Jon,
Whilst I agree with your points on what must be taken seriously, there
remains serious problems with understanding understanding.
Your approach comes from information theoretical viewpoint. Which relies
on bits. Not so human understanding.
All information theories rely on a certain kind of view of human mind.
Which has been prevalent hundreds of years, during all modernity.
I am not sying that what you write goes wrong or anything like that. I
admire your meticulous logical consistency.
What I am saying is that its aplicability seem to me limited. Just like
Euclidean geometry is still as valid as ever, but the view on its
applicability has changed.
If the limits are taken as a serious problem to ponder, I'm all fore
your work.
Regards,
Kirsti
Information may be tranmitted from machine to machine, but human minds
do not take in information like a mail package.
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 12.4.2017 16:46:
Kirsti, List ...
I put a slightly clearer version of my last post on my blog:
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/04/10/icon-index-symbol-%e2%80%a2-3/
I posted in under the Icon Index Symbol rubric
as those two questions ran together in my mind.
I appended a few resources on sign relations,
triadic realtions, semiotic information, and
Peirce's logic of information that may be of
use to inquiring minds.
Regards,
Jon
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
