[Buddha-l] Views of Information & Knowledge (Culture & Religion)

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Malcolm wrote:

MD> Information has definite mathematical descriptions. It is a process,
MD> not a substance. It is experimentally verifiable. We can see it happen
MD> in the brain. It is a fundamental physical process in the Universe, as
MD> described by the American physicist John Wheeler, who is famous for
MD> the motto "it from bit."

well, I'm don't have doubt that you are quite expert about what you
are talking. However, maybe we can go by steps, because until today.
I think that some matters are not subject of actualization. Maybe
I'm wrong.

Perhaps you can agree that Mathematics are a language about time and
space. If there is not time and space, there is not possibility for
mathematics. Therefore, there is not any problem in the claim of
Information has definite mathematical description. With this claim
just we are stating the existence of a process (the same information)
able to be known. In example we know that 1+0 = 1. 

You says this knowledge it's a process and there is not substance in
the process, although the first question is how any process exists
without nothing to be processed. Because when we use that 1, in that
same moment we have a representation of something in our knowledge, it
is, a representation of space and time. On the contrary, the process
it would not be possible 

We can deny in a Aristotelic way that there is not substance behind
that. Not problem with that. However, we cannot say the process
exists by himself. We are using representations of space and time, the
mathematics. Although there is not need of a material substance behind
these objects of knowledge, it doesn't mean that behind these
objects there is nothing. Because we know that we are knowing. And
if we are knowing there is something able to be known, and this
something it's needed for the existence of the knowledge.

This something it's not other thing that the representation herself,
which here it's our object of knowledge. This representation is not
the Aristotelic substance, however it is not nothing. Therefore, I
think obvious the knowledge cannot be the same information when
information cannot be sustained by itself.


MD> One of the problems we are having in this dialog is my belief that
MD> precise, verifiable definitions are necessary, and doubly so in
MD> discussing Buddhism. I reject the idea that "tons of Information are
MD> just entertainment," or that entertainment is "useless to get
MD> knowledge about what we do here." One of my Buddhist teachers spent
MD> many hours watching soap operas, affirming that Buddha-nature is even
MD> on television. (After all, some human wrote that crap!) As for
MD> obtaining moral meaning, soap operas are ideal morality plays.

well, but you are talking about somebody who is far of entertainment.
He observes the panorama like a showcase of the human mind, therefore
he is extracting a moral meaning of all that. In fact, finally himself
says Buddha-nature is even on television. It is not a moral meaning?.

I want to insist in Moral being a problem of knowledge, not only
about following rules. Any moral code of rules it's a way to
pursue the knowledge of what is moral but the code it's not the
knowledge in itself. In this way, we know about some people who were
enlightened jumping over the code of moral conduct. These people get
that knowledge but they did not express the expected moral behavior.
It is very strange for third eyes, because normally we only are able
to certify the existence of that knowledge in other people by seeing
an expression of the code of conduct. In absence of that expression,
immediately we will think in the absence of that knowledge.
In this way, all Religions try to preserve codes of moral conduct,
because it is the only way to demonstrate others the existence of that
knowledge inside the religion.
When these codes disappears by lack or by excess, the religion too.


MD> The emergence of "meaning" is more crucial, however, and the Buddhist
MD> formula for its transmission is "Thus have I heard." That is,
MD> "meaning" is the cognitive product of Information.

yes, I agree. This is information susceptible to be known.
Maybe you will say this is information susceptible to be processed
without error.

However, What would happen if the existence of error it's the final
meaning?. When perfection it's not perfect?.
It will not be contradictory with a cognitive process of getting
meanings?

best regards.