When we understand messages we “bring information to the table.” The initial signals we receive are combined with a fantastic amount of information stored in the brain [I'd prefer to say, "in the unconscious mind ... which holds the cellular processes of the brain as it constituent makeup (as does consciousness)"] before we become consciously aware of a meaning. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The information that signals are combined with in the brain varies by person and it varies according to the amount of cognitive resources that we are able to dedicate to understanding the message. "Understanding," is itself an active process that requires myriad additional communications between parts of the mind and the introduction of vast quantities of information not in the original signal. — Count Timothy von Icarus
In any deductively valid argument, the conclusions must already be implicit in the premises.... — Count Timothy von Icarus
Shannon’s theory shows how information flows from a source to a destination. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Cognitive science tells us there is no one “destination,” no Cartesian homunculus, who ultimately understands the message; consciousness is an emergent process. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The initial signals we receive are combined with a fantastic amount of information stored in the brain before we become consciously aware of a meaning. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yeah that's it. But the move isn't just to assert that the scandal is resolved "because we are finite," but to show how the foundational model in information theory generates this problem by having a Cartesian Homunculus hidden in plane sight. — Count Timothy von Icarus
primarily due to what I take to be the exceeding ambiguity, and possible equivocations, to what is meant by the term “information”
Every understanding (else here expressed, “meaning”) – this as one example of what we can intend to consciously convey – which we seek to express to others via perceptual means (these most often being visual, auditory, or tactile signs among humans) shall always be understood by others via that body of ready established understandings which each individual other for the most part unconsciously holds in a ready established manner. This will of course apply just as much to all understandings others intend to express to us.
It can thereby be safely inferred that, most of the time, the meaning we are consciously aware of and intend to convey to others via signs will end up in the other’s mind being a hybridization of a) the meaning we hold in mind that we intend to convey and b) the ready established, largely unconscious, body of meaning which the other is endowed with. And, so, in most cases it will not be understood by the other in an identical way to our own conscious understanding.
And this flows with Gadamer's "Fusion of Horizons," theory very well. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I actually think there is a ton of good work that can be done by mining the insights of continental philosophy and other humanities and attempting to put them into a framework that will play nicely with the sciences. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I think information theory and complexity studies in particular give us the language to begin a translation process. E.g., I'm also working on trying to put Hegel's theory of institution/state development, laid out in the Philosophy of Right, into the terms of the empirical sciences. — Count Timothy von Icarus
(And of course, part of the reason for the gulf is the "linguistic turn" leading continental philosophers to begin making up slew of new compound words and phrases, so as to avoid "cultural taint," but IMO this has mostly had the effect of making them unintelligible to people outside a small niche). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Count Timothy von Icarus Your prose is always a model of clarity, and this piece is very well written, but I wonder if it is too much information (speaking of information!) for a forum post. I don't know if you write on Substack or Medium or any of the long-form prose platforms that are beginning to proliferate, but I suspect a piece of this length and density might be better suited to those media.
I don't know if this allows for the all-important role which Kant assigns to the synthetic a priori. A purely deductive truth, that if a man is a bachelor he must be unmarried, is indeed kind of trite, if not scandalous, but the role of the synthetic a priori is a different matter. Einstein's theory of special relativity could be considered an example. Concepts like time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc²) were not deduced purely from logical analysis but were derived from a combination of theoretical reasoning and empirical evidence. However, they are a priori in the sense that they hold true in all inertial frames of reference and do not require direct empirical verification for their validity. There are countless other examples in science (one classic being Dirac's prediction of anti-matter on the basis of mathematics.)
I don't think the fact that cognitive science can identity such an entity detracts from the all-important role of judgement in the reception of information, nor does it account for the subjective unity of consciousness, which is the lived reality, even if cognitive science can't account for it. As you go on to say:
That information is not only 'in the brain'. I don't know If you're aware of the cognitive scientist and philosopher Alva Noë. In "Out of Our Heads," Noë argues against the view that consciousness is solely a product of the brain's activity. He contends that the traditional approach of trying to understand consciousness by studying neural processes within the brain is insufficient and ultimately misleading. Noë proposes that consciousness is not something that happens exclusively inside the brain but emerges through dynamic interactions between the brain, body, and the external world. As such he is aligned with enactivism or embodied cognition which explores how our perception and experience of the world are shaped by our embodiment and interaction with our surroundings.
To me this is incorrect as there are actually panels of experts who write the dictionary, they're just not cited for each word definition. So, it looks like "no human source" was used in the making of the dictionary. Besides, words, as years go by can change its meaning due to change in population's way of talking or writing. And more words are added to the dictionary, as we now know "google" is a verb.Someone on a philosophy forum once said the amount of new information (they might have said knowledge) in a dictionary is essentially zero, because all the dictionary does is refer to itself. That's always stuck with me. What do you think of that? — RogueAI
That is, there seems to be something fundamentally subjective about what we decide to call an information source, a signal, a channel, a receiver, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I observe information existing as brain state.. — Mark Nyquist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.