<html><head>
<style id="pgp_css" type="text/css"><!----></style><style id="signatureStyle" type="text/css"><!--#x17f01ba4e3104a4 p.MsoNormal
{margin: 0in; line-height: 200%; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;}
#x17f01ba4e3104a4 a:link
{color: blue; text-decoration: underline;}
--></style><style id="css_styles" type="text/css"><!--blockquote.cite { margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc }
blockquote.cite2 {margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc; margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 0px; }
a img { border: 0px; }
li[style='text-align: center;'], li[style='text-align: center; '], li[style='text-align: right;'], li[style='text-align: right; '] { list-style-position: inside;}
body { font-family: Segoe UI; font-size: 12pt; }
.quote { margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; border-left: 5px #ebebeb solid; padding-left: 0.3em; }--></style></head>
<body><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419"><blockquote cite="76c46e69-0785-6767-011c-e66eafbe110e@aragon.es" type="cite" class="cite2"><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:emc25c37af-1f34-47cd-8eab-fb8f0e30780e@pc2014" class="cite"><div><div id="xca2c22c2beb146f0940cb13fdc5ac4a1"><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-left:0.5in;line-height:14pt;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><span lang="EN-GB"><i>This
may be the case for biological evolution, but
communication technologies enable us to include
non-adjacent distinctions. </i><o:p xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
--Nope. As said above, we may only imply that those media or techno
info are non-local only AFTER THEIR CARRIERS HAVE "TOUCHED" OUR
RECEPTORS and we have built thousands and thousands of
micro-distinctions flowing bottom-up and top-down that produce a
meaning and finally they make us say, "oh, yes, this is non-local
info about the US politics". It may take barely an instant, and all
of those processes are transparent for us.</blockquote><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419">Dear Pedro, </div><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419"><br /></div><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419">It seems to me that you reason most about information carriers, but not about information. The carriers can also transform the information. For example, the receptors can be expected to filter.</div><blockquote cite="76c46e69-0785-6767-011c-e66eafbe110e@aragon.es" type="cite" class="cite2">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:emc25c37af-1f34-47cd-8eab-fb8f0e30780e@pc2014" class="cite">
<div>
<div id="xca2c22c2beb146f0940cb13fdc5ac4a1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;line-height:14pt;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><span lang="EN-GB">
</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote>[...]<br /><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:emc25c37af-1f34-47cd-8eab-fb8f0e30780e@pc2014" class="cite"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;line-height:14pt;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><span lang="EN-GB">By the way, curiously
"channel" in the Shanonian scheme represents also that
which brings information to the adjacency of the receiver.
<o:p xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-left:0.5in;line-height:14pt;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><span lang="EN-GB">The
commonality exhibits, in my opinion, the mathematical
character. Once one abstracts from materiality, a
mathematical definition becomes unavoidable. Only math
(and logic) can be used across domains. Do you have such a
definition, equivalent to the Shannon H?</span><o:p xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
--Interesting, but do you think the Shannonian metrics is the only
thing in common?</blockquote>There is a number of these measures. Shannon-type is relatively simple and elaborate. <i>Essentia non sint multiplicanda. </i>The alternatives are not essentially different.</div><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419"></div><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419"></div><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419"><br /></div><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419"><blockquote cite="76c46e69-0785-6767-011c-e66eafbe110e@aragon.es" type="cite" class="cite2">But my point revolves about a better
understanding of sharing a life-cycle (& its experiential
load--a culture for instance) as a powerful level-playing field in
social and biological communication. It dissolves eons of
complexity.</blockquote>As you know, I am against this program. Reducing society to a meta-biology reduces the social sciences to a commentary. They can be <i>sui generis. </i>The application of biological systems theory to society (sociobiology) to be resisted. For example, we don't wish the strongest to be the fittest. The rule of law cannot be reduced to biology.</div><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419"><br /></div><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419">Best, </div><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419">Loet</div><div id="xbbbecd113fb2419"><br /></div>
</body></html>