tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6521067097000856394..comments2024-03-28T12:18:51.521-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Science, computers, and AristotleEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17595959505650144062018-11-10T14:39:35.542-08:002018-11-10T14:39:35.542-08:00"A key property of computations is that you w..."A key property of computations is that you will not get more information out of them than went<br />into them. As Mayfield puts it: 'Algorithmic information shares with Shannon information the property that it cannot be created during a deterministic computation. The information content of the output can be less than that of the input, but not greater. Thus, algorithmic information conforms with our intuitive notion that information cannot be created out of thin air.'"<br /><br />That doesn't appear to be true. That seems to confuse the semantic and the technical definitions of information. Given a bit, I can duplicate the bit, thus producing twice the information than I had originally. Where quantum information is concerned, we run into the no cloning theorem, and here we cannot in fact copy qubits. danielmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02211024188318637871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69802009257480441302017-04-29T02:56:50.567-07:002017-04-29T02:56:50.567-07:00Stardusty Psyche: Since the conditional clause is ...Stardusty Psyche: <i>Since the conditional clause is false I need not act upon the dependent clause. [...] That is a conversational technique common among English speakers.</i><br /><br />So you weren't being a smart-aleck, but you also didn't mean it literally. Well, that makes as much sense as anything else you've said!<br /><br /><i>By claiming the principle about god Feser claims his assertion takes the form of defining god into existence, which is an invalid form of reasoning.</i><br /><br />I can see why you're so stuck on this defining-into-existence jag. You apparently think that if you repeat something often enough it will become true. Alas, you still haven't addressed any argument Feser has actually made.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59505234503035476402017-04-23T10:32:10.013-07:002017-04-23T10:32:10.013-07:00Anonymous said...
Stardusty Psyche: Indeed, w... Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Stardusty Psyche: Indeed, which is invalid argumentation.<br /><br />" Except I wasn't making any argument."<br />Your invalid argument, like those of Feser, are still arguments, they simply are not valid.<br /><br />" And yet you're the one who repeatedly stated that animal souls were in existence."<br />??? I did not state animal souls exist. I have no idea where you got that idea from.<br /><br /><br />" Actually, what I now recognise is that even though you keep reiterating this "defined into existence" slogan, you don't actually know what it means! Bit embarrassing that, what? What you probably meant to accuse me of is trying to define something into existence. Except of course, as previously noted, I wasn't remotely trying any such thing."<br />Presumably (giving you both the benefit of the doubt regarding your honesty and rational capabilities), neither you or Feser intended to use this invalid form of argument, but you both did.<br /><br />" I think if you intend to pass yourself off as a smart-aleck, you ought to practise in front of a mirror first."<br />Since the conditional clause is false I need not act upon the dependent clause.<br /><br />" Anyway, perhaps now you will stop saying that things "are" defined into existence when you don't even believe it yourself."<br />Perhaps now you will learn to have a conversation wherein you do not define your speculations into existence, as Feser did.<br /><br />Suppose I criticize your assertion by saying "you have now turned black into white". That is a conversational technique common among English speakers. I am sorry you are not familiar with it.<br /><br /><br />SP After Feser recognizes his error of defining god into existence<br /><br />" Since he hasn't done any such thing — nor attempted to, nor claimed to, nor pretended to, nor anything else"<br />By claiming the principle about god Feser claims he does in fact define god into existence. Now, since you are unfamiliar with this conversational form I can expand my words into a more pedestrian form for your benefit. By claiming the principle about god Feser claims his assertion takes the form of defining god into existence, which is an invalid form of reasoning.<br /><br />{" — that would be slightly impossible. Why don't you find out what his actual arguments are,"<br />I did. He employed the form of defining god into existence by definitionally asserting certain properties of god, which is invalid.<br /><br /><br /> April 22, 2017 at 9:20 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28607836229550095912017-04-22T21:20:24.569-07:002017-04-22T21:20:24.569-07:00Stardusty Psyche: Indeed, which is invalid argumen...Stardusty Psyche: <i>Indeed, which is invalid argumentation.</i><br /><br />Except I wasn't making any argument. I even explicitly pointed out that I wasn't. Aw, you <b>do</b> have trouble recognising actual philosophical argumentation, don'tcha? And yet you're the one who repeatedly stated that animal souls were in existence. (Albeit you incorrectly claimed that it was because of me, which, I'll have you know, is not the case. Animal souls existed long before I came on the scene.)<br /><br /><i>At least you now recognize and admit your fallacious assertion.</i><br /><br />Actually, what I now recognise is that even though you keep reiterating this "defined into existence" slogan, you don't actually know what it means! Bit embarrassing that, what? What you probably <i>meant</i> to accuse me of is <i>trying</i> to define something into existence. Except of course, as previously noted, I wasn't remotely trying any such thing. I think if you intend to pass yourself off as a smart-aleck, you ought to practise in front of a mirror first. Anyway, perhaps now you will stop saying that things "are" defined into existence when you don't even believe it yourself.<br /><br /><i>After Feser recognizes his error of defining god into existence </i><br /><br />Since he hasn't done any such thing — nor attempted to, nor claimed to, nor pretended to, nor anything else — that would be slightly impossible. Why don't you find out what his actual arguments are, and then you could (try to) argue against those, instead of making up gibberish? I mean, yes, it would require some actual intellectual effort on your part, but I can assure it would be much more rewarding.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24279940331891239522017-04-14T07:26:14.078-07:002017-04-14T07:26:14.078-07:00Anonymous said...
