Hello Neil Have I already mentioned about your skills as a writer, I believe so. Again thanks for a good reading today..
When medicine says for instance that an hormone is a "chemical messenger" the idea behind the expression is to force the imagination. Thus, the metaphor suggests that a chemical substratum acts like a postman. Insulin comes along and says: Hey you cell, the boss up there knew you were hungry and says you could take some glucose, here you are... have a nice day. You quoted Davidson and the triangulation. I'm not so sure about that view, but I agree there are always three components in any information system, the minimum system is made of three. Even binary structures need three elements. It is enough to have (1) a signal, (particle, wave, whatever), (2) distance (space, length, absence), and (3) (code, language, whatever instance able to see the difference). The difference between what? Well the difference between the first 2 Information Technology (IT) is I believe the most obvious case. It works with two signals: 1 - A dot somewhere 2 - The absence of that dot within the same "somewhere" reference 3 - Distance between both (this is notorious because this distance is between a physic signal and its absence) Please do a simple test: In a piece of paper draw 7 circles, with any distance in between, Black-Red-Red-Red-Red-Red-Red That is the only reference, and the instruction is, all circles have the same radio, this is to say that the only difference between them is their colour, and that they are separate by "-" This sequence fills certain space, and we by convention will know that there is only one space available The above sequence, in a binary notation is # 64, in other words: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Now delete all "-" and Reds, leave the Black alone. What do you see? Black is the only physic component of this tiny system, within the same space. Can we read 64?. Answer is Yes we can. We still have 7 signs. Your computer does it all the time and prints @ on your screen So back to insulin, medicine tells me insulin is a chemical messenger, I think about the message and feel that all messages must be the same. No matter if we talk about chemistry, biology, politics or whatever. To think we humans (??) are made differently is to focus on the I part of the cogito, I distruts subjectivism the most On 21 jan, 01:53, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Gadamer, following Heidegger, refuses to allow any fundamental split > between what a subject represents as true and how the world actually, > objectively, is. There is no denial of the possibility of error or > ignorance. Our particular orientation toward the world, though > necessarily limiting what we are able to grasp, is always also a > manner of being open to the world. The notion of objective reality can > have no other content other than this openness that the very > perspectival nature of our understanding provides. Openness to > objective reality shows itself in our ability to rearticulate our view > of the world in rational dialogue (which I sort of doubt the existence > of). Dialogue, however, is exactly an openness to others and to be > open to the points of view of others. Language is the house of being. > We understand language in so far as we are with others in a common and > commonly known objective world. Donald Davidson holds that we > understand others most basically by relating their words to the world > around them, in what he terms Radical Interpretation. The contents of > our own thoughts, and so of our very recognition of the words of > others and the objects and events to which they refer, themselves > depend on our sharing with others a pattern of interaction with the > world. Davidson refers to this as triangulation. The idea is a > dramatic break with the subjectivist tradition following Descartes, > that ascribes a deep epistemic and ontological significance to the > first-person perspective, the reflecting I. The resources of > philosophical hermeneutics are deployed in an effort to break out of > the epistemic, dualistic paradigms of modern philosophy, and to open > new philosophical ground no longer haunted by the specters of > relativism and scepticism, nor by the dream of foundational > justification. There is a paradox here perhaps, but it may be > fleeting. There may be a self-renewing power of tradition, of its > dynamism, and its interpretability and reinterpretability. It is > fundamentally a matter of perceiving a moving horizon, engaging a > strand of dialogue that is an on-going re-articulation of the > dynamically historical nature of all human thought. > > I'm no fan of this type of writing or the writers. I do think there > is something worth pursuing in it with respect to trying to think with > stuff we believe to have been fairly well evaluated as science and > history, because I feel I never get into thought without its influence > and the influences of the 'unevaluated' (such as the grim political > twaddle that seems to surround us) and want some respect in my > thinking for this and my own limitations. It is thinking as the > biological animal I want to get at, what the intelligent agent is and > how Carlos' 'pointers to information' have their influence. I'm not > sure the ontology of information will help, but we should be able to > put together more of what is going on in an occasion of experience to > improve our defeasible reasoning, to build a biologically aware > sociology. I don't know what information or knowledge is, and only > wonder poetically of some closer touch to them in what we can share > with each other. > > On 20 Jan, 11:48, "Serenity Smiles" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > 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.
