AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 139
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
)))
I kind of understand why you are linking information to neural activity. You are evaluating information in terms of usefulness, i.e. in relation to something.
...
...
on a packet of crisps there is a lot of information encoded in different ways: an image of fried potatoes, a barcode, a QR code, a text description - is this information? yes, information. an alien looking at a packet of crisps, having a nervous system, will understand nothing, nothing at all, but has information ceased to exist if he does not understand it? so the perception of information depends not only and not so much on the presence of a nervous system, but on the way information is encoded.
I don't understand why you reject the obvious: what difference does it make how information is transmitted? by hand-to-hand transfer of a flash drive, by exchange of liquids during close communication, by viruses with the algorithm of building protein structures encoded in RNA and DNA, or by electromagnetic waves, or by hitting foreheads in the school corridor and contracting measles, or by collision of star systems and subsequent migration of inhabitants to neighbouring planets?))))))))) it is all transmission and exchange of information.
Finally!))) Thank goodness! )) I managed to get the point across.
Is this what we were talking about? In my opinion, the speech went into the area of "informativeness of matter", not vice versa. And here it would be appropriate to look for some properties of matter that would go beyond the boundary of information properties, then it would be possible to unambiguously separate one from the other. But, paradoxically, we do not have any information about matter that can unequivocally exclude the version that our Universe is a product of a "simulation" (or, say, a complex algorithm for calculating some hash function that is extremely advanced from our point of view).
You do realise that a couple of sentences can cast doubt on the existence of any meaning in the existence of life (not just yours, but any life at all)? Strange move for someone who seeks to "adhere to commonly accepted definitions and terms". This is how you begin to erect a sandcastle on a beach in the surf....
Here the world has not yet decided whether the field is material, well waves are clear, at some frequency you can already feel, but with fields there is no unity)))) And here the materiality of information is a question)))) And what's the most interesting thing is that it came from the topic of GPT).
Well, as if Max earlier gave an example of concepts in philosophy, what is essence, phenomenon, matter, waves did not know then))))
Infa is still the work of someone's brain or nerve cells of infusoria, it is a reflection of the world, not the world.)))))
I am closer to Peter's position.
Here the world has not yet decided whether the field is material, well waves are clear, at some frequency you can already feel, but with fields there is no unity)))) And here the materiality of information is a question)))) And what is the most interesting is that it came from the topic of GPT)
Well, as if Max earlier gave an example of concepts in philosophy, what is essence, phenomenon, matter, waves were not known then))))
Infa is still the work of someone's brain or nerve cells of infusoria, it's a reflection of the world, not the world.)))))
I am closer to Peter's position.
According to Peter's version there is no mass or volume, because everything is a reflection of the world by nerve cells.
It's about the same thing with information.
is usually tested for objectivity: if you transmit the same information from one place to another and put several eyes from different people next to each other, all of them will record the moment of transmission. So the information is objective (in the sense of existing) and does not depend on anyone's neural activity. Or by other indirect means.
And the way and depth of perception of this information is the problem of the perceiver.in Peter's version, there's no mass or volume because it's all a reflection of the world by nerve cells.
It's roughly the same thing with information.
is usually tested for objectivity: if you transmit the same information from one place to another and put several eyes from different people next to each other, all of them will fix the moment of transmission. So the information is objective and does not depend on anyone's neural activity. Or by other indirect means.
Physicists have no concept of information transfer. There are only waves, masses, and fields. I don't know such a physical act as information transfer.
In real life, it's electrons, waves, fields, masses, molecular structures. A USB stick is a structure of different cells. I remember charge-coupled devices, CCDs. They take pictures on phones. But there are physical processes first. And then the pictures.)
So I agree with Peter, information is a reflection of the world by nerve cells. It started with amoebas.)
Or rather with organic chemistry. In general, without organics, there is no information)))))Physicists have no concept of information transfer. There are only waves, masses, and fields. I don't know such a physical action as information transfer.
In real life, it's electrons, waves, fields, masses, molecular structures. A USB stick is a structure of different cells. I remember charge-coupled devices, CCDs. They take pictures on phones. But there are physical processes first. And then the pictures.)
So I agree with Peter, information is a reflection of the world by nerve cells. It started with amoebas.)
Or rather with organic chemistry. In general, without organics, there is no information))))))In physics, information is related to entropy.
and in general.
so many arguments, nobody even reads the definitions
In physics, information is related to entropy.
and in general
there's so much debate, nobody even reads the definition.
That's what's so scary about gpt wikis. It's not an inherently physical process. I liked the feldeger link. Feldeger mail is a physical process of transferring information))))) Hilarious))))
Entropy in physics is anything but infa. This is already stretching close in meaning concepts from other fields on physical phenomena. Like so it is better to explain.
Zy, and even not physical phenomena, entropy is still some index, very averaged, it is not the velocity in a point at all, so perhaps it is explained through the concept of information, but it is different.