Real interesting, Pedro.
Regarding impredicativity, I was quite simply expecting quantum mechanics to 
answer (encapsulate) the question. But I don’t know really if unpicturability 
of enzyme function can somehow hooked at quantum randomness. 
When you write that “living cells are enacting a new way of existence”, I 
follow you but would be careful about the concept of self being still active as 
it is key for the nature of organisms and (I feel) deserves some more 
development in philosophical terms. The best I have in this area is D. Legrand 
thesis (1).  But more is needed. Anything available from your side ?
Also, as you may know, the Enactive approach is highly demanding in terms of 
meaning generation (2, 3, 4, 5).
But coming back to the reason of my post, I’m surprised that the notion of 
meaning is not an explicit item in a proposal entitled “Interdisciplinary 
elucidation of the information concept. Theories, Metaphores and Applications“
If I have missed something, pls  let me know.
(2) T. Froese, T Ziemke  « Enactive Artificial Intelligence »
(3) S. Torrance “In search of the enactive: Introduction to special issue on 
Enactive Experience » Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4) December 
2005, pp. 357-368
(4) Di Paolo, E., Rohde, M.,  and De Jaegher, H. 2007. “Horizons for the 
Enactive Mind: Values, Social Interaction, and Play” To appear in Enaction: 
Towards a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science, J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, and E. A. 
Di Paolo (Eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, forthcoming.
(5) * Colombetti, G.  2008 « Enaction, sense-making and emotion » (To appear in 
Stewart, J., Gapenne, O. & Di Paolo, E. (eds). Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm 
for Cognitive Science. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 2008. Forthcoming.) . 

> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:18:30 +0200
> From:
> To:
> CC:
> Subject: Re: [Fis] The notion of "meaning"... (impredicativity)
> Thanks, Christophe.
> These days I am involved in a paper on "prokaryotic intelligence", and 
> have laterally approached the problem of cellular meaning. I am copying 
> a fragment below (not corrected yet). Rosen's "impredicativity" looks to 
> me an important concept to clarify things. However, rather than 
> establishing it based on dynamic, open systems (boundary conditions) as 
> he does, I would join Michael Conrad's viewss, in that protein folding 
> and unpicturability of enzyme function are the deep causes of factual 
> impredicativity in living cells... but perhaps my Conradian 
> interpretation is forced.
> Anyhow, the overall idea may be that the "signal" becomes "symmetry 
> breaking" for the cell, and the elaboration of meaning becomes "symmetry 
> restoration".
> best ---Pedro
> ------------------------------------
> "...Along this view, living cells are enacting a new way of existence, 
> an active “informational” one that is based on the capability to keep 
> the own structures in a permanent state of flow. Cells would respond to 
> signals from the environment, and produce the “meaning” they imply, by 
> letting the signals themselves interfere with the ongoing molecular 
> dynamics of the cellular self-production flow. Completion of the cell 
> cycle would always appear as the fundamental reference... And on the 
> other side, the/ impredicative /nature of biological information has to 
> be taken into account (Rosen, 1993). It conduces to realizing that the 
> information processing of living cells is not of the same class than the 
> processes of formal, predicative nature (computation). Rather, 
> biomolecular processing is a “tactilizing” phenomenon based on a myriad 
> of specific “molecular recognition” events (Conrad, 1998; Marijuán, 
> 2003); and there is no syntactic procedure or amount of computation that 
> can fill in the modelling gap, in formal terms, between the sequences 
> found in genomes and the emergent dynamics of protein & enzyme & RNA 
> networks. The degree to which biological complexity can be efficiently 
> fathomed in computational terms is a highly debatable question; it has 
> also practical implications regarding the mentioned integration of 
> signaling processes within the life cycle, and the cut-offs and 
> trade-offs to establish in the models. Whatever the modelling option, 
> the "real" biomolecular elaboration of meaning in the living cell and in 
> the living brain would always keep the upper hand of complexity with 
> respect any syntactic, computational procedures..."
> Christophe Menant escribió:
> >
> > Thanks Stan, 
> > Biosemiotics can indeed be part of the story 
> > ( ), 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 
> > ( ). 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
> >

Téléphonez gratuitement à tous vos proches avec Windows Live Messenger  !  
Téléchargez-le maintenant !
fis mailing list

Reply via email to