 
 about the brain. For example, we know that entire sectors of the brain 
 can be repurposed after an injury. 


A brain repairing itself is a little easier to explain computationally 
(basically like RAID 5 drive rebuild.. data is stored in such a way that it 
can be reconstructed through triangulation of a missing drive). The idea of 
a new drive being inserted into some random slot directly and having the 
computer begin using it is a little different. The eye could be a tumor or 
some foreign object, it would have to have some way of recognizing what it 
is first before it could be useful. This doesn't make sense under the 
assumption of visual sense as a passive machine in which photons strike the 
retina, signals, travel to the brain, brain interprets. The brain has to be 
interpreting the eye itself, as a organ which it collaborates with, not 
just an abstract source of signals, as it would be in a computer.

Thanks,
Craig


 Best, 
 Telmo. 

  
  Craig 
  
  -- 
  You received this message because you are 

RE: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread William R. Buckley
Craig:

 

You statement of need for a human to observe the 

pattern is the smoking gun to indicate a misunderstanding 

of semiotic theory on your part.

 

Specifically, you don't need a human; a machine will do.

 

Not all machines are man-made.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

 



On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:06:20 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley 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 can agree that information could be considered a manifestation of entropy,
to the extent that entropy is necessary to provide a contrast space for a
distribution. To string an ellipses together, you need one dot, repetition,
space, and a quality of measurement which yokes together the three dots
aesthetically. Beyond that, you also need human observer with human visual
sense to turn the distribution into a 'pattern'. Without that, of course,
even distribution cannot cohere into a distribution, as there is no scale,
range, quality, etc to anchor the expectation. If we are a microbe, we may
not ever find our way from one dot to the next.



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. 


Agree. Well, transmitters form the signs from their own sense of meaning as
well. That's how we are having this discussion.
 


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


Right. I mean it might be a bit more complicated as far as novelty goes. I
don't know if the state of unconscious information is really what I have
always known but that this particular constellation of meanings reflects
the Totality in a way that it is only trivially novel. Like if you hit a
jackpot on a slot machine - that may not have happened before, but the slot
machine is designed to payout whenever it does. The jackpot already exists
as a potential and sooner or later it will be realized.
 


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). 


Agree. But the converse - the acceptor can only accept information which has
been included for delivery by intention (or accidentally I suppose).
 


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. 


Yes, the expectation is key. I call that the perceptual inertial frame.
There is an accumulated inertia of expectations which filters, amplifies,
distorts, etc.


Further, what any information that you emit means to 
you is irrelevant to the meaning that another may take 
for that information. 


Then how does art work? Music? Certainly it is pretty clear that what
emitting Iron Man meant to Black Sabbath is different from what emitting the
Four Seasons meant to Vivaldi. I agree that the receiver bears the brunt of
the decoding, but why deny that the broadcaster can do intentional encoding,
when they know the audience?
 

 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 

Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Monday, March 4, 2013 7:23:32 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 03 Mar 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote: 

  On 3/2/2013 11:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 
  So you admit that what you say contradicts the fact that you are 
  intentionally saying it? 
  Intentional, as far as I can understand its use in philosophy, is 
  more or less equivalent to mental or conscious. You seem to take 
  it as an a priori fact that something that is either deterministic or 
  random cannot have intentionality. This seems to me obviously wrong. 
  
  Me too.  Intentionality just consists in having a hierarchy of goals   
  which drive actions.  To say something is done intentionally just   
  means it is done pursuant to some goal.  When the Mars rover steers   
  around rock it does so intentionally in order to reach some place   
  beyond which is a higher level goal. 

 I agree too, but of course some non-computationalist will argue that   
 intention needs consciousness (which i think is wrong), 


Individually, one might carry out an intention without being personally 
conscious of it, but ontologically, a world without consciousness can have 
no intention - why would it? What would it mean for something to be 
intentional or unintentional in a universe which contains no possibility of 
conscious participation?

and that   
 goal driven algorithm can be non conscious (which i think is possible). 


