|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 15. December 2006 17:20
Matt: quote:
By the same logic my laptop computer comprehends the sentence "Two plus two equals four," which it doesn't.
It seems to me that computers understand quite well the concepts of two, four, plus, and equals. If you type "javascript:2+2==4" in the address bar of your browser, it will evaluate the expression exactly as a human would.
And regarding JT75's point, I don't see any reason why computers wouldn't be capable of awareness, unless we can show that awareness is not Turing-computable.
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 15. December 2006 20:07
2ndclass:
I'll admit that I have no idea what Turing-computable is and I think it is irrelevant to the issue. By awareness I mean "self-aware" or "the ability to reflect" and I can see no reason to assume that computers could ever have this ability.
When you write "I don't see any reason why computers wouldn't be capable of awareness," this either means that you think them capable now and see no reason to deny this point (but perhaps would concede that computers are not self-aware) or that it is possible that in the future we might develop computers with this capabililty. (In the latter case be careful, appeals to the future are informal fallacies.)
I guess the question boils down to "is there a significant difference between the way the human mind processes information and the way a computer does?"
If you say "yes" they you are agreeing with the intuition from which Matt is working.
If you say "no" then your worldview might have more problems than those confined to information theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 15. December 2006 23:01
JT75,
quote:
To be fair to Matt's argument I think that we have to concede that he has implied that humans are "aware" that we percieve and process information.
Matt may have implied this, but I did not get that implication. Perhaps my "awareness" is not as keen as yours! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Let me just say this: I'm in full agreement with Matt that information is a non-physical entity. Knowing what we know about DNA and such, it can be said that life runs on information.
There also is no natural cause for information. The "programs" that run life's various systems are not reducible to molecules, amino acids, proteins, enzymes, etc. These programs will still function outside of those entities - as we can readily see with our computer simulations.
So, I'm in agreement with all that, but it almost seems as though Matt is trying to equate "information" with the "soul" or something. I'm not so sure about that one (but I could also be entirely mistaken as to his meaning).
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 15. December 2006 23:56
2nd Class and Daniel,
If we accept my initial argument (that information is immaterial) then it would be a foregone conclusion that neither computers nor Turing Machines (nor anything else manmade) are capable of perceiving or translating information. Computers process electric currents and not nonphysical/immaterial phenomena. I am arguing that we know for certain that information is not composed of little quantum particles (such as of an electric current) or little neurons or anything else.
Put another way, if we wanted to argue that computers and Turing machines do in fact perceive and translate information, then we would be giving a reason that my initial argument should not be true. But that would not actually be addressing my argument directly.
Let me just try to slow this down and take it step by step. If we got out an abacus and counted off seven beads, then would the abacus have done the counting? No, we did the counting, and just used the beads as tools to represent our communication. What if we hooked up a lever that could push the beads one at a time, and then pulled the lever seven times? Then would our abacus have done the counting? No, we would still be doing the counting, and using the abacus to keep track of the data.
What if we used an electric motor to pull a rope attached to the lever? Then instead of pulling the lever ourselves, we can press a button on the motor. Then if we press the button seven times, we can look and see seven beads to one side of the abacus. Now will our little electrified abacus have done the counting? No, we are still doing it.
What if we put in a whole series of levers and made an old-fashioned adding machine? Could such a funky electrified abacus count—even add?
No, we are still doing the counting. We are just using our energy in a different way to do it. In fact, we are using hundreds of thousands of people’s energy to do it. For to make such a contraption from absolute scratch—to cut the wood and carve the levers and the abacus beads; to mine the ore for the electrical components and then fashion those metals into a machine; to build a power plant to provide the electricity (or at least the build some chemical batteries); to organize the hundreds of years of competitive research and development required for each of these endeavors—all that would already encompass billions of man hours.
Man hours—people who are thinking, using math, and creating stuff—all with the result that we can push some buttons and add some apples. We are still the ones perceiving the numbers and doing the counting. Machines are not. Whether you see seven beads on an abacus, seven messages from China on your answering machine thanks to a communications satellite, or Smeagle on the movie screen calculating his odds, human authorship is behind all of it.
Computers are no more aware of arithmetic than is a bucket of sand (what silicon chips are made from) and oil (what plastic is made from). Radios cannot sing. Communication Satellites cannot talk to you on the telephone. Smeagle cannot connive. Rocket ships do not comprehend “Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.” Computers cannot count to ten (much less add 2 and 2).
So who can? All we know for certain is that we can, and the reason we know that is because we can effectively use the ability to create things and effect change. Perhaps that is a good initial working definition of a person: one who can use information creatively.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 16. December 2006 00:17
JT75:
That sounds great, I like the distinction of "make vs. create" and "natural vs. artificial". And I think it makes it so easy to understand what it might mean to say that we were created in the image of the Author of life.
