Pedro -- I think one point of clarity might be raised here. Is the concern
with
knowing how
or with
knowing that?
The difference can be appreciated when considering that we may know how to ride
a bicycle, but we could not explain, or write down, how we do it.
STAN
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 e
Original message
>Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 09:49:38 -0400 (EDT)
>From:
>Subject: Re: [Fis] Definition of Knowledge?
>To: "John Collier"
>
>John -- This is a nice summary indeed. Now, I would just raise an issue
>concerning accuracy. Richard Levins has argued
>
>1966.The strategy of
Christophe --
Dear FIS colleagues,
Knowledge is a wide and interesting subject as applied to us humans. But what
about knowledge in the world of animals ?
What about an evolutionary approach to knowledge that takes into account
simpler forms of knowledge management as existing in animals ?
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 a
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 p
--- Begin Message ---
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
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 take
John, Joseph -- Of the three aspects of information:
formal: a reduction in uncertainty
functional: a constraint on energy flow
semiotic: a distinction that makes a difference
'valence' would seem to apply only to the semiotic. That is, to the
meaning of
information to some system of
Jerry --
List, Pedro, Bob:
A modestt proposal
-snip-
So, where does this Peircian categorification of the kinds or sorts
of information lead?
I suggest that Stan's usage of the term "valency" of information may
be a useful name for the values of information in the respective
systems tha
Considering Pedro's "10 basic principles" --
Why ten? Why not 30? It has been said that promoting more than 3 to 5 basic
principles of anything defeats the purpose. In any case, it is likely that
some of
the 10 are derivable from some of the others, or from combinations of them.
So, which a
Commenting upon Christophe's:
C: Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no
entity
to care about information before the coming up of life on earth.
-snip-: C: I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists
because there is a system that needs t
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
Joseph -- As a Peircean, I will try to reply your question below from my own
interpretation of that general point of view:
Dear Steven,
-snip-
Under these circumstances, I would like to understand the necessity of the
concept of Peircean signs. In what way is it necessary to say that physica
Joseph --
Dear Stan and All,
I am very grateful for Stan's clarification, since it allows me to make another
attempt at showing what Logic in Reality is about. Do you really think, after
all
these exchanges, that my system is dyadic and ignores context and
interpretation? What is at issue is
15 matches
Mail list logo
