What is information?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: What is information?

Post by The Voice of Time » Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:41 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:Define 'trivial'. Whatever your personal idea of what this is is highly subjective.
We all carry the burden of the universe upon our shoulders. For this reason we all need to keep a macroscopic perspective together with our microscopic personal one. People who obsess with matters that do not aid in guaranteeing them the best life possible, are not smart, and these things they deal with are trivial.

If you don't reach out to the world and grasp it in all the ways you can, you are neglectful on behalf of your own life. If a major crisis were to arise and you haven't paid attention to the news, you might very well succumb to it for reasons that could've been avoided. Also, people who are able to get a lot of money by some behaviour, may not be able to get a happy life along with it, because they've sacrificed too much to get there, therefore this success becomes trivial since it does not serve any higher goal of a good life. Imagine the woman who marries a rich man she doesn't really like, just for his money, now in most situations, particularly in the west, I'd call that really stupid.
I'm confused by your own wording here. It appears as innuendo.
I'd call it experience from afar.
I am not promoting 'stupidity'. I said that intelligence requires a motive and that it is NORMAL not to seek and learn where it APPEARS relevant to them. Many people get through a university degree with little actual 'intelligence' because they don't internalize (reflect) upon what they learned. Often they are just good at memorizing (rote learning) and relatively clerical. "Intelligence" can't be forced. It is something that comes from real life challenges.
Intelligence does not depend upon what is either normal nor any motive, still disagree on that one.

Whether intelligence comes from real life challenges or not is not a subject of philosophy, I'd ask a neurologist specializing in early to mid human development for the answer to that question.
The 'contemporary justification [for people choosing to prefer stupidity]' refers to many today who purposely support 'stupidity' as a type of rebellious act. See "Jack Ass" or https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR3Cho ... fcn87wMJag among many contemporary examples of risk seekers wanting to do absurd stunts or highly risky things. I only mentioned these types of 'stupidity' since they are often about entertainment or fun, not necessarily one being 'stupid' by accident or neglect. So I was dismissing this form of 'stupidity' for what I was meaning.
okay
As to those who are accidentally stupid, these people are what I'm saying are NOT doing anything WRONG
You can do something wrong, even if it's not natural to you.
because they just lack the NEED to invest in intelligence.
Nobody has this lack, this is untrue.
It doesn't mean that they could or should try to be more intelligent where necessary. For instance, I think someone like Tony Robbins, is 'stupid' by default of lacking a need to actually think with logic.
Nobody has this lack either, this is also untrue.
But he is 'smart' because he uses what he is limited in his knowledge effectively as he makes a lot of money for his advise. [He could be 'secretly' intelligent too. But then he's just a con using it to separate other gullible people from their money.]
Not seeking out new knowledge also makes you not smart. Seeking out knowledge is a critical part of being smart, therefore one can say somebody is smart because they just lack the resources to do things better, but not for choosing not to use resources that are available.
Here's where you would do good to reflect. :roll: An ability to solve problems IS a product of reflection.
You're saying you can't solve problems without reflection? Or is that just a poorly written sentence?
If you simply learn the rules of chess, this doesn't qualify you with sufficient intelligence. But if you've played many games, AND LOST a lot, this may instigate a willingness (motive) to try to think with more intent. It is THIS that makes one more intelligent.
Nope. Intending to do things does not make you smart nor intelligent. Succeeding makes you smart and intelligent. It does not make sense to call loosers for intelligent, because they intended something.
If you are a handsome or beautiful model who succeeds well without having to try hard, you lack the motive to question why you are not getting precisely what you ARE getting.
If you don't pursue smartness, you're still going to suffer eventually when you run out of luck, as happens most times. Whether you like it or not, you're here arguing for basing ones life on luck instead of robust securing of joys for said life, which requires smart activities.
If you are born into wealth, for instance, do you require learning "how to become wealthy"? You might perhaps want to learn how to prevent yourself from becoming poor by losing your wealth. But if you haven't even perceived this risk, what purpose does it serve to entertain learning how to get what you've already got?
You can still loose it. You have to always assume there's a risk, and look for risk factors, or you're not being a very smart person. You are being extremely generous with your view on being smart and being intelligent here. It seems to me you are making everyone smart and intelligent, and that seems kind of pointless to me.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: What is information?

