On 12 Sep 2008, at 06:28, Brent Meeker wrote:

>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sep 12, 5:06 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>> <b>Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be  
>>>> thought
>>>> of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects  
>>>> of C
>>>> to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that  
>>>> the
>>>> compositional structure of the two categories is preserved.</b>
>>> No meaning there either.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Given that its been published on wikipedia, I'd say ya need to brush
>> up on ya category theory.  Analogies and category theory are very
>> interesting indeed, as a possible means to extend Bayesianism.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
>
> "Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information  
> from a
> particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular  
> subject (the
> target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process."
>
> Notice that the subject must already have information, i.e. meaning,  
> and analogy
> is a way of transferring it.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory
>
> "In mathematics, category theory deals in an *abstract* way with  
> mathematical
> structures and relationships between them: it abstracts from sets  
> and functions
> to objects and morphisms."
>
>
> No meaning there.

??? There are infinities there. I think this means that there is some  
meaning there.


>
>
> It's not that I disagree that Bayesian inference is limited, it's  
> just that I
> don't see how any formalism, logic, set theory, category theory,  
> arithmetic...
> can provide it's own meaning.  To say that some symbolic string has  
> meaning is
> just to say it can provoke action in some context.

Only a symbolic things can have meaning, or are putting mind in  
matter? then you have to put
infinities in both mind and matter. At least. I don't believe if  
works, but if you don't you are back
to explain meaning in strict finite terms.
5rememeber that the UD argument goes through with the "generalized  
brain". This can contain
any finite part of the environment.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to