Further to John's original note . . .
and then to Pedro's further note
> It would neatly apply to the living but also to the physical <

This is, of course, a recurring issue for FIS – the matter of meaning . . .
or even, what is "information?"
When it comes to defining "meaning" (or information) I have found it
infinitely more useful to think of things in terms of pure "functional
significance" rather than agents, as some (many?) seem disposed to do in
this group.
I too, used to be part of "that camp," but plainly no longer. Close
examination "showed me the light."

When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must
confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the
physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature. Failing to "make
that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. And then, once
connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located . . .

Further, it is profoundly odd/confusing/puzzling how this matter of
meaning, which is plainly a key issue for FIS continues to "float around."
But then, when the group is offered a serious(?) opportunity to engage with
the topic it seemed to draw very little legitimate energy or dialogue?! I
am happy to let that moment pass, but I do remain *curious* about WHY this
is the case for FIS – and invite private communications that offer insight.
Also, for those with genuine interest, the admittedly weak supporting
papers that went with that now-past session re meaning have been updated,
and are available on request.

Re Mark's note . . . I agree Floridi's view of an informational world is
highly speculative, and I would even say overblown, simply in an effort to
claim some novel ground? But then I also think I agree with Mark for
different reasons.

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to