" Sigh. OK, great, I have... Anonymous said...<br />" Sigh. OK, great, I have defined animal souls into existence."<br /><br />Indeed, which is invalid argumentation. At least you now recognize and admit your fallacious assertion.<br /><br />Perhaps one day Feser will realize he has argued god into existence, and is thus also engaging in invalid argumentation.<br /><br />After Feser recognizes his error of defining god into existence perhaps he will take the admirable step you have, admitting his error.<br /><br /><br /> April 11, 2017 at 9:31 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41624079021676947142017-04-11T21:31:24.134-07:002017-04-11T21:31:24.134-07:00Stardusty Psyche: A clue is evidence.
Sure... you...Stardusty Psyche: <i>A clue is evidence.</i><br /><br />Sure... you just have no idea what it's evidence <i>for</i>.<br /><br /><i>you have indeed defined the animal soul into existence.</i><br /><br />Sigh. OK, great, I have defined animal souls into existence. Hurray for me. So, by your own admission, animal souls exist! I'm glad we got that settled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11876015843521283932017-04-10T20:01:08.860-07:002017-04-10T20:01:08.860-07:00Anonymous Anonymous said...
Stardusty Psyche:... Anonymous Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Stardusty Psyche: You have defined an animal soul into existence<br /><br /> "The CLUE is right there in the word itself." <br /><br />A clue is evidence. Since you find evidence for the animal soul in the definition of the word "animal" you have indeed defined the animal soul into existence.<br /><br /> April 10, 2017 at 12:05 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13900836025903451802017-04-10T12:05:23.796-07:002017-04-10T12:05:23.796-07:00Stardusty Psyche: You have defined an animal soul ...Stardusty Psyche: <i>You have defined an animal soul into existence</i><br /><br />I would be awfully impressed with myself if I could define souls into existence, but you overestimate me. I merely pointed out that they already exist. You seemed peculiarly ignorant of the fact that anyone would attribute souls to animals — although given your baffling invocation of "ectoplasm", it appears you have no understanding of the philosophical notion of a soul in the first place — so I set you straight. The name doesn't <i>prove</i> souls, it only provides a <i>clue</i>. That's why I said, "The CLUE is right there in the word itself." You ought to read more carefully. (Or indeed, try it even without the "carefully" if you need to start slow.)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6901122995255495542017-04-07T10:57:43.255-07:002017-04-07T10:57:43.255-07:00Anonymous Anonymous said...
" No, an ani...Anonymous Anonymous said...<br /><br /><br />" No, an animal is not a machine, and yes, of course an animal has a soul — or, in Latin, anima... hence the term animal, you see? "<br /><br />You have defined an animal soul into existence, so it is no wonder you are ok with Feser defining god into existence.<br /><br /><br /> April 5, 2017 at 11:37 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78622612911152916012017-04-05T23:37:59.227-07:002017-04-05T23:37:59.227-07:00Stardusty Psyche: That's not what you said, so...Stardusty Psyche: <i>That's not what you said, so I suggest you analyze your own sentence structures more carefully.</i><br /><br />"There isn't really anything to counter."<br />Expletive, verb, negative particle (contracted), adverb, noun, infinitive.<br />Thanks, that was fun!<br /><br /><i>Animals are mechanistic, or do you suppose they have souls made of ectoplasm and posses some fuzzy notion such as "free will{"?</i><br /><br />No, an animal is not a machine, and yes, of course an animal has a soul — or, in Latin, <i>anima</i>... hence the term <i>anima</i>l, you see? The clue is right there in the word itself. Now as for "ectoplasm", that makes no sense on multiple levels. You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you, dear boy?<br /><br /><i>Of course, obviously. This is rather pedestrian stuff here.</i><br /><br />It is, and yet you still get it wrong. A newcomer to philosophy probably ought to begin with the basics, such as identifying informal fallacies like <i>argumentum ad ignorantiam</i>. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68197524133009385302017-04-04T13:19:45.418-07:002017-04-04T13:19:45.418-07:00Anonymous Anonymous said...
