|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 03. February 2007 20:36
Well, since my definition of "Information" hasn't changed since the onset, I guess I'm just having trouble articulating it properly.
My definition:
Information = All that can be known
still stands.
The confusion apparently began when I tried to express that - since we humans are the only ones aware of this definition - we would be the ones deciding what can be known. (My bad. I should have left that one alone).
I don't think information requires humans (or knowers). My position has always been that information exists apart from knowers. My definition only requires the potential to be known, not the actual act of knowing.
I think dead languages are examples of information because they have the potential to be known. It may be hard to figure them out, it may take discoveries of other artifacts that help us get a better understanding of what the original speakers meant, it might take comparisons with known language patterns, but since the potential is there; dead languages = information.
I think DNA is another good example. The information was always there, we just didn't know anything about it.
So the old Daniel and the new Daniel are just one (slightly schizophrenic) person.
Sorry Z.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 03. February 2007 20:38
Let me just ask this:
Is there any undiscovered information in the universe?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 03. February 2007 21:12
Daniel, quote:
My definition:
Information = All that can be known
But only by humans?
quote:
Is there any undiscovered information in the universe?
Based on your definition, no but it looks like the same thing as asking if there is anything north of the north pole!
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 03. February 2007 22:41
Daniel: Is there any undiscovered information in the universe?.
No, simply because there is no "information" in the universe. It (the universe) exists physically, irrespective of our being here to know it.
Are there things we do not know about the universe? Of course there are.
Are there limits to what we can know?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 03. February 2007 22:53
IF: How can you tell when you are sending/receiving incorrect information about reality? How could a non-human do it?
From Wikipedia: Michael (gorilla)
quote:
Michael's favorite color was yellow, his favorite shows Sesame Street and Mister Rogers. He enjoyed the music of Luciano Pavarotti and looking at pictures. Michael also greatly enjoyed painting, and took it quite seriously, as opposed to Koko, who would paint for fun.
...
Michael seemed to behave much like a small child. Gorillas are thought to have a general IQ range of 75-90, whereas 100 is average for humans. Michael has described emotion, memories, and lies through sign language. Both Michael and Koko used the sign "fake" to describe a lie or to express doubt about the truth of a statement.
In addition, I have seen dogs "pretending" to do what their master has commanded. As soon as it thinks the owner can't see it, it goes back to what it wanted to do in the first place. It's a funny thing to see, and it means that animals have more guile than we give them credit for.
[ 03. February 2007, 23:25: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 03. February 2007 23:00
Martin: At least I can conceive as many incorrect information as you like (for instance that Mexico is in Europe. Or that Imanuel Kant invented wheel.)
That last point is clearly false. Immanuel Kant can only be said to have invented "half a wheel". It took the British philosopher John Locke to invent the other half of the wheel for it to be a workable mechanism.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 03. February 2007 23:08
Zarathustra,
Thanks! So, do you think that it is fair to say that information is more than all we as humans can know?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 03. February 2007 23:35
IF: Thanks! So, do you think that it is fair to say that information is more than all we as humans can know?
Zarathustra does not think this is a fair thing to say. Since so many people have trouble determining the meaning of simple words (such as "information"), it is unreasonable to claim that humans can even accommodate the information they already have available.
To go beyond this is overly optimistic, IF.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 04. February 2007 02:20
Daniel Smith
quote:
My position has always been that information exists apart from knowers. My definition only requires the potential to be known, not the actual act of knowing.
What about incorrect information? Do you think that all incorrect information exists apart from knowers?
quote:
I think dead languages are examples of information because they have the potential to be known. It may be hard to figure them out, it may take discoveries of other artifacts that help us get a better understanding of what the original speakers meant, it might take comparisons with known language patterns, but since the potential is there; dead languages = information.
There were many ancient oral cultures that did not use writing (see Walter J. Ong "Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (1982)"). I can't imagine how it would be possible to restore such dead languages without any written record.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 04. February 2007 12:04
Daniel,
Is it fair to say that all of the definitions so far considered can be used in context or are you still looking for a single definition so that we can be precise when talking about what is not information?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 04. February 2007 15:52
I asked: quote:
Is there any undiscovered information in the universe?
