Dear Stan and colleagues, Meaning itself is pervasive: any system that maps another system can be considered as providing it with a meaning. At issue is that only some systems can also communicate meaning because that requires human language as an evolutionary achievement. Meaning at the biological level changes because of wear and tear along the life-cycle, but not because of communication of meaning. Best wishes, Loet _____
Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _____ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:05 PM To: Christophe Menant Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] The notion of "meaning" in the COST proposal Folks -- I think that meaning can be generalized to contextuality. I have proposed, for example, that meaning exists in occult form in physics, in the function of constant variables in descriptive equations. We know that the values of constants in an equation will influence the result. So, if we have Y = aX^b, we are putatively interested in the dyadic relations between X and Y. But these relations depend upon the values of a and b (which might, for example, be universal constants). Given this role for the constants, we in reality have triadic relations here, with the constants representing the context. Physical ideology has obscured this by way of the 'epistemic cut', delineating the distinction between observer and observed. But, in utilizing the values of the constants in order to calculate the value of Y, they have actually pulled the constant values into the observer rather than being associated with the observed, leaving X and Y in evidently dyadic relations, without context. In many cases this would seem to be pragmatically reasonable because the values of some constants may always be taken to be the same. One branch of chaos theory illuminated this by showing the range of different results one gets by changing the constants instead of the variable parameters. STAN Thanks Stan, Biosemiotics can indeed be part of the story ( <http://crmenant.free.fr/Biosemiotics3/INDEX.HTM> http://crmenant.free.fr/Biosemiotics3/INDEX.HTM ), but part only. My point is about the importance of the notion of "meaning" when talking about information. Interpretation of information (meaning generation) is key when information is processed by finalized systems. Our lives are embedded in meaning generation, from auto-immune disease to the smile of the Joconde. Meaning generation has probably an evolutionary story, and can deserves (I feel) a systemic approach (http://cogprints.org/6279/ ). So I'm just kind of surprised not to see the notion of meaning explicited in the proposal. Perhaps Pedro could tell us more on this point. All the best Christophe _____ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:28:54 -0400 To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr From: ssal...@binghamton.edu Subject: Re: [Fis] FW: Denumerability of information (II) .ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul, .ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li {padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;} For your interest, I think you are tending towards semiotics -- in particular, Biosemiotics. You could look at the web pages of the Biosemiotics journal. STAN Dear all, Comments from Michel and Rafael bring up an aspect of the proposal that has perhaps been underestimated. It is the interpretation of information which generates its content, its meaning. From "Information in cells" to "information for cells" we precisely have the interpretating function where an agent creates meaning for its own usage. Different agents generate different meanings. And information in antennas is not for antennas as they contain no interpretating function. Can the paragraph "Semantics" cover this point? Perhaps, but I'm not sure that "semantics for bioinformation" is currently used. The concept of interpretation looks to me as key when talking about information in agents. If the proposal takes it into account from a different perspective, perhaps it would be worth expliciting it. Best regards Christophe > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:57:53 +0200 > From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: [Fis] Denumerability of information (II) > > > (message II, responses from Díaz Nafría and Rafael Capurro) > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Michel: > > Thank you for your good remarks. I agree about both. Of course, data > banks may be considered in the list. In any case, that list should be > too long if it were exhaustive. That is to say, "S" concern to a much > larger list that the enunciated one (and considering length I may say > that there were only 10000 character left to fulfil the "text of > proposal" and we use them all). Anyway, data banks are certainly a > relevant case so they will be mentioned in next submissions. > > About (2), I remember the controversy which arose from a question you > stated in December -I think-. I also keep in mind the interesting > answer from Rafael. I wrote him some remarks about the controversy. I > will try to find them to give you my point of view about that > interesting question. > > Grateful and cordial greetings, > > José María Díaz Nafría > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Michel and all, > > yes, the formulation "there is information in cells..." could be > misleading as it means, IMO, there is information "for" cells or > messages that cells are able to process "as" information, i.e., through > a process of selection and integration "in" them according to their > specific way of life. What is stored in data banks is in fact not > information but potential information for a system capable of > understanding or "processing" it. The question of numerability is one > possible framework of interpretation which means particularly since > modern science, that "we" think we understand something as far as we are > able to interpret it as countable using particularly digital media. In > the 19th century this framework was mainly related to "matter" (what is > not "material" is not understandable). Of course different frameworks or > (metaphysical) "paradigms" compete with each other unless they are > viewed as the only "true" ones... And: they have consequences for > society, politics etc. as we can see everyday > > kind regards > > Rafael > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _____ Votre correspondant a choisi Hotmail et profite d'un stockage quasiment illimité. Créez un compte <http://www.windowslive.fr/hotmail/default.asp> Hotmail gratuitement ! _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _____ Discutez sur Messenger où que vous soyez ! Mettez Messenger sur votre <http://www.messengersurvotremobile.com/> mobile ! _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
