[Fis] Meaning Information Theory ---From Gavin
Hi there Christophe Thank you for your papers I have had a look through them to identify the propositions and arguments. And I guess this is what my contention is none of this is based on any evidence, tests, corroboration and corresponding logic and mathematics. It does not look like we are any further down the road that Ogden Richards (the Meaning of Meaning-1923) or Plotkin (Darwin Machines 1993) 70 years later. I have delved into many of the original papers around information and cannot find any corroborative evidence or propositions with logical arguments that can highlight the concept of information per se as presented by the meaning informationists (those that are not proposing Shannon's theory). If we are going into the concept of meaning that would include, human knowledge, learning and creativity (is learning a creative act?) etc. Your final conclusions are that you need some notion of constraint, possibly the co-limit, subobject classifier, object-arrow, associativity, and identity of Mathematical Category Theory. Afterthought, the concept of meaning information also includes this concept of memes presented by Dawkins in Chapter 11 in the Selfish Gene, there is not on scrap of evidence or tests, or any factual data to conclude that the concept of memes are anything but a conjecture. Dear Gavin, As you find some interest for a Theory of Meaningful Information, it may be pertinent to recall a systemic approach to meaning generation: When a system submitted to a constraint (stay alive, avoid obstacle, ...) receives from its environment an information that has a connection with the constraint , it generates a meaning (a meaningful information) that willl be used to implement an action aimed at satisfying the constraint. It's this I don't understand, where is the evidence and the tests to prove this proposition. How do we know that this is what a biological system does? Where is the evidence? I have searched to find evidence for this statement receives information from its environment. It just cannot be proved, plainly there's something wrong here. Regards Gavin The approach makes available a simple Meaning Generator System applicable to all cases where you can define the system and the constraint. Is not Shannon information theory. It links with Dretske and philosophy of mind. It has been used in several evolutionary approaches. 2003 Entropy paper on subject: http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf 2010 short paper: http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf Part of IACAP 2011 presentation: http://cogprints.org/7584/ Best Christophe _ Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:22:08 +0200 From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: FW: Meaning Information Theory] ---From Gavin Message from Gavin Ritz On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Gavin Ritz garr...@xtra.co.nz wrote: Stan, John list members I have had a number of off list email dialogue with list members, from this list and others. There seems to be a group of listers that have a Theory of Meaningful Information (It's not Shannon's mathematical Information theory), it's all about meaning and electrical communication (I guess in this case neurological). The common links seem to be Dawkins, Dennett, Searle and a few others. Does anyone have any clear propositions, with their logical arguments, evidence. tests, corroboration, modeling, conceptual mathematics, proofs, for this Meaning Theory of Information. It also seems to include memes. I am unable to find any clear propositions with their proofs, it all seems like smoke and mirrors too me. At one point it becomes sort of Shannon's mathematical theory then it spoofs into something like Philosophy meaning arguments (Like Ogden Richards), then it spoofs into living matter and DNA, then reappears as cultural units, then energy/matter representations. Is The Meaning Information Theory a shape shifter. Is it the one size fits all, theory. What exactly is this Theory, where did it come from, what is it, what is its proposition, and if there is one how can it be tested, corroborated, where and how can we gather the evidence. Regards Gavin -- ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Meaning Information Theory ---From Gavin
Hi Gavin, I am having trouble following your implicit argument about meaning information theory. I do understand your complaint about evidence, tests, corroboration and corresponding logic and mathematics, although I'm not sure I agree that things are so bleak. The 'implicit' part I detect (please let me know if I am wrong) is that you seem to be confounding meaningfulness (semantics) with a physical basis for information. I personally embrace the notion that information can only exist as physically manifested structure and process (negentropy), but I don't connect meaningfulness to the existence of information. I see meaning as something that might or might not become attached to information when it is perceived. In fact, I think Shannon was focused on meaning, rather than the physicality of information. He was, after all, working on codes and code-breaking. Are you indeed tying physical manifestation of information to meaningfulness? If so, why? Regards, Guy From: Gavin Ritz garr...@xtra.co.nzmailto:garr...@xtra.co.nz Reply-To: Gavin Ritz garr...@xtra.co.nzmailto:garr...@xtra.co.nz Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:33:01 -0700 To: 'Christophe Menant' christophe.men...@hotmail.frmailto:christophe.men...@hotmail.fr, Foundations of Information Science Information Science fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] Meaning Information Theory ---From Gavin Hi there Christophe Thank you for your papers I have had a look through them to identify the propositions and arguments. And I guess this is what my contention is none of this is based on any evidence, tests, corroboration and corresponding logic and mathematics. It does not look like we are any further down the road that Ogden Richards (the Meaning of Meaning-1923) or Plotkin (Darwin Machines 1993) 70 years later. I have delved into many of the original papers around information and cannot find any corroborative evidence or propositions with logical arguments that can highlight the concept of information per se as presented by the meaning informationists(those that are not proposing Shannon’s theory). If we are going into the concept of meaning that would include, human knowledge, learning and creativity (is learning acreative act?) etc. Your final conclusions are that you need some notion of constraint, possibly the co-limit, subobject classifier, object-arrow, associativity, and identity of Mathematical Category Theory. Afterthought, the concept of meaning information also includes this concept of memes presented by Dawkins in Chapter 11 in the Selfish Gene, there is not on scrap of evidence or tests, or any factual data to conclude that the concept of memes are anything but a conjecture. Dear Gavin, As you find some interest for a Theory of Meaningful Information, it may be pertinent to recall a systemic approach to meaning generation: When a system submitted to a constraint (stay alive, avoid obstacle, ...) receives from its environment an information that has a connection with the constraint , it generates a meaning (a meaningful information) that willl be used to implement an action aimed at satisfying the constraint. It’s this I don’t understand, where is the evidence and the tests to prove this proposition. How do we know that this is what a biological system does? Where is the evidence? I have searched to find evidence for this statement “receives information from its environment”. It just cannot be proved, plainly there’s something wrong here. Regards Gavin The approach makes available a simple Meaning Generator System applicable to all cases where you can define the system and the constraint. Is not Shannon information theory. It links with Dretske and philosophy of mind. It has been used in several evolutionary approaches. 2003 Entropy paper on subject: http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf 2010 short paper: http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf Part of IACAP 2011 presentation: http://cogprints.org/7584/ Best Christophe Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:22:08 +0200 From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: FW: Meaning Information Theory] ---From Gavin Message from Gavin Ritz On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Gavin Ritz garr...@xtra.co.nzmailto:garr...@xtra.co.nz wrote: Stan, John list members I have had a number of off list email dialogue with list members, from this list and others. There seems to be a group of listers that have a Theory of Meaningful Information (It’s not Shannon’s mathematical Information theory), it’s all about meaning and electrical communication (I guess in this case neurological). The common links seem to be Dawkins, Dennett, Searle and a few others. Does anyone have any clear propositions, with their logical arguments, evidence. tests
