://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en
*From:* stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] *On
Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:13 PM
*To:* l...@leydesdorff.net
*Cc:* Joseph Brenner; fis
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] *On
Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:13 PM
*To:* l...@leydesdorff.net
*Cc:* Joseph Brenner; fis
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
The problem with this approach (and approaches like
: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
Dear Steven and colleagues,
I did not (yet) study your approach. Is there a paper that can be read as an
introduction?
It seems to me that one can distinguish between formal and substantial
theories
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
I am a little mystified by your assertion of information as process.
What, exactly, is this and how does it differ fro information in general
(Shannon). Is it related to Whitehead's process notions?
In terms of neuroscience it is important
-Zenith
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:13 PM
To: l...@leydesdorff.net
Cc: Joseph Brenner; fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
The problem with this approach (and approaches like it) is that it is
descriptive and not explanatory. The distribution of the shape, in my model,
can
] On Behalf Of Steven
Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:22 PM
To: Joseph Brenner
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
I am a little mystified by your assertion of information as process. What,
exactly, is this and how does it differ fro information in general
Dear Carolina, Bob L., Bob U., Sören and Krassimir,
First of all thanks to Carolina for having launched a most interesting
thread, of which I have changed the title since the issues are broader than
that of Neuroinformation alone, as Francesco has noted.
My first point is a response to
