Re: Data and meaning

Christoph

I am not sure if we are thinking in the
same direction

> Rafael,
> You higlight a good point.
> Overall answer: yes the presence of water will generate
> a meaningful information for you and for the robot.

well only in case the robot is of the kind of being
that can *experience* (in its own body...) thirst
(not just to have been *programmed* to *answer*
'Yes, I am thirsty' when it perceives water...

> But beyond this statement, many things will be different.
> Presence of water is the external information that you,
> thirsty human, receive. And this received information will
> generate a meaning in your body because it has some
> relation with your constraint "maintain a given level of
> water in the body". And the meaningful information
> generated will be "presence of water that can reduce my
> thirst".
> For the robot, assuming it has been programmed with a
> constraint "drink some water", the presence of water will
> generate a meaningful information "presence of water that
> can satisfy the constraint".

this is the point where I do not agree: to have been
programmed is not the same as to *feel* the need
for water based on bodily constraints... (this is *just*
a formal similarity). This is the reason, I believe, why
the *top down* idea of making robots *think* (GPS and
the like) is *wrong* i.e. it will remain *forever* abstract.

> So the robot, like you, will generate internally a meaningful
> information. At first look, theses two meaningful information
> are quite similar. But this similarity is only for this precise
> meaning vs this precise constraint. For the robot, it is all that
> is to be said. But for us humans, the presence of water is going
> to generate many other meanings coming from the constraints
> related to our history of relations with water and with the world,
> to our other desires, to our emotions, to our free will, and so on.
> And for us, the meaning quite similar to the one generated
> within the robot will be only a little element in the web of
> meanings that the presence of water will generate within
> ourselves.

indeed, this is just a *similarity* , here I agree again...

> This makes the difference. As you write it, a human can say
> "it is related to my whole bodily being-in-the-world with others.. "
> We could also add the other difference about derived vs non
> derived meaning (the meaning in the robot comes from a
> human programing. For us, it does not).
> Apart from this last difference, I feel we can say that it is more
> a question about a difference of complexity than about a
> difference of nature.
> Would you agree ?
>

yes, but the difference does not just come from the
progammer, it comes basically from the kind of being
a robot is (in case it is not a *flesh* one... at least...

Rafael

> Regards
>
> Christophe
>
> > Christoph,
> >
> > as far as I can see, something
> > has meaning for me (or for another
> > kind of living system) not just if data
> > are *processed* in my brain but
> > if it is related to my whole bodily
> > being-in-the-world with others... I mean,
> > if I am thirsty it is because my body is
> > of this kind that it needs water. Would
> > it make *any difference* (i.e. any
> > meaning and therefore has any
> > informational value...) if a robot that
> > is not of the kind of bodily existence
> > as I am, would be able to say: I am
> > thirsty? and the same with all other
> > *meanings*.
> >
> > Rafael
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sun Sep 29 23:05:07 2002