An algorithm can be non conscious (it always is IMO), but an algorithm has 
no intention to pursue a goal. What drives an algorithm is not a goal but 
the mechanics of whatever it is executed on. Whether it is the force of 
water dripping on a scale, or current winding through a circuit, pendulum 
swinging, etc - that sensory-motor expectation is the only intention. 
Everything that we place in the line of that intention - water wheels, 
dominoes, etc, is unintentional to the process completing. I can make a 
Rube Goldberg machine which drops a mallet on a bunny's head at the end, 
but that doesn't mean that the machine intentionally hurts animals. This is 
what it seems like you don't see or are denying. Just because an algorithm 
is designed purposefully doesn't mean that purpose is carried into the 
algorithm.



 I am a bit astonished that some people still believe that   
 indeterminacy can help for free will. On the contrary, deterministic   
 free will make sense, because free will comes from a lack of self- 
 determinacy, 


Why do you conceive of free will as emerging from an absence? That's like 
saying that white comes from not-black. Why would something develop free 
will just because it has a lack of self-determinacy? Jellyfish drift.

Craig
 

 implying hesitation in front of different path, and self- 
 indeterminacy follows logically from determinism and self-reference. 

 First person indeterminacy can be used easily to convince oneself that   
 indeterminacy cannot help for free will. Iterating a self-duplication   
 can't provide free-will. 

 Bruno 


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 





-- 
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.




Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.

2013-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 05 Mar 2013, at 08:43, Jesse Mazer wrote:




On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm  
sure the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion.  
All the research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals  
from unusual neural pathways. How does that invalidate mechanism?


Yes, I was confused at first by the statement in the first paragraph  
that the eyes can confer vision without a direct neural connection  
to the brain (maybe Craig was confused by this too?), but it seems  
that by direct neural connection they just mean an optic nerve  
wired directly to the brain, bypassing the spinal cord like the  
optic nerve normally does, since later in the article they do  
mention the eyes were connected (indirectly) to the brain via the  
spinal cord: No one would have guessed that eyes on the flank of a  
tadpole could see, especially when wired only to the spinal cord and  
not the brain.


Even that would not be conceptually astonishing. My computer is not  
wired to anything, and I can still send you a mail. It would have  
meant only that optic cells have some wifi systems. Cute, without  
doubt, but still not a threat for computationalism. Improbable also,  
but who knows.


Bruno








Jesse



--
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.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.




Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:03:28 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:

 Craig:

  

 You statement of need for a human to observe the 

 pattern is the smoking gun to indicate a misunderstanding 

 of semiotic theory on your part.


I don't think that it has to be humans doing the observing at all. 
 

  

 Specifically, you don’t need a human; a machine will do.


A machine can only help another non-machine interpret something. I don't 
think that they can interpret anything for 'themselves'.
 

  

 Not all machines are man-made.


True, but what we see as natural machines may not be just machines. 
Man-made machines may be just machines.

Craig

 

 wrb

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
 *Sent:* Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:24 AM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Subject:* Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

  



 On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:06:20 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley 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 can agree that information could be considered a manifestation of 
 entropy, to the extent that entropy is necessary to provide a contrast 
 space for a distribution. To string an ellipses together, you need one dot, 
 repetition, space, and a quality of measurement which yokes together the 
 three dots aesthetically. Beyond that, you also need human observer with 
 human visual sense to turn the distribution into a 'pattern'. Without that, 
 of course, even distribution cannot cohere into a distribution, as there 
 is no scale, range, quality, etc to anchor the expectation. If we are a 
 microbe, we may not ever find our way from one dot to the next.

 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. 


 Agree. Well, transmitters form the signs from their own sense of meaning 
 as well. That's how we are having this discussion.
  


