The point was not a thorough analysis of the successes and failures of language of science rather to point out that the scientific atmosphere is one of open communication and sharing of ideas and truths.

You mean that's the ideal. I can see that. I thought working for a non-profit was going to be perfect until I started working for one.

seespotrun2008 wrote:You mean that's the ideal.

I was talking about the ideal of science, of the ideal of truth seeking.

SSR: "I guess what you are saying is that there is an actual reality outside of ourselves. And our brain takes that information in by making it a smaller, representation of the actual thing."

Right, there is an objective reality, and we can only know it imperfectly. I wouldn't say smaller, though that is a connotation of 'compressed'. By compressed, I mean it in the sense that we can know how an atom works, and by extension all atoms, but we cannot know everything about every atom. It's a very general claim, don't look too deeply into it.

SSR: "Although, I think I would have to add that our experiences color the things that are outside of ourselves."

We can influence our environment, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying. We render sensory input, filing it and placing it against all the stuff that's already in our heads. In that way, what we sense is interpreted in different ways depending on our past experiences. This is how external things are colored, but it isn't as though our brain waves reach out into the world and change what we perceive.

This is how external things are colored, but it isn't as though our brain waves reach out into the world and change what we perceive.

Right.

Part of what I've been hearing from (or reading into) Robert's posts is the idea that information exists independent of any representation of it. I disagree with this. I would assert that information only exists in its representations. If all representations of an idea were destroyed (including those in brains), I would say the information no longer exists. My impression is that Robert's position would be that the information still exists in a mental or spiritual realm, it's just no longer represented physically.

My opinion that information exists only in its representations is essentially equivalent to a claim that there's no evidence for the mental/spiritual realm that Robert posits.

Robert, if I'm misunderstanding your position, I hope you'll clarify. Thanks.

Ah, now here's something I can reply to from a philosophical angle since I've had a test on it past Friday
So be prepared...

According to my philosophy text book, there are three different theories when it comes to the search for truth.

1. The correspondence theory, which states that the truth or the falsity of a statement or proposition is the correspondence with reality. However, it is very hard to say something about the correspondence of something itself (firstly because language comes in as a third factor and secondly because we then have to wonder whether propositions always correspond to facts, for example if we say that Odysseus arrived at Ithaca while he was asleep (this is then a fictious proposition)). Its advocates are amongst others Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein I.
2. The coherention theory states that the truth of a proposition depends on whether he not contradicts other propositions in a coherent system of propositions. So falsity is incoherence. The world exists out of propositions which make each other true (excuse me if this is not perfect English, I'm only literally translating this from Dutch!). The difficulty of the coherention theory is that there are different coherent systems of propositions and the same proposition can be placed in multiple systems and thus be true. Language is one big system at which we all participate and a true proposition must be able to fit into language as a whole.
3. Pragmatism, with which this topic started. Truth is nothing different from usefulness. Truth is what works. We live in a world in which we have to save ourselves by continued adaptation to an ever changing environment (Darwinistic argument). And because the world is ever changing, we have to consider truth in a dynamic way instead of a statistic. The way of living that we like best - from which we profit most - decides what is true. Advocates: Dewey and Wittgenstein II.

Out of all three I can relate the best to pragmatism, as there will never be an exact definition of what is excessively true or false. We're only human and we don't know everything - although some of us think they do - and we probably never will.

tbarron wrote:Part of what I've been hearing from (or reading into) Robert's posts is the idea that information exists independent of any representation of it. I disagree with this. I would assert that information only exists in its representations. If all representations of an idea were destroyed (including those in brains), I would say the information no longer exists. My impression is that Robert's position would be that the information still exists in a mental or spiritual realm, it's just no longer represented physically.

My opinion that information exists only in its representations is essentially equivalent to a claim that there's no evidence for the mental/spiritual realm that Robert posits.

Robert, if I'm misunderstanding your position, I hope you'll clarify. Thanks.

