|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 22. January 2007 15:45
2ndclass,
You wrote:
quote:
Thus programmed, my calculator would be adding, according to your definition. You may object and say that programming it entails injecting part of myself into the calculator, so that I'm the one showing the correspondence rather than the calculator. To which I would respond: If a student appears to be adding, is it really his teacher who's doing the adding?
Now you understand what I am trying to say. If my student can merely follow an algorithm then he or she is not the one accomplishing the immaterial task (the physical task I will give you and you don’t even have to call it “radd”). The abstraction (mathematics -addition included) is not done by following an algorithm.
My goal as a teacher is not that my students would be able to follow an algorithm. Of what use would that be to them any way? My goal is that my students will be able to create an algorithm on their own, not from memory; but rather, that they will be able to create an algorithm from understanding. When they can do that, then they are the programmer; they are the creators of information. Your calculator will never be able to create an algorithm from understanding, never.
So, if my student appears to be adding, then he or she could be creating an algorithm from understanding or simply following the steps of my algorithm. Which one they are doing is a difficult riddle to solve, even subjective at times. This is do to the immaterial aspect of the process. I hope that you would expect me to be teaching the former were I to teach your son or daughter.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 22. January 2007 16:22
Matt: quote:
The brain still cannot use the five senses to perceive something that cannot be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled.
From a physical point of view, when we "see" something, photons cause a biochemical reaction in the optic nerve, which in turn triggers reactions in other parts of the brain. From an abstract POV, a pattern in the photons is transformed into a processed pattern in the brain. By mixing the two points of view, you're committing a classic category error, as I have already said.
quote:
For mathematicians and physicists alike it is pure, unbridled, breathtakingly glorious mystery.
False.
quote:
Yet all of mathematics depends upon it.
False.
quote:
And, for example, the concept of infinity is just as necessary and non-negotiable an ingredient in any NASA mission as the alloy in their rocket ships.
False.
quote:
Furthermore, our ability to use language depends upon the capacity to form an infinite variety of creative sentences.
False.
quote:
Now again I will suggest that the distinction between abstract information and concrete information is exactly the same as the distinction between irrational numbers (infinite) and rational numbers (finite).
I have no idea what you're saying. If you're talking about cardinality, the set of irrational numbers is uncountably infinite, and the set of rational numbers is countably infinite. If you're talking about decimal representation, some rational numbers require an infinite number of digits.
quote:
The concrete word “apple” can be fully represented though in a multitude (even infinite) variety of ways (i.e. no two apples are exactly the same. The word abstract word “peace”, which also can be represented in an infinite variety of ways (a peaceful village; a peaceful ocean; etc.) but can never be fully represented, for something could always be just a little more peaceful.
As far as I know, nobody has defined an exact genotype and phenotype for an apple, so there is no such thing as an exact apple. Likewise, there's no clear definition of perfect peace. So it really makes no sense to say the one can be fully represented and the other cannot.
Is the speed (abstract) of light fully represented by the motion of a photon?
quote:
So the distinction between the abstract and the immaterial is simply that abstract is a subset of the immaterial.
So is the soul abstract, or merely immaterial? What properties do non-abstract immaterial entities have? You've already said that they don't have charge, mass, etc., but maybe you can tell us what properties they do have. Are they composed of elementary chargeless, massless particles? Does it make sense to speak of the mass of an non-abstract immaterial object? If not, why not? If so, are photons immaterial?
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 22. January 2007 17:00
Melvin, I hope we haven't gone too far afield of the thread topic.
quote:
Your calculator will never be able to create an algorithm from understanding, never.
This, of course, depends on the level of understanding we're talking about. There is no Turing-computable understanding that's theoretically out of reach of machines. But uncomputable understanding, such as a perfect understanding of which programs will halt and which will not, will always be out of reach of machines. But they're also out of reach of humans, unless humans are super-Turing automata, which I see no evidence of.
quote:
I hope that you would expect me to be teaching the former were I to teach your son or daughter.
