RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

2017-06-29 Thread John Collier
] Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017 4:35 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information' I have always been concerned about the implications of false information for the definition of information. Is false information information? Is false knowledge

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

2017-06-29 Thread Charles Pyle
I have always been concerned about the implications of false information for the definition of information. Is false information information? Is false knowledge knowledge? I should think the answer must certainly be "No" for knowledge, because to know is a factive verb, meaning that it

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

2017-06-29 Thread John F Sowa
Jon A, Jeff D, and Gary F, JA Why don't we put this on hold for later discussion? I was about to send the following when your note appeared in my inbox. It should be sufficient for the word 'information', but we can discuss other issues later. JD I take the following passage to indicate

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

2017-06-28 Thread gnox
ic was to > demonstrate just how basic they are. I could supply a dozen or so > quotes from Peirce to back this up, and will do that if you wish, but > there's probably no need for that. > > Gary f. > > FROM: Jeffrey Brian Downard [ <mailto:jeffrey.down...@na

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

2017-06-28 Thread kirstima
wish, but there's probably no need for that. Gary f. FROM: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] SENT: 28-Jun-17 18:15 TO: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information' Hello Gary R, John S, Gary F, Jon A, List, I take the f

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

2017-06-28 Thread gnox
L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information' Hello Gary R, John S, Gary F, Jon A, List, I take the following passage to indicate that Peirce changed his use of "depth" and "breadth" in some respects some time between 1867 and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

2017-06-28 Thread Gary Richmond
d "depth" work in the context of the > mature semiotic theory. > > > --Jeff > > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 <(928)%20523-8354> > > > ---

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

2017-06-28 Thread Jeffrey Brian Downard
June 28, 2017 2:24 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information' Gary F, Jon A, John, Gary F wrote that he holds that: "Peirce’s concept of information did NOT change over the years, and that his usages of “breadth” and “depth” (for what are now usually cal

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

2017-06-28 Thread Gary Richmond
Gary F, Jon A, John, Gary F wrote that he holds that: "Peirce’s concept of information did NOT change over the years, and that his usages of “breadth” and “depth” (for what are now usually called “extension” and “intension”) in the early 1900s are no different from his 1867 usages." I completely

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

2017-06-28 Thread gnox
John, list, I think we all agree that Peirce’s concept of information has significant advantages over Shannon’s, for semiotic purposes. But in reference to his current monologue, Jon appears to be claiming that Peirce’s early (1866-7) concept of “information” is better (less “nominalistic”)