Message info
 
To:Epistemology From:archytas Subject:[epistemology 12551] Re: Where does the information come from? Date:Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
 

The aspiration of ants certainly bears comparison with that 'human
motivation' alleged necessary in our economic system Awori! I presume
ants don't read binary or anything else in our general sense, though
Carlos' point is on some other track. There was a time before ants,
though this presumably bore the information to create ants and their
chemical gardening abilities, and our meaning giving skills. Meaning
is generally within a form of life, so Carlos' binary is probably of
different meaning to an ant, or between me and my friend (though I
guess of it mattered he could bring me up to his speed). If Carlos
sends me a letter I can say, in some sense, where its information came
from, but this clearly leaves out history of a photon stuff.
We can speculate on the history of a photon, and no doubt on some
other "particle" if we lived off energy from dark matter and had
evolved in such circumstances. We might even be able to communicate
with such a society. Wittgenstein once described using language as
like climbing a ladder in the clouds! I wonder what our speculation
would be at a time when we've built an Alcubierre warp-drive, found a
way to protect its inner bubble from Hawking radiation and are off to
'eat some dark food'? Information does not seem static, but to do
with a context being built.

On Mar 18, 12:05pm, einseele <Einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the code frame is for instance a conventional alphanumeric list, like
> ASCII, or UNICODE, or whatever, then any given sequence corresponds to one
> only binary number and viceversa.
> In other words if you have a binary sequence, or decimal, hex, or any
> numeric convention, and your reference is for instance the UNICODE set of
> characters, then a given number corresponds exclusively to a given sequence
> in its counterpart list
> Unless you change the reference list, you will only have an unique number
> and an unique sequence in the given list.
> That is an universal equivalence. Of course if you change the UNICODE by
> ASCII, or decide to express colours or music, then you are in a different
> context.
>
> I refer to the address concept in this sense. There is one number only when
> you refer to an address.
> The address is that unique position referred by that number or any other
> conventional sequence. And that position is universal regardless the
> conventional list, numbers, or whatever you use in order to point its
> location in a given space
>
> An URL serves as an example, it is the same concept by the way. A number
> limited by a reference frame.
>
> Of course I'm not referring to 'meaning', since I agree then you have the
> human part, different languages or whatever you choose as the interpreter.
> I'm only saying that the address is universal and occupies an unique
> reference within certain space. In other words, that address cannot be
> elsewhere. It is an abstraction and as that a discrete element, there are
> not any continuum possibility in a conventional list.
>
> There is no universal equivalence between binary data and any other form
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > unless we say there is. It can be expressed in ASCII as well as it could be
> > 24 bit color pixels, Hieroglyphics, dance moves, whatever. Any two
> > sequences could be mapped to the same number as easily as unique numbers.
> > Genetic codons work this way, with many redundant amino acid outcomes to
> > different binary sequences. .
> >http://lifeofplant.blogspot.com/2011/04/genetic-code.html
>
> > Also, it's important to not that converting the string "Fungiculture in
> > the insect world is practiced by ants, termites, beetles and gall midges"
> > into an understandable concept requires a human being who can understand
> > English well enough to convert that alphanumeric string into something
> > meaningful.
>
> > Craig
>
> > On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:44:46 PM UTC-4, einseele wrote:
>
> >> Well, if I say this segment in a binary language that will be the same I
> >> pasted below
> >> In other words, this is a number, expressed as a binary string and means
> >> exactly the same interesting fungiculture idea.
> >> Want to try? visit any text to binary conversor and copy paste the binary
> >> below
> >> A binary number or any othe numeric base, or any natural language
> >> sequence expressed as a number is an address and as that is unique and
> >> universal, since not two identical sequences are expressed by a different
> >> number.
> >> I just included the sequence:
> >> "Fungiculture in the insect world is practiced by ants, termites, beetles
> >> and gall midges"
> >> ... just to save room
>
> >> 010001100111010101101110011001110110100101100011
> >> 011101010110110001110100011101010111001001100101
> >> 001000000110100101101110001000000111010001101000
> >> 011001010010000001101001011011100111001101100101
> >> 011000110111010000100000011101110110111101110010
> >> 011011000110010000100000011010010111001100100000
> >> 011100000111001001100001011000110111010001101001
> >> 011000110110010101100100001000000110001001111001
> >> 001000000110000101101110011101000111001100101100
> >> 001000000111010001100101011100100110110101101001
> >> 011101000110010101110011001011000010000000001101
> >> 000010100110001001100101011001010111010001101100
> >> 011001010111001100100000011000010110111001100100
> >> 001000000110011101100001011011000110110000100000
> >> 011011010110100101100100011001110110010101110011
>
> >> On Saturday, March 10, 2012 8:53:55 AM UTC-3, archytas wrote:
>
> >>> Consider this in terms of 'where information comes from?'.
> >>> Fungiculture in the insect world is practiced by ants, termites,