Stardusty Psyche:... Anonymous Anonymous said...<br /><br /> Stardusty Psyche: How is your prediction of my future capacity to understand your counter argument relevant to whether there is anything for you to counter?<br /><br />" I'm actually referring to your past capacity — or lack thereof — to understand Feser's point. "<br />That's not what you said, so I suggest you analyze your own sentence structures more carefully.<br /><br /><br />" Besides, animals aren't robots, as a matter of fact ("biological robot" being a flat-out oxymoron)."<br />robot<br />noun<br /> 1A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, <br /><br />So, what part of animals being biological robots do you object to specifically? <br />Animals are mechanistic, or do you suppose they have souls made of ectoplasm and posses some fuzzy notion such as "free will{"?<br /><br /><br />" Oh, so you believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, do you?"<br />Of course, obviously. This is rather pedestrian stuff here. If I inspect my kitchen table and I note an absence of evidence for my keys on that table that is clear and strong evidence of the absence of my keys from that kitchen table.<br /><br />I must ask, how do you function moment to moment, hour by hour, day to day? You seem to lack even the most rudimentary capacity for gathering evidence.<br /><br />Absence of evidence, sometimes called negative evidence, is something we all continually use to function in our lives, although you are apparently unaware of the crucial role negative evidence plays in your life.<br /><br />To gauge the strength of negative evidence we gauge the effectiveness of our inspection method. Again, very pedestrian stuff here, I suggest you do some basic research on the subject and come back after you have educated yourself on it.<br /><br /><br />March 25, 2017 at 12:21 AM<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57251539433209010142017-03-25T00:21:13.916-07:002017-03-25T00:21:13.916-07:00Stardusty Psyche: How is your prediction of my fut...Stardusty Psyche: <i>How is your prediction of my future capacity to understand your counter argument relevant to whether there is anything for you to counter?</i><br /><br />I'm actually referring to your <i>past</i> capacity — or lack thereof — to understand Feser's point. Since you apparently don't comprehend what he said, you were unable to address it in any relevant way, and thus you have failed to present any argument for me to counter. Hey, I'm not holding it against you, just trying to be honest with you. If you want to go study the argument and come up with an actual objection that comes to grips with Feser's article, I'll be happy to take a look.<br /><br /><i>Clearly animal brains operate computationally, absent any human connection.</i><br /><br />That's merely an unsupported claim — the only thing to counter it is to say, "no, you're wrong". Besides, animals <i>aren't</i> robots, as a matter of fact ("biological robot" being a flat-out oxymoron).<br /><br /><i>You have not offered any counter arguments to my specific points so at this point it appears you have none available.</i><br /><br />Oh, so you believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, do you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44463530899240256882017-03-23T20:47:09.209-07:002017-03-23T20:47:09.209-07:00Anonymous said...
