RE: [Fis] meaning of meaning

Dear Steven,
 
I don't expect the email messages to communicate in terms of electrons.
If one wishes to understand the email messages, one has first to specify
a hypothesis about what they might communicate. For example, one can
conjecture that our subset of email messages communicate ideas about
information theory.
 
The next question is then: How would one be able to measure whether
these email messages communicate indeed about information theory and,
for example, not about high-energy physics. I assume that one then would
begin to investigate the distributions of textual markers like
co-occurrences of words, headings of threats, etc. These distributions
can be investigated using information theory. :-)
 
 
> This is obviously a flawed point of view. It is one that would
dismiss the vision of Einstein, Darwin and Copernicus. I think the
truth of the matter is rather that there is a necessary synergy between
empiricism and intuitive speculation in the sciences.
 
Necessary? I don't follow. Furthermore, I am not impressed with your
argument of appealing to authorities. Did Copernicus publish also about
information theory?

With respect,
Steven
 
With kind regards,
 
 
Loet
Received on Mon Feb 9 21:03:15 2004