0ThouArtThat0
Video Cam Direct Upload
Source
Re: Re: Dawkins and Dennett
Similar Posts
6/21 Days of Mindfulness Bootcamp – Mindful Listening : Practicing Meditation on Sounds.
What is consciousness ? Science of the mind – Michio Kaku
New hope for humans in an A.I. world | Louis Rosenberg | TEDxKC
33 thoughts on “Re: Re: Dawkins and Dennett”
Comments are closed.
define information, if you will.
Information is a physical relationship between other physical entities. The distance between two objects is information. Information is the state of the universe. Matter/energy is what holds the state, and spacetime is where that state is defined. Information is a physical concept. There is a branch of physical sciences devoted to the study of information. An email is information. This post is information. Your video is information. Your mind is information in exactly the same way.
Would you agree that it takes some kind of interpreter to make "distinguishable" the states of a system, or to "notice" that which is conserved, for information to be considered present?
Does information exist independently of our ability to measure it? If it does, does it exist independently of matter's ability to relate to itself in an ordered, intentional (ie, informationally coherent) way?
To get information from a system, don't we need to ask questions about that system? Can we say that information exists ready-made prior to our arriving to investigate? Don't different kinds of questions give us entirely different kinds of information about the same system?
Information is way of representing, transforming, understanding, instantiating, etc. a state/relation, not a state/relation itself. Physical flux just *is*. Information is way of observing some phenomenon. It implies some 'processor' of that information. And in the case of physics, if matter/energy is the processor of itself there seems no reason to invoke such a distinction. Matter/energy simply *does*, it doesn't need to process. What do you think of this characterization?
"Does information exist independently of our ability to measure it?"
Of course. Did DNA exist before humans? Of course.
"If it does, does it exist independently of matter's ability to relate to itself in an ordered, intentional (ie, informationally coherent) way?"
Define 'relate to itself'. Information is what makes relation possible. It *is* relation. The singularity existed in a low information state. The present universe is high information, *because* of complex relations between m/e and st.
That is the colloquial way of using information and it depends on human consciousness and interpretation. I'm using the physicalist definition of information meaning 'state', i.e. the state of the universe. It is a more foundational understanding of information.
To my mind, the direct causal influence of physical events on one another requires no additional construct ('information')to understand. Information implies that one particle has to 'tell' another it is acting on it with a force. If this was the case, the communication should be able to break down in some cases, the information garbled/destroyed. This is never the case with physical events, they act on one another without needing to 'inform' one another they are doing so.
'The distance between to things' is clearly a measurement.
joe, what you bring up about particles having to communicate with one another is why I am somewhat confused by the physicalist use of the word information. it's almost as though they are implying what you are saying, which I am not entirely opposed to (info. is communication). but I agree that info. is more a way of understanding states/relations, it is not the state/relation itself.
well clearly we agree on this point. Although I am not ready to assume that the state of your system cannot be instantiated on a different medium if the informational transfer is sufficient. This is a point I'm not sure about. 'Not everything is information' is a different position than 'information doesn't exist'
I just made a video discussing this, using Bateson's definition of information as "a difference that makes a difference." This implies that it makes a difference to someone. In other words, what counts as information depends on your interests at the time.
I don't think we need any magical fairy dust, but the nervous system is more than the sum of its parts. It is an emergent, self-organizing system with global properties that can alter local properties (and certainly it works in the reverse as well, with local properties influencing global dynamics).
"they act on one another without needing to 'inform' one another they are doing so. "
Wow, somebody needs to go back to Physics class. Of course physical interaction requires 'informing'. Electromagnetic interaction is carried by photons. Nuclear interaction is carried by gluons. Etc.
just because the architecture of living organisms is not Turing-computable does not make them supernatural. It just means they are non-linear, obeying a circular logic that cannot be abstracted.
No. A measurement is a measurement. Before the measurement, there was already a certain distance between the two objects. Do you think it required human measurement before the sun and the earth were in a particular orbital distance?
Information is necessary for physics to work. We know there are two masses, we know the properties of spacetime, we know the formula for gravitational force. To complete the calculation, you must fill in the remaining detail: The actual distance between the objects.
"This implies that it makes a difference to someone."