I certainly would, and I would be thrilled to have you as their teacher as I'm sure you do an excellent job.
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 22. January 2007 18:01
2ndclass,
I posted my humble answer to the Chinese room problem, adapted to the "soon to become famous" calculator thought experiment, last week. Respecting your take on physical science and rejection of poorly constructed statements -- I must side with Mel's last post to you; where he has expressed a matching set of ideas to what I expressed. Do you also reject my comments? The secret is the ability to tacitly explore reality's structural relations, deductively, with logic. ie ... figure out subtraction from an understanding of addition.
A calculator cannot, but a living thing can and so may a computer with AI programming. Remember AI struggles the most with tacit knowledge, to use it with some authority, the database it accesses must have a great amount of reference material.
quote:
A person can add; and at the same time comprehend the logic of adding. These are separate steps and as you point out, the adding step is objective and mechanistic. In the second step, while comprehension of adding is subjective – the logic behind it is not. As per my prior post, the “knower’s” sense of adding processes is subjective. However, the correct detection of the target underlying logic is a focus on a real structural aspect of reality.
Adding, as defined by Mel, is able to deduce meaning in the relations and goes past the deterministic methodology of a calculator.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 22. January 2007 18:16
2ndclass,
You wrote:
quote:
There is no Turing-computable understanding that's theoretically out of reach of machines.
We are very far apart on this topic. My goal in any discussion is to be understood. I believe we understand one another although we disagree. I appreciate your good humor, patient attention to my ramblings, and clear articulation of your position. I am sure we will have another go some time soon.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 22. January 2007 18:42
Daniel Smith,
quote:
I'm a bit confused about your use of the terms "informer" and "informant"; I thought those were the same thing? (Which is why I used "sender" and "receiver".)
You are correct. I really meant informed implying the same as your use of receiver.
quote:
If I understand your question to mean "Does information require both a sender and a receiver?", my answer is "No".
That is great and I agree however, checking all of the different subtle meanings and/or contexts senders and/or receivers are often implied and can lead to confusion as it often does with me when I am in a hurry.
quote:
I believe the ultimate source of information is always an intelligent agent, but there does not necessarily have to be someone available to receive the information for it to be called "information".
Then shouldn't your word "always" be changed to "almost always" so that it will be consistent (that old hobgoblin of a notion!) with your statement quote:
"Does information require both a sender and a receiver?", my answer is "No".
I don't see how it is possible to conceive of a sender and no receiver! Unless we assume that the sender somehow isn't aware of what he is sending!
quote:
My position is that Information = All that can be learned (even if there are no "learners").
Isn't that the same as the concepts evoked by words such as data, facts, objects, etc. existing in a non-maximum entropy system? If you agree here then we both agree despite what we feel! Unfortunately or fortunately, I haven't decided which, words can be very ambiguous, confusing, misleading, even humorous if one is not careful. Like I've mentioned before this potential for ambiguity/confusion in words and language is used to great advantage by demagogues, comedians, poets, etc.
I guess if you are 100% comfortable with your understanting and usage of words that describe profound but vague concepts then that's really all that matters, don't you think?
Note: from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information
besides the various contextual definitions of the word "information" these are the suggested synonyms (1. data, facts, intelligence, advice. 2. Information, knowledge, wisdom are terms for human acquirements through reading, study, and practical experience. Information applies to facts told, read, or communicated that may be unorganized and even unrelated: to pick up useful information. Knowledge is an organized body of information, or the comprehension and understanding consequent on having acquired and organized a body of facts: a knowledge of chemistry. Wisdom is a knowledge of people, life, and conduct, with the facts so thoroughly assimilated as to have produced sagacity, judgment, and insight: to use wisdom in handling people.)
many of which require informers and informed (i.e. senders and receivers).
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 22. January 2007 19:11
quote:
I posted my humble answer to the Chinese room problem, adapted to the "soon to become famous" calculator thought experiment, last week.
