Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Inference ultimatelly refers to the reduction of "noise" between functions algorythmic relation, that which we normally call meaning...
Your functions are too noisy to convey meaning in that sentence. What a load of nonsense! Are you even reading the thoughtless tripe you are writing?
...and I can even settle with birds and parrots to make the case, as you should know association at base level starts whith conditioning, "a la" Pavlov, and from there the producing of meaning..
As you would know had you bothered to read my post, parrots can be trained to respond differentially to certain stimuli. For example, they can be trained to say "red" in the presence of a red colour swatch. Borrowing Robert Brandom's terminology I would call this an acquired reliable differential responsive disposition, but you might equally say that the parrot has been conditioned to say red in the presence of red colour swatches. Being conditioned to make a noise in certain circumstances, however, is not the same thing as judging something to be red, as opposed to, say, yellow or transparent. When a parrot makes the noise "red" in the presence of a colour swatch, it does not think that the swatch is not yellow or green; it does not think that red is a colour; it does not think that is the same colour as some of its parrot friends; it does not even think that it may be mistaken about the colour of the swatch. This is because a parrot does not have a network of inter-related concepts, and that means that parrots cannot think.
...as for the remaining of your old timer rambling well it sufices to say that it does n' t deserve much comment at all...
I can only take this to mean you don't have any refutation to offer. I therefore conclude that I am entirely correct.
There...thats the problem...the meaning of the word information is utterly diferent between us...
What do you think the Moon "says" to Earth in terms of its mass and gravitational pull when it goes around? Words? No. Information!
Your metaphor is presumably to be cashed out as saying that the moon causally affects the earth, assuming that you aren't completely
mad. Where does information come in here? If I were to smack you on the back of the head it would be very strange, indeed, just plain wrong, to say that an exchange of information had taken place between the palm of my hand and the back of your head. A transfer of energy, perhaps, or of subatomic particle, but not information.
You just described Information as I see it...that "perturbance" that you speak of will establish an operative relation with any other object locally available be it an observer or not...such that it will be always observed in the sense of being filtered by the functional mathematical correlation it will establish with its surroundings...
Information is about correlative functional measurements which wil form a systemic pattern...it does n' t matter tbe medium ("language")...
You seem determined to find nonsense where there is perfect sense. When Fresco says "There is only a "disturbance" within the structure of the cat's brain", presumably all that he can mean is that certain neurons are caused to fire in the cats brain (anything else would render the phenomenon utterly mysterious), and we would be able to trace the causal chain through the cat's nervous system to retinal stimulations, and then out into the world.