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


 Right. I mean it might be a bit more complicated as far as novelty goes. I 
 don't know if the state of unconscious information is really what I have 
 always known but that this particular constellation of meanings reflects 
 the Totality in a way that it is only trivially novel. Like if you hit a 
 jackpot on a slot machine - that may not have happened before, but the slot 
 machine is designed to payout whenever it does. The jackpot already exists 
 as a potential and sooner or later it will be realized.
  


 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). 


 Agree. But the converse - the acceptor can only accept information which 
 has been included for delivery by intention (or accidentally I suppose).
  


 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. 


 Yes, the expectation is key. I call that the perceptual inertial frame. 
 There is an accumulated inertia of expectations which filters, amplifies, 
 distorts, etc.


 Further, what any information that you emit means to 
 you is irrelevant to the meaning that another may take 
 for that information. 


 Then how does art work? Music? Certainly it is pretty clear that what 
 emitting Iron Man meant to Black Sabbath is different from what emitting 
 the Four Seasons meant to Vivaldi. I agree that the receiver bears the 
 brunt of the decoding, but why deny that the broadcaster can do intentional 
 encoding, when they know the audience?
  

  Indeed, it is via 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-05 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


  No software can be run without being grounded in physical hardware,


And no human mind can exist without a physical brain.

  and no software can be completely sequestered from any other software


And human ideas cannot no that's not right let me start again. Human
ideas should not be sequestered from other human ideas; but the sad fact is
the people have no problem with huge glaring contradictions in their
central belief system. How do you think religion exists?

  Even if there were other physical levels, we could never have any
 contact with them by definition,


Not so, the Master Programer could make His existence obvious to everyone
anytime He wished. But of course the Master Programer may not exist at the
ultimate reality level either.

 there is no independent reality at all.


So when you use one of your favorite phrases but they aren't real or X
doesn't exist, you mean nothing; or at least whatever X is it has no
deficiency that everything else, including you, doesn't have.

 if we are trying to figure out about the cosmos in general, what
 difference does it make if we are the lucky/unlucky ones that happen to
 live on the ground floor or if it's someone else?


I think you're getting ahead of yourself, the first step in figuring out
how the multiverse works is to figure out how our universe works.

 What I think that real means is that sense of accessing an experience
 which is anchored into a larger significance.It's an intuitive feeling - a
 gravitas which is supported by numerous sensory, cognitive, and probably
 super-personal cues.


That is exactly what happens when a teenage boy becomes obsessed with a
video game, you may feel that lacks gravitas but he certainly doesn't, and
it's personal experience we're talking about.

 When electronic ears improve and deaf people report that they are as
 good or better than meat ears will you admit your ideas were wrong? No of
 course you won't, you'll just dream up some new excuse for your ideas
 making incorrect predictions.


  I would expect 'Better than meat' by some measures, but not every
 measure.


And when electronic ears improve (and they will) and deaf people report
that they are as good or better than meat ears by every measure (and they
will) will you then admit your ideas were wrong? No of course you won't,
you'll just dream up some new excuse for your ideas making incorrect
predictions.

  I only see biological organisms as being likely much better technology
 than you might guess.


Considering that Evolution has been working on it for nearly 4 billion
years it's very crappy technology indeed, we've been working on it for less
than a century and already we're producing things that do better in some
ways than what Evolution came up with. One instant from now (from
Evolution's timescale) we will have things that are superior in EVERY way.

 The experience of mind seems to have nothing to do with the laws of
 physics you are thinking of.


Chemistry is based on physics and It would be easy for me to change the
chemistry of your brain, and if I were to do so you would experience
ENORMOUS differences in consciousness; and when you report changes in your
conscious experience I can detect changes in your brain chemistry.

 Certainly access control to our experience supervenes on physics, like
 access to TV programs supervenes on a TV set


In this analogy what corresponds to the TV station? Heaven, Santa Claus's
workshop?

 we control physics directly and consciously.


  Right, that's why I can fly, I just tell the law of conservation of
 momentum and gravity to stop working while I take my flight.