No, it does not. The orbital distance between the Earth and Sun makes a difference to the velocity the Earth will travel. This difference occurs whether there are humans around to observe it or not.
Spacetime knows no measurements. These are abstractions brought forth by human beings interested in them as information.
Spacetime doesn't 'know' anything. What the heck does that even mean? The Earth and Sun have a particular relationship between each other, within spacetime. The relationship has nothing to do with whether that relationship is measured or not, it exists regardless. If the relationship were longer, the Earth would orbit slower. If shorter, it would orbit faster. That relationship is information. It is the state of the universe.
Well, you apparently "know" these measurements are true, right? So your body, as part of spacetime, has just known itself.
You are the relationship you have just defined. You are the universe.
This is why I call Dennett a mystic.
I did fine in physics. I think you're missing the point. The we solve a physics problem is by abstracting information and computing it, no doubt. This does not mean that the substance we extracted the information from is itself information. What is your informational account of entangled photons, just out of curiosity?
I'm not denying that that physical situation existed despite some observer, but 'distance' is a construct used to help break down physical flux into manageable understandable chunks for some observer. There is a difference, the way I see it, between 'informing' and 'effecting'. For instance, the photons bouncing off my desk inform me there is a solid object which is my desk. I don't have 'direct' access to the desk, I only have what those photons imply.
Further, the effect that the photons have on my retinal cells is not itself information, but energy flux. When that flux is integrated into my nervous system and used to inform me as an entity about some state of affairs I don't have direct access to, it becomes information. But until then, it is just flux.
The question is really if we will ever be able to model the sufficient relevant features on some other substrate so that the properties from which consciousness emerges are preserved. Not all features of a system can be modeled, that is what makes it a 'model', but it is possible to capture the most important ones (for some cases). For conscious entities, this could be tricky business, but 'theoretically' possible. This is why I'm agnostic on the matter.
The great Bruce Lee said, "It is like a finger pointing to the moon. Do not look at the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory."
The concept of distance is distinct from real distance. 'Distance' is a construct to help us understand *real* distance. But that distance is real, whether we use 'distance' to talk about it or not. Real distance is the information I'm talking about, not the concept of 'distance'. The moon, not the finger. Or do you think the 'moon' is just a human construct?
The effect of the photons is distinct from the state of the photons. You are now confusing information with interaction. The physical forces, gravity, electromagnetic, etc. define the interactions. But the state of the photon itself, it's wavelength, polarization, position, direction, all of these are information.
By the way, your 'flux' is what I call 'process'. A process is a stable transformation of information states within spacetime. Process is also a physical phenomenon. No mystery there.
That's easy. The photons share a common state, as defined by QM. State is information.
You are equivocating on 'information', going between the colloquial usage and the scientific usage, as it suits your rhetoric. I am only defending the scientific usage and how it explains life and consciousness without the need for mysterious non-physicality. I couldn't care less for the colloquial usage in this conversation. The colloquial usage depends on physical information anyway, so the point is moot.
the physical situation which allows us to parse out the 'moon' as a unit, or 'object, does not require any construct of mind, but considering it as a singular entity distinct from the situation it finds itself in is certainly a consequence of mind.
How are the common states held though? How is the information exchanged? I'm not trying to invoke any mysterious non-physicality. Do not confuse my arguments with Matt's. I believe I've been using one form of 'information' in all of my posts, if you can show me where I've contradicted myself I'd be happy to take another look.
The 'colloquial' usage, as you've so nicely framed it, is the position of some very respectable scientists, so to say one usage is the only way it can be used 'scientifically' is a bit bullheaded.
From Bateson's Wiki: "Creatura and Pleroma. Borrowed from Carl Jung who applied these gnostic terms in his "Seven Sermons To the Dead".[17] Like the Hindu term maya, the basic idea captured in this distinction is that meaning and organization are projected onto the world. Pleroma refers to the non-living world that is undifferentiated by subjectivity; Creatura for the living world, subject to perceptual difference, distinction, and information."
On the topic of blue brain node weightings. Sounds like it's related to the brain principle of "neurons that fire together wire together." I think they would need to have that kind of programming built into the chip on a firmware level to even hope of getting that to work.