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:35 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:In physics information is the raw data which our mind receives via our senses and then processes into a comprehensible map of physical reality. That's why I love this definition.
A_Seagull wrote:Information constitutes the interface between the Noumea and the phenomena.
Alternatively one could also say that information actually IS the ding an sich.
I'm assuming "ding an sich" means "thing as such", to assert that information exists in and of itself and not simply in the mind.

I only mention this because it seems odd why we often use foreign words to reference something that could be clearly understood in one's native language. I'm having a debate on political site at present regarding Isreali Zionism and many often reference some terms in foreign terms as if it somehow ineffable to description or meaning from without some culture. Although worthy of it's own thread, it kind of relates here too in that we seem to often think that we can only understand reality if it is defaulted only to assume things exist ONLY with respect to our existence [as if the reality doesn't exist outside of our human perspective]

So, Leo, are you agreeing that your first definition of "information" is the human-perspective [Noumea](an inside cultural referent) and the second one [the Phenomenal description] is the understanding that the phenomena is independent of human experience?

Scott Mayers
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: What is information?

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:07 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:
Intelligence does not depend upon what is either normal nor any motive, still disagree on that one.

Whether intelligence comes from real life challenges or not is not a subject of philosophy, I'd ask a neurologist specializing in early to mid human development for the answer to that question.
I think your thinking is only due to a bias of your own 'intelligence' intuitively without realizing (or remembering) you had to learn this. We might presume walking is somehow a normal phenomena that ANYONE can somehow do if they had legs. So it might be tempting to assume that one who had not learned to walk appropriately was due to something intrinsic in them as a fault of not trying. I remember a psychology text that mentioned a case of a girl who was strapped to a toilette literally all the time. While the case wasn't about walking, this example demonstrates that you cannot merely blame the girl should she not be able to walk or learn it appropriately when she was saved. You have to have opportunity and some real initial challenges to learn to walk which is relatively slow and requires struggle. But once we learn things like walking, we forget the initial struggles as our brain hard-wires this action by pruning those memories of the initial experimental process to learn to walk. If we had to 'think' about walking as we had when we were first learning it, each step would be continuously challenging.

So intelligence is merely the internalizing stage that occurs when one WANTS something (a goal) and struggles to get to that goal without ease. If it comes easy, it is instinctive or has become intuitive from prior struggle and does not require measuring 'intel' (useful information) from the environment.

Here is an example you may or may not be aware of: Did you know that we LEARN to see 2-dimension pictures? That is, no animal interprets pictures, like what may be on a television screen, without an interactive learning period to interpret them in some intellectual challenge.
You can do something wrong, even if it's not natural to you.
I think you may believe that it is MORE normal for people to purposely opt to resist intelligence in some kind of rebellious way. I already mentioned that this occurs but is more about positing actions one appeals to for some other reason (an alternative intellectual motive). But for most who appear relatively ignorant, while it is frustrating to reason with those who lack it, it is not because they are intentionally acting with stupidity. It is 'stupid' from our outside perspective judging those we believe is 'ignorant'; but we too may be 'ignorant' with respect to their own capacity and/or wisdom because our goals are simply different based on our different realities. And this is...
...because they just lack the NEED to invest in [that type of] intelligence.
Nobody has this lack, this is untrue.
I underlined the 'intel' to point out that the type of information one absorbs requires some personal drive and perceived need for that information.
Here's where you would do good to reflect. :roll: An ability to solve problems IS a product of reflection.
You're saying you can't solve problems without reflection? Or is that just a poorly written sentence?