SP You have provided no count...Anonymous said...<br /><br />SP You have provided no counter arguments of any rational merit.<br /><br />" There is no evidence that you understand what Searle and Feser are saying, so there isn't really anything to counter."<br /><br />How is your prediction of my future capacity to understand your counter argument relevant to whether there is anything for you to counter?<br /><br />Here is what there is for you to counter:<br />"If Searle is right, then computation is not a natural kind, but rather a kind of human artifact, and is therefore unavailable for purposes of scientific explanation."<br /><br />SP Then Searle is wrong. Clearly animal brains operate computationally, absent any human connection. Behaviors are hard coded in the brain, what we call instincts when we observe them, but are carried out absent any human observation.<br /><br />Animals function as biological robots, taking in sensor stimuli, processing that information, with motor control output and self monitoring sensory negative feedback loops. All that absent any human element.<br /><br />You have not offered any counter arguments to my specific points so at this point it appears you have none available.<br /><br /><br /> March 21, 2017 at 9:17 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71033233201427634162017-03-21T21:17:39.208-07:002017-03-21T21:17:39.208-07:00Stardusty Psyche: Argument from authority is not a...Stardusty Psyche: <i>Argument from authority is not a valuable substitute for rational argumentation.</i><br /><br />Maybe, but we weren't talking about rational argumentation, we were talking about your post.<br /><br /><i>I provided a very specific rationale for my statement. You only disparage my asserted "anonymous nobody" status relative to the status of a "renowned professional philosopher".</i><br /><br />You asked why anyone would listen to him. That he is an accredited professional who has spent decades studying the problem is a good starting place. Saying "clearly" does not make you right, let alone constitute a rationale. (Your question-begging claims are in fact false, some would say <i>clearly</i> false, and you <i>clearly</i> did not even read the article that the post was about.)<br /><br /><i>You have provided no counter arguments of any rational merit.</i><br /><br />There is no evidence that you understand what Searle and Feser are saying, so there isn't really anything to counter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67350596697317430452017-03-20T20:32:05.729-07:002017-03-20T20:32:05.729-07:00Anonymous said...
SP Searle's assertion is... Anonymous said...<br /><br />SP Searle's assertion is wrong on its face. Why does anybody give it even the slightest consideration as a potentially valid notion?<br /><br />" No doubt they were unaware that some anonymous nobody"<br />Are you the same Anonymous who disagreed with me on another thread here recently? Are you an "anonymous nobody"?<br /><br />" on the Internet who didn't read the article disagrees with a renowned professional philosopher."<br />Argument from authority is not a valuable substitute for rational argumentation.<br /><br />I provided a very specific rationale for my statement. You only disparage my asserted "anonymous nobody" status relative to the status of a "renowned professional philosopher".<br /><br />My view is that every argument must stand on its merits irrespective of the notoriety of the author. You have provided no counter arguments of any rational merit.<br /><br /><br /> March 19, 2017 at 7:30 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47324045134935972152017-03-19T19:30:06.429-07:002017-03-19T19:30:06.429-07:00Searle's assertion is wrong on its face. Why d...<i>Searle's assertion is wrong on its face. Why does anybody give it even the slightest consideration as a potentially valid notion?</i><br /><br />No doubt they were unaware that some anonymous nobody on the Internet who didn't read the article disagrees with a renowned professional philosopher. Now that you've informed them, I'm sure Searle will immediately be given the old heave-ho.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84194178680167998432017-03-18T09:17:17.557-07:002017-03-18T09:17:17.557-07:00"If Searle is right, then computation is not ..."If Searle is right, then computation is not a natural kind, but rather a kind of human artifact, and is therefore unavailable for purposes of scientific explanation."<br /><br />Then Searle is wrong. Clearly animal brains operate computationally, absent any human connection. Behaviors are hard coded in the brain, what we call instincts when we observe them, but are carried out absent any human observation.<br /><br />Animals function as biological robots, taking in sensor stimuli, processing that information, with motor control output and self monitoring sensory negative feedback loops. All that absent any human element.<br /><br />Searle's assertion is wrong on its face. Why does anybody give it even the slightest consideration as a potentially valid notion?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30903526472775937932017-02-17T07:14:52.486-08:002017-02-17T07:14:52.486-08:00Dianelos Georgoudis,
