[semantics-public] [x3d-public] Re: Re: Accessibility and semantics

[John Carlson]

I think “observe” is more important than observer/observed.   I’ve stated
this in other ways.  But thanks for helping me put into common notions.

John

On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 5:05 AM Christoph Valentin <
christoph.valentin at gmx.at> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Another thought (sorry, you asked for thoughts).
>
> You wrote: [...]space-time was the older generations interpretation of
> what they were “seeing,” and there was something more basic creating
> spacetime, perhaps sensory organs.[...]
>
> I see it this way:
>
> Special relativity made space/time depending on the (speed of the)
> observing matter.
>
> General relativity made space/time depending on the (mass of the) observed
> matter.
>
> In most general case we must model matter/energy and space/time as
> physical objects, which depend on each other.
>
> Quantum physics made clear that one cannot separate observer and observed.
> They depend on each other.
>
> What would this mean for X3D?
>
> Good question?
>
> Have a nice week
> Christoph
>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit GMX Mail
> gesendet.
> Am 19.06.22, 00:19 schrieb Christoph Valentin <christoph.valentin at gmx.at>:
>
>> Now, finally, getting back to your question:
>>
>> Do I have a frame of reference?
>>
>> The frame of reference is qualified by trust.
>>
>> If my mother told me: "this is a teddy bear", then it WAS a teddy bear.
>>
>> All these positive experiences made me trust in my own senses and all
>> these exercises at school made me trust in my mind.
>>
>> And it made me trust in him, who granted all this.
>>
>> Of course, there were times of doubts, times without self confidence and
>> so on.
>>
>> And they will come again, no doubt.
>>
>> Anyway, the frame of reference is the belief in reality and truth and the
>> belief that we can approach it.
>>
>> --
>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit GMX Mail
>> gesendet.
>> Am 18.06.22, 23:50 schrieb Christoph Valentin <christoph.valentin at gmx.at>:
>>
>>>
>>> I mean, to get back to objective facts, you will always need a language,
>>> if you want to communicate with someone else.
>>>
>>> You cannot just upload meaning to someone's brain.
>>>
>>> language vs. meaning is similar to data vs. information.
>>>
>>> If you want to transmit information, then you have to encode the
>>> information and make data from it. You can then transmit the data and at
>>> the destination someone else will make information from the data.
>>> "Information is what arrives, it's not what is sent".
>>>
>>> Literature is full of descriptions of misconceptions, where cats tried
>>> to understand the meaning of dog's wagging their tails.
>>>
>>> As a child you learn the meaning of structures, colours, shapes, sounds
>>> and so on from your mother, other relatives and teachers and so on.
>>>
>>> This meaning is also dependent on culture.
>>>
>>> Just a few thoughts
>>>
>>> --
>>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit GMX Mail
>>> gesendet.
>>> Am 18.06.22, 09:52 schrieb Christoph Valentin <christoph.valentin at gmx.at>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi John,
>>>>
>>>> I am in favour of following explanation:
>>>>
>>>> Our senses (lower layer) and our mind (higher layer) build together a
>>>> dynamic "model of the universe" (motu).
>>>>
>>>> In the beginning of our life this model is small (it comprises more or
>>>> or less the womb), then the model starts to grow.
>>>>
>>>> Whenever we encounter a new experience, then we try to match this
>>>> experience against the motu.
>>>>
>>>> An experience creates meaning, when it matches well. If there is no
>>>> match, then the experience doesn't mean anything to us.
>>>>
>>>> So, because the motu is very personal to each of us, also meaning is a
>>>> very personal feeling/experience and cannot be described in a scientific
>>>> (objective) way. It's the domain of art to convey meaning.
>>>>
>>>> All the best
>>>> Christoph
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit GMX Mail
>>>> gesendet.
>>>> Am 18.06.22, 02:28 schrieb John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been following Donald Hoffman, and recently saw a video with
>>>>> him and Lex Fridman, where Donald was suggesting that space-time was the
>>>>> older generations interpretation of what they were “seeing,” and there was
>>>>> something more basic creating spacetime, perhaps sensory organs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today, I saw an interview with Jordan Peterson in Montreal where he
>>>>> said that people saw meaning.   I didn’t understand that, but my wife also
>>>>> said she saw meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would state that i see color and perhaps depth, if not overlays of
>>>>> color.   This goes along with “fragment shaders.”
>>>>>
>>>>> So we’re doing good work tackling the semantics of X3D.   How does one
>>>>> render meaning though, possibly without relying on words, geometry and
>>>>> texture?  Something that a deafblind person might have a clue about?  I am
>>>>> pretty clueless about that, probably because i have hypophantasia?   Yes,
>>>>> words can elicit multiple meanings, but what about shapes?   How does one
>>>>> convert a mesh to meaning without some form of intelligence?   Is meaning
>>>>> equivalent to function?  Is meaning equivalent to tables?
>>>>>
>>>>> My wife is a photographer, so obviously she wants to capture meaning
>>>>> in her pictures.   I believe that animators want to capture meaning, or
>>>>> something that’s going on inside our heads, not necessarily something in
>>>>> what used to be called space-time.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I step into sign language and tactile sign language, i see even
>>>>> more that seeing is meaning to some people.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that different views can create different meanings, and
>>>>> the word “view” may have multiple meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how about you?  Do you have a frame of reference inside spacetime,
>>>>> meaning, or color, or all three when you see?  More?  A picture is a
>>>>> thousand words?  Are we getting more complex than Einstein?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your words are welcome!
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ x3d-public mailing list
>>>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ x3d-public mailing list
>>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ x3d-public mailing list
>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________ x3d-public mailing list
>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/semantics-public_web3d.org/attachments/20220619/bbeb0b2a/attachment.html>