 We don't have to be able to change the laws of physics to make direct
 physical changes. We don't break the law of gravity, we build a plane to
 get around it.


Fine, but that means we DO NOT control physics directly and consciously.

  I can predict that if that program doesn't work, it will never fix
 itself.



  More than 20 years ago when my first computer's hard drive was not
 working properly the computer's defragmentation program would fix it.


  Was the defragmentation program written by the computer to fix itself,


Did you construct your brain from scratch?  And even if you did if you were
already smart enough to be able to make all those neurons why did you need
a brain?

 I can speak Chinese phonetically if it is spelled out for me. That
 doesn't mean I can start writing Chinese.


True, but you can't listen to questions in Chinese and give answers to them
in Chinese that a native speaker would regard as coherent and sometimes
even brilliant. Watson can.

 you have no way of knowing the quality of experience of your fellow
 human beings, all you can do is observe behavior and the same thing is true
 of a smart computer.


  Not true.


Like hell its not!


  Sense is transparent.


 I don't know what that means.

 We can see and feel some of the 

Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


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 javascript:


 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 javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group 

Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:45:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 05 Mar 2013, at 08:43, Jesse Mazer wrote:



 On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure 
 the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the 
 research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual 
 neural pathways. How does that invalidate mechanism?


 Yes, I was confused at first by the statement in the first paragraph that 
 the eyes can confer vision without a direct neural connection to the 
 brain (maybe Craig was confused by this too?), but it seems that by 
 direct neural connection they just mean an optic nerve wired directly to 
 the brain, bypassing the spinal cord like the optic nerve normally does, 
 since later in the article they do mention the eyes were connected 
 (indirectly) to the brain via the spinal cord: No one would have guessed 
 that eyes on the flank of a tadpole could see, especially when wired only 
 to the spinal cord and not the brain.


 Even that would not be conceptually astonishing. My computer is not wired 
 to anything, and I can still send you a mail. It would have meant only that 
 optic cells have some wifi systems. Cute, without doubt, but still not a 
 threat for computationalism. Improbable also, but who knows.

 Bruno



If they were wireless from the start though, why use an optic nerve? 

Craig






 Jesse

  


 --
 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.comjavascript:
 .
 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.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
  
  


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





-- 
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.




RE: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread William R. Buckley
Craig,

 

You build an automaton, place it and turn it on, and from that point in time
forward 

the automaton reacts to acceptable information all on its own.

 

You contradict yourself - - I don't think it has to be human - machines only
help 

non-machines to interpret - - and if the human point is important, then
surely 

you will accept your definition to be that it must be biological life, for a
machine 

cannot be alive.

 

A machine is either a machine or it is not a machine - a machine cannot be
both 

a machine and not a machine at the same time.

 

wrb 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:14 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

 



On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:03:28 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:

Craig:

 

You statement of need for a human to observe the 

pattern is the smoking gun to indicate a misunderstanding 

of semiotic theory on your part.


I don't think that it has to be humans doing the observing at all. 
 

 

Specifically, you don't need a human; a machine will do.


A machine can only help another non-machine interpret something. I don't
think that they can interpret anything for 'themselves'.
 

 

Not all machines are man-made.


True, but what we see as natural machines may not be just machines. Man-made
machines may be just machines.

Craig

 

wrb

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: ] On Behalf Of Craig
Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:24 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: 
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

 



On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:06:20 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley 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 can agree that information could be considered a manifestation of entropy,
to the extent that entropy is necessary to provide a contrast space for a
distribution. To string an ellipses together, you need one dot, repetition,
space, and a quality of measurement which yokes together the three dots
aesthetically. Beyond that, you also need human observer with human visual
sense to turn the distribution into a 'pattern'. Without that, of course,
even distribution cannot cohere into a distribution, as there is no scale,
range, quality, etc to anchor the expectation. If we are a microbe, we may
not ever find our way from one dot to the next.

