DM No problem with any of that as long as you accept that mechanism or probability are no less anthropocentric too,just different analogies, often with aeasthetic reasons for preference not any less anthropoligical really is it?
I agree experience has too much baggage, can we split it? Proberience anyone? or even just inorganic preferences? [Krimel] All probability ever does is reduce uncertainty. Meaning is reduction in uncertainty. Uncertainty is equivalent to pure randomness which is equivalent to thermodynamic entropy. (Well, actually entropy is a subset of randomness.) We are biological engines that have evolved to be very good at detecting patterns, assessing probability and reducing uncertainty. But creating meaning in this way only really applies to us. Meaning only has relevance to me and mine. It is not a property or a thing that resides in any particular. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