> >>> beetles and gall midges. Ants use the antibiotics to inhibit the
> >>> growth of unwanted fungi and bacteria in their fungus cultures which
> >>> they use to feed their larvae and queen. Ants not only evolved
> >>> agriculture before humans but also combination therapy with natural
> >>> antibiotics. Humans are just starting to realise that this is one way
> >>> to slow down the rise of drug resistant bacteria - the so called
> >>> superbugs. These antibiotics are produced by actinomycete bacteria
> >>> that live on the ants in a mutual symbiosis.
>
> >>> As humans we often make much play of the idea that our rational minds
> >>> do the inventing - yet we are clearly borne in more than that and
> >>> 'science' in some senses is afoot without us.
>
> >>> On Mar 8, 7:23 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > The bit on why everything would not be information was more or less
> >>> > the point of many who taught me Craig - the position being 'everything
> >>> > is information exchange' which seemed to me as helpful as
> >>> > methodological solipsism. Data is always capta to some extent, but
> >>> > this is a distraction from really doing stuff and not very important
> >>> > in most contexts - philosophy so rarely is. If we wanted 'tortuous'
> >>> > I'd recommend dynamic semantics. I don't see modern realism as
> >>> > mechanistic and though I agree with your thrust, don't see our
> >>> > consciousness as necessarily much to do with anything that matters
> >>> > (though I retain the hope it might be and this may be the mental
> >>> > equivalent of 'warp technology'). It may be that there is no
> >>> > information world that we entangle in some analogue of sensing as we
> >>> > do what we more easily regard as real, but then this 'real' is less
> >>> > real than we once regarded it. So where does information come from?
> >>> > It seems to pre-date us as a species, and may be coming from Lord
> >>> > knows where in this universe or another. We carry the stuff in our
> >>> > genes and these are in interaction with the environment to the extent
> >>> > of massive activity in our DNA as a result of exercise, changing what
> >>> > gets switched on and off. I'm led to suspect another 'meta-
> >>> > information world' that somehow organises information's interactions
> >>> > in the environment it finds.
>
> >>> > I don't do philosophy largely because I can't shake a stick at it, but
> >>> > sometimes I appreciate some of its products. I quite like Snell and
> >>> > Lugwig on such matters as there being no 'leap' from alleged
> >>> > mechanistic Newton to quantum ideas - however pedantic the explanation
> >>> > it seems to me deductive and painstaking in the good sense. Of
> >>> > course, lots of argument is really just people taking sides over what
> >>> > doesn't matter. One might consider the future of information and what
> >>> > it might be if we could experience both 'ends' of distant objects in a
> >>> > wave equation at once.
>
> >>> > On Mar 7, 4:40 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > > On Mar 7, 10:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > > > There are some fairly standard arguments on information in
> >>> semantics.
> >>> > > > How data can come to have an assigned meaning and function in a
> >>> > > > semiotic system in the first place is one of the hardest problems
> >>> in
> >>> > > > semantics. One can turn to whether data constituting information
> >>> as
> >>> > > > semantic content can be meaningful independently of an informee.
> >>> Data
> >>> > > > (as relata) can have a semantics independently of any informee.
> >>> > > > Before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, Egyptian hieroglyphics
> >>> were
> >>> > > > already regarded as information, even if their semantics was
> >>> beyond
> >>> > > > the comprehension of any interpreter. The discovery of an
> >>> interface
> >>> > > > between Greek and Egyptian did not affect the semantics of the
> >>> > > > hieroglyphics but only its accessibility. That is, meaningful data
> >>> > > > being embedded in information-carriers informee-independently
> >>> supports
> >>> > > > the possibility of information without an informed subject.
>
> >>> > > It seems like that only if we use a model of semiotics which
> >>> presumes
> >>> > > only single layer of semantic content. What I propose looks more
> >>> like
> >>> > > this:
>
> >>>http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/slide19.jpghttp:...
>
> >>> > > We can tell that Egyptian hieroglyphics seem like human language
> >>> texts
> >>> > > because our frames of human experience include making sense of
> >>> iconic
> >>> > > visual signals. A cat is not going to be able to tell that
> >>> > > hieroglyphics or Greek seem like language - writing is above the
> >>> > > anthropological threshold. A cat may be able to tell if you are
> >>> angry
> >>> > > at it (a dog even more) but probably not a cockroach.
>
> >>> > > This indicates to me not that information exists independently of a
> >>> > > subject, but rather that subjects have many different channels of
> >>> > > sense which they share and do not share with other subjects. I think
> >>> > > that is it a mistake to take perception for granted - to assume that
> >>> > > because we do not understand an explicit cognitive meaning from a
> >>> > > given text that we are not already interpreting a variety of visual
> >>> > > semantic cues which allow us to categorize the text in a general
> >>> way.
>
> >>> > > What could 'information' or 'data' be without some capacity to
> >>> detect
> >>> > > it? What causal efficacy could it have? Nothing. Information that
> >>> does
> >>> > > not inform something in some way is not anything at all.
>
> >>> > > > Meaning is
> >>> > > > not (at least not only) in the mind of the user.
>
> ...
>
> read more

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.