I might add that we can say that science does not give perfect translations of the information in nature, but the translations are steadily improving. From Galileo to Newton to Einstein our translations of natural laws improved dramatically. We know they are still not perfect, but we do know they are very good—dependable enough to use to send men to the moon.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 16. December 2006 00:59
Stephen:
quote:
Trying to “think” about what information (formal) or negentropy mean will not help – it is the study of the math concepts of the subject matter that will bring it into focus. Language betrays us in this.
Most of what you said was way over my head, but I still found it compelling. I want to try to pick up on these last two sentences to share what for me was the most beautiful result of this exploration. The initial argument (that information is immaterial) is incredibly simple, but the implications of it totally, completely, thoroughly beggar the imagination. And it was in concentrating on the math that I stumbled upon what for me was the most mind-warpingly glorious result:
How do you distinguish abstract information from the concrete information (especially when considering that the word 'concrete' is itself abstract)? Answer: the distinction is exactly the same as that for rational and irrational numbers. The one category can be fully represented/imaged; the other cannot. Both categories—-both the abstract and the concrete, both the rationals and the irrationals--are equally real…at least as real as the meaning of the word "real" is real. But one can be fully visible while the other is infinite.
Take the abstract word peace--a peaceful village, a peacful meadow. It can always be just a little more peaceful, so the concept is never fully imaged--in exactly the same way that pi (3.14...) cannot be fully represented. Now take the concrete words rock or apple; they can be as fully physically translated as the words three or four. Or, for a simpler example, I can have 3 apples but I cannot have pi (3.14…) number of apples.
It’s not just language and math that are inseparable; its language, math, and all the information in the universe. As Pythagoras put it, “All is number.” As the Bible puts it, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.”
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 16. December 2006 01:14
BTW, I listed several books earlier that avoided this whole issue of the nature of information. But I should share the one place that I read of a similar argument to my original post. In Science in the Looking Glass by E. Brian Davies (Oxford University Press, 2003), the author writes:
quote:
The belief that numbers exist as objects independent of ourselves is far from being accepted by philosophers. Paul Benacerraf has examined in detail a number of different ideas about what numbers might be if they do exist, coming to the conclusion: “Therefore numbers are not objects at all, because in giving the properties (that is, necessary and sufficient) of numbers you merely characterize an abstract structure—and the distinction lies in the fact that the ‘elements’ of the structure have no properties other than those relating them to the other ‘elements’ of the same structure. …Arithmetic is therefore the science that elaborates the abstract structure that all progressions have in common merely in virtue of being progressions. It is not a science concerned with particular objects—the numbers.” (pp. 82-83)
I haven’t looked at any of Benacerraf’s work. Furthermore, I’m sure this argument must have been made dozens of times in the past. But I’m neither a philosopher nor a mathematician nor a scientist, so I do not know where to look. Does anyone else?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 17. December 2006 17:24
Matt,
I think I'm beginning to understand your position a little better.
We are able to comprehend information. This, I believe, is a sign of our "Intelligence". Intelligence and Information seem to be indelibly linked.
The question is: Are we the source of information? Or are we merely conduits for it's transmission?
If not the source, then we, like the abacus, the computer, the answering machine, etc. are only doing what we're programmed to do. This view would then make the "programmer" the "all in all" - and everything else mere creations.
[ 17. December 2006, 17:41: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 18. December 2006 13:35
JT75,
To say that something is Turing-computable is to say that it falls within the capabilities of a computer with sufficient memory and programming. This applies to all human activities that I can think of. (Roger Penrose might disagree.)
Computers are obviously not fully self-aware -- that is, they can form abstract models of their own state, but those models can't include every detail. But the same is true for humans, so it seems to me that the concept of self-awareness applies as well to computers as it does to humans.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 19. December 2006 07:53
Daniel,
Well on the one hand, it simply would not be possible to program anything—a super quantum computer or the human brain—to perceive or interact with nonphysical phenomenon. The brain, for example, perceives and interacts with light waves (coming in through the eyes), sound waves (coming in through the ears), etc. Man-made computers, likewise, take in data through keyboards, cameras, modems, etc.
My main, opening argument is that we know for certain that information is immaterial; therefore, the brain cannot be the thing that is perceiving information. Whatever it is that is perceiving the information (I’ll call it a soul) is using the brain in principle the same way that I use any other tool, such as an abacus.
On the other hand, I still think this makes us “mere creations.” We can use information creatively. For example, we can use mathematics to design rocket ships and moon missions. But we cannot create information. So we might say that we are made in the image of the Author of all information.
But again, as to whether we are programmed, all I am saying is that the brain could be programmed to do what people do (use math creatively, for example), that is not possible. As to whether a soul can be programmed, I wouldn’t try to ask that question (and I don’t think you have). But it’s surely safe to say that the nonphysical world (mathematics, etc.) is more complex than the physical world—perhaps even infinitely complex.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 19. December 2006 14:57
Matt,
Information is immaterial - we've established that. The next question is: What is the source of information? I'm sure the naturalist will argue that there is no "source", that information just exists. This is your next challenge, to show that Information must have a source.
