Yes me liking this, and the agent is Yacin (your sin, Allah) from Algeria??
lol, Obama sends Justin Timberlake to get him and bring him to me at the
White Hart
--------------------------------------------------
From: "einseele" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:35 AM
To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]>
Subject: [epistemology 11211] Re: Biological Information
Hello Neil
I welcome this approach to a closer concept of information
Paradigm cases of structures with semantic
information — pictures, sentences, programs — are built by the thought
and action of intelligent agents.
Paradigm is wrong, intelligent agents do not build any information
(lets put all together within the word). We all forget that once we
were 2 and how we learned language, this is to say that Georges once
was intelligent enough to learn his mother tongue, he did not created
that information, was not built by him as the intelligent agent he is.
So we need to show how genes and
cells — neither intelligent systems themselves nor the products of
intelligence — can carry semantic information, and how the information
they carry explains their biological role. We need some kind of
reductive explanation of semantic information.
Cells, proteins, in short "things" do not carry information, they are
there to point to information, and "the agent" (remove intelligent)
will read and "understand" accordingly. If she makes that means
survival, if not she dies.
A friend musician of me, uses to invite me to the front of a public
building, and he plays on his guitar the "melody/rhythm" reading the
open/closed windows sequence. I dont believe the building is
"carrying" that music, there is not music whatsoever, and on my end
I'm certainly blind to it, but he plays it believe me, air
conditioning, moldings, etc, help to play the the score. He laughs and
enjoys a lot,
If we think of genes or cells as literally carrying semantic information,
our problem changes.
When you say here "semantic information" you use two words to
express...?
semantic is attibute of information? Then information is leading
to...?
But all this is old stuff,
When medicine says for instance that: hormones are "chemical
messengers" is telling us something enormous that we actually do not
see. Wait a minute, please read slowly the huge consequence of that.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
