Re: TR: SV: [Fis] info & meaning
Dear Christophe, I am not satisfied by this definition of "meaning." It is vague and uncertain. Your paper also introduces a notion of "abstract meaning" where I believe you are referring to "marks" or the latent potential of "meaning" (by my definition) in the world. So I think the problem is that there is not a sufficiently rigorous framework here. My interpretation of Pedro's call to arms was that he was indeed calling for a rigorous semeiotic science, which is what the "information science" he described necessarily becomes. I took his call to be one that appealed for foundational work, not merely a tidying up of convention. The definition of meaning that I am looking for, like Pedro, is one that can be applied with the rigor extends Shannon and applies to biophysics. This rigorous evolution is already underway in the community with the consideration of "algorithmic information theory" (Chaitin, Wolfram et al.). I don't share their optimism for emergence theory as the ultimate solution to all things but the development of the notion of algorithmic information itself is a useful and rigorous step forward. My apparently simplistic proposal, that "meaning" refer to the behavior that is the product of a communication, should be seen in this context. It, in fact, applies at all scales. It may not be immediately apparent to you that it applies in the case of complex organisms like ourselves, but it does. The behavioral complex of our physiology produces a variety of small and potentially large behavioral changes on the receipt of information, for example in the complex assessment of what is benign and what is a threat, and in how to deal with information overload and how to deal with limited information. For me then, marks contain potential information. One might say they possess "latent meaning." They produce information in their apprehension that adds to knowledge and produces behavior (recall, my definition of "knowledge" is generalized to "that which determines subsequent action"). So then we can now speak specifically about what a "meaning" is. This definition works perfectly well if you are referring to the meaning of any syntactic entity, be it a computer program interpreted by a machine or an informal communication between us. It works perfectly well if you apply it to logical syntax exchanged between us. It works perfectly well if we apply it to a computer language, mathematical logic or works of art. If you were identical to me in all important respects then you would understand exactly what I have said here and it would produce in you behavior exactly like that in me. But we are not identical and therein lies the variance. So the questions to resolve are 1. Is the sender sending a message that is complete? That is, does the message contain all the information to reproduce the sender behavior in an identical receiver? This is the "meaning" in the sender. More precisely, the "meaning" in the sender is exactly the behavior produced by the mark that is the "message" in the sender and no other. 2. Signal to noise ratio; successful transmission of the mark. 3. The behavior the message produces in the receiver; the "meaning" in the receiver. As noted before, if sender and receiver are identical and the message is complete and clear it will produce a determined behavior - the same behavior as found in the sender. There are, of course, differences between you and I (including culture and educational background) so I cannot expect that this note produces in you what it produces in me (and the old adage of information theory and computer science applies: garbage in, garbage out). The fact that the term "meaning" is overloaded in conventional language and not rigorously used should not deter us from the clarification of the concept here. When someone says "What do you mean?" they are really asking "How does this information change how you behave?" Where behavior covers all levels of process within the organism. I think Soren and I may well be in agreement up to this point. Where we disagree is on the mechanics involved, and especially concerning the mechanics of sentience. At this level of definition however this is unimportant. I suggest that the nature of "consciousness" is only relevant if some aspect of it plays a role in these mechanics (as it does in my model and not in Soren's). With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering http://iase.info http://senses.info On Oct 5, 2007, at 3:56 AM, Christophe MENANT wrote: Steven, In a few words, what I understand by “meaning”. 1) We all agree that the Shannon theory of information addresses the capacity of transmission of a communication channel. It does not deal at all with the possible meaning associated with the information. A different approach i
TR: SV: [Fis] info & meaning
Steven, In a few words, what I understand by meaning. 1) We all agree that the Shannon theory of information addresses the capacity of transmission of a communication channel. It does not deal at all with the possible meaning associated with the information. A different approach is needed. 2) The notion of meaning associated to information is a complex subject as it covers a wide area of different applications (focusing on meaning associated to human language may be misleading as it is one of the most complex cases). First clarification is to define different domains of complexity. Gross sizing: matter, life, human. Then, put aside for a while the case of matter and focus on life and human in the context of a pragmatic approach. With this background, we can consider that a meaningful information (a meaning) does not exist per se but comes from a system submitted to a constraint that has generated the meaning in order to satisfy the constraint. (stay alive for an organism, valorize ego for a human ). A meaning can be defined only when a system submitted to a constraint is in relation with its environment. The environment of the system makes available a lot of information that the system can receive. Only the received information having a connection with the constraint of the system will generate a meaning within the system. And we can consider that the content of the meaning is precisely that connection existing between the received information and the constraint of the system. A systemic approach can be formalized on this subject with the introduction of a Meaning Generator System (MGS). See short paper http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/index.HTM 3) As you may have noted, such approach on meaning generation is triadic and can be part of the neighborhood of the Peircean theory of sign (in a much simpler and less elaborated form). The MGS is also in the domain of the Von Uexkull biosemiotics where a meaning is generated by the connection of the constraints of the organism (Internal world of the organism, Umwelt) with the external world. 4) Going from simple organisms to humans in the field of meaning generation is not an easy task. The constraints to satisfy cumulate and are more and more elaborated. The systems also become more complex and are inter-related. And the mysterious function of human consciousness comes in. However, looking at MGS as a building block can offers some possibilities (see http://cogprints.org/4531/ ). All the best Christophe -Message d'origine- De : Steven Ericsson-Zenith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : vendredi 5 octobre 2007 01:26 À : Christophe Menant Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: SV: [Fis] info & meaning I read Pedro's post differently. What definition of meaning are you using exactly? I was going to express agreement with Pedro too, but I do not agree with either Soren of Christophe's interpretation of Pedro's posting. Can Pedro clarify? And can we be more precise in what we mean when we use the term "meaning?" With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering http://iase.info http://senses.info On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Christophe Menant wrote: > Dear Soren, > I agree with your reading of Pedros proposal as to start with > cellular meaning, and then go thru the higher levels of evolution. > It has the advantage of beginning with the simplest case and then > look at more complex ones. See (1) for a corresponding approach. > But Im afraid I disagree with your point regarding first person > consciousness as not representing anything real, as just being a > bio-cultural artefact as you say. I take human consciousness as > being a reality resulting from an evolution of representations. But > this is not our today subject. > Coming back to it, Walter Riofrio, (New FIS member) has an > interesting approach to the notion of meaning where he groups > together the emergence of autonomy, function and meaning (2). I > understand his work as associating inside a system a meaningful > information with a function that needs it in order to use it, in a > background of autonomy. Such evolutionary link between meaningful > information and function looks as an interesting tool. > > All the best > Christophe > (1) - Short paper: http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/index.HTM > - Full paper: http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf > (2) http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00114521/en/ > > > > > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:13:27 +0200 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: SV: [Fis] info & meaning > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; fis@listas.unizar.es > > > > Dear Pedro > > > > Do I understand you right when I see your models as: > > > > 1. There is no meaning in inanimate nature. > > 2. Meaning is constructed on a first level by life in the form of > single > > cell life forms. > > 3. Seco
