[Fis] Reply to Emanuel (A Prioro Modeling)

Marcus Abundis 55mrcs at gmail.com
Sun Jun 26 11:57:49 CEST 2016

Dear Emanuel – thank you for your opinions and judgements.

> The video . . . looks great <
• Given what follows, I am unsure of how to view this note.
> I asked you to provide me with a printed version . . . <
• I had no request and I offered nobody anything beside the introductory
text and its attachments. Thus, I am unsure of what you are referring to.
>. . . it turns out that all [your?] efforts were in vein <
>. . . I also did not understand nothing (sic). <
• I am sorry to hear this, if you understood nothing.

> From this mass of unknown . . . and bizarre notions:<
>"universal meaning", "aesthetic entropy","generative <
>informatics", "entropic mimicry", "behavioral entropy" <
> and so on . . . I will try to comment only on - the <
> "theory of meaning".<
> Therefore, with your permission . . . <
• If I understand you correctly, you *do not* grasp any of the concepts in
the material. Instead of asking questions to improve your grasp, you now
wish to share your opinions and judgements?

>. . . you mention the Shannon-Weaver (1949) "theory of <
> meaning" as a basic key component of your attempts <
• If I say such a thing this is an error (please specify so I can make
corrections). There is no theory of meaning; in my introductory I refer to
a “meaningful void“ as the central problem I wish to address.
• In your ensuing notes on Shannon (1948) and Shannon & Weaver (1949), the
points you wish to make seem unclear. It is plain (I think) to most readers
that no claim is made in any of Shannon’s/Weaver’s papers about a “theory
of meaning.“

> [Shannon] calls the child by his real name - <
> semantics! That is the name of his choice! Essentially <
> semantic information is the name of the issue that is <
> at the heart of all our current [session] . . . <
• Do you ascribe a different role to “meaning“ versus “semantics“? My
dictionary defines semantics as: “relating to meaning in language or logic.“

> 1952, Bar-Hillel and Carnap have . . . "Semantic <
> Information" that [has] since become the dominant theme <
> of the ongoing scientific discourse. <
• On your further comments re Bar-Hillel & Carnap, or Shannon (1956), I
think it is generally seen that a failed attempt at “meaning“ was made; I
agree. If you instead wish to dismiss my use of “meaning“ rather than
“semantics,“ I see this idea as lacking intellectual content (per above).

> The same as Terrence Deacon (whom you quote in support <
> of your claims) . . . <
I make no such claim, I have no idea of Terry’s view of my work. My *guess*
is that he would see it as a competing model and he would speak against it,
if at all.

> Shannon (1956) warned against such a misuse of his <
> information theory “. . . a few exciting words like <
> information,entropy, redundancy, do not solve all our <
> problems". These are Shannon’s words. But who cares? <
• Well, I care! A thoughtful view of Shannon’s words here leads one to
think there are other *important* problems still needing solutions. He does
not expressly frame those problems for us, beyond what Weaver (1949) does.
We are now in the 21st century and those undefined problems demand
“something new“ – which I hope to offer, and you cannot grasp? Such is life
– I try my best . . .

And then I find this surprising bit of news
> that the Sun is rising [in] the East.<
With recent Brexit voting, I see the sun has finally set on a once great
empire. But your news here, that the sun continues to rise in the east lets
me rest easy . . . for now.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160626/74f34c07/attachment.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list