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. 


Agree. Well, transmitters form the signs from their own sense of meaning as
well. That's how we are having this discussion.
 


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


Right. I mean it might be a bit more complicated as far as novelty goes. I
don't know if the state of unconscious information is really what I have
always known but that this particular constellation of meanings reflects
the Totality in a way that it is only trivially novel. Like if you hit a
jackpot on a slot machine - that may not have happened before, but the slot
machine is designed to payout whenever it does. The jackpot already exists
as a potential and sooner or later it will be realized.
 


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). 


Agree. But the converse - the acceptor can only accept information which has
been included for delivery by intention (or accidentally I suppose).
 


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 

RE: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread William R. Buckley
The fact that a machine can act in a discriminatory based 

upon some signal (sign, information) input is demonstration 

of value 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, 

are forms that treat other forms in certain proscribed ways.

 

You cannot demonstrate otherwise.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:37 AM
To: everything-list@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 javascript: 


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 javascript: .
To post to this 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:16:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
  

  No software can be run without being grounded in physical hardware,


 And no human mind can exist without a physical brain.

 
 I wasn't trying to differentiate machines from people here though, I was 
trying to show how the level on which the machine physically runs is 
completely different from every other layer. Layer 10 doesn't have to run 
on layer 5, but every layer has to run on layer 1.


   and no software can be completely sequestered from any other software


 And human ideas cannot no that's not right let me start again. Human 
 ideas should not be sequestered from other human ideas; but the sad fact is 
 the people have no problem with huge glaring contradictions in their 
 central belief system. How do you think religion exists?


Again, not talking about people here - just about the physical reality vs 
all forms of simulation. Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but 
the physical has no signs of being a simulation, as far as the relation to 
the physical layer is not like any relation between simulated layers.
 


   Even if there were other physical levels, we could never have any 
 contact with them by definition,


 Not so, the Master Programer could make His existence obvious to everyone 
 anytime He wished. But of course the Master Programer may not exist at the 
 ultimate reality level either. 


In either scenario, what does taking the idea of other physical levels 
seriously offer us? If the MP unveils those levels, then we worry about it 
then, no?



   there is no independent reality at all. 


 So when you use one of your favorite phrases but they aren't real or X 
 doesn't exist, you mean nothing; or at least whatever X is it has no 
 deficiency that everything else, including you, doesn't have.


Real has different meanings in different contexts. If I say that photons 
don't exist, I am saying it in the sense that money doesn't exit. It's real 
enough as a concept, but the object that the concept refers to has no 
independent experience or body of its own. There is no actual thing that 
physically is money or a photon.


  if we are trying to figure out about the cosmos in general, what 
 difference does it make if we are the lucky/unlucky ones that happen to 
 live on the ground floor or if it's someone else?


 I think you're getting ahead of yourself, the first step in figuring out 
 how the multiverse works is to figure out how our universe works.


Aren't you getting ahead of yourself claiming there is a multiverse at all? 
Before we try to figure out how our universe works, shouldn't we first 
figure out what it is?
 


  What I think that real means is that sense of accessing an experience 
 which is anchored into a larger significance.It's an intuitive feeling - a 
 gravitas which is supported by numerous sensory, cognitive, and probably 
 super-personal cues. 


 That is exactly what happens when a teenage boy becomes obsessed with a 
 video game, you may feel that lacks gravitas but he certainly doesn't, and 
 it's personal experience we're talking about. 


Gravitas is relative. If the video game is all that there is, then it's as 
real as real can get. If you go look at Bryce Canyon and can't tell that 
its more real than a video game, then that would be alarming. A computer 
can't tell the difference though. It knows no realism, no sense of gravitas 
between assisting you kill real people in the army or graphic sprites on 
Call of Duty.
 


  When electronic ears improve and deaf people report that they are as 
 good or better than meat ears will you admit your ideas were wrong? No of 
 course you won't, you'll just dream up some new excuse for your ideas 
 making incorrect predictions. 


