RE: [Fis] Non Local "knowledge."

Your assertion that:

Insofar as knowledge "is", it has to be locally. The global dimension of
knowledge remains an expectation.

is not consistent with the basic principles of chemical structures.

A molecule knows itself by virtual of sharing information across the
network of connections that join the atoms together.

This is fundamentally a synergic relationship which shares knowledges
within itself.
 
Where "is" the knowledge? In the synergism that remains emergent, isn't
it? My point is that "is" not in the sense of a derivative of the Latin
"esse". If it would "be," we would be able to isolate it as different
from the components?
 
Much may depend on your definition of "information," "meaning,"
"knowledge." If I assume that knowledge can be considered as a meaning
that makes a difference, I would not precise know how to specify the
knowledge of a molecule in terms of this operation as differently from
the meaning that the information has for the molecule.

I am surprised by the definiteness of the "is" assertion. It reminds me
of your assertions about your religious values. I am puzzled by the
source of the putative ontologies you are proposing and how they might
relate to emergence of life and the emergence of learned systems. Why
the rush to premature closure?
 
I am not aware of a religious background. On the contrary. Perhaps, I am
too naive in this by not having this background, but I don't think that
we should impute such an argument ad hominem.
 
With kind regards, Loet

Cheers

Jerry
Received on Mon Jan 12 17:59:52 2004