IF answered:
quote:
Based on your definition, no but it looks like the same thing as asking if there is anything north of the north pole!
Actually, based on my definition, the answer is "Yes".
Zarathustra answered:
quote:
No, simply because there is no "information" in the universe. It (the universe) exists physically, irrespective of our being here to know it.
So we are agreed that Information is not a physical thing?
Zarathustra then added: quote:
Are there things we do not know about the universe? Of course there are.
What set do these "things" belong to if not the set "Information"?
Zarathustra then added in another post: quote:
Since so many people have trouble determining the meaning of simple words (such as "information"), it is unreasonable to claim that humans can even accommodate the information they already have available.
From this answer I am curious as to how Zarathustra defines Information, since this "information" is "available" but obviously not "known".
Martin asked:
quote:
What about incorrect information? Do you think that all incorrect information exists apart from knowers?
Martin brings up an interesting point; since most incorrect information actually originates in the "knower", (through the act of "mis-knowing") - the "mis-knower" then becomes the "source" of the incorrect information.
Obviously then it's not the act of "knowing" but rather the act of "mis-knowing" that causes incorrect information. Incorrect information then does not require a "knower", it requires a "mis-knower" - which is then redefined as a "source". So were back to information requiring a source but not a knower.
Zarathustra will heartily agree with me I'm sure, since the correct definition of "Information" is available, but I have "mis-known" it, thereby becoming the source of the incorrect information in this thread! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Martin then added:
quote:
There were many ancient oral cultures that did not use writing (see Walter J. Ong "Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (1982)"). I can't imagine how it would be possible to restore such dead languages without any written record.
It's true, these languages are lost, but it's not for a lack of "knowers", it's for a lack of "sources".
IF asked:
quote:
Is it fair to say that all of the definitions so far considered can be used in context or are you still looking for a single definition so that we can be precise when talking about what is not information?
As far as I can tell, all the definitions can be summed to either of these two:
Information = All that can be known
OR:
Information = All that is known
I believe the second is the definition of "Knowledge", not "Information".
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 04. February 2007 19:58
Daniel: What set do these "things" belong to if not the set "Information"?
That's nice, Daniel. To risk inverting Russell, I would say that those things belong to the set of things that do not belong in any set.
Sethood is not compulsory, is it?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 04. February 2007 20:09
Daniel: Do we know a DNA molecule? (Or do we just know some things about that molecule?)
Another fine question. We're starting to agree at last, Daniel.
Can we actually "see" a chair?
At what point do we have to infer the existence of something we cannot detect directly?
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 05. February 2007 07:22
Daniel:
quote:
Obviously then it's not the act of "knowing" but rather the act of "mis-knowing" that causes incorrect information. Incorrect information then does not require a "knower", it requires a "mis-knower" - which is then redefined as a "source". So were back to information requiring a source but not a knower.
It means that even if we know information we are not "knowers", "humans" but only sources? Or otherwise - in your conception there is no need for humans, "knowers", "mis-knowers" but all you need is "sources"? Yet all of these "sources" by coincedence are humans neverthenless.
quote:
It's true, these languages are lost, but it's not for a lack of "knowers", it's for a lack of "sources".
I don´t agree. It is due a lack of knowers or tools that knowers use. These tools which are used to record words are also invented by knowers - if they are manuscripts, books, audio, video etc.... There is no source of a language except humans and their tools that record it (if we do not consider possibility that Logos (word) was given to humans from divinity. Then the source of language would be transcedental.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 05. February 2007 19:16
Martin,
quote:
It means that even if we know information we are not "knowers", "humans" but only sources? Or otherwise - in your conception there is no need for humans, "knowers", "mis-knowers" but all you need is "sources"?
The question we must answer is: "Where does Information begin?".
We must decide if information begins with the source/sender/author, or if it (whatever "it" is) only becomes information upon receipt by the knower/receiver/reader.
My position is that no knower/receiver/reader is required. I say Information begins with the source/sender/author.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
