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

## Advertising

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