RE: [Fis] meaning of meaning

This actually says nothing about the content of either the processed
thoughts or the messages - so your reply does not make much sense to me.
What is the nature of any hypothesis you might make about processed
thought from the observation that living systems communicate "in terms
of molecules"?
 
This hypothesis is not mine, but an assumption of Maturana & Varela's
theory of autopoiesis about living systems. The processing of thought is
of another order. One should not confuse systems of reference. Systems
are different in terms of what they can be expected to communicate
operationally.
 
 I make no appeal to authority. I simply observe that if we followed
your contention that we should dismiss speculation and grand theories -
by implication adhere to empiricism alone - we should have been required
to dismiss these authors.
 
This seems a non-sequitur to me. One does not discard Aristoteles
because of Newton's laws, isn't it? I don't deny that great scholars
were motivated by ideas about synergies and I don't dismiss speculation.
However, since the linguistic turn in the philosophy of science, one can
no longer expect a unity of science. In a way, one can consider this as
a grand theory, but with a minus sign. Anyhow, this discussion leads
away from the theme of this list into the philosophy of science.
 
Best wishes,
 
Loet
Received on Tue Feb 10 06:24:54 2004