  I would expect 'Better than meat' by some measures, but not every 
 measure. 


 And when electronic ears improve (and they will) and deaf people report 
 that they are as good or better than meat ears by every measure (and they 
 will)


I think you are in the wrong century for that kind of overconfidence in 
technology. I think that it is very likely that the quality of electronic 
ears will improve modestly but never will approach that of natural 
hearing,. just as the Google search algorithm has not improved in 20 years. 
More than likely, all prosthetics will always be inferior to natural 
equipment except in special cases, as they always have been. You know that 
all of those things on TV - the super glue, the amazing spot removers, and 
all of the other treatments to make something 'good as new' don't really 
work as advertised, right?
 

 will you then admit your ideas were wrong? No of course you won't, you'll 
 just dream up some new excuse for your ideas making incorrect predictions. 


I doubt I'll ever in that position, since technological progress will 
likely continue to be be buried by the politics of 

Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:03:31 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:

 Craig,

  

 You build an automaton, place it and turn it on, and from that point in 
 time forward 

 the automaton reacts to acceptable information all on its own.


Reacts, yes, but it isn't informed by the reaction.
 

  

 You contradict yourself – - I don’t think it has to be human – machines 
 only help 

 non-machines to interpret -


Where was the contradiction?
 

 - and if the human point is important, then surely 

 you will accept your definition to be that it must be biological life, for 
 a machine 

 cannot be alive.


A living being can be used as a machine, but it is not defined by that 
function.  

 

 A machine is either a machine or it is not a machine – a machine cannot be 
 both 

 a machine and not a machine at the same time.


A creature can be more than a machine, but still act as a machine in many 
ways.

Craig
 

  

 wrb 

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
 *Sent:* Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:14 AM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Subject:* Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

  



 On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:03:28 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:

 Craig:

  

 You statement of need for a human to observe the 

 pattern is the smoking gun to indicate a misunderstanding 

 of semiotic theory on your part.


 I don't think that it has to be humans doing the observing at all. 
  

  

 Specifically, you don’t need a human; a machine will do.


 A machine can only help another non-machine interpret something. I don't 
 think that they can interpret anything for 'themselves'.
  

  

 Not all machines are man-made.


 True, but what we see as natural machines may not be just machines. 
 Man-made machines may be just machines.

 Craig

  

 wrb

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On 
 Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
 *Sent:* Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:24 AM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

  



 On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:06:20 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley 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 can agree that information could be considered a manifestation of 
 entropy, to the extent that entropy is necessary to provide a contrast 
 space for a distribution. To string an ellipses together, you need one dot, 
 repetition, space, and a quality of measurement which yokes together the 
 three dots aesthetically. Beyond that, you also need human observer with 
 human visual sense to turn the distribution into a 'pattern'. Without that, 
 of course, even distribution cannot cohere into a distribution, as there 
 is no scale, range, quality, etc to anchor the expectation. If we are a 
 microbe, we may not ever find our way from one dot to the next.

 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. 


 Agree. Well, transmitters form the signs from their own sense of meaning 
 as well. That's how we are having this discussion.
  


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


 Right. I mean it might be a bit more complicated as far as novelty goes. I 
 don't know if the state of unconscious information is really what I have 
 always known but that this particular constellation of meanings reflects 
 the Totality in a way that it is only trivially novel. Like if you hit a 
 jackpot on a slot machine - that may not have happened before, but the slot 
 machine is designed to payout whenever it does. The jackpot already exists 
 as a potential and sooner or later it will be realized.
  


 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). 


 Agree. But the converse - the acceptor can only accept information which 
 has been included for delivery by intention (or accidentally I suppose).
  


 Your mere presence sends information regardless of some 
 conscious intent.  Indeed, your absence does equally 
 deliver information, for the target acceptor will see 
 

Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread John Mikes
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.buck...@gmail.comwrote:

 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 

RE: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread William R. Buckley
The machine is informed.  Acceptance demonstrates the act of becoming 

informed.  The yield of such acceptance is called meaning.

