Arne Kjellman wrote:
> ...however I am still annoyed with the term "transformation"
that
> suggests that information is present as parts or entities of our
> environment and are "transformed" by human perception. I
maintain
> that information (or digits) rises only in a personal awareness as
> a result of acts of personal mental processing. Information (as
> reality) is constructed in a mind - not mediated between two
> diffrent domains. The SOA claims there is just one domain - a
> domain of experience. The dualists basic suggestion of two domain
> is deeply misleading to my mind.
Coming from a different persuasion, I have to ask if Arne's remarks
apply only to one kind of informational context�an "experiential"
one. If I shift the focus to a biological context, where genes are
replicated and transcribed as digital information, I see no need
whatsoever for the human mind to project a psycho-philosophical
principle onto such non-human aspects of nature. Maybe we are still
reeling from the Anthropic Principle. When we speak of information,
in my opinion, we too often stray into this "experiential" territory
and ignore other natural communicators that don't have experiences.
So, I want to know how THEY are communicated in space and time. From
my perspective, I might see genomes as confederations of selfish
genes and their alleles�entirely digital in their domain�operating by
some vague principle that may also apply elsewhere, perhaps even
gravitationally and quantum mechanically.
But a few still need to see things hierarchically, as if Mind or God
sits on top, pulling along everything that occurs from moment to
moment in space and time. Why should this be a first principle? Why
couldn't some argument of parallel universes provide a better
explanation on what information actually is and how it is
communicated in nature. Sadly, life in nature remains an
embarrassing enigma for biologists, physicists, and informologists
alike. No hierarchical principle will ever take us to a clear
understanding of a biological kind of life that, for billions of
years, needed no "personal awareness" by anyone in order to
continuously communication genetic information and evolve all sorts
of organismic "messages." And those ethereal digits outlived their
fleshy expressions by millions and millions of years.
We are like astronomers before Hubble who observed the Milky Way with
a deep sense of mystery�evidence, perhaps, of heavenly meddling�until
the concept of galaxies was clearly understood. Suddenly there was
no longer any need for hierarchical models that invoke, tacitly or
not, a higher Communicator. For me, at least, not a lot of useful
stuff comes from the glorification of "experience" and the
castigation of "dualism." Something very important is still unknown
about what the "information of life" really is�if it is not digitally
genetic�and I am betting that when it is discovered it will NOT be
some kind of an "experience."
Thanks always for these interesting discussions.
�Richard Emery
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Mon Oct 2 19:33:28 2006
