To aid clarity: In the model I describe, a response to apprehension (“meaning”) 
is unconditional and independent of any observer. It is a function of the 
organism. These behaviors include the development of action potentials, many 
impossible for an external observer to see.

Regards,
Steven



> On Jun 21, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> wrote:
> 
> “use” is particularly ambiguous. So I do not think, as presented, that 
> “meaning” is “solved?” By which I assume you intended to say “what the term 
> ‘meaning’ is a reference to.”
> 
> Indeed, all of these terms “social”, “habit”, “use” are ambiguous.
> 
> I believe that the best we can do is to say that a “meaning” is exactly the 
> action (“behaviors,” “motions") that is the product of apprehension, where 
> apprehension is that which the organism takes from the world. This is not as 
> simple as saying “sign” in the Peircean sense, in that the “third” in 
> “apprehension” is an accumulative filter.
> 
> Quiet simply there is no meaning except that which an organism displays in 
> response to the world. I may say that P typically responded like Y to X (in a 
> “Rosetta stone” sense), but I can never assert generally that X means Y.   
> 
> This view is closer to Charles Peirce than it is to L. Wittgenstein. Both 
> were confused by the binary system of Boole - a dualism - truth values must 
> be discarded if you are to speak rigorously. This is not to deny the utility 
> of truth value systems.
> 
> In short, the universe does not care whether or not a thing is true or false, 
> this or that. Consistency is a human affair.
> 
> Regards,
> Steven
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 11:55 PM, Günther Witzany <witz...@sbg.at 
>> <mailto:witz...@sbg.at>> wrote:
>> 
>> Meaning is a social function (G.H.Mead). The meaning can be simply 
>> identifying by looking what habits it produces (C.S.Peirce), the meaning of 
>> a word is its use (late Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations). There 
>> remains no question about "meaning" so far. This problem is finally solved.
>> 
>> Best
>> Guenther
>> Am 20.06.2015 um 22:33 schrieb Jerry LR Chandler:
>> 
>>> List:
>>> 
>>> My opinions categorically reject the shallow proposition below which 
>>> ignores the foundational logic.
>>> 
>>> The biological sciences focus on life itself.
>>> The scientific foundation of biological information is included under the 
>>> notion of Foundation of Information Science.
>>> 
>>> The adjectives "cognitive" and "computational" and "linguistic" do not 
>>> influence the meaning the foundation of the science, they are merely 
>>> descriptors of sub-aspects of the science or incomplete perspectives of 
>>> biology.
>>> 
>>> The post introduces the proposition that these three adjectives are not 
>>> even modifiers of the meaning of biology, mere metaphors, each of which can 
>>> carry a vast array of meanings.  
>>> 
>>> Personally, I am rather fond of elephants and find this slight of 
>>> elephants, one of mother nature's greatest achievements, unwarranted.     
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Jerry
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 7:52 PM, howlbl...@aol.com <mailto:howlbl...@aol.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.
>>>>  
>>>> may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list: linguistic 
>>>> biology.  per the work of Guenther Witzany.  also reflected in my book The 
>>>> God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.
>>>>  
>>>> each approach uses a helpful metaphor.  no one approach sees the elephant 
>>>> in its entirety. so please let us use all three.
>>>>  
>>>> with oomph--howard
>>>>  
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> Howard Bloom
>>>> Howardbloom.net <http://howardbloom.net/>
>>>> Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
>>>> of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), 
>>>> Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st 
>>>> Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker), 
>>>> The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A 
>>>> tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The 
>>>> Atlantic), 
>>>> The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates("Bloom's argument will rock 
>>>> your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), 
>>>> How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” 
>>>> Timothy Leary), and 
>>>> The Mohammed Code (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” 
>>>> David Swindle, PJ Media).
>>>> Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting 
>>>> Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University
>>>> Founder: International Paleopsychology Project. Founder: The Group 
>>>> Selection Squad; Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Board 
>>>> Member and Member Of Board Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding 
>>>> Board Member: Epic of Evolution Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin 
>>>> Project. Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab. Member: New York Academy 
>>>> of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American 
>>>> Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and 
>>>> Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology. Scientific 
>>>> Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation. Advisory Board Member, The 
>>>> Buffalo Film Festival. Editorial board member, The Journal of Space 
>>>> Philosophy. 
>>>>  
>>>> In a message dated 6/19/2015 9:22:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
>>>> emanl....@gmail.com <mailto:emanl....@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Jerry,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for responding to my post.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you very much for an attempt to read and to understand my Vienna 
>>>> Symposium related publications.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I apologize for a delay in my response – I was trying to read and to 
>>>> understand your papers (“Algebraic Biology” and “Physical Foundations of 
>>>> Organic Mathematics”). Unfortunately, I did not understand much of what 
>>>> you are talking there (about biological computations). 
>>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_Organic_Mathematics_%28Abstract_August_26_2014%29>
>>>> Never mind, it is my fault, not yours. To my shame, I often also do not 
>>>> understand what other people on the forum are writing too.     
>>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_Organic_Mathematics_%28Abstract_August_26_2014%29>
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> As to me, I think (and write) that the era of a computational approach to 
>>>> science and nature studies is over and we are gradually replacing it with 
>>>> a cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology, 
>>>> Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational 
>>>> chemistry, Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, 
>>>> Computational linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive 
>>>> biology, Cognitive ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, 
>>>> Cognitive endocrinology, Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, 
>>>> and even Cognitive computing).
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> By definition, computational approaches imply intensive data processing, 
>>>> while Cognitive approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is 
>>>> the difference? Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I was pleased to hear from Prof. Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna) 
>>>> that “By means of the reformation, all scientific and philosophical 
>>>> domains are facing an integrative trend of paradigm reform, which I name 
>>>> as “informationalization of science”, (The quotation is from one of his 
>>>> presentation slides).
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> As you can see, my assertions are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims, 
>>>> but far from what you (and other mainstream FIS contributors) obey and 
>>>> adhere to.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I am a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others’ 
>>>> temple. But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy 
>>>> of Information. Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement 
>>>> with his postulates.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Emanuel Diamant.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com 
>>>> <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>] 
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
>>>> To: Emanuel Diamant
>>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Emanuel:
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Interesting perspective, but...  the essence of biology / biological 
>>>> computation are empirical observations that are highly irregular in 
>>>> nature. One must separate the concepts of structures from functions in the 
>>>> languages of chemistry and biology.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> You may wish to look at the concepts of languages from your perspectives.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Several of my online available papers will provide more substance for 
>>>> these comments.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> jerry
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Emanuel Diamant wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dear FISlists,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I am a newcomer to the FIS discussion table. The debate that is going on 
>>>> in your list-exchange is very interesting to me, but frankly, for the most 
>>>> of the time, I only guess about what you are talking – my vocabulary and 
>>>> my notions of Information are quite different from yours. Nevertheless, I 
>>>> would like to add my voice to the ongoing discourse – I would like to 
>>>> direct you to my page on the Research Gate 
>>>> (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant 
>>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant>) to see my uploads 
>>>> from the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you will find them 
>>>> interesting.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Emanuel Diamant.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>>>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>>>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>> 
>> <Unknown.jpeg>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to