 

Easily, trivially, this language can be applied to machine and organism
without 

concomitant observation of the slightest distinction between them.

 

The definition of a being has nothing to do (imposes no causal consequence) 

with a sign.  Signs can be accepted by organisms and machines
(non-organisms?) 

with equal dexterity to provide equal meaning.  A community of machines
(like 

Robbie the Robot) can equally define meaning to things as can a community of


beings.  That you claim need to impose human interpretation in order to
obtain 

meaning is strictly the bailiwick of anthropomorphism.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:10 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

 



On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:03:31 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:

Craig,

 

You build an automaton, place it and turn it on, and from that point in time
forward 

the automaton reacts to acceptable information all on its own.


Reacts, yes, but it isn't informed by the reaction.
 

 

You contradict yourself - - I don't think it has to be human - machines only
help 

non-machines to interpret -


Where was the contradiction?
 

- and if the human point is important, then surely 

you will accept your definition to be that it must be biological life, for a
machine 

cannot be alive.


A living being can be used as a machine, but it is not defined by that
function.  

 

A machine is either a machine or it is not a machine - a machine cannot be
both 

a machine and not a machine at the same time.


A creature can be more than a machine, but still act as a machine in many
ways.

Craig
 

 

wrb 

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: ] On Behalf Of Craig
Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:14 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: 
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

 



On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:03:28 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:

Craig:

 

You statement of need for a human to observe the 

pattern is the smoking gun to indicate a misunderstanding 

of semiotic theory on your part.


I don't think that it has to be humans doing the observing at all. 
 

 

Specifically, you don't need a human; a machine will do.


A machine can only help another non-machine interpret something. I don't
think that they can interpret anything for 'themselves'.
 

 

Not all machines are man-made.


True, but what we see as natural machines may not be just machines. Man-made
machines may be just machines.

Craig

 

wrb

 

From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:24 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

 



On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:06:20 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley 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 can agree that information could be considered a manifestation of entropy,
to the extent that entropy is necessary to provide a contrast space for a
distribution. To string an ellipses together, you need one dot, repetition,
space, and a quality of measurement which yokes together the three dots
aesthetically. Beyond that, you also need human observer with human visual
sense to turn the distribution into a 'pattern'. Without that, of course,
even distribution cannot cohere into a distribution, as there is no scale,
range, quality, etc to anchor the expectation. If we are a microbe, we may
not ever find our way from one dot to the next.

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. 


Agree. Well, transmitters form the signs from their own sense of meaning as
well. That's how we are having this discussion.
 


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


Right. I mean it might be a bit more complicated as far as novelty goes. I
don't know if the state of unconscious information is really what I have
always known but that this particular constellation of meanings reflects
the Totality in a way that it is only trivially novel. Like if you hit 

Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


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 javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
 *Sent:* Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:37 AM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *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 

Re: Dartmouth neuroscientist finds free will has neural basis

2013-03-05 Thread meekerdb

On 3/5/2013 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Why would anyone want to make decisions that were not determined by their learning and 
memories and values.


Indeed. But even more when they feel such value as being universal or close to 
universal.




But based on your experience with salvia, Bruno, you seem to think there is a you 
which is independent of those things.


Not just salvia. The 8 hypostases describes already a you (with 8 views), which are 
more (semantically) and less (bodily or syntactically) than memory. The value are not 
necessarily part of the memory (as opposed to their instantiations).
Salvia can help to illustrate this in a vivid way, by an hallucination of remembering 
having been that kind of things for all time.


It is comparable to the realization that you don't die when you stop doing something 
which was part of what you take as an important personality trait, like when people 
succeed in stopping tobacco. They can remind how they felt and were before taking 
tobacco, for example.