I might also assert you are simply ignorant of your capacity to comprehend (being 'stupid'?) I'm not intending insult but notice that your own assumption of me here is inappropriately insulting me as if it is ME and not yourself who has the 'lack of intel' to interpret me. I assure you that dictating who is or is not intelligently behaving is a relative one. This is why I don't interpret that a 'dumb blonde' IS actually 'dumb'. Their goals in life are different and for what they achieve by other's attention in favor of them only relates to how others interpret them 'stupidly'. This was Marilyn Monroe's curse. She was actually quite intellectually inspired of worldly issues but was ignored for that quality. Perhaps her own desire to try to get others to see her as an intellectual out of disrespect is what motivated her own rebellion against the assumption of her own apparent 'stupidity' others assumed of her.

Thus it is an error to presume another as actually being 'stupid' IN FACT. What we miss is their own perspective based on their goals. If one can get ahead in life based on their looks, and it is 'happiness' (comfort) animals evolved to favor, they require something to compete against their comfort in order to motivate them to seek resolution to a problem. Note that a 'problem' must first exist by that person's perspective only. But it also can be a 'problem' that someone accuses them of being intrinsically 'stupid' which can and often only motivates them to feedback to you exactly what you think of them. If you accuse them of 'stupidity' and expect they'd respect you in return, who's the actual idiot?
If you simply learn the rules of chess, this doesn't qualify you with sufficient intelligence. But if you've played many games, AND LOST a lot, this may instigate a willingness (motive) to try to think with more intent. It is THIS that makes one more intelligent.
Nope. Intending to do things does not make you smart nor intelligent. Succeeding makes you smart and intelligent. It does not make sense to call loosers for intelligent, because they intended something.
Than if I accuse you of being a 'loser' since you cannot spell it appropriately, does that motivate you to like me better? And if you don't like me for insult, you'll have 'intellectual' real-life experience that those who feign they are intrinsically superior to you via their own arrogant ideas of what is 'intelligence', they'd learn to disassociate themselves of those qualities you think are so much wiser. Yes, succeeding CAN make you 'smart'. As to ones intelligence, however, the kind of 'intel' is based on NOT SUCCEEDING. If you 'succeed' in getting laid easily for not having to struggle, you smartly do not question it even if you ignorantly may interpret your success as due to your earned wisdom.
If you are a handsome or beautiful model who succeeds well without having to try hard, you lack the motive to question why you are not getting precisely what you ARE getting.
If you don't pursue smartness, you're still going to suffer eventually when you run out of luck, as happens most times. Whether you like it or not, you're here arguing for basing ones life on luck instead of robust securing of joys for said life, which requires smart activities.

You and I may agree to some type of intelligence we share in common. You don't require pursuing superfluous intel because it is relatively 'trivial' to your personal goals. If you achieve your goals for whatever behavior you do, it is a default to maintain your behavior UNTIL you meet real resistance.

Check this out: http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/28/11131 ... wards-2016

Here is Stacey Dash 'stupid' or rather, just naive? And while you might interpret her action as inappropriate, her lack of 'intel' that might have made her anticipate that she could have received insult for the way she dressed (appearing very highly stereotypically 'white') would not have been learned without such an experience. You might consider her 'stupid' if she kept acting that way without learning her previous lessons. But notice that if people beat her up for it in total disgrace, since she didn't intend insult herself, any reactive behavior to commit her as 'stupid' might only make her want to spit back upon the haters.

Kanye West, for example, likely continues his own relative 'stupidity' because he is internalizing insult against him without trust that he could learn from his mistakes. So he 'smartly' amplifies his 'stupidity' because this is precisely what everyone expects of him without faith he could improve.
If you are born into wealth, for instance, do you require learning "how to become wealthy"? You might perhaps want to learn how to prevent yourself from becoming poor by losing your wealth. But if you haven't even perceived this risk, what purpose does it serve to entertain learning how to get what you've already got?
You can still loose it. You have to always assume there's a risk, and look for risk factors, or you're not being a very smart person. You are being extremely generous with your view on being smart and being intelligent here. It seems to me you are making everyone smart and intelligent, and that seems kind of pointless to me.
You are presuming this rationale based on your own biased experience alone. People default to 'trust' or have 'faith' in their own behaviors UNTIL that faith is reasonably challenged in some realistic way AND WITHOUT insult to their own 'intelligence'. You only pay attention realistically to something when or where you trip and fall and recognize that it is YOU who needs to change, not something external to you. You insulted me here again as if you perhaps think this may 'motivate' me to alter my own means to communicate with you here. But while you may believe I am being irrational and acting without intelligence, it is easy for me to see your foot was placed out with intent to trip me. So I'm not going to blame myself for your own behavior, but just learn that I have to be more cautious and concerned by your own motives when around you.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4011
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What is information?

