Hi Loet,
I appreciate the rigor of your comments. I have some follow up responses
interspersed below.
On Oct 30, 2014, at 2:11 AM, Loet Leydesdorff
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The metaphors are sometimes confusing. For example:
Along the line of your argument, mean
Dear Pedro, Dear Sören,
Please let me call the attention of both of you to Sören's article in
Biosemiotics of 24 May 2012 "What Does it Take to Produce Interpretation?
Informational, Peircean and Code-Semiotic Views on Biosemiotics". Judging
from the abstract, this article criticizes at least
Dear FIS colleagues,
I am responding to a mail from Soeren (below) that, curiously, was
retained by the list filter. Sorry, but some parts of his message are
written in a rather arrogant tone that does not match the
unconditionally polite style of our exchanges. This is a pluralistic
list and
This is indeed important, and I think Frege was on the right track on a
number of issues.
Peirce, however, did use the term 'information', but as far as I can see
he presupposed intentionality. This doesn't help, unless the world is
intentional "all the way don3e", which strongly doubt.
I think t
Dear colleagues,
The metaphors are sometimes confusing. For example:
Along the line of your argument, meaningfulness would be exclusive to
dynamical systems where agency, purpose, and self-interest have emerged.
I would further limit meaningfulness only to the cultural domain. Meani
I would agree with this. I also agree with Bob. And of course I agree
with Stan. However I do think that the technical problems are rather more
than Stan estimates. More on this later. I don't feel so good right
now.
John
At 12:45 AM 2014-10-24, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
Dear Bob et al.,
I take semio