Also, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the relation between Information and Intelligence. Obviously it takes intelligence to comprehend information, but can it be shown that only intelligence can create information?
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 19. December 2006 15:59
Matt: quote:
Man-made computers, likewise, take in data through keyboards, cameras, modems, etc.
Is data material? It would seem not, since data doesn't have mass, charge, etc. It would seem, then, that computers must have souls in order to process this immaterial data. Have I misinterpreted your logic?
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 20. December 2006 01:40
Daniel,
Those are great questions that deserve a lot of exploring. As to a source of information, on the one hand I think it might be difficult to prove anything. On the other hand, I think we are always talking about rational, creative information (DNA, chemistry, mathematics, etc.). I bet it would be very difficult to prove there is irrational information in the cosmos. Now could we say that the universe has a lot of rational, creative information that does not have a rational, creative author? I don’t think so. Such a statement does not have any context.
As to intelligence, I think a good definition for it could be the capacity to use information creatively. All information is ultimately mathematical (there may be more to it than that, but not less), and let me clarify that mathematics and language go hand in hand. Math is not just a form of communication but also the very essence of communication. Grammar is so mathematical that laptop computers today have excellent editing programs. In other words, we are actually doing simple forms of math when we discriminate between singular and plural; between right and left (as if translating a mathematical graph); amongst comparatives and superlatives (for example: terrible, tolerable, okay, good, very good, excellent = “On a scale of 1 to 7”); amongst masculine, feminine, and neuter (that requires the ability to count to three); between definiteness and indefiniteness (identifying the one and only requires that we can count to one); amongst past, present, future, future perfect, pluperfect (simple translations of a timeline); etc.
Furthermore, when it comes to vocabulary numbers are actually the universal method of translation. Consider that translation programs on computers depend entirely upon binary. We can store entire libraries, in various languages, on a computer hard drive because mathematics and language go hand-in-hand.
As odd as that sounds, all we are observing is that language depends entirely upon patterning. Meaning is conveyed through patterns in sound and in symbol. Which came first, language or math? They are the same. If we could not do one, we could not do the other. Numbers are words, and an equation is any sentence whose main verb is a form of equal.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 20. December 2006 02:01
2ndclass,
Sorry, my wording was a bit messy! I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. We use computers to process data, but the computers themselves don’t perceive that data. I can use my telephone or my camera to take in data, but neither the telephone no the camera perceives the data any more than a bucket of nuts and bolts would. Humans are the only one capable of actually perceiving the data. Computers, telephones, and cameras are all just very, very, very powerful tools in our hands. We use them to leverage information in the way we could use a pulley to easily lift a 1000 lb engine block. It helps to keep in mind the vast amounts of human labor that went in to making all these tools.
We can easily get confused, especially as our special effects improve. In the Chronicles of Narnia movie, Aslan certainly looks like a real talking lion. Similarly, a modern robot might certainly look like it can perceive info. Some cars certainly seem like they can drive themselves. But they are still just tools/entertainment we are using.
If we always go back to the base, things are clear: (1) information is immaterial, and (2) no machine can perceive or interact with that which is immaterial.
IP: Logged
|
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 20. December 2006 09:00
2ndclass:
I appreciated your response because it has served to clarify my intuition on this subject; I guess the issue might come down to will or free will. You write: "Computers are obviously not fully self-aware -- that is, they can form abstract models of their own state, but those models can't include every detail. But the same is true for humans, so it seems to me that the concept of self-awareness applies as well to computers as it does to humans."
First of all, true self-awareness need not entail (nor do I think it implies)"comprehensive self-awareness." So whether or not computers or humans are aware in this sense does not resolve the distinction I am trying to raise. Second when you write, "they can form abstract models of their own state," you are implying the very thing we are debating. That is, the phrases "they can form" and "of their own state" imply that the computer itself has willed to create these models and identifies them as "my state" but this is just the point. The computer only creates these models because it has been programed to create them and we cannot honestly think that the computer reprents this state to itself as "mine" without personifying that which is merely machine. Finally, when you say that a computer can create "abstract" models, to what does this refer? Is it abstract to us or abstract to the computer? If the former, then this goes back to the intuition that there is a difference between the way computers and humans process information, if the latter then this again is personification (atributing the action of a person to that which is not person), which begs the question at hand, Can computers process information in the way humans do, namely, in the context of self-awareness and (additionally) guided by a will that sets the individual human apart as a ontological/metaphysical unit?
I know that the "additional" phrase is a significant addition, but I am literally thinking through the position as we discuss it. And it occurs to me that our view of the metaphysical nature of human vs. machine/computer is going to drive our feelings about this issue. Is man merely a biological machine for which there can be a purely mechanical analogue or is man not merely biological and therefore can have no real mechanical analogue? (obviously I hold the latter position).
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
