Greetings All, In my view meaning¹ 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 ordinary¹ 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).
>From this point of view, the exactness¹ of a meaning doesn¹t 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. 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. 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. Marijuán > Cátedra 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
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
