(November 23, 2013 at 8:32 am)bennyboy Wrote: That was short hand for "the world I experience is a part of an objective physical reality," since it's real enough as the collection of experiences that I've had. So the negation would be "the world I experience is not a part of an objective physical reality." There's nothing self-contradictory about it.
Try avoiding sloppy short-hands in future.
And for this particular argument, look up the objections and responses to brain-in-vat argument.
(November 23, 2013 at 8:32 am)bennyboy Wrote: Your definition is too imprecise. What's "data," if not any property of any physical system? What's "information" if not any property which influences the properties of any other system? But I will be happy to restate my question: If I look at a strange system, how am I to know whether it is collecting "data" and producing "meaningful information," or just part of the ongoing cascade of packets of energy moving around the universe?
Its not my definition. And both data and information are conceptual properties - meaning, there needs to be a conscious entity observing the system for those concepts to apply. As it happens, the role of that entity can be taken on by the system itself. In the given instance, that role is taken on by you and therefore you determine what the difference is.
On a side note - are we going to go back to the original discussion, where you kept insisting upon the agnosticism of qualia?
