Re: [Fis] Re: info meaning
Dear Giuseppe et al., I find the issues of meaning and interpretation very interesting, but I think this FIS discussion needs to find some common ground if we are to get anywhere. For example, Giuseppe wrote: There is no purely physical status of information, since a physical structure yields no information, per se. I couldn't disagree more, although I'm not sure that we disagree at all in substance. I take structure, organization, contrast, and gradients to be the physical essence of all information by definition. This is why I see a fundamental connection between information and entropy. The problem is that I find myself unwilling to suspend my personal lexicon in order to better appreciate the substance of posts like the one below, and others seem to be equally inflexible with semantics in this context. I wonder if we can agree upon a set of terms for our discussion (and beyond?) that will help to clarify the scope and limitations of the ideas we are discussing. Here is my attempt to apply Stan's specification hierarchy to the levels targeted for the term 'information' in our discussion: (physical structure (observer perception and interpretation) signals and communication))) As I see it, there is nothing for an observer to perceive in the absence of physical structure, and signals cannot transmit meaning' if observers are unable to perceive and interpret them. My personal preference is to ally 'information' with structure at the base of it all, but we should find a set of terms to keep these levels distinct in our conversation that is agreeable to all of us. We may be working too hard in arguing about which of these three levels is the basis of 'information'. Regards, Guy on 10/15/07 10:04 AM, Giuseppe Longo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 14 October 2007, mjs wrote: If information is not physical, and therefore governed by physical principles, then what is its ontological status? why any scientific notion should have a physical ontological status? the issue is never ontological, but just theoretical: which theory, with its own theoretical principles, can handle this or that notion? that is the question. And, within theories of inert, within which physical (theoretical) principles? classical, relativistic, quantum? Information is in signs and languages, it needs an interpreter, or a compiler as in operational semantics (in computers). In some contexts, information may be formalised by the same equations as (neg-)entropy. But the coincidence of equations does imply the formation of the same invariants, the underlying objects: the wave equation applies to water waves as well as to Quantum Mechanics (Schroedinger, modulo the passage to the complex field and Hilbert spaces). In no way a quantum state yields the same invariants or intended physical object as a water wave: formalisms may have very different (structural, physical) meanings. The connection between information and (physical) entropy is not ontological; indeed, not even theoretical, just formal: a theory requires both a formalism and the formation of invariants (like with Noether's theorems in Physics: invariance as symmetries defines the physical objects, by their properties; no common invariants between Shannon and Boltzmann) There is no purely physical status of information, since a physical structure yields no information, per se. Signs must be implemented in physical ink or digits, of course, but this needs a writer and, then, an interpreter. This shows up clearly in the issue of finiteness. In a finite space-time volume, typically, we can only put a finite amount of signs, thus of information. But is there, per se, a finite amount of information in a finite space-time volume? What then about Riemann sphere, as a model of Relativity, which is finite, but illimited? how much information does it contain? Infinite? The question simply does not make sense, in absence of a specification of a writer and an interpreter (or compiler). And in a finite space-time volume in Quantum Physics? one needs a wave equation in a, possibly infinite, dimensional Hibert space, to talk of one quanton within it; is this finite or infinite information? A finite number of quanta may, of course, be represented by finitely many independent state vectors, n say, but quantum superposition allow to obtain any result, as measure, in R^d, an infinite space. What is this mystic, absolute, reference to physical principles? we just have (current) theories. Classical, relativistic principles or quantum mecanical happen to be incompatible as entaglement or, more specifically, the quantum field have no classical nor relativistic sense, as physical principles. Which is the physical connection between the (wild) DNA and the (normal) form of the nose? according to which physical theory can we relate them? The differential method, as used in molecular biology, radically differs form its use in
Re: [Fis] Re: info meaning
