[Fis] Krassimir and Opposed Views

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Marcus, your message falls far below the courtesy standards we apply in 
the FIS list. The same requirements you were making this 09/07 about 
Jaime Cardenas expressions would apply to you now. Under these 
circumstances, your messages will be put under the "moderated" regime. 
They will pass if they are aligned with the common discussion style. 
Indeed your own attempt to ‘teach’ us about how knowledge works suffers 
from all the ills you criticize in others.
--Pedro

El 24/09/2020 a las 9:43, Marcus Abundis escribió:
> I am reposting this as my original FIS post did not list correctly in 
> the thread . . .
> ====
> Krassimir,
>
> I compliment you on your clear and concise framing of a core issue 
> (Mon Sep 21, 'a simple question'), but I also see it falling on deaf 
> ears. Thus, I wonder if it is worthwhile to add another voice to what 
> remains an intractable issue (with many faces) in FIS. Still, I wish 
> to firmly support your posted note.
>
> This *should* be a simple matter/question, but . . .
> – I do not think you (and others) are actually debating opposed 
> concepts of 'information', but rather that *you* actually speak of 
> 'information' the others (Joe in this case) is NOT, or at least, not 
> in any clear manner.
> Joe notes (Mon Sep 21)
> > In the real world, information is co-emergent with the universe.<
> – You, Krassimir, point to innate informatic levels in your short but 
> precise analysis.
> – Joe's 'the real world' is actually 'das Ding an sich' (NOT 
> information) which will only ever be imperfectly perceived by any 
> informational agent, including 'a thing's' many simple-to-complex 
> levels – this key issue of 'agent interpretation' dates to Kant over 
> 200 years ago and is *now* noted in modern science as 'the thing in 
> itself'.
> How/why is this most basic and firmly accepted position ignored/missed 
> in FIS?
> That someone or something 'attempts' to grasp that 'thing' is an 
> 'informatic level', unavoidably abstract of 'the thing in itself'. And 
> there can be many levels, Korzybski points to myriad informatic levels 
> (of abstraction) being too often ignored (again seen here in FIS). 
> Even T. Deacon notes major informatic levels in his innateness, 
> referential, and normalized views.
> It only muddies the water when Joe goes on about how the cosmos is not 
> expanding? (cosmic background radiation?) Not sure what this adds . . 
> . but in any respect it does nothing to further support Pedro's #1 
> principle.
>
> Pedro's #1 'principle', like you, I find wholly unsatisfying. Pedro's 
> Sun 19 July post, from before the break, shows more circumspect 
> humility in accepting he is actually presenting talking 'points' 
> rather than offering 'principles'. I certainly join his ambition to 
> realize principles, in place of talking points – but as I noted in 
> that same post, #1 does nothing to improve on positions already 
> offered by MacKay and Bateson. It would be more 
> 'intellectually honest' to see #1 as a talking point, rather than 
> principle – absent that honesty, the whole thing begins to look like a 
> vanity project, instead of firm critical thinking.
> His further notion of adjacency seems trite if compared to 
> Christophe's mention of 'constraints' (but which themselves could 
> stand further clarification) or if compared to Deacon's levels of 
> dynamism. Also, Pedro's #1 is truly a 'same sac' approach, which he 
> earlier seems to dismiss as too simplistic(?)
>
> There is an even more-basic question of what is an acceptable standard 
> for analysis/thinking on this matter. – are we to conduct our inquiry 
> in *scientific* terms, with progressively refining steps, or rely on 
> simple 'positions' unquestioningly clutched? Namely we should seek 
> to:1) describe, and 2) explain, 3) cause, and 4) effect, in a 5) 
> serially coherent manner (relying on prior science) . . . for evident 
> worldly events.
> I do not see Pedro's note as usefully descriptively (step 1), in a 
> scientific sense – it thus, I think, has no explanatory (step 2) 
> potential. Lastly, Joe claims Pedro's #1 is correctly recursive in its 
> framing, but such a claim ignores Russell's Paradox where a set cannot 
> include itself – and later gave rise to 'type theory' (again LEVELS). 
> This lack of sense around informatic types/levels seems to habitually 
> plague FIS . . .
>
> I could say more, but this is probably already too much for some.
>
> Marcus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------


-- 
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group

pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------



-- 
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200924/fd6948b0/attachment.html>