Hi Pedro et al.
My comments are in red - I know that I surpassed my limit of four per
week so I am commenting on a number of contributions in this post - I
use xxxxxxxxxxxxx to divide one section from another -
With this post I am up to date. I apologize for my delayed responses.
My overall reaction to all of the posts is one of deep appreciation.
I look forward to the continued dialogue.
Bob Logan
Hi Jerry et al.
I quite enjoyed this post below. The way the 3.486 billion possible
interpretations are whittled down to 1 or possibly 2 meanings is
through pragmatics - pragmatics or context is very important for
understanding meaning - Bob
On 1-Oct-07, at 10:10 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
To the FIS List:
I mean to say a bit about meaning and information.
The context I wish to start with is natural language, that is, the
meaning of everyday language as used in a novel, a play, between
two lovers at the breakfast table, in a political convention,
during a financial transaction or in a chemical lecture.
The choice of meaning under such circumstances is open to
interpretation by those present, the speaker and the listener(s).
How do listeners attach meaning to the spoken words?
Consider the Porpthryian decision tree and apply it to the possible
meanings of each word in a sentence composed of twenty words.
Consider the possibility that each word of the sentence is
restricted to only three meanings. Then, 3,486,784,401 possible
combinations of meanings are possibly created by the sentence, that
is, 3 multiplied by itself twenty times.
Does such a sentence have _a_ meaning?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2-Oct-07, at 6:24 AM, Pedro Marijuan 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).
The way meaning finallly emerges in oral commnication is thru
dialogue so as to establish a context of an ambiguous meaning.
Context is king!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 2 Guy Hoelzer wrote:
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).
I like this contribution and the comments made by Stan Salthe also on
Oct 2 - they parallel Fredkins idea:
"The meaning of information is given by the processes that interpret
it." Would you agree Guy and Stan?
And for Søren Brier who commented on Stan's comment also on Oct 2 I
would ask do the processes that interpret info constitute semiotic
ontology?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 3 Walter Riofrio comments:
In (2) Pedro understand Bob is proposing that only the living beings
(from living cells to more complex organisms) are capable to
elaborate (and transmit) meaning in information.
My approach to this issue is: we could understand meaning in
information (or, meaningful information) only in living systems (and
I propose even until the systems which opened the doors of prebiotic
world). That is the way - I think - 'Information with meaning' arises
in the physical universe.
I agree it is only living and perhaps prebiotic things that have
processes, namely propagating their organization and are therefore
capable of interpreting information and hence according to Fredkin
providing it with meaning. When a rock is acted upon by earth's
gravity it does not have to interpret because it has no options it
can only behave as causality demands. Living things make choices -
Bacteria decide to swim towards or away from a substance depending on
their interpretation of whether it is food or toxin. The meaning of a
glucose gradient to a bacteria is food, survival, I want it. Living
things have agency whereas non-living things do not. As for pre-
biotics I do not know enough biology or pre-biology to comment but
obviously there is going to be a boundary between animate and
inanimate matter and I do not know how sharp that boundary is.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 4 Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
you do not suggest how "a meaning" might be measured so that it can
be compared.
But according to Fredkin the meaning is the measurement itself of the
info. N'est pas? How do you measure a measurement?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pedro Marijuan wrote on Oct 4
I mean, if we backtrack to the origins of zero, we find those obscure
philosophers related to Buddhism in India, many centuries ago
(Brahmagupta, 600 ad). It was something difficult to grasp, rather
bizarre, the fruit of quite a long and winding thought, and frankly
not of much practicity. Then after not many developments during a few
centuries, another scholar in central Asia (al-Kwarismi) took the
idea and was able to algorithmize the basic arithmetic operations.
Mathematics could fly... and nowadays any school children learns and
uses arithmetics & algebra so easily.