I have to confess that I have not yet had the time to review the paper that opened this session. Metaphors aside, what you have described here is consistent with information theory, is it not? Except that you have not defined meaning. In particular, you do not suggest how a meaning might be measured so that it can be compared. From my point of view the appropriate definition of meaning is that a meaning is a behavior. This is a useful definition that is malleable to comparison. It applies in all semantic cases from computer science to biophysics. Meaning then is the behavioral product of a communication in a system, it is the ultimate product of apprehension through semeiosis in a biophysical system. Exactness then, as you suggest, is the degree to which behaviors are similar - but I am certain that this would distress Shannon because the comparison is external to the system; it requires a privileged point of view. Indeed, it distresses me. A more interesting approach is to assume that the behavior between like systems is deterministic; assume that the effective transmission of a meaning is determined if only both the signal is complete and clear, and the sender and receiver are similar systems. Thus if sign S produces behavior B in the sender, then the complete and clear transmission of S to R, the receiver, will produce behavior identical to B in the systems R to the degree that R is similar to S. So, it is not that meaning itself cannot me communicated, but rather that the systems involved vary. In the case of members of our species, our constant system modification by the variety of our sensory inputs changes the behavior potentially produced by a given sign at any given point in time. With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info http://senses.info On Oct 2, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote: Greetings All, In my view ‘meaning’ exists (or not) exclusively within systems. It exists to the extent that inputs (incoming information) resonate within the structure of the system. The resonance can either reinforce the existing architecture (confirmation), destabilize it (e.g., cognitive disequilibrium), or construct new features of the architecture (e.g., learning). Social communication often involves the goal of re-constructing architectural elements present in the mind of one agent by another agent. I am using highly metaphorical language here, but a very straightforward example of this at the molecular level is the transfer of structural information between prions and similar proteins folded in ‘ordinary’ ways. In this sense, meaning itself cannot be transferred between agents; although a new instance of meaning can be constructed. This is essentially the idea behind the Dawkins model of populations of memes (concept analogs of genes). From this point of view, the ‘exactness’ of a meaning doesn’t seem to make sense. A meaning defines itself without error. It would make sense, however, to talk about the degree of similarity between meanings when the social goal was to replicate a particular instance of meaning. Perhaps this is what Jerry meant and I have over-analyzed the idea here, but if this is a novel or erroneous perspective I would like to see some discussion of it. I guess my main point here is to separate the notion of meaningfulness from the social context that demands the sharing of meanings and constrains the construction of meanings to resonate at the level of the social network. ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Re: info meaning
Dear colleagues, Answering to a couple of Jerry's questions, Under what circumstances can the speaker's meaning or the writer's meaning be _exact_? Is _meaning_ a momentary impulse with potential for settling into a local minimum in the biochemical dynamic? A previous point could be---what entities are capable of elaborating that obscure item we call meaning? Just anything (eg, some parties have stated that molecules or atoms may communicate), or only the living beings? My understanding of what Bob has proposed along the POE guideliness is that only the living cell would be capable --and of course, all the further more complex organisms. This point is of some relevance. After decoding and interpretation of the organic codes, the meaning of my message about meaning and information may have meaning to you. Maybe. But I suffer some information overload (perhaps overload is just the incapablity to elaborate meaning under the present channels or means of communication). best Pedro = Pedro C. Marijuán Cátedra SAMCA Institute of Engineering Research of Aragon (I3A) Maria de Luna, 3. CPS, Univ. of Zaragoza 50018 Zaragoza, Spain TEL. (34) 976 762761 and 762707, FAX (34) 976 762043 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Re: info meaning
Greetings All, In my view meaning¹ exists (or not) exclusively within systems. It exists to the extent that inputs (incoming information) resonate within the structure of the system. The resonance can either reinforce the existing architecture (confirmation), destabilize it (e.g., cognitive disequilibrium), or construct new features of the architecture (e.g., learning). Social communication often involves the goal of re-constructing architectural elements present in the mind of one agent by another agent. I am using highly metaphorical language here, but a very straightforward example of this at the molecular level is the transfer of structural information between prions and similar proteins folded in ordinary¹ ways. In this sense, meaning itself cannot be transferred between agents; although a new instance of meaning can be constructed. This is essentially the idea behind the Dawkins model of populations of memes (concept analogs of genes). From this point of view, the exactness¹ of a meaning doesn¹t seem to make sense. A meaning defines itself without error. It would make sense, however, to talk about the degree of similarity between meanings when the social goal was to replicate a particular instance of meaning. Perhaps this is what Jerry meant and I have over-analyzed the idea here, but if this is a novel or erroneous perspective I would like to see some discussion