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:01 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:I'm assuming "ding an sich" means "thing as such", to assert that information exists in and of itself and not simply in the mind.
The ding an sich is a much-used phrase in the Kantian metaphysic and translates simply as the-thing-as-it-is. It is completely synonymous with the notion of the Noumenon as being objective reality which the observer then interprets within his consciousness as the Phenomenon.

If we model the universe as an information system, which I do in my philosophy, this allows us to more clearly understand the role of the observer, the most misunderstood bloke in the history of physics. When we make an observation of the physical world all we're actually observing is raw data in the form of the energy quanta which are being projected onto our retina. These energy quanta, or "bits" are what I call the ding an sich. They make up the objectively real universe but the form in which these informational "bits" are then assembled into a coherent narrative of the observer's external world is entirely arbitrary. There simply exists no right way or wrong way of doing this. A quark is only a quark because that's the way a small clique of geeks have elected to codify a particular class of observations in their interrogation of the subatomic world. It has no ontological status whatsoever but the energy quanta which encode for the quark do. If the geeks figure out a better way of decoding the informational "bits" then the quark will simply vanish into science history.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4011
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What is information?

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:19 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:So, Leo, are you agreeing that your first definition of "information" is the human-perspective [Noumea](an inside cultural referent) and the second one [the Phenomenal description] is the understanding that the phenomena is independent of human experience?
I hope I've managed to show that you've got these concepts arse-about. I tend to use the word information in its strictly physical sense as the no-further-divisible "bits" which make up our physical world. Einstein and Planck showed us that these indivisible units are in fact quanta of energy which encode for particles at a higher order of informational complexity. This defines the particles as EMERGENT entities and therefore their physical properties are observer-dependent constructs only. The quanta can be regarded as noumenal but the particles are merely phenomenal. Obviously this applies to all of the embedded hierarchies of informational complexity from the subatomic particles up, through atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, life, mind etc. None of these things can be said to have any ontological status, being solely artefacts of our own creation.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: What is information?

Post by A_Seagull » Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:32 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:If we model the universe as an information system, which I do in my philosophy, this allows us to more clearly understand the role of the observer, the most misunderstood bloke in the history of physics. When we make an observation of the physical world all we're actually observing is raw data in the form of the energy quanta which are being projected onto our retina. These energy quanta, or "bits" are what I call the ding an sich. They make up the objectively real universe but the form in which these informational "bits" are then assembled into a coherent narrative of the observer's external world is entirely arbitrary. There simply exists no right way or wrong way of doing this. A quark is only a quark because that's the way a small clique of geeks have elected to codify a particular class of observations in their interrogation of the subatomic world. It has no ontological status whatsoever but the energy quanta which encode for the quark do. If the geeks figure out a better way of decoding the informational "bits" then the quark will simply vanish into science history.
The logical process by which information is transformed into phenomena is not entirely arbitrary. It is a process of pattern creation and identification. It can be considered to be a bit like an algorithm for finding the 'best' pattern. The criteria for what constitutes the 'best' would be set by parameters in a not entirely arbitrary way.

If you are interested in pursuing these ideas you can check out my book "The Pattern Paradigm - the science of philosophy".

Scott Mayers
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: What is information?

