So far this is sounding deeply related to Reddy's Conduit Metaphor essay and its criticism of folk theories of language use. — Coben

Ah! This is new to me. Must take a deeper look. Cheers.

No no, the other way around. 'Information transfer' is one way we do things with words. — StreetlightX

Ah. Better.

It started with the OP and Banno's inability to acknowledge and answer tough questions. — Harry Hindu

:razz:

Or Harry's inability to see when a question has been answered...

Like I said earlier, the information isn't being moved, it is being copied. — Harry Hindu

Better.

So it seems from this that you agree with the title of this thread? — Banno

It would depend on the definition of "information" that we're using. That word tends to be used in a lot of different senses--including simply denoting "data," or alternately "knowledge"--all sorts of things; those are just two examples. So I'm never sure what someone has in mind with it unless they specify a definition.

Information and meaning are the same thing. — Harry Hindu

Hmm. I'd happily posit that information does not have meaning until it does work.

I'm pushing the physics metaphor here, intentionally.

When we're talking about meaning, that's a property of brains that can't be transferred to soundwaves, gestures, marks on paper, etc. Of course, in a very ontologically loose manner of speaking we say things like "I get your meaning, man," but what's really going on there is not a literal transfer of properties or processes. — Terrapin Station

Thats actually not entirely true. When radar scientists or certain types of communication engineers study "noise" and signal they can differentiate the two by whether they have patterns. Typically the more of a pattern something has then the more likely that it is not "noise" and that it is signal. I think i kind of know what you are getting at though. Life sucks so bad, why tell people that claim to be ethical that they have valid points (signal versus noise).

As usual I am leaving the definitions open, but with a watchful eye on where they go.

The best articulated definition comes from information theory. And in a way this thread is about how such information becomes meaningful.

The best articulated definition comes from information theory. And in a way this thread is about how such information becomes meaningful. — Banno

I think you might be interested in studying signal processing, and also do a google or bing search on the differences between different sound files (mp3 and wave or cd files) as well as analog record players.

OK...

The best articulated definition comes from information theory. — Banno

Didn't Shannon not really define the term? I'm not sure about that. It's been awhile since I read any of that stuff, but I seem to remember the term not really being defined.

At any rate, I'd say that we can transfer data, but obviously I'd not say that we can literally transfer meaning.

Why?

Information theory treats the world as information - information being the order in a given system — Banno

Right. Characterizing knowledge is an important component in information theory.

I can know something without showing or doing anything. So can you.

OK - I understood Shannons entropy equation as a definition of information, but I may have read too much into that.

Why study that stuff mentioned in the previous post? Because when information is important to an individual (some religions say information is not in every case beneficial) that more information or the pursuit of more information shows dedication to the pursuit of truth. Those topics are very pertinent to your OP.

I can know something without showing or doing anything. So can you. — frank

I think that a bit trivial. To know something is to act in certain ways.

I was asking you what their import was; make your point.

But given your name and your comment about god, perhaps 'trivial' is how you roll...

your exact quote was "Why". I think both of us have the same problem.

To know something is to act in certain ways. — Banno

I disagree.

I doubt that. You made the assumption that I, and others involved in the discussion, did not have at least a basic grasp of information theory, despite it having a prominent place in the discussion.

Be worthy.

Did we have this discussion before?

Did we have this discussion before? — Banno

I don't think so. Your view is doing violence to the English language though.

Be worthy. — Banno

I didn't say this earlier because you were nice at the time. Your OP was extremely short and extremely lacking. This is an online forum, don't assume anyone is worthy based on what they write on it. This is a place for ideas not judging someones value. It would help if you studied math as the years progress. I was mediocre at math when i was young but i've gotten pretty good at it as i've gotten older. IQ can improve greatly with age until you get really old in which case thats the case for just about everybody.

If you want to say my posts are short perhaps you should make your posts longer.

OK - real life beckons, but we might come back to this.

I agree.
The former is semantic information, and the latter is physical (specifically, first inorganic, then organic) information. — Galuchat

It seems to me that inorganic sensory information processing systems can process semantic information as well as physical information. For me there is no difference other than the causal relationships that result in information. Minds are just as much a transmitter (a cause) of information as a receiver (an effect), and simply attend to the information that is useful in the moment.

I have said that "Information is the result of communication." Specifically, information is a decoded message. — Galuchat

Information exists everywhere that we either attend or ignore depending on the present goal in the mind. If we arent ignoring information, what are we ignoring? There are both useful and useless information, not that usefulness makes information. The ignored information might be useful for some other goal.

Information isnt created from usefulness. Information is useful or not depending upon the present goal. Minds parse existent information to achieve goals.

...information does not have meaning until it does work. — Banno

I'll just leave this here; have a think about it.

...information does not have meaning until it does work. — Banno

something can be true and just not be known. You are correct, only time will tell the truth to certain aspects of life.

...information does not have meaning until it does work. — Banno

Then its meaning and not information that gets copied to other heads via language use? You still haven't addressed the issue of moving information versus copying it. Can meaning be copied?

"George Washington is the first president of the United States." is information that has no meaning until it is used to do some work?

It seems to me that the above statement is meaningful and information as a result of the state of affairs of George Washington actually having been the first president, not because someone made the statement.

It's doing things with words. — Banno

Language is not moving information from one head to another.

Information is pervasive, not confined to words. Words, if they work, activate informed responses. In ordinary language this is called 'conveying information'; which is a 'movement' metaphor; don't take it literally and the problem dissolves.

..information does not have meaning until it does work. — Banno

Per NASA, in the last 35 years, the amount of the earth's surface covered in leaves has increased by about twice the area of Australia. This is due to an increase in atmospheric CO2.

What work does this information have to do in order to become meaningful?