If we don't even know wh...Dianelos Georgoudis,<br /><br />If we don't even know what meaning is, I have to admit we cannot conclusively determine if it's possible to have information without it. But I think information sans meaning is identical to information as meaninglessness which is identical to information as nonsense. That seems to make information a nonsense conveying term.<br /><br /><br /><i>"how red looks like carries information (after all red does not look like blue) but cannot be represented by a string of bits."</i><br /><br />That begs the question and, I think, will ultimately be shown false.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Assembly language (or even machine language) syntax is interesting for you and that's why you say it's meaningful."</i><br /><br />You have moved the same problem to a term named 'interesting'.<br /><br /><br /><i>"According to this definition though there is no meaning at the absence of a mind, at the absence of some conscious “contemplator”. So nothing in the zombie world has meaning – there everything just mechanically evolves with no meaning, no beauty, no reason, no freedom, no purpose."</i><br /><br />Honestly, this zombie argument does nothing for me. If a zombie reacts to its environment, its environment obviously means something to it. Whether it finds beauty in anything in it or not is irrelevant. I reject the notion that emotion *must* be invoked for meaning -- although for us humans it may be difficult to think of it in ourselves in any other way.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Suppose the first bits printed are '10000101'. That string of printed numbers exist, but I have no interest in its value, and thus it carries no meaning."</i><br /><br />We can agree that not everything with a meaning has to mean something to every observer. But your example got me thinking. Meaning is an input. As output only it makes no sense. If there is no outside 'observer' to appreciate the output as input, there must at least be a feedback (or satisfaction) component.<br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32386027078680184482017-02-17T07:12:00.447-08:002017-02-17T07:12:00.447-08:00scbrownlhrm,
We humans tend to make ourselves the...scbrownlhrm,<br /><br />We humans tend to make ourselves the center of the universe. From that POV, if things <i>mean</i> something to us then meaning itself must have a noble quality. But maybe it's not so noble and not very unique. Maybe it *does* reside entirely within gravity and particle.<br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42443582023379470702017-02-17T05:51:17.508-08:002017-02-17T05:51:17.508-08:00Tim Finlay,
By coincidence I'm reading Gellne...Tim Finlay,<br /><br />By coincidence I'm reading Gellner's Words and Things (which is ironically about meaning). Gellner disparages Wittgenstein's school of philosophy. Nothing new in that. There's a long history of philosophers disparaging other schools of philosophy. Philosophers helped give birth to modern science and engineering. Scientists and engineers are, in fact, practicing philosophers. You seem to be saying that my school of philosophy doesn't have the tools to <i>approach</i> this problem. I claim my school of philosophy is well suited to <i>solve</i> this problem. Time will tell.<br /><br />I read this blog because philosophic discussions interest me.<br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70312254808716898992017-02-16T12:30:29.252-08:002017-02-16T12:30:29.252-08:00I was thinking that we humans are psychological be...I was thinking that we humans are psychological beings, and that psychology plays a role in everything we do. Now modern science showed that anthropocentrism is not required for explaining phenomena, and often leads people to error. So we found out that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, that the universe is much larger than is needed for any human purpose, that the species including the human species can be understood as the result of impersonal purposeless processes. Philosophers, not wishing to be seen as less smart than scientists, tried then to similarly free philosophy from any all-too-human premises. <br /><br />But many concepts we use in our everyday life – freedom, purpose, beauty, goodness, reason, meaning, and indeed much of what we value in life - are grounded on the human condition, or at least on a metaphysical view in which personhood is fundamental. Nevertheless the philosophers who fancied themselves scientifically-minded tried to make away with the human factor. So they try to describe freedom of will as some kind of illusion or even something incoherent, given that it made no sense on scientism. Today some philosophers insist that scientific results prove that there is no freedom of will. That there is no purpose in reality was an easy one; the concept of purpose simply describes a particular state of the brain which tends to produce action. Similarly there is no beauty in reality, our sense of beauty too is made by our brains, and explanations are offered why natural evolution would evolve brain that have that sense. Reason is a harder nut; but I suppose a naturalist could also reduce reason to a figment of the brain, what one feels when one uses reasoning rules which are proven effective in one's interaction with the natural world. If the naturalist tries, she can also reduce meaning to a brain state, perhaps one one that reflects the brain's propensity to organize data into adaptively useful chunks. <br /><br />So it's not like the naturalist cannot describe a mechanistic world which would produce all our experience of life. The problem for naturalism is that the world it describes is by itself devoid of freedom, of purpose, of beauty, of reason, of meaning. Which is not only a sorry understanding of the reality, but also paradoxical. After all it does seem obvious that some pieces of information have intrinsic meaning, that one refers to an intrinsic matter of fact when one says that Halle Berry is more beautiful than Winston Churchill, that it as a matter of fact better to help a child in need than to torture it, that reason describes objective facts – whatever human brain states might there be. The paradox is that while naturalists try to describe a non-anthropocentric worldview, they end up reducing much of what has meaning back to the human brain. On the contrary the theist has no trouble describing a world in which all the above mentioned obvious facts obtain, whether there is or there isn't a human brain around. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33478478330267020912017-02-15T12:14:36.576-08:002017-02-15T12:14:36.576-08:00@ Don Jindra,