Hello Tom, this is a slippery and complex question. Essentially, it can be expressed in the question of the relation between the medium and the message. Pop media writer Marshall McLuhan famously said 'the medium is the message'. This is a contradiction, because the media is the form in which the message is conveyed, while the message is the content of information. This distinction between form and content goes back to the philosophical difference between substance and form in Aristotle. Information is content, while its representations are form. Now, I agree with you that where there is no form there is no content either. So I am not positing some separate "realm" like a celestial menagerie of ideas. However, the conceptual distinction remains fundamental that the way information is conveyed (media) is not the same thing as the content of the information. Content, eg historical events, has its own integrity which interpreters seek to understand and convey, against criteria of factual evidence. Another good example is that God relies on people to exist, without language the divine content could not acquire any real form.

Just because content needs form does not mean that form provides a sufficient explanation for content. A good example is the idea of justice. The form of the legal system does not always deliver the content of ideal justice, but justice nonetheless exists in some ideal sense as a potential vision or goal which can be gradually articulated.

Looking at genes, against the context of the discussion in The Selfish Gene, we can say the instantiation in cells is form, while the phenotypic adaptation (jargon for how traits appear in the world) is the content. The entirety of the adaptation is a complex mystery, but exists as a necessary truth in order for the genes to live in cells.

Wikipedia also included under the topic the following information tree:

2 The major theories of truth
2.1 Substantive theories
2.1.1 Correspondence theory
2.1.2 Coherence theory
2.1.3 Constructivist theory
2.1.4 Consensus theory
2.1.5 Pragmatic theory
2.1.6 Pluralist theories

Robert Tulip wrote:Essentially, it can be expressed in the question of the relation between the medium and the message.

Yes the relationship if a close one, especially to the point that you are confusing a message with a idea.

Robert Tulip wrote:Pop media writer Marshall McLuhan

By "pop media writer" you must mean Canadian educator, philosopher, and scholar — a professor of English literature, a literary critic, a rhetorician, and a communication theorist. McLuhan's work is viewed as one of the cornerstones of the study of media theory.

Robert Tulip wrote:famously said 'the medium is the message'.

What an amazing distillation of his thought, you are ingenious RT.

Robert Tulip wrote:This is a contradiction, because the media is the form in which the message is conveyed, while the message is the content of information.

The message is inherently archetypal in nature and within a certain sense, only our modes or methods of accessing and communicating is relevant. McLuhan's idea (and I know this because I have actually read his work) was that all message can be distilled to thought, the nature of which is substantially little different than the information that was once transferred using telegraph. He was interested to analyze how the technology of the wheel transformed Roman culture expanding the boundaries of the city through increased speed of communication and ability to travel further easier. Not by looking at what exactly was being transferred or how fast. This is one example. He analyzed other mediums as well, studying the influence of technology on time, education, or work for example. I feel that you are wrong to suggest that a message is necessarily best described as informational in form.

Robert Tulip wrote:Information is content, while its representations are form.

Not all content is information. Simply stated, information is a message received and understood, content without context is not information it is simply content. Similarly forms are not representations until they are received and understood as such, they are forms.

Robert Tulip wrote:Now, I agree with you that where there is no form there is no content either.

What are you saying? That content is reliant on a particular form? I take a word document and print it on to a page. What is a state of no form? The thought?

Robert Tulip wrote:However, the conceptual distinction remains fundamental that the way information is conveyed (media) is not the same thing as the content of the information.

Not however, necessarily. The point of McLuhan was that the best analysis is one of medium not any particular message. Keeping in mind that he was a media theorist.

Robert Tulip wrote:Just because content needs form does not mean that form provides a sufficient explanation for content.

So content does need form! The point was to not try an examination of the content rather to examine how the medium will result in and also expresses radical changes in society.

Robert Tulip wrote:A good example is the idea of justice. The form of the legal system does not always deliver the content of ideal justice, but justice nonetheless exists in some ideal sense as a potential vision or goal which can be gradually articulated.

Yet there is a book of law (content) and there is a separate book of legal procedure (medium of legal proceeding). If your goal was to understand why the court is proceeding as such, on the level of content exchange, you would be much better off studying the entire book of procedures rather than the entire book of laws. A message about the nature of the particular legal system would arise independent of an understanding of the exact contents you are observing. How do lawyers communicate formally, not using the book of law rather the book of procedure.

Great post, I was impressed by McLuhan and enjoy discussing and thinking about his ideas.

Thomas Hood would have some good input on communication theory. His craziness at the end aside, I'd enjoy his input on some of the recent dialogues we've had.