Hi Jerry,
For some reason your latest post does not seem to appear on the FIS
list – but still, I shall reply. In my note to your 7July post I said I was
unsure if you were confusing the earlier Biomathics session and the current
A Priori Modeling session – as they are two very different projects. From
your latest comments I now see you have clearly confused the two sessions.
My earlier note to you on "a priori," as in:
"A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in
some sense, independent of experience."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/
was intended to gently point out that your "relative to other uses" comment
was confusing *a priori* with "ontology," where in the later case several
ontological classes can be named:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/
You then go on to repeatedly insist that:
> either a conceptual or intuitive knowledge of interpretation of signs and
associated symbol systems. <
is needed for effective modeling.
• You may notice that notions of conceptual, intuitive, interpretive, and
symbols all imply some type of experiential role (i.e., not *a priori* per
SEP). Still, this is not to deny the true utility of ontological modeling –
your view here is just misplaced relative to the current session.
You also state that you "do not see a foundational significance" in the
use of Shannon, Bateson, or Darwinian based models, oddly juxtaposed to
"Metaphysics is no substitute for foundations of science. Semiotics is
critical for transcending disciplinary boundaries." There seems to be an
oddly unexamined contradiction in this assertion.
So to paraphrase your note:
"I fear that you totally misread the origins and meanings of *this
session*!!!"
The most helpful thing you might do for the *current session* is to read
the introductory text and reorient your comments.
I too offer you my "Best wishes for your continued personal and
professional growth."
Sincerely,
Marcus
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
> Marcus, List:
>
> Comments inserted. And comment on your concluding comment.
>
> On Jul 9, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> JERRY (re 7 July post):
>
> Thanks for this note . . .
> > I find the term “a priori” to be rather mis-leading <
> > *relative to other usages*. < [emphasis added]
> • Your reservation is reasonable – in fact this can be said of any attempt
> at *any* “ontological modeling.”
>
>
> I strongly disagree. Ontological modeling can be powerful, compelling and
> useful. However, it requires either a conceptual or intuitive knowledge of
> interpretation of signs and associated symbol systems.
>
>
>
> >“a priori” does not encompass the deep practical problems<
> • Assuredly true! I can go further and say this is a typical (chronic?)
> risk in using analytic philosophy (e.g., thought experiments); I target a
> middle ground of pragmatism.
>
>
>
> I strongly disagree.
> I repeat:
> However, it requires either a conceptual or intuitive knowledge of
> interpretation of signs and associated symbol systems.
>
>
> > one may say your artificial terminology *only concerns* <
> > the punctuation of Shannon-informed sentences.< [emphasis added]
> • If I understand you correctly (nice phrasing!), I would say *builds
> upon* rather than “only concerns.”
>
>
> I strongly disagree.
> Your notation is completely constrained to the indexing aspect of
> information.
> That is the nature of Boolean algebra.
>
> As noted in other posts, I use Shannon, Bateson, Darwin (accepted
> universal aspects?) as structural fundaments. So, of course, Shannon is
> there, but not to the exclusion to other “meaningful” aspects.
>
> I do not see a foundational significance to these statements.
>
> > align with certain of Pedro’s views . . . except the <
> > dynamics are more perplex than he implies.<
> • I too agree, especially the later. Pedro seems to hold a view that he
> and I disagree, but I have difficulty seeing much to oppose. MAYBE our
> disagreement is in whether one preferences a biological view over a
> physical view (per note to John above). In some respects, this also seems
> to be Loet’s argument with Pedro(?). My sense is that a *bio-physical
> account* is needed – which I think aligns with Steven Ericsson-Zenith’s
> thoughts, and which I think Terry Deacon targets as well.
>
>
> Metaphysics is no substitute for foundations of science. Semiotics is
> critical for transcending disciplinary boundaries.
>
>
> > a comment about the “Integral Biomathics” hypothesis. In<
> > my opinion, it is deeply flawed . . .ignore the role of <
> >electric fields in creating, from sub-atomic physics . . <
> > The physical “a priori” is missing <
> • I agree, the session was frustrating for me especially as my few mild
> inquiries, attempting to explore this, were met with defeating silence
> (insert sad face). Also, here you point to an “energetic aspect” that