The idea is that if we strictly identify (we "zero" on) meaning as a
biological construct, work it rigorously for the living cell as a
tough problem of systems biology (and not as a flamboyant
autopoiectic or autogenic or selftranscence doctrines of
Brahmaguptian style), then we work for a parallel enactive action/
perception approach in neuroscience, and besides pen a rigorous view
in social-economic setting under similar guidelines --and also find
the commonalities with quantum computing and information physics...
finally information science will fly.
Otherwise, if we remain working towards the other direction, the
undergrounds of zero downwards, we will get confined into bizarre,
voluminous, useless discussions & doctrines on information. Cellular
meaning is our zero concept: we should go for it.
The Hindu zero was called sunya which literally meant "leave a space"
and arose from transcribing the results of an abacus calculation
where for example one obtained a result 3 hundreds no tens and 2
ones. This was written as '3' sunya '2' where '3' and '2' were the
alphabetic symbols for 3 and 2 respectively and sunya was represented
by a dot and later by a circle like our current symbol for zero. The
Arabs translated sunya or "leave a space" into Arabic to obtain sifr.
Europeans never bother to translate sifr and that is how we get
cipher as zero and a secret code (Italian merchants used it despite
the fact the Pope forbid its use because it was an Arab invention).
It is also how we got zero by shortening zepharino, the Latin version
of sifr or cipher. The Greeks never got zero because they were too
tied to their logic and rational thought. Parminides argued nothing
could change for A into B because then A would not-be but non-being
cannot be. A great argument but it created an environment where zero
a form of non-being could not be invented. Logic pushed out the idea
of zero. An adherence to formal mathematical constructions of
information by divorcing it from meaning as Shannon did will result
in an effect similar to that of Parminides who dampened Greek
creativity in mathematics. Those brilliant geomotrist like Euclid and
Eudoxus failed to obtain algebra and the place number systems because
they did not get zero. Logic and mathematics produces both service
and disservice. Remember the Greek adage moderation in all things -
unfortunately they did not apply that to their use of logic and
proved that zero, a vacuum and infinity could not exist.
I do not argue against Shannon but for other interpretations and
formulations of information especially those that are qualitative and
not necessarily mathematical.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Søren Brier wrote on Oct 4
Dear Pedro - Do I understand you right when I see your models as:
1. There is no meaning in inanimate nature.
2. Meaning is constructed on a first level by life in the form of single
cell life forms.
3. Second level is (chemical) communication between cells.
4. Third level is multicellular organisms as species with a gene pool.
5. Fifth level is their communication.
6. Sixth level human construction of meaning in 'life worlds'.
But there is no object of meaning in itself. Energy and mathematical
information are the basic reality. First person meaningful
consciousness is
a bio-cultural artifact useful for the construction of life and
culture, but
it is not an image of anything real.
I agree with the first 6 points but do not understand the last
paragraph. Meaning is not an object - it is a process by which an
agent interprets information and information which we defined for
biotics systems in terms of constraints which are really constraints
on processes. Information and meaning are verbs not nouns.
Unfortunately the suffix "ation" when added to a verb makes it into a
noun such as graduation a noun derived from the verb to graduate or
presentation derived from the verb to present. In the case of
information we are not dealing with a noun except when we talk about
storing information on a computer but in general information is a
process and hence is more verb-like that noun-like.
I also agree with Christophe Menant Oct 4th comments on Brier' remark
vis-a-vis consciousness
But I’m afraid I disagree with your point regarding first person
consciousness as not representing anything real, as just being a bio-
cultural artefact as you say. I take human consciousness as being a
reality resulting from an evolution of representations. But this is
not our today subject.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chris Menant post on Oct 5 re:
Meaning Generator System made a lot of sense to me. I want to study
it more before commenting other than to say what I like is that it is
process and interpretation oriented and also it is formulated in
terms of constraints.
:-)
I also enjoyed and agree with the comments made by loet leydesdorff
the same day - I need more time to digest them
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am now caught up with my FIS correspondence - sorry for the delay -
I hope what I shared with you is useful - Bob
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
