Dear Jerry,
At the risk of being jailed by Pedro, let me point to the beauty of the example:
>From a molecular biological perspective, the assertion of “same encoding” of
>information is contrary to fact.
OK: the coding of the information is species specific; both theoretically and
List:
> Your claim that information is SPECIES SPECIFIC is completely at variance
> with the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that I presented in my 3 week session that the
> minds of different animal species have used the same encoding of gestalt
> forms for the past 400 million years since the evolution
That is insulting. Please be more careful in the future.
John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Krassimir Markov [mailto:mar...@foibg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2016 7:00 PM
To: John Collier
That is one limited way to think of information . It is reasonably precise,
which is an advantage. But ignores and in fact rules out other usages that
share important basic properties, suggesting a unified notion that goes well
beyond the narrow usage you prefer, Krassimir.
John Collier
Dear Marcus and FIS Colleagues,
You are right in your complaint. We have been saying very similar things
concerning information generation--and also in your symbolic
introduction of Darwin in your scheme concerning that series of
complementary questions. Sorry for being so brief but I need