Stephen, my apologies for missing your posts. I've been reading only Matt and Melvin; I should have been reading your posts also, but frankly your knowledge of philosophy is over my head.
I looked back through your posts, and I don't see any reference to the Chinese Room problem. Could you summarize your answer to it?
quote:
A calculator cannot, but a living thing can and so may a computer with AI programming.
In my responses to Melvin, I ignored the memory limitations of my programmable calculator, so I was assuming that my calculator lent itself to AI programming.
I would say that a machine can "understand" addition even without AI. Technically, everything there is to know about adding natural numbers can be condensed into the axioms of Peano Arithmetic. But to pass an "addition Turing test" would require considerable natural language capabilities, which falls in the province of AI.
quote:
Adding, as defined by Mel, is able to deduce meaning in the relations and goes past the deterministic methodology of a calculator.
It seems to me that "deducing meaning" is a form of algorithmic compression. Humans certainly do this in more sophisticated ways than computers, but with improvements in AI, I don't see anything that a human can do that a computer can't.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 22. January 2007 19:50
2ndclass,
quote:
From a physical point of view, when we "see" something, photons cause a biochemical reaction in the optic nerve, which in turn triggers reactions in other parts of the brain. From an abstract POV, a pattern in the photons is transformed into a processed pattern in the brain. By mixing the two points of view, you're committing a classic category error, as I have already said.
Who’s mixing the two points of view? I repeat, the brain cannot perceive something immaterial. You’re taking the immaterial (namely, patterns) for granted. (Unless you can suggest the possible physical characteristics of, for example, a circle?) They’re so simple and easy to take for granted! Alas, they are immaterial. As I said before, both naturalists and believers in God take the immaterial and rational for granted as self-evident truth.
Um, well yes, infinity is pure mystery yet non-negotiable. So the only hope of a naturalist might just be to close his eyes, cover his ears, and cry, “[Please let it be] false!”
quote:
So is the soul abstract, or merely immaterial? What properties do non-abstract immaterial entities have? You've already said that they don't have charge, mass, etc., but maybe you can tell us what properties they do have. Are they composed of elementary chargeless, massless particles? Does it make sense to speak of the mass of an non-abstract immaterial object? If not, why not? If so, are photons immaterial?
Well the soul would be immaterial and the word “soul” would be abstract. (I’m only using the terms “abstract” and “concrete” as they apply to language/information; I can’t imagine where else they would apply.) But I certainly won’t venture beyond that. “Immaterial particle” and “immaterial mass” sure sound incoherent to me—right up there with “brave sevens” and “humorous rectangles”. I’ve never even considered such questions. I’ll keep objective study of the immaterial limited to mathematics I think. Anything else will probably be revelation from God (so I also study the Bible.)
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 23. January 2007 12:05
quote:
You’re taking the immaterial (namely, patterns) for granted.
I said, "a pattern in the photons is transformed into a processed pattern in the brain." How is that taking patterns for granted? Unless you can tell me what's wrong with my description of "seeing", your apparent paradox stands resolved simply by separating the two points of view.
quote:
Um, well yes, infinity is pure mystery yet non-negotiable.
You're stuck in the 19th century. Matt, meet Cantor.
Do you understand the difference between making bald assertions and actually supporting your claims? For example, you could have explained what's so mysterious about infinity, or you could have quoted a mathematician who characterizes infinity as a pure mystery. But you seem to expect us to just take your word for it.
Here's another example. Your argument for a soul is based on two claims:
1) Humans can perceive information
2) Physical objects cannot perceive information
These are empirical claims. To support them, first you need to provide some empirical test by which we can objectively determine whether something perceives information. (Note that your creativity criterion is not objective.) Second, you need to show that humans pass the test. Finally, you need to show that it's impossible for any physical object to pass the test. Until you do this, your empirical claims stand unsupported.
quote:
So the only hope of a naturalist might just be to close his eyes, cover his ears, and cry, “[Please let it be] false!”