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:56 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:So, Leo, are you agreeing that your first definition of "information" is the human-perspective [Noumea](an inside cultural referent) and the second one [the Phenomenal description] is the understanding that the phenomena is independent of human experience?
I hope I've managed to show that you've got these concepts arse-about. I tend to use the word information in its strictly physical sense as the no-further-divisible "bits" which make up our physical world. Einstein and Planck showed us that these indivisible units are in fact quanta of energy which encode for particles at a higher order of informational complexity. This defines the particles as EMERGENT entities and therefore their physical properties are observer-dependent constructs only. The quanta can be regarded as noumenal but the particles are merely phenomenal. Obviously this applies to all of the embedded hierarchies of informational complexity from the subatomic particles up, through atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, life, mind etc. None of these things can be said to have any ontological status, being solely artefacts of our own creation.
I haven't specifically read Kant and am not sure I want to. I don't like those descriptions as he defines them and making them sound somehow uniquely intellectual to his own authority. "Noumena" is a root of the word we now call a noun or a name which just stands for a Static label to define something. His "Phenomena" may be intended to describe the Dynamic relations between static things, as we understand the word today. Either way, he (or your interpretation of him?) seems to imply that ONLY observations themselves ARE the real truth. There is only the dynamic/static differences between his intent to describe data that is sensed. That is, since ALL our reality is interpreted from the senses, the 'thing-in-itself' is just the labels one might give to the phenomena of experiencing itself.

I think we agree to the same ideas of information here. I used the computer architecture as the equivalent analogy before that you may have read and so sorry if I'm repeating: All a computer is technically can be summed up as a set of addresses and a device that takes data from one address, alters that information optionally in some way, then return that data back to the original or some other address. The addresses are of two kinds: Memory and Ports. The only difference is that memory is local to the brain and more easily used and trusted only to change upon your control, where a portal is any input/outputs from the environment.

"Exist" literally comes from "ex-" (from outside) and "-ist" ('is' --> "I"s other than oneself). So all information by how we infer, is just data from our Addresses and the only significant difference to each kind of experience is to static (timeless or relatively 'fixed') information and dynamic (relations between states usually with time).

But I think that while data of all things we each experience are of these kinds above, the ACTUAL SOURCE inferred by our inputs and outputs (Ports) are truly objects and their behaviors between spaces and times. I'm guessing Kant thought of the actual objects, not the names he meant to imply are what exists independently from our perception of them and that the perception of those objects/relations are his ports, to and from external reality. So what was specifically unique about Kant's ideas other than to classification and his foreign choice of words to describe Objects and their real Relations (collectively called predicates in some places] with Subjects of our Perception? My concern was that each philosopher in time tends to define/redefine things that are can often be expressed in some modern terms instead.

[I'm simultaneously discussing things on politics lately and find it frustrating to try to interpret things when we use terms in their foreign senses which hide the actual direct meaning."Führer" for 'leader or guide' intentionally uses the foreign word because it reminds most non-German listeners of the word "furor" of common origin but means "an outbreak of public anger or excitement; one who is insanely furious" "Dictator" used to mean 'leader' too or "speaker" like a "speaker of the house" who might referee between different politicians. This was my motive to mention this. It's a heated discussion on Iraeli-Palestinian issues and Nationalism.]

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4011
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What is information?

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Mar 01, 2016 1:11 am

A_Seagull wrote: The logical process by which information is transformed into phenomena is not entirely arbitrary.
It's not in the least bit arbitrary in the sense that information self-generates its own order and complexity purely because of cause and effect. However the way in which the conscious observer codifies these patterns of order is entirely arbitrary. For example there is every reason to suppose that a hundred years from now the various particles which were invented to describe subatomic processes will have vanished into the luminiferous aether to join phlogiston. If a clever geek thinks up a better way of modelling his observations then this becomes the new "truth" until such time as it becomes the old bullshit. Science is not for those in search of certainties, that's what priests are for.
A_Seagull wrote: It can be considered to be a bit like an algorithm for finding the 'best' pattern. T
Very Leibniz. I love it. The "best" being at all times a continuous work in progress. Voltaire would love it too.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4011
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What is information?

