Howard, I don't see why a rock's hitting the ground on a lifeless planet shouldn't be taken as occasioning a measurement.
HP: If one thinks this way, then every physical event is a measurement. That won't work for an empiricist.
BU: That's the sense that I got for example from Gell-Mann's _The Quark and the Jaguar_.
HP: I don't think so. I think Gell-Mann says only his IGUSes (Information Gathering and Using Systems) make measurements.
BU: I can see how people can disagree about which interactions constitute measurements, but the key thing that seems to distinguish the biological situation is not a measurement per se but a kind of evaluation or appraisal or act of classification, reflecting the living thing's interests as a member of a species or lineage, and those interests have to do with reproduction of fertile offspring.
HP: I agree with your entire discussion. I think you have the right idea. My word is that measurement must be functional (same as Gell-Mann's "useful") The problem is defining functional and useful. I've given up on that, along with fitness and virtue.
Howard
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
