<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>in red<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Cordialement. M. Godron</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 08/07/2016 à 21:24, Alex Hankey a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKGpHch9s1xQ=bvKuK11zcv7E5TUO2Vg=kgZK5rYsUWgh8zipg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Shannon was dealing with the problem of mutually
compatible encodings such as comes up in the theory of cyphers
etc, and arises in the control of machines a la Wiener. He
adopted the term 'Information Theory' at the suggestion of Jon
Von Neumann, and everyone accepted the appellation.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What an encoding means, and how you interpret it, is, from
this perspective, a largely secondary question. What
decision(s) do you make? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Wellington referred to the key message that enabled him to
win one of his battles in the Peninsular War (Salamanca if i
remember rightly) as 'an intelligence'. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would suggest (albeit as an outsider) that these terms
should be allowed to stick. The quantified mathematical
physical vehicle is 'information',</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#ff0000">I quite agree</font><br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKGpHch9s1xQ=bvKuK11zcv7E5TUO2Vg=kgZK5rYsUWgh8zipg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>while the interpreted message on the basis of which
decisions are taken - 'Fight' (as in Wellington (then Sir John
Wellesley)'s case), or 'Flight' (as in the case of the French
Marshal opposing him) is 'intelligence'. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Then 'intelligence' equals 'information' PLUS the semiotic
/ semantic component. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#ff0000">I quite agree, and the most useful french name
for the semiotic component is "sens" <br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKGpHch9s1xQ=bvKuK11zcv7E5TUO2Vg=kgZK5rYsUWgh8zipg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>BUT the quantified 'information' concept tells you
precisely the number of <u>independent</u> decisions a given
amount of <u>information</u> can give rise to. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In light of these thoughts, please can anyone tell me the
following. The above discussion has slithered into a
discussion that implicitly includes 'purpose' - teleology is
implied in this transition from information to intelligence. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#ff0000">This point is very important : it is in our
mind that </font><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">the
semiotic component may have a finality, and "sens" which is
linked with orientation-direction gives à place to finality.. </font>
<br>
<br>
</font>Yet teleology is always said to be inconceivable from the
perspective of causality in physics. And even in quantum theory, no
one has resolved this issue as far as I know. <br>
<font color="#ff0000">The difference between teleology and teleonomy
have then to be discussed, if you like. </font><br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the other hand, the discussions of semiotics, particularly
'Cyber-semiotics', aired in this group earlier by Soren Brier, are
redolent with teleological implications. So WHAT IS GOING ON? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Do these thought lead anyone to any constructive comments?</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>