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Mar 01, 2016 2:27 am

Scott Mayers wrote: I haven't specifically read Kant
This fact has not gone unnoticed, Scott. However if information theory is a specific area of interest for you, as it clearly appears to be, then I suggest that you should. Although I regard Leibniz as the founder of modern information theory in the metaphysical sense, it was Kant who specifically applied the Leibnizian procedures of thought to make a clear distinction between the ontological and the epistemological as it pertains to human cognition. I've made no secret of the fact that I regard it as the signature failure of modern physics that it persistently refuses to maintain this distinction, thus conflating the cognitive map of the observer with the physical territory which it is intended to be mapping.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: What is information?

Post by The Voice of Time » Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:11 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:So I'm not going to blame myself for your own behavior, but just learn that I have to be more cautious and concerned by your own motives when around you.
I wasn't suggesting you were being unintelligent, but you can still be wrong. My only motives around you is to correct errors, challenge you intellectually, and recognize important truths you may tell me. But you are being emotional, and I'll suggest you not be insulted just because I'm being direct.

With regards, The Voice of Time

Scott Mayers
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: What is information?

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:13 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: I haven't specifically read Kant
This fact has not gone unnoticed, Scott. However if information theory is a specific area of interest for you, as it clearly appears to be, then I suggest that you should. Although I regard Leibniz as the founder of modern information theory in the metaphysical sense, it was Kant who specifically applied the Leibnizian procedures of thought to make a clear distinction between the ontological and the epistemological as it pertains to human cognition. I've made no secret of the fact that I regard it as the signature failure of modern physics that it persistently refuses to maintain this distinction, thus conflating the cognitive map of the observer with the physical territory which it is intended to be mapping.
I'm working on developing an 'inconsistent' type of logic to bridge the problem of Incompleteness in normal consistent logics/maths. I had a good breakthrough but have to be sure I clearly understand the details of Kant's era, including Leibniz, among others, to make sure I have left no rock unturned. So I will be challenging these guys too eventually.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 863
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: What is information?

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:25 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:So I'm not going to blame myself for your own behavior, but just learn that I have to be more cautious and concerned by your own motives when around you.
I wasn't suggesting you were being unintelligent, but you can still be wrong. My only motives around you is to correct errors, challenge you intellectually, and recognize important truths you may tell me. But you are being emotional, and I'll suggest you not be insulted just because I'm being direct.

With regards, The Voice of Time
I didn't know I was giving off any emotional vibe nor was even certain what you thought one way or the other about me personally. I was defending (apologizing) for the assumption that 'unintelligent' people are supposedly 'stupid', something many presume as a related default, or character flaw. Understanding this can help improve the way we relate to each other and improve the way we communicate. I'm thinking this is more of a digression for the general topic of information here. It was just an aside point here. I'm not insulted by your responses though.

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: What is information?