But you do die a little when you stop doing something significant to you.  I raced 
motorcycles for many years but now at age 73 I have been retired for a couple of years.  
My knees don't work so well. I'm not competitive at tennis either.  And I do feel 
diminished having stopped doing these things.





 Isn't it more likely that the drug simply makes your narrative thoughts less able than 
usual to trace their sources? So it is like the Poincare' effect writ large?


I am not sure. Perhaps. If you make that idea more precise, I might concur. Is it 
consistent with what I just say here? 


I think it is.  Just as Poincare' had a proof spring into his mind we commonly have value 
judgement spring into mind.  In some cases we can trace them back to an experience or what 
out parents told us; but generally we can't.  I can see that drugs might inhibit that 
tracing back and make it seem that we are who we are independent of any history.


Brent

--
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.




Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:19:31 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:

 The machine is informed.  


Trivially, yes, but information is all about multiple levels. My mailbox 
could be informed when it receives mail - but that's just a figure of 
speech. No machine is ever literally or richly informed - notified maybe. 
Signalled. Triggered. Sure. To be 'In' formed though suggests that 
something cares about receiving this experience and intends to make use of 
it out of a personal agenda. You don't have to want to be informed, but you 
have to be able to want to.
 

 Acceptance demonstrates the act of becoming 

 informed.  The yield of such acceptance is called meaning.

  

 Easily, trivially, this language can be applied to machine and organism 
 without 

 concomitant observation of the slightest distinction between them.


Only if you rule out subjectivity from the start. Sure, if you treat an 
organism like a body, then there is no meaningful distinction between that 
and a machine - but bodies aren't informed, they are form, perform, 
conform, etc but there is no place for an experience in a body.
 

  

 The definition of a being has nothing to do (imposes no causal 
 consequence) 

 with a sign.  Signs can be accepted by organisms and machines 
 (non-organisms?) 

 with equal dexterity to provide equal meaning.  A community of machines 
 (like 

 Robbie the Robot) can equally define meaning to things as can a community 
 of 

 beings.  That you claim need to impose human interpretation in order to 
 obtain 

 meaning is strictly the bailiwick of anthropomorphism.


Meaning may not work that way. If I'm right, meaning is anchored to a 
direct line of descent from the beginning of time. While Robbie the Robot 
can be programmed to act like we think we act, it has nothing to do with 
meaning, sign, or significance. The robotic process does not decode a sign, 
it simply encodes it into other signs which it has been instructed to. If 
there is a creature around to appreciate that conversion, it is because 
they decode it into a meaningful experience that informs them. Without the 
creature there - the natural decoder of those particular signs, there is no 
informing at all and Robbie the Robot will go on talking to himself forever 
on a barren planet, unaware of anything except for voltage and temperature.

Craig

-- 
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.




RE: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread William R. Buckley
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.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:27 PM
To: everything-list@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 javascript:
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: ] On Behalf Of Craig
Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:37 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: 
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 

RE: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread William R. Buckley
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 

a specific sequence of microstates, and those microstates 

constitute an information state of the molecules.  Alter 

that microstate sequence (as by adding or removing 

entropy) and the description of the microstate sequence 

changes correspondingly; entropy is information.

 

Acceptors and signals; contexts and signs; .

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Mikes
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:13 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
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.buck...@gmail.com
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 

Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/5/2013 3:03 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:


Craig,

You build an automaton, place it and turn it on, and from that point 
in time forward


the automaton reacts to acceptable information all on its own.

You contradict yourself -- - I don't think it has to be human -- 
machines only help


non-machines to interpret - - and if the human point is important, 
then surely


you will accept your definition to be that it must be biological life, 
for a machine


cannot be alive.

A machine is either a machine or it is not a machine -- a machine 
cannot be both


a machine and not a machine at the same time.

wrb



Do we have a exact definition of what is a machine?

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.




Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


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.comjavascript: 
 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 

RE: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-05 Thread William R. Buckley
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