of it. I guess my main point here is to separate the notion of meaningfulness from the social context that demands the sharing of meanings and constrains the construction of meanings to resonate at the level of the social network. Regards, Guy Hoelzer on 10/2/07 3:24 AM, Pedro Marijuan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear colleagues, Answering to a couple of Jerry's questions, Under what circumstances can the speaker's meaning or the writer's meaning be _exact_? Is _meaning_ a momentary impulse with potential for settling into a local minimum in the biochemical dynamic? A previous point could be---what entities are capable of elaborating that obscure item we call meaning? Just anything (eg, some parties have stated that molecules or atoms may communicate), or only the living beings? My understanding of what Bob has proposed along the POE guideliness is that only the living cell would be capable --and of course, all the further more complex organisms. This point is of some relevance. After decoding and interpretation of the organic codes, the meaning of my message about meaning and information may have meaning to you. Maybe. But I suffer some information overload (perhaps overload is just the incapablity to elaborate meaning under the present channels or means of communication). best Pedro = Pedro C. Marijuán Cátedra SAMCA Institute of Engineering Research of Aragon (I3A) Maria de Luna, 3. CPS, Univ. of Zaragoza 50018 Zaragoza, Spain TEL. (34) 976 762761 and 762707, FAX (34) 976 762043 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Re: info meaning
Here I react to Guy's Greetings All, In my view meaning exists (or not) exclusively within systems. It exists to the extent that inputs (incoming information) resonate within the structure of the system. The resonance can either reinforce the existing architecture (confirmation), destabilize it (e.g., cognitive disequilibrium), or construct new features of the architecture (e.g., learning). Social communication often involves the goal of re-constructing architectural elements present in the mind of one agent by another agent. I am using highly metaphorical language here, but a very straightforward example of this at the molecular level is the transfer of structural information between prions and similar proteins folded in ordinary ways. In this sense, meaning itself cannot be transferred between agents; although a new instance of meaning can be constructed. This is essentially the idea behind the Dawkins model of populations of memes (concept analogs of genes). S: This is placing meaning in the mode of formal causation. I have argued that if we are to generalize meaning into nature generally, we need to locate it in causality. So far we're in agreement. But I have further suggested that meaning inheres in final causation, and in particuar NOT in formal causation. The architecture of a system is its own form -- that which acts. These acts are directed at goals (finalities as projects) -- are meaningful to the system as separate from it own being. Now, if resonant inputs to a system are nonreinforcing, they contradict a system's finalities, and will then elicit learning or avoidance. From this point of view, the exactness of a meaning doesn t seem to make sense. A meaning defines itself without error. It would make sense, however, to talk about the degree of similarity between meanings when the social goal was to replicate a particular instance of meaning. S: Here Guy approaches finality. Perhaps this is what Jerry meant and I have over-analyzed the idea here, but if this is a novel or erroneous perspective I would like to see some discussion of it. I guess my main point here is to separate the notion of meaningfulness from the social context that demands the sharing of meanings and constrains the construction of meanings to resonate at the level of the social network. S: Here Guy separates meaning from formality (the social context), and this seems to implicitly place it , in agreement with me, in finality (efficient causes and material causes would not be involved in meaning). STAN Regards, Guy Hoelzer on 10/2/07 3:24 AM, Pedro Marijuan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear colleagues, Answering to a couple of Jerry's questions, Under what circumstances can the speaker's meaning or the writer's meaning be _exact_? Is _meaning_ a momentary impulse with potential for settling into a local minimum in the biochemical dynamic? A previous point could be---what entities are capable of elaborating that obscure item we call meaning? Just anything (eg, some parties have stated that molecules or atoms may communicate), or only the living beings? My understanding of what Bob has proposed along the POE guideliness is that only the living cell would be capable --and of course, all the further more complex organisms. This point is of some relevance. After decoding and interpretation of the organic codes, the meaning of my message about meaning and information may have meaning to you. Maybe. But I suffer some information overload (perhaps overload is just the incapablity to elaborate meaning under the present channels or means of communication). best Pedro = Pedro C. Marijun Ctedra SAMCA Institute of Engineering Research of Aragon (I3A) Maria de Luna, 3. CPS, Univ. of Zaragoza 50018 Zaragoza, Spain TEL. (34) 976 762761 and 762707, FAX (34) 976 762043 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fishttp://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/ listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
