Re: [Fis] A definition of Information

Stan,

I jump back on list for this one general comment as it may have broader
interest.

Stanley N. Salthe wrote:

>>...
>> SS: Following Peirce, we can have {Universal Mind
>>{inorganic realm
>>{organic realm {biological realm {human cognitive realm}}}}}. Each realm
>>is an intensification of the prior one (the subclass to its left).
>>
>>...
>>SEZ: For example, you draw a distinction between organic and biological that I
>>am not sure that either I or Pierce would draw (they are the same "realm"
>>as far as I can tell).
>>
>>
> SS: Well, this distinction is now known to be required. Organic
>chemistry is all over the place in the Universe, and was apparently a
>precondition for biology, not a product of it. If Charlie was alive today,
>I am sure he would gladly have modified his empiricaly-derived
>classifications. If this is the kind of objection you have to my
>construction, I think it not very important.
>
>
I understand, but my point is the distinction - for your purpose - is
arbitrary. Why did you not include elementary-particles, atoms,
chemical elements and compounds in your decomposition of "inorganic" for
example?

In any case, Peirce would happily ramble on about the evolving triadic
categories, but would not - I believe - make your decomposition above.

>>SEZ: The structure of this set suggests it is the set of the "Universal Mind" -
>>but it appears that it could have been labeled anything. For example, you
>>could have labeled it "universe", "comos", "u", "God" or "space" and it
>>would have no effect on the form. IOW, your use of the label "Universal
>>Mind" is loaded or arbitrary.
>>
>>
> SS: OK. That is an arguable point. Your alternative labels would be
>possible. I don't have time to go through these texts again now, but, in
>any case I could live with any of these (but would not myself use the G
>word). Do you have a preference for any label here?
>
>
>
My preference is for definition - I do not care what the label is as
long as it is defined and does not have a hidden or subliminal semantic.

I would not use this structure. I see the physical world as a continuum
evolving in composition and as noted above your decomposition of the
physical realm is broken from my point of view.

However, if I did begin such a decomposition with the term "inorganic" I
would expect that the division *at this level of abstraction* would
include "organic" and "consciousness" (which you limit only to the
"human cognitive", and so from my point of view is incomplete).

At the next level of abstraction, I would break apart "inorganic" and
"organic" - at which level we would find biology. However, let me make
it quite clear that this division appears quite arbitrary and capricious
since the obvious first division appears to me to clearly be {physical,
experience}.

With respect,
Steven

 
Received on Thu Mar 4 18:35:37 2004