Dear colleagues,
It seems to me that a difference that makes a difference (or a distinction)
generates another option in the system of reference and thus adds to the
redundancy instead of the Shannon-type information.
The information is not in the DNA strings, but in the distribution of the
bas
Dear FIS Colleagues,
It is really pleasure to read your posts in this exciting mail list.
During the time I am subscribed in (Thanks to Pedro for inviting me!) I have
read interesting and very useful ideas.
Now I think is the right time to put one very important question:
What is the main differe
As I said in a previous post, I believe it originated in unpublished work
of mine in which I thought that MacKay had said this, but it appears that
it was interpretation of what he thought. I apologize for the confusion.
It is very remarkable that it has been disseminated so widely. Had I
publish
Dear Xueshan,
Another interesting source for Bateson's DTMD is in 'Angels Fear:
towards an epistemiology of the sacred' (1988):
'That which gets from territory to map is news of difference, and at
that point I recognized that news of difference was a synonym for
information' (http://www
As Krassimir has pointed out, the term "information" is inseparable from
the human utilising (communicating, sending/receiving/evaluating) the
information.
To say "Information is that difference that makes a difference" is like
saying "Cookies are what produce an excellent sensation in the mouth"
"
>
> Message-ID: <201304160620.r3g6kq23010...@huecha.unizar.es>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20130416/2076c551/attachm
Dear Gordana and colleagues,
You are right, the concept ‘agent’ is just the abstraction of our understanding
about the active entities which has possibility to be ‘intelligent’.
Below I remember a short text about it:
The definition of the concept "intelligence" was given in [1]. It follows from
As Loet, Krassimir and Karl (at least) have all said (or as I take
them to have said), meaning is inherently subjective, or at best
intersubjective, but certainly not objective. That is why an
understanding of information has to be tightly integrated with an
understanding of mind. See my paper “Min
This view is fundamentally flawed. The introduction of subjectivity confusing
the matter. The distinction is not about "objects" but "operations."
In mathematics, taken as the science that draws necessary conclusions,
operations suffer no causal loss. Whereas, information is the means to reason