Post by The Voice of Time » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:58 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:I think your thinking is only due to a bias of your own 'intelligence' intuitively without realizing (or remembering) you had to learn this.
Intelligence does not depend upon knowledge.
Scott Mayers wrote:I remember a psychology text that mentioned a case of a girl who was strapped to a toilette literally all the time. While the case wasn't about walking, this example demonstrates that you cannot merely blame the girl should she not be able to walk or learn it appropriately when she was saved.
You don't blame people for what they don't know. Also, yes, I've seen the story, though I didn't really find it as interesting as the rest of the public, so I didn't study it. I read about it in the news.
Scott Mayers wrote:So intelligence is merely the internalizing stage
Intelligence is not a stage in any process. Intelligence is a measure of brain capacity for problem-sovling.
Scott Mayers wrote:If it comes easy, it is instinctive or has become intuitive from prior struggle and does not require measuring 'intel' (useful information) from the environment.
Instinctive is a bit old-fashioned word for it. What happens is that you develop a motoric system of nerves in your brain. Your action becomes motorized, for short. This system acts together with, but partially independent, from the conscious parts of your brain, which is what makes it special. It's autonomous, works on its own, able to interpret orders from your conscious brain.
Scott Mayers wrote:Here is an example you may or may not be aware of: Did you know that we LEARN to see 2-dimension pictures? That is, no animal interprets pictures, like what may be on a television screen, without an interactive learning period to interpret them in some intellectual challenge.
I did not know that, though I might have heard about we learning it.
Scott Mayers wrote:I think you may believe that it is MORE normal for people to purposely opt to resist intelligence in some kind of rebellious way.
More normal than what? Comparison would be lovely here.
Scott Mayers wrote:I already mentioned that this occurs but is more about positing actions one appeals to for some other reason (an alternative intellectual motive). But for most who appear relatively ignorant, while it is frustrating to reason with those who lack it, it is not because they are intentionally acting with stupidity.
I might get at what you mean here. They are not "acting" stupid? Is that what you mean?
Scott Mayers wrote:It is 'stupid' from our outside perspective judging those we believe is 'ignorant'; but we too may be 'ignorant' with respect to their own capacity and/or wisdom because our goals are simply different based on our different realities.
You cannot pick apart individual goals from the over-arching totality of commitments in life. Just because somebody may appear to successfully achieve a goal focusing on what I'd call trivial matters, does not mean their goal in itself is a good goal. People can be stupid because they have stupid goals, goals that may make them unhappy. That's why regardless of their goal, their actions are still not smart.
Scott Mayers wrote:I underlined the 'intel' to point out that the type of information one absorbs requires some personal drive and perceived need for that information.
A drive can be not smart also. Our body is not a machine that can run by itself, we must each master our own bodies so that we can balance it towards happiness. People who let themselves fall prey to sudden rushes of emotion often end up doing things that are not smart, and that's because they've not invested enough in the taming and mastering of themselves. Diseases serving as special cases where they either because of quantity of influences on the body, or an especially forceful influence on the body, what they result in cannot always reasonably be tamed.
Scott Mayers wrote:I might also assert you are simply ignorant of your capacity to comprehend (being 'stupid'?) I'm not intending insult but notice that your own assumption of me here is inappropriately insulting me as if it is ME and not yourself who has the 'lack of intel' to interpret me. I assure you that dictating who is or is not intelligently behaving is a relative one.
It's not, except in the way that one manner of measuring it may be better than others, so while being an objective truth, its subjectively interpreted (PS: I do not believe in IQ-testing, so I'm not referring to that kind of measuring)
Scott Mayers wrote:This is why I don't interpret that a 'dumb blonde' IS actually 'dumb'. Their goals in life are different and for what they achieve by other's attention in favor of them only relates to how others interpret them 'stupidly'. This was Marilyn Monroe's curse. She was actually quite intellectually inspired of worldly issues but was ignored for that quality. Perhaps her own desire to try to get others to see her as an intellectual out of disrespect is what motivated her own rebellion against the assumption of her own apparent 'stupidity' others assumed of her.

Thus it is an error to presume another as actually being 'stupid' IN FACT. What we miss is their own perspective based on their goals. If one can get ahead in life based on their looks, and it is 'happiness' (comfort) animals evolved to favor, they require something to compete against their comfort in order to motivate them to seek resolution to a problem. Note that a 'problem' must first exist by that person's perspective only. But it also can be a 'problem' that someone accuses them of being intrinsically 'stupid' which can and often only motivates them to feedback to you exactly what you think of them. If you accuse them of 'stupidity' and expect they'd respect you in return, who's the actual idiot?
I don't know Marilyn Monroe except what I read through Michael Jacksons biography, she's way before my time and not a particularly interesting person as far as I know. I think everything you wrote here I've answered higher up in this reply.
Scott Mayers wrote:Than if I accuse you of being a 'loser' since you cannot spell it appropriately, does that motivate you to like me better?
I can't imagine how. I can't say it bothers me very much if I add an extra "o" as a non-native. If I'd been native I'd be slightly embarrassed.
Scott Mayers wrote:And if you don't like me for insult, you'll have 'intellectual' real-life experience that those who feign they are intrinsically superior to you via their own arrogant ideas of what is 'intelligence', they'd learn to disassociate themselves of those qualities you think are so much wiser. Yes, succeeding CAN make you 'smart'. As to ones intelligence, however, the kind of 'intel' is based on NOT SUCCEEDING. If you 'succeed' in getting laid easily for not having to struggle, you smartly do not question it even if you ignorantly may interpret your success as due to your earned wisdom.
Actually, I do question it, because I've had sex with women who appeared to not have a sufficiently good reason to have sex with me. My first and only threesome was with a bisexual couple of girls I knew that had just had a fight, and I suspected they were having sex to diffuse the tone. This makes me think that sex was not the best response and that I should learn from this experience to have better control of the situation next time instead of allowing myself to be dragged along.

