I understand that even light has 'gaps' in it, though we don't see them. They are now 'knotting light'.
On 21 Jan, 16:05, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
