3 ms·

I have had thoughts about how we attach meaning to symbols in computers (our designed computational systems), and how a physical system like a landslide, or acc

I have had thoughts about how we attach meaning to symbols in computers (our designed computational systems), and how a physical system like a landslide, or accretion disk or something could accidentally assume forms and computation-like behaviours which we could attach symbolic meaning to, yet mostly do not /can not as we are not watching. With such a vision there is strong ambiguity in the world over what is potentially symbolically meaningful to someone, the meanings things can carry, and the stories their symbols can follow. I think that essential ambiguity of interpretation, of the apparent orders and symbols in the world, makes nonsense of the popular idea that we may ourselves be certain sophisticated symbolic constructs in an advanced simulation. Sorry for this but I am in the middle of doing something else and have only skimmed this paper but it looks tantalisingly relevant...

empath75 9y ago
What you are thinking of is semiotics, the study of how we attach meanings to things. If a landslide assumes a form to which we attach a meaning, Augustine would say that's a natural sign. For example, when something burns, a natural sign forms which we call smoke, and the meaning we attach to the sign is that there is a fire.
- glbrew 9y ago
  I don't thing that is what he is referring to. He is talking amount symbols as in computational manipulation of symbols to achieve information processing, not symbols as in a deeper meaning for something.
  - strainer 9y ago
    Shame I missed this thread. I do wonder about all aspects of symbols, how to differentiate shallow, deep or even consciously 'realised' symbols. Im wondering how things can be accidentally symbolic, with or without someone to observe the apparent symbolism. I feel there is something special about conciousness and there seems to be a popular view that conciousness is an accident of the universe or of any sufficiently detailed symulation.

empath75 9y ago

What you are thinking of is semiotics, the study of how we attach meanings to things. If a landslide assumes a form to which we attach a meaning, Augustine would say that's a natural sign. For example, when something burns, a natural sign forms which we call smoke, and the meaning we attach to the sign is that there is a fire.

glbrew 9y ago
I don't thing that is what he is referring to. He is talking amount symbols as in computational manipulation of symbols to achieve information processing, not symbols as in a deeper meaning for something.
- strainer 9y ago
  Shame I missed this thread. I do wonder about all aspects of symbols, how to differentiate shallow, deep or even consciously 'realised' symbols. Im wondering how things can be accidentally symbolic, with or without someone to observe the apparent symbolism. I feel there is something special about conciousness and there seems to be a popular view that conciousness is an accident of the universe or of any sufficiently detailed symulation.