Richard,
I have never claimed some access of truth � so this must be your projection.
But I claimed SOA is more USEFUL than realism and avoid it's devastating
paradoxes. I have tried �. but I cannot possibly discuss this subject with
you because such a discussion must necessary take place at a meta-level of
language that you refuse to enter or even understand the need of. Your
refusal to give up the realist�s model (the language of realism) means that
we simply cannot discuss this matter and this conclusion remains valid for
the rest of your posted statement.
To my mind I think it is wise to try to understand the point of view of an
opponent before attacking him � otherwise I think your words just kick back
on you.
Arne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Emery" <rmemery@earthlink.net>
To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: [Fis] Response to Arne and Stan
> Arne,
>
> You seem disproportionately bothered by the terms "truth" and
"reality."
> You wrote to me once about:
>
> "...the incoherence of the notion of truth! You need a God to speak
the
> truth�since nature cannot do that in its unreachability."
>
> To that I would have to say maybe YOU need a God to speak the truth, but
> please don't project your subjective needs on others who may prefer a
> different reality. My God might be nature, which I find reachable enough
> to be objectively measurable. And on this matter of "reality,"
you
> replied to Karl:
>
> "I guess you here claim you are a realist that has a real (true?)
> understanding of information. A bold claim for being a realist to my
> mind!"
>
> Are you claiming that YOUR reality, if you have one, trumps that of
> another? If so, you are going to have trouble with your so-called
> "subject-oriented approach," which claims that not even your
own reality
> is real enough to qualify as being really real, or true, or anything
> accessible by way of objectivity.
>
> If your first principle is that ONLY GODS KNOWS WHAT IS REAL AND TRUE,
> then you are a theologian by my measure.
>
>
> Stan,
>
> Of your three concepts of information:
>
>> >(1) Shannon's information is a reduction in uncertainty or
variety of
>> >possibilities.
>> >(2) In the mathematical sciences, information is any constraint
on
>> entropy
>> >production (which is any event whatever in our universe). It is
>> represened
>> >in constants in descriptive equations.
>> >(3) In semiotics information is Bateson's 'a difference that
makes a
>> >difference' to some system of interpretance, changing ts
behavior.
>
> am I correct in assuming that genetic information is falls under the
> third�semiotic info? If so, this concept seems awfully thin to support
> something so rich and dynamic as an informed genome.
>
>
> Best regards, Richard
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Oct 31 14:28:50 2006
