Bruno,
why do you think that meaning depends on the presence of infinities?
Cheers,
Günther
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 12 Sep 2008, at 06:28, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> marc.geddes.domain.name.hidden wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 12, 5:06 am, Brent Meeker <meeke....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>>>> marc.ged....domain.name.hidden wrote:
>>>>> <b>Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be
>>>>> thought
>>>>> of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects
>>>>> of C
>>>>> to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that
>>>>> the
>>>>> compositional structure of the two categories is preserved.</b>
>>>> No meaning there either.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>> Given that its been published on wikipedia, I'd say ya need to brush
>>> up on ya category theory. Analogies and category theory are very
>>> interesting indeed, as a possible means to extend Bayesianism.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
>> "Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information
>> from a
>> particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular
>> subject (the
>> target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process."
>>
>> Notice that the subject must already have information, i.e. meaning,
>> and analogy
>> is a way of transferring it.
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory
>> "In mathematics, category theory deals in an *abstract* way with
>> mathematical
>> structures and relationships between them: it abstracts from sets
>> and functions
>> to objects and morphisms."
>>
>>
>> No meaning there.
>
> ??? There are infinities there. I think this means that there is some
> meaning there.
>
>
>>
>> It's not that I disagree that Bayesian inference is limited, it's
>> just that I
>> don't see how any formalism, logic, set theory, category theory,
>> arithmetic...
>> can provide it's own meaning. To say that some symbolic string has
>> meaning is
>> just to say it can provoke action in some context.
>
> Only a symbolic things can have meaning, or are putting mind in
> matter? then you have to put
> infinities in both mind and matter. At least. I don't believe if
> works, but if you don't you are back
> to explain meaning in strict finite terms.
> 5rememeber that the UD argument goes through with the "generalized
> brain". This can contain
> any finite part of the environment.
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Sep 12 2008 - 16:19:24 PDT