On 23 Jun 2013, at 22:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.06.2013 20:07 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary
Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the
Interaction Between Nature and Culture, INTEGRAL REVIEW, June
2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263.
http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
...
I would not oppose this to "scientific classical explanation". By
doing this, Brier makes impossible to change the theories which fail,
and that can lead to the frequent means of hiding the question by a
verbal sort of hypnotism, I think. If the current explanation does
not work, we have to try to understand why and correct it
accordingly.
I believe that the author remains within science. Well, this clearly
depends on definition. The author just wanted to include
humanitarian sciences into science. You means that this does not
make sense?
You should not have unquote it. I remember reading that he was
criticizing the use of "classical science", and my point is that this
is exactly what we should not done in the human science. He was, like
the pseudo-priests, excluding humantarian science from science.
There are surely good ideas there, but to oppose it to science is
like cutting the branch of the tree where you seat, something like
that. It is almost like saying "we have seriously tried to solve the
problem, but we have failed, so let us try now by being non serious.
I am not sure, from what this follows.
I can accept a lack of seriousness in the phenomenological reports,
and that can constitute key data, but the analyses and understanding
have to be made in the usual classical way, I think. If not, you add
bs on bs, I am afraid.
Actually he does present the current Aristotelian view like if it was
granted, which already hides the main problem.
The paper is based on the Peircean framework. It is not an
Aristotelian view.
I appreciate Peirce, but I have a problem with all people saying that
they follow Peirce, as they are often criticizing the mathematical
logic approach to meaning, which i take as being quite Peircean, and
probably the most convincing approach to semiotics.
Peirce did not really insisted on its objective idealism, and I am not
sure if he relates to Plato, or even understood it.
Now Peirce law --- ((p -> q) -> p) -> p ---- has a lot of charm, but
that's another topic.
Bruno
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/06/cybersemiotics.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