Since your claims are unsupported, dismissing them requires no eye- or ear-covering.
quote:
Well the soul would be immaterial and the word “soul” would be abstract.
So the soul is a non-abstract immaterial entity, but you can't tell us what properties such an entity has.
quote:
I’ll keep objective study of the immaterial limited to mathematics I think.
What does mathematics teach us about non-abstract immaterial entities?
[ 23. January 2007, 13:40: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 23. January 2007 14:40
IF,
quote:
I don't see how it is possible to conceive of a sender and no receiver! Unless we assume that the sender somehow isn't aware of what he is sending!
I guess "sender" is not the most accurate term to describe what I really had in mind. Perhaps a better word would be "Source".
"Sender" describes an act of sending (implying an expected receiver), "Source" does not necessitate any action and therefore does not require a receiver.
Our minds are full of information, whether we "send" it, sit on it, use it creatively, or whatever.
If I jot my thoughts down in a journal, never expecting anyone to read them, obviously my thoughts are still "information", even though there is no specified "receiver".
If I design and build a table, the process makes use of information in a number of ways, but no intelligent organism must "receive" the information - it's just there. Someone can come along and examine the table and "learn" from it, but it is not conditional on their learning (receiving) for it to be called information.
It is my contention that information has - as it's source - Intelligence. (You realize I'm arguing for ID here of course).
I think this is the essence of the Design argument.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 23. January 2007 22:55
quote:
1. It is my contention that information has - as it's source - Intelligence.
2. I believe the ultimate source of information is always an intelligent agent, but there does not necessarily have to be someone available to receive the information for it to be called "information".
3. "Does information require both a sender and a receiver?", my answer is "No".
It is my contention that information has - as it's source - Intelligence. (You realize I'm arguing for ID here of course).
4. I think this is the essence of the Design argument.
I agree with #4. Science must be objective. Prior to the difficult emergence of an objective outlook the Design argument was the only argument. I think this is the essence of the controversy.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 24. January 2007 07:28
Daniel Smith wrote:
quote:
If I jot my thoughts down in a journal, never expecting anyone to read them, obviously my thoughts are still "information", even
though there is specified "receiver".
It depends what words do we jot down. Let say we jot down only word "Sin" (without any article). Word "Sin" without human beeing is nonsensical. First written words do not denote objects. The written word "Sin" is no way symbol of a sin.
Written words denotes just sounds. Recipient should know that "Sin" should be first transformed into a sound. It means that written word "Sin" represent only ephemeral sound of the word of sin. What do we underestand are sounds (and how
we are reading texts and thinking is via sounds I suppose too).
So let say we vocalize the word "Sin".
Now it is comprehensible for illiterate persons too. But behold - in English the same sound has meaning "sin", in German the same sound means "die Sinne" = "meaning" and in some Slavonic languages "syn" = "son".
So I would say that without recipient who knows how to vocalize written words into the sounds and who recognise these sounds in given language as meaningfull the question of information is
senseless. Has word "krkavčina" any meaninig?
Is it information? Can we solve the problem wihout recipient?
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 24. January 2007 13:19
2ndclass,
quote:
I said, "a pattern in the photons is transformed into a processed pattern in the brain." How is that taking patterns for granted? Unless you can tell me what's wrong with my description of "seeing", your apparent paradox stands resolved simply by separating the two points of view…
Patterns are not composed of neurons. Patterns are immaterial. I don’t know how to state it more simply. Patterns are not composed of neurons any more than they are composed of wooden beads on an abacus. Patterns have no physical qualities. The example I gave was a circle: circles have no physical qualities. Nor do numbers or any other patterns at all. They do not have mass, charge, color, shape, etc. The patterns you are staring at right now (I’ll assume they are lights on a computer screen) are not composed of little bitty photons any more than they are composed of little bitty neurons. Such things are the media for patterns, but they are not the patterns.
