Robin said:
To me this issue is very simple: the meaning of information to a receiving
system is the effect on the system of the reception of the information.
This makes meaning relative, but I believe that's both as it should be, and
quite
easily understood:
I've very recently been studying
While not suggesting a discussion on this, I note that
John says -- information and the interpretation of information are different
from
each other
I think this is not as clear cut as that. Beginning all the way back to von
Uexkull's
Theoretical Biology, the constructivist perspective takes
---BeginMessage---
Joseph -- This sounds like a case for Game Theory, a topic that I find too
tedious
to explore myself!
More 'realistically', I think that personality traits decide such things. In
my case, I
would gradually tend to lean in one direction, and this leaning will grow until
Loet --
Dear Bill and colleagues,
The distinction between agents evolving or communications can be made
without accepting Luhmann's more far-reaching claims. It enables us to
understand why cultural phenomena based on interhuman communications
exhibit
a dynamic so differently from biological
Loet, Karl, Steven --
S: The difference between us and animals is basically language.
S: Why not 'check out' 'Biosemiotics'?
STAN
Dear Stan,
I don't understand the bio in this. If we distinguish between two systems
of reference for knowledge -- discursive knowledge to be
Pedro --
OK Stan, but can you apply those propositional (human) modifications also to
bacteria, fish, (human) enterprise or institution, society
otherwise I am affraid you move only in the anthropocentric realm.
best ---Pedro
We can certainly note that 'knowing that' is a linguistic
