Hi Craig Weinberg
In the philosophy of materialism consciousness is
a bridge to nowhere, completely irrelevant and not worth
talking about unless you have a subject, missing
in materialism, who is conscious. Then consciousness
is like electricity, trivial to talk about unless it is
doing something.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/9/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-08, 13:17:31
Subject: Re: Re: The Unprivacy of Information
Consciousness isn't conceptual. It conceives but it isn't limited to detached
modalities of instruction. Consciousness is carnal and terrifying,
awe-inducing, excruciating, dull, silly. Concepts, semes, memes, are all second
order arrangements and modulations of directly experienced and irreducible
qualia.
On Saturday, September 8, 2012 8:56:10 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
They're close in mneaning, but a seme emphasizes meaning more than information(
a meme) I think.
Seme
(s???m)
n.1.(Linguistics) A linguistic sign.
2.(Linguistics) A basic component of meaning of a morpheme, especially one
which cannot be decomposed into more basic components; a primitive concept.
Meme
meme (mm)
n.
A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is
transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/8/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-08, 04:23:38
Subject: Re: The Unprivacy of Information
On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:49, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Although I don't follow Dawking's views on life and God,
I think his idea of "semes", which are like genes but ideas instead,
is a very good one. If the logic follows through, then
man is the semes' way of propagating itself through society.
semes? is it not the memes?
Bruno
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 13:39:10
Subject: The Unprivacy of Information
(reposting from my blog)
If I? right, then the slogan ? nformation wants to be free is not just an
intuition about social policy, but rather an insight into the ontological roots
of information itself. To be more precise, it isn? that information wants to be
free, it is that it can? want to be anything, and that ownership itself is
predicated on want and familiarity. Information, by contrast, is the exact
opposite of want and familiarity, it is the empty and generic syntax of
strangers talking to strangers about anything.
I propose that information or data is inherently public such that it lacks the
possibility of privacy. Information cannot be secret, it can only be kept a
secret through voluntary participation in extra-informational social contracts.
It is only the access to information that we can control - the i/o, we cannot
become information or live in information or as information.*
Information spreads only as controlled changes in matter, not independently in
space or non-space vacuum. Information is how stuff seems to other stuff.
Computation exploits the universality of how many kinds of stuff make sense in
the same basic ways. It is to make modular or ? igital collections of
objectified changes which can be inscribed on any sufficiently controllable
substance. Not live hamsters or fog. They make terrible computers.
To copyright information or to encrypt it is to discourage unauthorized control
of information access. This underscores the fact that information control
supervenes on (requires) capacities of perception and intent rather than the
capacities of information itself. We have to be shamed or frightened or tempted
into agreeing to treat information as proprietary on behalf of the proprietor?
interests.We can? train information not to talk to strangers.
The data itself doesn? care if you publish it to the world or take credit for
writing Shakespeare? entire catalog. This is not merely a strange property of
information, this is the defining property of information in direct
contradistinction to both experience and matter. I maintain however, that this
doesn? indicate that information is a neutral monism (singular ground of being
from which matter, energy, and awareness emerge), but rather it is the neutral
nihilism - the shadow, if you will, of sensorimotive participation divisible by
spacetime. It? a protocol that bridges the gaps between partici
