From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!news Mon Aug 24 15:40:47 EDT 1992
Article 6614 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!news
>From: Allen Renear
Subject: Re: Basic definitions
Message-ID: <1992Aug13.215846.23503@cs.brown.edu>
Sender: news@cs.brown.edu
Organization: Brown University  CIS
References: <1992Aug10.211239.17308@access.usask.ca>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:58:46 GMT
Lines: 75

Gee, I have rather a different, and almost opposite, view. Though I think my
grounds are epistemological where yours are metaphysical.

I feel quite sure of things of this sort...
  -- I believe I have a hand
  -- I believe I have a brain
  -- I doubt I have a tail
  -- there is something I believe
  -- there is something I doubt that I once believed
  ... etc.

I'm not nearly so sure of things of this sort (although I believe them true)...
  -- I have a hand
  -- I have a brain
  -- I do not have a tail
  -- Paris is in France
  -- electrons are smaller than protons
  ... etc.

Since I am confident of the things in the first list I am inclined to accept
that there are beliefs and there are things that are believed. And that
suggests a sense in which it is false that "there is no such thing as
information". If you do not find these things (beliefs etc.) in a census of
elementary particles and their attendant forces, fine, but so what? 

I do hope though that there is not some valid argument that takes premises from
the second list and makes the inference that the items in the first list are
false. That would be very disturbing! But if it does come to that, then, as I
am sure that (current anti-folk-pyschology notwithstanding) the items on the
first list are more warranted than those on the second, I will recluctantly
retreat to idealism.

Oh what a monster you have created! 

In article <1992Aug10.211239.17308@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca
writes:
>
>Some things have to be defined to aid the discussion on intelligence.
>
>  . information
>
>    We talk about storing information in memory, communicating it,
>    etc. In the physical universe, there may be no such thing as
>    information. When an electron interacts with another electron,
>    there does not appear to be any transfer of information. Human
>    brains are made of particles among other things interacting
>    with each other. At the lowest levels information is an
>    abstraction. It may be possible for an intelligent object to
>    use no information. At the lowest levels, nothing uses anything.
>    Things just happen. (In a deterministic universe, there may be
>    no intelligence. People can't make intelligent decisions
>    because they can't make decisions. They are forced into their
>    roles.)
>
>    I see a couple of ways to define "information"
>
>    . input, output
>
>      Information is used for communications. It's something
>      transmittable.
>
>    . computation
>
>      I look at the origins of communications. An idea is expressed.
>      For why? Some need must be satisfied. Some computation is
>      required. Meaning is the invocation of a subroutine.
>
>
>Henry Choy
>choy@cs.usask.ca
>
>
>




