3 ms·
If I recall, this was a core idea in Godel Escher Bach. Is meaning inherent to information, or do you always need a compatible interpreter (eg. a human mind)?
by bcherny 10y ago
If I recall, this was a core idea in Godel Escher Bach. Is meaning inherent to information, or do you always need a compatible interpreter (eg. a human mind)?
Messages don't exist by themselves, but are layered. Eg. To understand that a radio signal is a video I need to also understand video protocols, RF communication, etc.
- s_kilk 10y ago[I have my copy of GEB beside me] In GEB, Hofstadter talks about the Three Layers of Any Message: 1 - The Frame Message 2 - The Outer Message 3 - The Inner Message He uses the example of a "message in a bottle" washed up on the beach. The "Frame" is the recognition that the bottle is sealed and contains a dry piece of paper. The "Outer Message" would be the fact that the writing on the paper is in French, and the "Inner Message" would be the actual contents of the French writing. At each stage, the reader needs to have some set of concepts or language with which to grapple with the nested messages, if they have any hope of finally decoding the Inner Message. For example, a wild boar wouldn't recognise the Frame Message in the first place, while a German person might recognise the Frame Message, and recognise the Outer Message ("This text is definitely French"), but be stymied by an in-ability to actually read French.