”Information is inherently meaning...@ Don Jindra, <br /><br /><i>”Information is inherently meaningful.”</i><br /><br />I disagree. Consider the word “LOVE” scratched on a rock. It carries both information and meaning at least for an English speaking person. But consider an identical rock existing by chance in a world with no English speaking people. In that world it would still carry information (four scratches on a rock) but would carry no meaning. Shannon's theory of information studies strings of bits, not at all caring what their meaning is or indeed if they have any meaning. On the other hand there is more to information than that theory; for example how red looks like carries information (after all red does not look like blue) but cannot be represented by a string of bits. Thus it seems meaning is not an *inherent* property of information. (At the end of this comment we'll see an example of information that carries no meaning whatsoever.)<br /><br />By pure chance today I saw <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw" rel="nofollow">a short lesson</a> by Feynman about mathematics and physics. There he suggests that there is no meaning in math. I think he is clearly wrong: The mathematical proposition “there is no greatest prime number” is clearly meaningful. I understand what it means, and I can see why it is true. <br /><br />So what is meaning? The dictionary definitions are not helpful, indeed as far as I can see some are circular (such as “what is intended to be expressed”). In philosophy one finds little about meaning except that it is related to truth. On the other hand truth means nothing unless one already understands the meaning of a proposition. It seems meaning is one of these things you know what they are when you see them. <br /><br />I'd say meaning is what makes something interesting to the mind. I am in fact interested to know about how people use the word “love” or what it is in their experience of life they express through that word - and that's what gives meaning to that word. I am interested in the properties of prime numbers and that's why mathematical propositions about prime numbers strike me as meaningful. Assembly language (or even machine language) syntax is interesting for you and that's why you say it's meaningful. I am interested in the properties of the number five, and that makes each item in a list of such properties meaningful. I am interested in what properties make an animal a horse, and thus universals are meaningful. <br /><br />Whatever we think is useful is also interesting, but I am not sure whether it goes the other way too. I find it interesting to know whether other people experience red and green like I do and not inversely (see the inverse spectrum paradox) and that's why the corresponding proposition is meaningful and I would like to know its truth value – but there doesn't seem to be any clear usefulness in knowing the truth of the matter. <br /><br />I think the definition of meaning as that which makes something interesting to our mind comports pretty well with the normal use of the concept. According to this definition though there is no meaning at the absence of a mind, at the absence of some conscious “contemplator”. So nothing in the zombie world has meaning – there everything just mechanically evolves with no meaning, no beauty, no reason, no freedom, no purpose. Of course when *we* contemplate a mechanism we may see meaning, beauty, reason, and so on, in it. <br /><br />We know that consciousness exists in the real world, for we exist in the real world. Now in the real world there is little I can think of that exists and in which I have zero interest, from which follows that little that exists has no meaning. But I can think of some exceptions. Suppose for the heck of it I connect a true random source (say some quantum system) to a computer and have it print out random 1's and 0's. Suppose the first bits printed are “10000101” That string of printed numbers exist, but I have no interest in its value, and thus it carries no meaning. Which fits rather well. Random bits carry information but no meaning. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67138922404648443232017-02-15T08:16:32.917-08:002017-02-15T08:16:32.917-08:00I think one *must* cut out the philosophical half ...<br /><br />I think one *must* cut out the philosophical half of knowledge in order to get rid of the meaning-half of meaning. That way all that's left is non-meaning half of meaning there within gravity and particle. Problem solved. scbrownlhrmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30789868970074844152017-02-15T07:43:56.017-08:002017-02-15T07:43:56.017-08:00Don Jindra,
Engineers didn't invent language. ...Don Jindra,<br />Engineers didn't invent language. They didn't invent meaning. They didn't invent logical deduction. This is not to disparage engineering. <br />I disparage neither engineering nor paleography in my remarks. There are different domains of knowledge. And if engineers want to know about rules of deduction, they do not read a book on engineering but a book about logic, a branch of philosophy. If engineers want to learn about how meaning is expressed through language, they read books on lexicography, grammar, linguistics, semantics, and philosophy of language. This is common sense. <br />Engineers can learn about these fields and then make contributions themselves. Dean Forbes, who was once on a panel I chaired at the National Association of Professors of Hebrew, was an engineer who co-wrote "Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualised." I don't disparage engineers; you do seem to disparage philosophy. So why do you read this blog?Tim Finlaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27242602469214763052017-02-15T05:19:33.278-08:002017-02-15T05:19:33.278-08:00Anonymous & Tim Finlay,
Humans saw birds fly....Anonymous & Tim Finlay,<br /><br />Humans saw birds fly. They wanted to fly too. Engineers solved the problem, not philosophers. Engineers regularly solve problems in a decisive way. Implementation of meaning is just another problem. <br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.com