[Fis] Shannon-Weavers' Levels A, B, C.
johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 15 00:57:13 CEST 2015
Maybe I've missed something, but the subsumption I mentioned
(referring to Bateson) was not between A, B and C: these are
co-existent interacting dynamics as I understand them, and certainly a
very rigorous and powerful generative model.
I was worrying about subsumption of Bateson's "imagination" into
"rigour".... Loet's model does have 'imagination' in it in the
generation of redundancies. But does it include the human imagination
capable of conceiving a model of itself?
I wonder if a possible answer to the question lies in Loet's work.
Human embodiment is a constraint which an abstract rigorous model can
never have. Within dynamics of mutual redundancy, won't the
complexities of mutual redundancies of embodied existence will always
outweigh the mutual redundancies that can be abstractly modelled?
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Robert E. Ulanowicz <ulan at umces.edu> wrote:
>> On 2015-10-14, at 12:38 PM, Marcus Abundis wrote:
>>> RE Mark Johnson's post of Thu Oct 1 09:47:13 on Bateson and imagination
> Two quick remarks:
> 1. It's not at all clear to me that C is subsumptive of B.
> 2. I would lobby for Shannon/Bayesian relationships as an intermediary
> between A. and B (i.e., preliminary to "meaning").
> Cheers to all,
> Bob U.
>>> . . .
>>> – Me Too!
>>> RE Loet & Stan's postings beginning Thu Oct 1 21:19:50 . . .
>>> > I suggest to distinguish between three levels (following Weaver): <
>>> > A. (Shannon-type) information processing ; <
>>> > B. meaning sharing using languages;<
>>> > C. translations among coded communications.<
>>> > So, here we have a subsumptive hierarchy"<
>>> I was wondering if this note means to imply an *all inclusive* list of
>>> traits to be considered in modeling information? Or, alternatively . . .
>>> what would such an all inclusive list look like?
>>> Marcus Abundis
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
More information about the Fis