One of the more difficult moments is writing this blog is deciding what to use as a title. Since I very seldom have a specific subject in mind when I sit down, all too often the title is a nondescript, meaning that I really have no idea, such as this one. An interesting aspect is that when I begin to type, all previous titles with the same spelling show. I thought this one was a fresh way to state the obvious. The computer tells me it isn't. I've used it before. That doesn't detract from its meaning though. The following remain discoinnected thoughts.
I have read Dr C's fifth essay on information. As with the previous, I am impressed with the depth and width of the Doctor's knowledge. As with Felix, I "can't wait for the final revelation of how all of this, and specifically the digital nature of information transmission, "has a real world prediction about free will", I am certainly both enjoying and learning from the ride."
I have no expertise comparable to Dr C's when it comes to a biological understanding of physical systems operating to give us information. And I'm admittedly stepping beyond the bounds of common sense to question Dr. C, especially before he completes the Information series. But I have a small point of disagreement.
What he describes here, in this specific essay, isn't information. It doesn't become information until it is recognized by the brain. It's merely a carrier, not matter how intricate or beautifully it has evolved to give us sight. And it is amazing to me that medical science knows so much about it. In terms of information, it's analogous to a highway carrying traffic. A map of that highway may be information, but the highway itself is not information.
Which is itself an interesting division. A highway map can be information, even the signs along a highway, can be information, but the highway itself is not. I'm obviously not on very solid ground here, in fact can feel it shaking beneath me, but that's how I understand information. I'm describing a very delicate balance between information and carriers of information that I'm not comfortable with.
Light wave/particles aren't information until they reach a means of converting and using them, in this case a brain. Until that point, it seems to me they're physical objects with no inherent informational qualities. As with my "Systems Analysis" approach, (another example of personal qualities determining understanding) information is data that was not previously known, which assumes understanding and action. And now that I've made a complete fool and ass of myself, I think I'll quickly change the subject.
We went to a bookstore today. I bought three books, two by J. McDevitt and one by John Shelby Spong, "Jesus For The Non Religious" [Harper San Francisco, 2007]. I'll not get into Spong's book in this post. I heard an interview with him a day or two ago and wanted to read his latest book. One of McDevitt's books, "Seeker" [McDevitt, J., Seeker. 1st ed. 2005, New York, Ace Books] was recommended by Felix. The other, "Polaris", I picked up on impulse. I've begun "Polaris" and see why Felix recommends this author.
We leave in the morning for Silver Spring, MD to visit our friends. We will not be back until late Monday afternoon. The sporadic posting recently will, therefore, remain. I'd like to explain the absences, but really cannot. It just seems that other events have stolen the time I usually blog. In addition, it seems that there are so many bits of ideas floating around in my mind that I can't seem to concentrate on any of them enough to write even one of my disjointed postings. I am going to have to become more flexible in time that I blog. At any rate, until at least Monday, and likely Tuesday, I will not be blogging. I hope that there are several comments waiting me when I return.