I agree with you both. The declarative statements (4 statements in 2.4.1 Digital Computer versus Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and are taken as self evident.
This path is a dead end. Regards Gavin The document seems extremely confused to me. This is not least because the author does not appear to present a clear definition of the terms in the title or the expression of subject in the work. In particular, I can find no definition of "meaning" other than the one presented in a quote from Shannon and the subsequent use of the term is confused to say the least. Similarly, the term "semantic" is not clearly defined and abused. The same goes for other terms such as "knowledge." So I take an even harsher view than Joseph since it is not even a good representative of the view that "computer algorithms can provide all you know, and all you need to know." The definitive representative of that view is Stephen Wolfram's book "A New Kind Of Science," and while I have my problems with the theory in the book, it is - at least - well defined. With respect, Steven On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: > Dear Krassimir, > > Thank you for bringing this document to our attention, for completeness. I > would have wished, however, that you had made some comment on it, putting it > into relation with your own work and, for example, that of Mark Burgin, > which are dismissed out of hand. > > From my point of view, Sunik's work is another one of those major steps > backwards to an earlier, easier time when it was claimed that computer > algorithms could provide "all you know, and all you need to know" about > information. One example of a phrase the author presents as involving > meaning is "Peter's shirt size". . . > > From a methodological standpoint, I think it underlines, /a contrario/, the > danger of focus on a single approach to information. My current idea, which > I propose for discussion, is that a document purporting to offer a theory of > information should provide a reasoned, comparative discussion of 4 to 5 > theories. This number is large enough for judgments to be possible on a > preferred approach and small enough for the average reader, like myself, to > keep the similarities and differences in mind. > > Thank you and best wishes, > > Joseph > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com> > To: "FIS" <fis@listas.unizar.es> > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:00 PM > Subject: [Fis] Fw: General Information Theory > > > -----Original Message----- > From: boris.sunik > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 11:10 AM > To: ithea-...@ithea.org > Subject: General Information Theory > > Dear Colleague, > > For your information: > http://www.GeneralInformationTheory.com > > Regards, > Boris Sunik > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
