Bruno,

why do you think that meaning depends on the presence of infinities?

Cheers,
Günther

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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