Camp Followers in bed with Axe Grinders

[Glenn Scheper]

(I found this written; I hope I didn't already send it.)

This is a very good URL, enlightening for my tantra.
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/pattee/semiotic.html

One place this axiom is not true is in autofellatio,
the domain that I say is generator of all religions:

> In other words,
> wherever it is applied,
> the concept of semantic information requires the separation
> of the knower and the known.

> "Just talk,
> Stig..."

> "
> 'My name is Gudrid,'....."

> Eliot:
> "...all of the people,
> all of the time."

> Dylan:
> "...if I can be in your dream."

> Fitzgerald:
> "...different than you and me."

> Hemingway:
> "Yea,
> they have money"

> Stig:
> "
> 'at the mouth of one of the Rivers of Vineland,
> the Skraellings come,
> to trade pelts for milk.
> What they really want are weapons.'
> "

> Mrs.
> Eggslap:
> "Do we really need the Ax right here,
> like this?"

> LED:
> "This seems to be all right."

> Feynman "A dippy process"

> jody

> By contrast,
> in the context of biological evolution,
> information must be acquired and used for survival.
> Otherwise,
> it is entirely gratuitous to attribute function,
> fitness,
> or meaning to biological structures.
> However,
> in all cases there is one essential require-
> ment for semantic information in both physics and biology:
> we must define an epistemic cut separating the world from
> the organism or observer.
> In other words,
> wherever it is applied,
> the concept of semantic information requires the separation
> of the knower and the known.
> Semantic information,
> by definition,
> is about something.
> The apparent arbitrariness of where this cut is made is the
> root of the problem.
> Von Neumann stated this condition clearly:
> "That is,
> we must always divide the world into two parts,
> the one being the observed system,
> the other the observer .
> .
> .
> .
> That this boundary can be pushed arbitrarily deeply into
> the interior of the body of the actual observer is the
> content of the principle of the psycho-physical parallelism
> -
> but this does not change the fact that in each method of
> description the boundary must be put somewhere,
> if the method is not to proceed vacuously."

> Von Neumann's argument needs to be thoroughly understood in
> order to see why dynamic and semiotic modes of description
> are necessary,
> complementary,
> and irreducible one to the other at all levels.
> Von Neumann used measurement for his discussion,
> but the same argument holds for any epistemic cut from the
> genotype/phenotype cut in the cell to the mind/matter cut
> in the brain.

> http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/pattee/semiotic.html

> Mrs Eggslap:
> "You fellows do like a nice Fjord,
> it seems."

Yours truly,
Glenn Scheper
http://home.earthlink.net/~glenn_scheper/
glenn_scheper + at + earthlink.net
Copyleft(!) Forward freely.