Dear Christophe, I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From:
Yes Joseph, you are right. As the satisfaction of the constraint is mandatory for the system to maintain its nature, system and constraint are indeed tightly linked. The “stay alive” constraint came up on earth with the first organisms that had to maintain a local far from equilibrium status.
Dear Christophe May I point out then that meaning of information is not information, but meaning and therefore not comprehensible in information theory or science? Venlig hilsen/best wishes Søren Brier Professor of semiotics at Department of International Studies of Culture and Communication,
Commenting upon Christophe's: C: Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. -snip-: C: I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs
Dear Stan In general I can accept the drift of most of your answers, but I think you overlook one important process in the living systems, they experience the universe and the more they develop the more refined their experience becomes. Then they start to talk about them, later to write tem
I am a little troubled by this account of the term meaning. As described the distinction is not necessary and the concept of constraint seems arbitrary. How are we to identify these constraints? What is the measure of meaning? As I understand it Christophe proposes that the measure of
Giddens' structuration, Luhmann's self-organization, and the operationalization of the dynamics of meaning Abstract: Luhmann's social systems theory and Giddens' structuration theory of action share an emphasis on reflexivity, but focus on meaning along a divide between inter-human