On Oct 17, 12:19 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > There is a mapping between the image and thing imaged (which could be noise).
Only if you can see and make sense out of what you are looking at. That is the only mapping going on. > > > If there existed nothing in > > the universe who could see, there would be no information there. > > Define "see". I don't do definitions. Is there some confusion of what might be meant by "see"? > > > Information is just a way of saying 'experiences that make sense to > > us'. > > Have you read Shannon's theory of "Experineces that make sense to us". I'm familiar with it. It seems useful for semiconductor engineering applications but not much else. > > > Some experiences make sense on a lower, more universal level - > > that is electromagnetism. A photographic plate doesn't know or care > > what an image is though. > > I didn't say it did. I said it was a emergent property of EM, that it could > form images. What do you mean by 'it could form images'? Are you suggesting that EM is a disembodied pseudosubstance which occupies space between objects, and that it somehow carries light invisibly, and then, if there is enough of this going on, it somehow forms itself into invisible images, presumably made of colorless colors. (whatever that might be...sort of like particle waves I guess)? > > > > >>> Heat is an electromagnetic wave the same as visible > >>> light, but it forms no images. > > Never seen an IR image? Human beings can't see IR images. We can connect IR detectors to a computer and have those plotted on a screen as an array of pixels which satisfy our criteria for our own visual sense. We could have it spit out in it's native binary code or hex instead. We could have a photograph output through a pixelated heater instead and see if we can see any images with the palms of our hands. > > >>> Your view takes pattern in general for > >>> granted, mine does not. > > Not for granted, but well evidenced. Evidence of what? That pattern exists independent of pattern recognition? Do tell. > > >>>>> Electromagnetism is intentionality on every level, > >>>> Unsupported assertion. > >>> Doesn't mean it's wrong. If it's true, what would support it? > >> More to the point what test could possibly falsify it? > > Falsifying it would be easy. If we had no experience of intention, or > > our experiences of exerting intent did not map to electromagnetic > > resonance in the brain, then it would be false. > > So the fact that workers in power plants don't have 60Hz "sensorimotive" > experiences makes > your theory false. Huh? It sounds like you think that my theory is "We are able to experience everything in the universe". How did you get that from "If we had no experience of intention, ...then it would be false"? I just mean if electromagnetism had nothing to do with intention, then our feelings of intention wouldn't correlate with magnetic resonance imaging. But we do experience intention and it is a sensorimotive phenomenon, and that phenomenon does correlate to electromagnetism (but is not identical to it since electromagnetism is third person across space and sensorimotive is first person through time). Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
