A point of clarification.
Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
> The basic physical definition of "information" holds despite our
> apprehension and there is no conflict in moving from the animate to
> the inanimate.
>
> The formal metaphysical question then becomes how we analyze and
> express our apprehension and interpretation - and this is no longer a
> question of the definition of information but now one of analysis,
> communication and convention, by which we build consensus in formal
> deliberation.
>
> It is in this context that my proposed quantification of and role for
> a primitive of experience apply - we simply cannot correctly interpret
> the available information without it. This premise and the formal
> operator "experience-of" essentially add the basis of
complexity to
> current convention and moves us toward a place for experience in our
> formal models.
I realize that this is open to misinterpretation. I did not mean to
imply that my proposal has to do with the apprehension of information -
I am tripped up by my own language - though it is true, obviously, that
experience is in fact necessary in our apprehension.
I meant rather that it is necessary to include my proposed primitive in
our understanding of how complex physical structure arises in nature.
It is an addition to our models that enables a new interpretation of
observable difference - just as, by analogy, the notion of the curvature
of space time is an addition to the models of gravitation.
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson Zenith
http://www.semeiosis.com
Received on Sun Sep 18 10:14:14 2005