It doesn’t matter whether you draw a circle or see a circle of rocks or just imagine a circle; the meaning of the word “circle”, the pattern that word represents, is still immaterial. Whether the patterns are inside your skull or outside your skull, they are still immaterial. That is the reason that meaning of the word circle can be translated through a variety of completely different physical media—for example, from paper to computer disc to electromagnetic waves to neurons inside our skulls.
If patterns have no physical qualities, then they cannot be seen (again, they are not photons; vision is a mystery), heard (nor are they air particles), felt (nor are they paper particles), etc. They can only be comprehended and translated. How? I perceive, translate, and use patterns; therefore I am…what?!
quote:
Your argument for a soul is based on two claims:
1) Humans can perceive information
2) Physical objects cannot perceive information
These are empirical claims. To support them, first you need to provide some empirical test by which we can objectively determine whether something perceives information. (Note that your creativity criterion is not objective.) Second, you need to show that humans pass the test. Finally, you need to show that it's impossible for any physical object to pass the test. Until you do this, your empirical claims stand unsupported.
The first claim is itself pure information; therefore just comprehending it is an example of why it must be accepted as self-evident truth. And if information is acknowledged to be immaterial (which is my opening argument in this thread) then the second claim is way beyond self-evident: a rock cannot collide with a circle anymore than my eyes, ears, hands, tongue, or nose can collide with a circle. If you want to say that the brain can use the eyes to see patterns, then you will have to argue that patterns are physical things. Otherwise...I perceive, translate, and use patterns; therefore I am…what?! (I am not my brain.)
As to infinity, Cantor of course discovered marvelous aspects of it, only to reveal deeper mysteries. The main relevance here is that it cannot have a physical medium (i.e. no infinite number of abacus beads, etc.). For the sake of my argument everything else is just icing on the cake. I hardly thought I was making an argument. Let’s see, here’s Roger Penrose: “It appears to be a universal feature of the mathematics usually believed to underlie the workings of our physical universe that it has a fundamental dependence on the infinite." (The Road to Reality, p. 357, italics his) What else? NASA could do nothing w/o calculus.
[ 24. January 2007, 14:24: Message edited by: Matt Connally ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 24. January 2007 14:16
Martin,
quote:
So I would say that without recipient who knows how to vocalize written words into the sounds and who recognise these sounds in given language as meaningfull the question of information is
senseless.
The source of the information knows it's meaning. That is all that is necessary. Information can be misinterpreted any number of ways, but if I write the word "sin" in my journal, most likely I have a particular meaning in mind when I write it. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks it means. Nothing changes my original intent.
quote:
Has word "krkavčina" any meaninig?
Is it information? Can we solve the problem wihout recipient?
You know whether the word "krkavčina" has any meaning or not. You are the source of that particular bit of information. The meaning of the word (or lack thereof) is information - whether anyone else knows about it or not. The fact that you knew the answer when you wrote the question gives that word information content. So yes, we can solve the riddle without a recipient (at least you can).
Let's say, for example, that I make up my own language. Let's say also, that I only speak this language to myself, that I write down my daily doings in a journal (in my language), and I don't tell anyone else the meaning of my words. Does my language still contain information? I'd argue that it does. At least to me it does. Can someone else come along and decipher my journal? Maybe. If they do, they discover it's meaning, but the information was there all along.
[ 24. January 2007, 14:29: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 24. January 2007 14:27
IF,
quote:
quote:
2. I believe the ultimate source of information is always an intelligent agent, but there does not necessarily have to be someone available to receive the information for it to be called "information".
4. I think this is the essence of the Design argument.
I agree with #4. Science must be objective. Prior to the difficult emergence of an objective outlook the Design argument was the only argument. I think this is the essence of the controversy.
You have not really addressed why you disagree with my other contentions (which are summed up in #2 above).
1. Can you demonstrate any instance of information that does not have an intelligent agent as it's ultimate source?
2. Do you possess any information that you did not receive from anyone and have never shared with anyone?
[ 24. January 2007, 14:31: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
