RE: [Fis] meaning of meaning

Sorry you will be disconnected for one week

At 06.23 10/2/04 +0100, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:

>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 14:11:14 2004