So success should also be questioned. There is no lack of examples of fights won that may not have been the best victory after all. War is a classic example of this, like how easily the US invaded and occupied Iraq, but ended up getting a quarter of a million people killed along the way, as well as setting the stage for the conflict we see today with ISIS, and the tremendous burden of debt the US has and which is crippling its revenues. Saddam was a terrible person who had to go (I trust you know enough about him to figure that out yourself, the list of his crimes is long enough and horrendous), and getting rid of him would be a great success for all of the world (mostly). But just because they successfully completed this goal, does not mean they didn't also pay a serious and highly undesirable price. Had more intelligence been applied to this, the world could've looked very much different today.
Scott Mayers wrote:You are presuming this rationale based on your own biased experience alone. People default to 'trust' or have 'faith' in their own behaviors UNTIL that faith is reasonably challenged
That may be, but what people may and may not do, does not argue for whether or not they should do it.
Scott Mayers wrote:in some realistic way AND WITHOUT insult to their own 'intelligence'. You only pay attention realistically to something when or where you trip and fall and recognize that it is YOU who needs to change, not something external to you.
You should still look out for that trip, before you make it and fall. It's the same reason why we wear seatbelts, although most of us are unlikely to ever go into life-threatening danger from crashing a car. It's the same reason we buy insurance and the reason why we (a typical smart person) pick up new books despite knowing generally enough to do fine life. It's because we can do better, and because we don't want to trip.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5136
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: What is information?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Mar 01, 2016 9:36 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It appears the basis for much philosophic investigation and debate is the concept of information. For example how much information do we need to decide?
As much as it takes to decide as correctly as possible.


I think there is no one overall rule as each case may be different. What do you think?

PhilX

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: What is information?

Post by The Voice of Time » Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:19 pm

The Voice of Time wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:It appears the basis for much philosophic investigation and debate is the concept of information. For example how much information do we need to decide?

I think there is no one overall rule as each case may be different. What do you think?

PhilX
I actually have a beautiful and enlightening answer to this.

The question is wrong. You should not ask how much information is necessary, but how well preserved your life joys are. The poorer your life, the more desperate is your situation, and hence you'll have to resort to more and more desperate measures in order to do something about it. This is because the less you have, the less you have to loose (and you might say, the more you loose proportionally to what you have, but if you need explained why this is not the right way of thinking about it, I'll be ready to give you a thorough explanation of that as well).

If, on the other hand, you have joys, and those joys are well guaranteed in your life, then speculative thinking is less and less attractive. So the amount of information necessary, depends on how much joy in life you have guaranteed already. This gives us an equation -> (relevant information)/(guaranteed joys) = value of action. This says something about which action you should take, and the great thing is: nothing is also an action! So the question is not how much information you need, but at what point is it worth more to do nothing, than to take an action?
I'd like to expand upon this statement I made, by showing something I wrote this morning:
The value of an action is calculated as the quantity of reinforcing security the action performs, times the factor (a ratio) produced by this division:
(quantity of uncertain elements to be exposed to)/(degree of least guaranteed element under threat)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests