I am also beyond educated stupidity.
Late to the game, but what is the meaning of "nonsense"?
I am also beyond educated stupidity.Late to the game, but what is the meaning of "nonsense"?
.
At this point, no one knows. Because we can't even agree on the meaning
of "meaning" .
But, as always, I'm looking forward to your troll posts.
.
Dicey, when did you start trolling?
Good work, lad!
[Riddle zero.] The most important question has to do with context: Does meaning reside in things themselves, or is it merely the interpretation of an observer?
Meaning is to be discovered. It is both inherent in the object, and also a function of observation. The observed meaning can be different from the intended or inherent meaning, although that difference often degrades the inherent meaning.
Riddle one. If meaning must be known/remembered in order to
exists/persist, does that imply that it is a form of information?
Since meaning exists only as a form of communication, it is definitively information. Meaning is conveyance of knowledge from one thing to another. Only the recipient must be sentient. If there is no recipient of intended meaning (ie: one sentient to another), the meaning is for the intender alone.
Riddle two. In the late 18th century, many examples of Egyptian
hieroglyphics were known, but no one could read them. Did they have
meaning? Apparently not, since there were no "rememberers." In 1798,
the French found the Rosetta Stone, and within the next 20 or so years,
this "lost" language was recovered, and with it, the "meaning" of
Egyptian hieroglyphics. So, was the meaning "in" the hieroglyphics, or
was it "brought to" the hieroglyphics by its translators?
There were no "rememberers" but meaning was still inherent in the glyphs. They had meaning when they were carved and retained it when they were untranslatable. It was there waiting to be unlocked. Even without the Rosetta stone, people would have figured out the glyphs were pictographs matching whole words, just as they cracked the Mayan code--with study and intuition.
Riddle three. If I write a computer program to generate random
but intelligible stories (which I have done, by the way), and it writes
a story to a text file, does this story have meaning before any person
reads the file? Does it have meaning after a person reads the file? If
it was meaningless before but meaningful afterwards, where did the
meaning come from?
Yes. Yes. Irrelevant. The meaning came from the writer. The question confuses meaning with value. A story may have no value locked in a shroedinger box, but the meaning is still waiting to be discovered when the box is opened.
Riddle four. Two cops read a suicide note, but interpret it in
completely different ways. What does the note mean?
The note means what it was intended to mean, and one or both interpretations is incorrect to a point. The more factual the misunderstanding, the further from the intended meaning. The more esoteric the content, the lower the degree of degredation of meaning.
Riddle five. Suppose I take a large number of tiny pictures of
Abraham Lincoln and arrange them, such that they spell out the words
"Born in 1809"; is additional meaning present?
Additional to the sentence: Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809? Yes. The aditional meaning is: I like him enough to make a collage about it. That sounds trite, but as I noted above, the emotional meaning will be more purely conveyed.
Riddle six. On his deathbed, Albert Einstein whispered his last
words to the nurse caring for him. Unfortunately, he spoke them in
German, which she did not understand. Did those words mean anything?
Are they now meaningless?
I could argue that the brain remembers everything perfectly and can recall perfectly with training or assistance, and the words could easily be retrieved and translated. But what if the translated words were "please take out my trash tomorrow." That would have less meaning as a known fact than the mystery of an unknown last word of potential wisdom. On the other hand, he might have said "Yes I see you mother," in which case the fact would have more meaning than the mystery.
Riddle seven. When I look at your family photo album, I don't
recognize anyone, or understand any of the events depicted; they convey
nothing to me but what they immediately depict. You look at the album,
and many memories of people, places, and events are engendered; they
convey much. So, where is the meaning? Is it in the pictures, or is it
in the viewer?
Like you said in the beginning--it's in the context. I have context for my photos and you don't. Just like an ancient egyptian had context for reading glyphs, and archeologists didn't. However, they discovered context--the Rosetta stone. Even without it, they would have discovered context in another way.
If time wore on, and a single photo remained after a few centuries, some archeologist might find it and search for the context to understand it. He might note the food laid out on a decorated table in the foreground, fireworks in the background, large crowds of people, and deduce an extravagent public celebration. A sign might even say "July 4th! Lake Woebegon" and he would search for other such references. This could lead to other discoveries, other digs, and new understandings of these ancient people.
To you, it's just a family photo. To me, it's memories. To him, it's a crucial finding in discovering and understanding a lost civilization.
Or it might get thrown out or disintegrate, because what do we care about junk and why would we bother to chisel stone?
Oops. I thought everyone knew the basic tenants of Information Theory.
Uh oh...
Riddle one. Orc is no more able to state the parity of the
original bit pair than he was before he was given his bit and the same
is true for Kobold. That is, each one has 50% of the data, but neither one has received any information at all.
This is akin to tearing a book in half, giving half to each minion, and rather than asking them what they think the book is about, you ask how many periods the book contains.
The meaning of the parity is extremely small--in an existential way. The meaning of the data on the other hand, is quite a bit more.
Riddle two. Even though each minion has received 99% of the
data, none of them has received any information at all.
Again, you've torn out a page of 100 books and ask for the sum of periods rather than anything meaningful. I'm using the word meaningful because the riddle so helpfully defines what is meaningless. Clearly the data is meaningless if it is not 100% intact.
The minions each have 99% of the data. Independent of the rest, each should know the contents of the data. Unless they're not sentient. Unless you're just saying that computer parts don't understand data.
This problem is exclusive to computer science. Nothing else in the known world is incapable of functioning because of a 1% lack.
Riddle three. The information in the 100 data bits cannot be in
the bits themselves. For, which bit is it in? Not bit 1, since that bit
was given to 99 minions, and didn't provide them with any
information. Not bit 2, for the same reason. In fact, it is clear that
the information cannot be in any of the bits themselves. So, where is
it?
In the bits in totality only, apparently.
Riddle four. Suppose my 100 bits have odd parity (say, 45 ones and 55 zeros). I arrange them on a piece of paper, so they spell the word "odd." Have I added information? If so, where is it?
Certainly. You've added the knowledge that you enjoy trolling.
Riddle five. Where is the information in a multiply encrypted message, since it completely disappears when one bit is removed?
In your head. Let me, here, hammer, just hold still a minute...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Oops. I thought everyone knew the basic tenants of Information Theory.Uh oh...
This is akin to tearing a book in half, giving half to each minion, and rather than asking them what they think the book is about, you ask how many periods the book contains.Riddle one. Orc is no more able to state the parity of the
original bit pair than he was before he was given his bit and the same
is true for Kobold. That is, each one has 50% of the data, but neither one has received any information at all.
Well, since OP seems not to even consider the difference between data representation and actual information, I figured he/she/it does not know the basic tenets of information theory.
|
|
I have figured out the 'meaning' of this thread.
It is that Grand Magus communicates in an unpleasant and patronising way to people who don't have the same experience and expertise that he has.
Which means that he is too stupid to have realised how counter-productive it usually is to be unpleasant.
This is now manifest in the 'trolling' of his/her thread. She/he doesn't realise/recognise/accept that they have elicited a certain manner of responses.
Could you please define the word "is?"
I have figured out the 'meaning' of this thread.
It is that Grand Magus communicates in an unpleasant and patronising way to people who don't have the same experience and expertise that he has.
Which means that he is too stupid to have realised how counter-productive it usually is to be unpleasant.
This is now manifest in the 'trolling' of his/her thread. She/he doesn't realise/recognise/accept that they have elicited a certain manner of responses.
The problem is that he obviously doesn't have the experience and expertise he thinks he has, and what he does have is not relevant to the questions he is asking.
The problem is that he obviously doesn't have the experience and expertise he thinks he has, and what he does have is not relevant to the questions he is asking.I have figured out the 'meaning' of this thread.
It is that Grand Magus communicates in an unpleasant and patronising way to people who don't have the same experience and expertise that he has.
Which means that he is too stupid to have realised how counter-productive it usually is to be unpleasant.
This is now manifest in the 'trolling' of his/her thread. She/he doesn't realise/recognise/accept that they have elicited a certain manner of responses.
.
Nice smoke screen posts, and dodging of the question.
This kinda make me think of Attacking the messenger.
Let's keep going. No more slacking.
.
[Riddle zero.] ...
[Riddle one.] ...
[Riddle two.] ...
Like you said in the beginning--it's in the context. I have context for my photos and you don't. Just like an ancient egyptian had context for reading glyphs, and archeologists didn't. However, they discovered context--the Rosetta stone. Even without it, they would have discovered context in another way....
.
This is great stuff. I'm writing this down.
.
There's no evidence for Jesus doing anything, there is mountains of evidence for both the evolution of the brain and abiogenesis.Oh not this crap. You're making atheists look bad, and as one, I can't abide that.
There is indeed evidence that Jesus existed. It's called the New Testament. You may not believe it, but it's about as credible a historical source for the existence of Jesus as any other document for anyone else at the time. Whether he did all the things they said he did, that's a whole nother story.
*Also, the NT is corroborated on the existence of Jesus by a small number of contemporary (to the NT, not Jesus) sources that are non-Christian. No serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus.
Well, unless you count the very diffuse accounts from the Kabbalah, likely from the third century or so, or Flavianus, where the most relevant passage, often called testimonium flavianum, is today widely regarded as a likely revisionism, albeit an old one, it's not corroborated at all. Basically, the bible is all there is. Everywhere but in testimonium flavianum, there is a distinct lack of references to Jesus from Nasareth, Jesus as an important person, and so on. There are references to people like "the egyptian" and suchlike, however, that are often conflated with Jesus, which is doubtful. That "no serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus" is a widely spread myth, aggressively propagated by christians everywhere.
About information: You try to push the view that it's atoms themselves that give meaning/information/relevance, without understanding the concept at all. It's the same problem as with people who call themselves holists because "the whole is more than the sum of the parts". What they, and you, forget is STRUCTURE. The atoms of a tree compose a tree because of the structures they make up. The whole is precisely the same as the sum of the parts AND THEIR STRUCTURE. We use screws, and hammers, and computers because their atoms are set in specific STRUCTURES, not because a certain percentage of the atoms are iron, for example. If you don't understand this, your world view is sadly not even at the "hitting food in the head with a rock", and I pity you.
As for the goblins and their 99% information: To answer your question of odd or even, you need 100% of the information. They do not, so they can't. The entire structure needs to be complete, and if it isn't, then no go. This is not a reflection of any deeper truth than that.
There is no greater meaning. A data file holding information also needs to be interpreted in accordance with a specific structure. If it's not, the data is meaningless.
So, do yourself a favour. Whenever these thoughts come, repeat "You also need to account for structure."
It's the structure that allows groups of atoms to explore its surroundings. It's the structure that lets your heart pump blood to your cells. It's the structure that lets your lungs exchange gases. It's the structure that lets your brain compose these inane arguments.
As for the goblins and their 99%
Occupy Paizo!
Well, unless you count the very diffuse accounts from the Kabbalah, likely from the third century or so, or Flavianus, where the most relevant passage, often called testimonium flavianum, is today widely regarded as a likely revisionism, albeit an old one, it's not corroborated at all. Basically, the bible is all there is. Everywhere but in testimonium flavianum, there is a distinct lack of references to Jesus from Nasareth, Jesus as an important person, and so on. There are references to people like "the egyptian" and suchlike, however, that are often conflated with Jesus, which is doubtful. That "no serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus" is a widely spread myth, aggressively propagated by christians everywhere.There's no evidence for Jesus doing anything, there is mountains of evidence for both the evolution of the brain and abiogenesis.Oh not this crap. You're making atheists look bad, and as one, I can't abide that.
There is indeed evidence that Jesus existed. It's called the New Testament. You may not believe it, but it's about as credible a historical source for the existence of Jesus as any other document for anyone else at the time. Whether he did all the things they said he did, that's a whole nother story.
*Also, the NT is corroborated on the existence of Jesus by a small number of contemporary (to the NT, not Jesus) sources that are non-Christian. No serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus.
So Josephus doesn't count? But seriously, I never understood why people doubted the existence of Jesus as a real person. What he did, sure, but there's really no reason to doubt he existed other than spite. What's more credible, that some Jewish rabble-rouser from Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem and subsequently had a religion formed around his teachings (among other things), or that some people decided to make up a religion and invented a person who never existed to be at the center of it? The very fact that the NT writers have to jump through hoops to fit Jesus' circumstances into the OT prophecies of the messiah (such as being born in Bethlehem rather than the relatively recent city of Nazareth) is evidence in favor of his existence. The NT would be sufficient proof by itself - it's not like it's some homogenous document with a single author, or even authors who necessarily knew each other.
And no, it is not a myth that no credible scholar doubts the existence of Jesus. And until you can name an accredited scholar who does believe otherwise, I'm calling shenanigans. Nor, as I said before, am I myself a Christian. There are plenty of good avenues to attack Christianity. Jesus' existence is not one of them, and it is counterproductive to waste time with such a salacious argument.
So Josephus doesn't count? But seriously, I never understood why people doubted the existence of Jesus as a real person. What he did, sure, but there's really no reason to doubt he existed other than spite. What's more credible, that some Jewish rabble-rouser from Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem and subsequently had a religion formed around his teachings (among other things), or that some people decided to make up a religion and invented a person who never existed to be at the center of...Well, unless you count the very diffuse accounts from the Kabbalah, likely from the third century or so, or Flavianus, where the most relevant passage, often called testimonium flavianum, is today widely regarded as a likely revisionism, albeit an old one, it's not corroborated at all. Basically, the bible is all there is. Everywhere but in testimonium flavianum, there is a distinct lack of references to Jesus from Nasareth, Jesus as an important person, and so on. There are references to people like "the egyptian" and suchlike, however, that are often conflated with Jesus, which is doubtful. That "no serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus" is a widely spread myth, aggressively propagated by christians everywhere.There's no evidence for Jesus doing anything, there is mountains of evidence for both the evolution of the brain and abiogenesis.Oh not this crap. You're making atheists look bad, and as one, I can't abide that.
There is indeed evidence that Jesus existed. It's called the New Testament. You may not believe it, but it's about as credible a historical source for the existence of Jesus as any other document for anyone else at the time. Whether he did all the things they said he did, that's a whole nother story.
*Also, the NT is corroborated on the existence of Jesus by a small number of contemporary (to the NT, not Jesus) sources that are non-Christian. No serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus.
.
Don't be fooled by the smoke screen. They are dodging the question and
making you argue to waste time.
Didn't you do this to your high school teachers? It is the same tactic
being used here.
.
maybe some people are not giving a complete answer to your question, but (with the exception of the trollers) no one is dodging the question. They are giving their input to the overall conclusion. Some posts (by you mostly) are giving people outlets to seemingly 'dodge' the question, but in actuality they are just responding to your developing insecurities in their answers. You do not like/agree with what they have to say so instead of thinking about their response you are completely disregarding their response. Look at all of your previous posts, you just keep saying the same thing over and over again and expect others to do the thinking for you. think about what people have to say, then give your input. dont just throw it under the rug and repeat what you have said five times already.
maybe some people are not giving a complete answer to your question, but (with the exception of the trollers) no one is dodging the question.
L'troll, c'est moi.
There's no evidence for Jesus doing anything, there is mountains of evidence for both the evolution of the brain and abiogenesis.Oh not this crap. You're making atheists look bad, and as one, I can't abide that.
There is indeed evidence that Jesus existed. It's called the New Testament. You may not believe it, but it's about as credible a historical source for the existence of Jesus as any other document for anyone else at the time. Whether he did all the things they said he did, that's a whole nother story.
*Also, the NT is corroborated on the existence of Jesus by a small number of contemporary (to the NT, not Jesus) sources that are non-Christian. No serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus.
I didn't say there was no evidence Jesus existed, I said there was no evidence that he did anything.
We have evidence that a man named Iesu lived around the right time and that a man named Iesu was crucified at some point.
That's the only evidence we have.
Considering Iesu was a very popular name at the time, it doesn't say much.
I use a similar analogy:
There are several Peter Parkers who lived in New York. None of them are Spider-man.
There were several Iesus who lived in Roman Palestine. None of them were Iesu of Nazareth.
Iesu of Nazareth is an entirely mythological figure created by combining previous ones, most notably Apollo (which is where Jesus gets his appearance from).
A man named Iesu existed.
The rest is probably fictional.
Oh, and the problem with using Josephus as proof of Jesus is that would also make him proof of Hercules and a whole host of other Greek/Roman gods/figures that he talked about as though they were real often.
He compared the strength of a Babylonian king to Hercules in a way that made Hercules sound completely real.
He used a battle between Jupiter and Saturn as a historical date reference for a Jewish migration from Crete to Libya.
Tacticus did similar things and used similar references to non-Christian figures.
So if they prove Jesus, they also prove Hercules.
Oooh, a chance to play the grognard card.
I think this was my third thread.
I've learned so much since then...
.
I win this thread.
!! Flawless Victory !!
.
That people stopped caring weeks ago does not make you the victor.
Hang on. Can we go back to the trap that is nihilism? How much damage does it do and what is the DC to disarm it? If I am a nihilist do i still get harmed by it? Will it do extra damage if I'm a Cleric (no matter what my archetype). If I am a Bard (Disambiguator archetype) can I still disarm it with my Homebrewed Philosphy power? How many uses of my Disambiguator's Reformance would that use? How much does it "cost"? I put "cost" in inverted commas in case folx get funky with "context" and "meaning". You can provide a gp "cost" or double up with "harm" and "damage" for any "cost" you like.
Become Discordian. You get Evasion vs serious business.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
This may seem silly, but the issues it raises are the very things that
make intelligent discussions useful.The most important question has to do with context: Does meaning reside
in things themselves, or is it merely the interpretation of an observer?Riddle one. If meaning must be known/remembered in order to
exists/persist, does that imply that it is a form of information?Riddle two. In the late 18th century, many examples of Egyptian
hieroglyphics were known, but no one could read them. Did they have
meaning? Apparently not, since there were no "rememberers." In 1798,
the French found the Rosetta Stone, and within the next 20 or so years,
this "lost" language was recovered, and with it, the "meaning" of
Egyptian hieroglyphics. So, was the meaning "in" the hieroglyphics, or
was it "brought to" the hieroglyphics by its translators?Riddle three. If I write a computer program to generate random
but intelligible stories (which I have done, by the way), and it writes
a story to a text file, does this story have meaning before any person
reads the file? Does it have meaning after a person reads the file? If
it was meaningless before but meaningful afterwards, where did the
meaning come from?Riddle four. Two cops read a suicide note, but interpret it in
completely different ways. What does the note mean?Riddle five. Suppose I take a large number of tiny pictures of
Abraham Lincoln and arrange them, such that they spell out the words
"Born in 1809"; is additional meaning present?Riddle six. On his deathbed, Albert Einstein whispered his last
words to the nurse caring for him. Unfortunately, he spoke them in
German, which she did not understand. Did those words mean anything?
Are they now meaningless?Riddle seven. When I look at your family photo album, I don't
recognize anyone, or understand any of the events depicted; they convey
nothing to me but what they immediately depict. You...
It depends on what you mean...