Richard,
I have never claimed some access of truth – so this must be your projection.
But I claimed SOA is more USEFUL than realism and avoid it's devastating
paradoxes. I have tried …. but I cannot possibly discuss this subject with
you because such a discussion must necessary take place at a meta-level of
language that you refuse to enter or even understand the need of. Your
refusal to give up the realist’s model (the language of realism) means that
we simply cannot discuss this matter and this conclusion remains valid for
the rest of your posted statement.
To my mind I think it is wise to try to understand the point of view of an
opponent before attacking him – otherwise I think your words just kick back
on you.
Arne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Emery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: [Fis] Response to Arne and Stan
Arne,
You seem disproportionately bothered by the terms "truth" and "reality."
You wrote to me once about:
"...the incoherence of the notion of truth! You need a God to speak the
truth—since nature cannot do that in its unreachability."
To that I would have to say maybe YOU need a God to speak the truth, but
please don't project your subjective needs on others who may prefer a
different reality. My God might be nature, which I find reachable enough
to be objectively measurable. And on this matter of "reality," you
replied to Karl:
"I guess you here claim you are a realist that has a real (true?)
understanding of information. A bold claim for being a realist to my
mind!"
Are you claiming that YOUR reality, if you have one, trumps that of
another? If so, you are going to have trouble with your so-called
"subject-oriented approach," which claims that not even your own reality
is real enough to qualify as being really real, or true, or anything
accessible by way of objectivity.
If your first principle is that ONLY GODS KNOWS WHAT IS REAL AND TRUE,
then you are a theologian by my measure.
Stan,
Of your three concepts of information:
>(1) Shannon's information is a reduction in uncertainty or variety of
>possibilities.
>(2) In the mathematical sciences, information is any constraint on
entropy
>production (which is any event whatever in our universe). It is
represened
>in constants in descriptive equations.
>(3) In semiotics information is Bateson's 'a difference that makes a
>difference' to some system of interpretance, changing ts behavior.
am I correct in assuming that genetic information is falls under the
third—semiotic info? If so, this concept seems awfully thin to support
something so rich and dynamic as an informed genome.
Best regards, Richard
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
