For example, after the end of ancient Egyptian civilisation, and before the translation of the Rosetta Stone, nobody knew what Egyptian hieroglyphs meant. — Galuchat

To me a good question is what does it mean to know what a text means? I'd say it's something like weaving it in to the dominant background text of the collective 'consciousness' or exploiting an otherwise dormant or merely potential utility. I imagine the rings of trees which were always there and then at some point an exploitation of various correlations and implications of said rings. But can we not also include the automatic reactions of organisms to their environment as a kind of reading? To understand is perhaps best understood as reacting appropriately (which brings it issues of the goals or values of an organism.)

To me a good question is what does it mean to know what a text means? I'd say it's something like weaving it in to the dominant background text of the collective 'consciousness' or exploiting an otherwise dormant or merely potential utility. I imagine the rings of trees which were always there and then at some point an exploitation of various correlations and implications of said rings. — lll

In my Egyptian hieroglyph example, I was thinking more of the symbols used rather than the text they composed. But your question is an interesting one, and your observations, cogent. A good topic for a new thread.

But can we not also include the automatic reactions of organisms to their environment as a kind of reading? To understand is perhaps best understood as reacting appropriately (which brings it issues of the goals or values of an organism.) — lll

I enjoy metaphors, but if misused, they result in category error and/or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (reification).

Science may be true or false (just because that's the nature of verbal and mathematical language), whereas; awareness is always true.

I enjoy metaphors, but if misused, they result in category error and/or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (reification). — Galuchat

I very much agree that we ought beware. I take one of the big insights of 20th century philosophy to be 'watch out for the metaphors (pictures) that quietly imprison you.' On the other hand, I suspect that analogy is something like 'the core of cognition.'

Science may be true or false (just because that's the nature of verbal and mathematical language), whereas; awareness is always true. — Galuchat

My question is whether the bolded part is more a statement about reality or a statement about grammar/logic (and the relationship between these kinds of statements).

My question is whether the bolded part is more a statement about reality or a statement about grammar/logic (and the relationship between these kinds of statements). — lll

Awareness: factually informed condition; cognizance.

Awareness: factually informed condition; cognizance. — Galuchat

Ah, I was probably riding my hobby horse and thinking about qualia.

Thanks for clarifying.

Warren Weaver: The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning. https://www.panarchy.org/weaver/communication.html — Daemon

So maybe you can summarize or quote the part of the article that information and meaning are not the same thing because the way people use the terms indicates that they are the same thing — Harry Hindu

Oh man!

That part I quoted is the part of the article where the author, one of the pioneers of Information Theory, specifies that "information" is being used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage.

Maybe you need to do some reading around this topic.

Regarding DNA as 'conveying information'- how could it be doing anything else? — Wayfarer

Really don't know if you are being disingenuous here. You don't seem to be stupid.

What it's doing is chemical reactions. How could it be conveying information?

If you're talking about the ordinary usage of the term, information is conveyed between persons, it's something mental.

If you're talking about the use of the term in communications engineering, information is a measure. A measure isn't something that can be conveyed.

But can we not also include the automatic reactions of organisms to their environment as a kind of reading? To understand is perhaps best understood as reacting appropriately (which brings it issues of the goals or values of an organism.) — lll

It baffles me why you want to think of things this way.

To respond automatically is to respond without understanding.

I'm a translator, I use software to assist me in my work. The software responds automatically: when it sees a word or phrase it's seen before, it suggests translations based on how I've translated the word or phrase previously. It often reacts appropriately, but it has no understanding. I understand the words, the computer doesn't.

Wouldn't viruses be non-living things that store genetic history? (Supposing they don't fall under the definition of living things).
— Count Timothy von Icarus

I think that's an undecideable question. — Wayfarer

but I still maintain there is an ontological distinction between life and inorganic matter — Wayfarer

How can you maintain a distinction were the distinction between living and non-living things cannot be made?

It baffles me why you want to think of things this way. — Daemon

Respectfully, to challenge a popular anthropomorphic prejudice, for one thing.

To respond automatically is to respond without understanding. — Daemon

Experienced drivers can concentrate on high-level strategic decisions (like the best path to mom's given the traffic and weather) while trusting the now-automatic harmony of a set of lesser skills (flipping on the turn signal, checking the rearview when changing lanes, etc.)

Wittgenstein and Heidegger and others have IMO successfully challenged the admittedly tempting idea of the primacy of the theoretical and related concepts. Rorty, influenced by thinkers like these, understands a naturalist to see "no breaks in the hierarchy of increasingly complex adjustments to novel stimulation – the hierarchy which has amoeba adjusting themselves to changed water temperature at the bottom, bees dancing and chess players check-mating in the middle, and people fomenting scientific, artistic, and political revolutions at the top." I find a continuum more plausible in this case. Making 'understanding' an invisibly subjective/intuitive thing hides it from a scientific/objective approach and leaves us stuck in the mud of 'doesn't it seem to you that...?'

I don't understand the question.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I took the undecidable question to do with whether viruses are alive.

The division between living and non-living is problematic. There is no single agreed upon definition of what it means to be alive. In that case, while we can distinguish between a cat being alive and rock not being alive there seems to be no dividing point where everything on one side is alive and everything on the other is not.

I agree that it’s a hard line to draw, and that viruses seem to straddle it, but I still say it’s a fundamental ontological distinction.

Rorty, influenced by thinkers like these, understands a naturalist to see "no breaks in the hierarchy of increasingly complex adjustments to novel stimulation – the hierarchy which has amoeba adjusting themselves to changed water temperature at the bottom, bees dancing and chess players check-mating in the middle, and people fomenting scientific, artistic, and political revolutions at the top." — lll

:cool:

Salute!