Here I react to Guy's
> Greetings All,
>
> In my view meaning exists (or not) exclusively within systems. It
>exists to the extent that inputs (incoming information) resonate within
>the structure of the system. The resonance can either reinforce the
>existing architecture (confirmation), destabilize it (e.g., cognitive
>disequilibrium), or construct new features of the architecture (e.g.,
>learning). Social communication often involves the goal of
>re-constructing architectural elements present in the mind of one agent by
>another agent. I am using highly metaphorical language here, but a very
>straightforward example of this at the molecular level is the transfer of
>structural information between prions and similar proteins folded in
>ordinary ways. In this sense, meaning itself cannot be transferred
>between agents; although a new instance of meaning can be constructed.
> This is essentially the idea behind the Dawkins model of populations of
>memes (concept analogs of genes).
S: This is placing meaning in the mode of formal causation. I have
argued that if we are to generalize meaning into nature generally, we need
to locate it in causality. So far we're in agreement. But I have further
suggested that meaning inheres in final causation, and in particuar NOT in
formal causation. The architecture of a system is its own form -- that
which acts. These acts are directed at goals (finalities as projects) --
are meaningful to the system as separate from it own being. Now, if
resonant inputs to a system are nonreinforcing, they contradict a system's
finalities, and will then elicit learning or avoidance.
> >From this point of view, the exactness of a meaning doesn t seem to
>make sense. A meaning defines itself without error. It would make sense,
>however, to talk about the degree of similarity between meanings when the
>social goal was to replicate a particular instance of meaning.
S: Here Guy approaches finality.
>Perhaps this is what Jerry meant and I have over-analyzed the idea here,
>but if this is a novel or erroneous perspective I would like to see some
>discussion of it. I guess my main point here is to separate the notion of
>meaningfulness from the social context that demands the sharing of
>meanings and constrains the construction of meanings to resonate at the
>level of the social network.
S: Here Guy separates meaning from formality (the social context),
and this seems to implicitly place it , in agreement with me, in finality
(efficient causes and material causes would not be involved in meaning).
STAN
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy Hoelzer
>
>
> on 10/2/07 3:24 AM, Pedro Marijuan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
>Dear colleagues,
>
> Answering to a couple of Jerry's questions,
>
>
>
>
>Under what circumstances can the speaker's meaning or the writer's meaning
>be _exact_?
>
> Is _meaning_ a momentary impulse with potential for settling into a local
>minimum in the biochemical dynamic?
>
>
>
> A previous point could be---what entities are capable of elaborating that
>obscure item we call "meaning"? Just anything (eg, some parties have
>stated that molecules or atoms may communicate), or only the living
>beings?
>
> My understanding of what Bob has proposed along the POE guideliness is
>that only the living cell would be capable --and of course, all the
>further more complex organisms. This point is of some relevance.
>
>
>
>After decoding and interpretation of the organic codes, the meaning of my
>message about meaning and information may have meaning to you.
>
>
>
> Maybe. But I suffer some information overload (perhaps "overload" is just
>the incapablity to elaborate meaning under the present channels or means
>of communication).
>
> best
>
> Pedro
> =============================================
> Pedro C. Marijun
> Ctedra SAMCA
> Institute of Engineering Research of Aragon (I3A)
> Maria de Luna, 3. CPS, Univ. of Zaragoza
> 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
> TEL. (34) 976 762761 and 762707, FAX (34) 976 762043
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> =============================================
>
>_______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
>
><http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/
>listinfo/fis
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
