Yes Guy,
Unconsciously I take communications as related to meaning generation.
But, as you say, we could use the word for the two beams attached to each other 
with bolts and that ‘communicate’ relatively to the strength of the building.
The difference may be in the purpose of the communication, in the constraint 
justifying its being.
The ‘communication’ between the two beams is about maintaining them together, 
satisfying physical laws (that exist everywhere). It comes from the decision of 
the architect who is constrained to get a building that stands up. The 
constraint is with the architect, not with the beams that only obey physical 
In the case of living entities the constraints are locally present in the 
organisms (‘stay alive’). The constraint is not in the environment of the 
organism. And the constraint addresses more than physico-chemical laws.
If there is meaning generation for constraint satisfaction in the case of 
organisms, it is difficult to talk the same for the two beams.
This introduces the locality of constraints as a key subject in the evolution 
of our universe. It is an event that emerged from the a-biotic universe 
populated with physico-chemical laws valid everywhere.
Another subject interesting to many of us....
All the best

De : Guy A Hoelzer <>
Envoyé : mardi 13 février 2018 18:18
À : Foundations of Information Science Information Science
Cc : Terry Deacon; Christophe Menant
Objet : Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the 
cateogry theory

Hi All,

I want to pick on Christophe’s post to make a general plea about FIS posting.  
This is not a comment on meaning generation by agents.  Christophe  wrote:

"Keeping in mind that communications exist only because agents need to manage 
meanings for given purposes”.

This seems to imply that we have such confidence that this premise is correct 
that it is safe to assume it is true.  However, the word “communication” is 
sometimes used in ways that do not comport with this premise.  For example, it 
can be said that in the building of a structure, two beams that are attached to 
each other with bolts are “communicating” with each other.  This certainly fits 
my notion of communication, although there are no “agents” or “meanings” here.  
Energy (e.g., movement) can be transferred from one beam to the next, which 
represents “communication” to me.  I would personally define communication as 
the transfer of information, and I prefer to define “information” without any 
reference to “meaning”.  If the claim above had been written as a contingency 
(e.g., “If we assume that communications exist…”), then I could embrace the 
rest of Christophe’s post.

I think the effectiveness of our FIS posts is diminished by presuming everybody 
shares our particular perspectives on these concepts.  It leads us to talk past 
each other to a degree; so I hope we can remain open to the correctness or 
utility of alternative perspectives that have been frequently voiced within FIS 
and use contingent language to establish the premises of our FIS posts.



On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:19 AM, Christophe Menant 
<<>> wrote:

Dear Terry and FISers,
It looks indeed reasonable to position the term 'language' as ‘simply referring 
to the necessity of a shared medium of communication’. Keeping in mind that 
communications exist only because agents need to manage meanings for given 
And the concept of agent can be an entry point for a ‘general theory of 
information’ as it does not make distinctions.
The Peircean triadic approach is also an available framework (but with, alas, a 
limited development of the Interpreter).
I choose to use agents capable of meaning generation, having some compatibility 
with the Peircean approach and with the Biosemiotics 

All the best
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to