X-Message-Number: 33427
From: 
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 23:07:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Jeff Davis addendum

Another thought. Jeff seems confused about the meaning of  description. A 
description (of a material object or system) is a  representation of some 
aspect(s) of that thing. A code  is invented to translate. 
 
The description is never complete, because there is much we don't know  
about the composition of matter and about space and time. The description 

merely  has to be useful to some potential observer. The description is always a
kind of shorthand.
 
A witness in court might start out by saying he saw a woman. Maybe he did,  
or  maybe it was a man in drag, or maybe it was a mannequin, or maybe it  
was just wash hanging out to dry, or maybe he was dreaming. In any event, the 
 report "woman" is just a shorthand for roughly and vaguely summing up what 
the  observer remembers. Its usefulness is always severely limited. 
 
In particular, a representation on paper or in a computer or through your  
vocal chords is not the thing represented. Even if I could  write down,  

using words and numbers, a complete and perfect description of an object, or of
 its activities, writing down those things would not constitute creation of 
that  thing or anything remotely resembling it. You would only be creating 
some marks  on paper which, given the motivation and the code, could be used 
to infer  whatever you wanted to know about the thing. 
 
Does this help anybody understand the limitations of description? I was a  
teacher for a long time, and have reason to believe I'm a good expositor, 
but  this challenge is a doozy.
 
Robert Ettinger

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33427