Changes

::::::: "''...depending on the method of interpretation...''":  Or, rather, how one ''defines'' information.  I'm talking here about data that has ''meaning''.  Matches on a table laid out in the shape of letters and words which spell "I have gone out" constitutes ''information'', because it has ''meaning'' (it tells you something that the person who laid them out wanted you to know).  Matches scattered randomly on a table do not tell you anything specific, so have no ''meaning'', so do not constitute ''information''.  And note that the ''matter'' (the matches) are the same in both cases; it's the ''arrangement'' that is different.  The information is conveyed in the ''arrangement'' of the matches, not in the matches themselves.

::::::: "''...depending on the method of interpretation...''":  Or, rather, how one ''defines'' information.  I'm talking here about data that has ''meaning''.  Matches on a table laid out in the shape of letters and words which spell "I have gone out" constitutes ''information'', because it has ''meaning'' (it tells you something that the person who laid them out wanted you to know).  Matches scattered randomly on a table do not tell you anything specific, so have no ''meaning'', so do not constitute ''information''.  And note that the ''matter'' (the matches) are the same in both cases; it's the ''arrangement'' that is different.  The information is conveyed in the ''arrangement'' of the matches, not in the matches themselves.

::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 9 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::Philip, you are probably the most reasonable person I've seen on CP, yet you seem to be getting hot-headed over this. Please don't. I'm not saying I'm right [about the previous statement], but if that's the case, then heed. That said:

::::::::My apologies, Philip, for not replying earlier; I have been busy making preparations for my 18th birthday, which is coming up soon. Moving forward:

::::::::The external article that supports the CP view is not a "source". It is essentially a blog article. It has not been peer-reviewed, it has not [apparently] been researched, it is simply a philosophical argument that may well be flawed. The fact that the CP view is in agreement with it proves nothing; in fact, it implies that the CP view was heavily influenced by that website. See [[circular reasoning]].  

::::::::The external article that supports the CP view is not a "source". It is essentially a blog article. It has not been peer-reviewed, it has not [apparently] been researched, it is simply a philosophical argument that may well be flawed. The fact that the CP view is in agreement with it proves nothing; in fact, it implies that the CP view was heavily influenced by that website. See [[circular reasoning]].  

::::::::You say that you read the website. Yet you also said you remember nothing of hard drives. I suggest, therefore, that you read it again, as I derived my hard drive argument from that website's expressions.

::::::::You say that you read the website. Yet you also said you remember nothing of hard drives. I suggest, therefore, that you read it again, as I derived my hard drive argument from that website's expressions.