Sungchul,
You do this very often - sending a message without an intended
attachment, then re-sending it with the attachment. Please stop doing
that and instead check each time that you have included the attachment
that you intended for the message.
Ben Udell as co-manager of peirce-l
On 9/1
Peircers,
From time to time I come to the realization that there are ways of reading
Peirce that make no sense to me. When I stop to think about the potential
sources of that evident divergence from common sense, the first thing that
comes to mind is the fact that people come to reading Peirc
Clark wrote:
"Material science for instance is part of physics and
has examples more in line with that."
I did not get he point you are trying to get across.
Can you elaborate on it ?
Thanks.
Sung
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
>>
>> However, I claim that
>>
>> ÂUnlike D
Clark wrote in response to my statement (091114-1) below that
"DNA stands for (phenotypes of living cells) for people." (091214-1)
Which I agree with. But the point Clark seems to be missing is the fact that
"DNA stands for phenotypes for living cells as well." (091214-2)
The trut
On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
>
> However, I claim that
>
> Unlike DNA, entropy does not have any agent, (091114-4)
> other than humans, for which it can act as a sign.
Just to add, while this may be true of foundational physical concepts, we
should note that phys
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
>
> I agree. Z stands for X for Y would be an example of smiosis. A
> concrete example of this would be
>
>
> DNA stands for phenotypes for living cells.(091114-1)
If I understand him correctly, I don’t think that would coun
Thread:
SJa: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14024
SRC: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14025
SJa: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14026
JA: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14027
HP: http:
(Undistorted Figure 2 is attached.)
Hi,
One of the common features shared by humans and living cells is that they
must and do communicate among themselves. Since language is essential for
any communication, it would follow that cells must possess a language as
humans do. In 1997, I referred to s
Jon, you might be interested in George Mobus' Adaptrode model for neural nets.
His work originally caught my attention by virtue of it being based in an
associative learning algorithm:
http://faculty.washington.edu/gmobus/Adaptrode/Adaptrode1/adaptrode.html
A lot of neural-net architectures are b
Incidentally, a further thought regarding Joanna's video clip (having
established my own narrative for how these things work, it's easy to forget
that these thoughts are unfamiliar to most people):
Every organism must contend with infinite possibility. This is strongly
evident in the newborn where
10 matches
Mail list logo
