don’t see very well how they can be taken into
account without the availability of a description or modeling of the
Did I miss something?
De : Søren Brier <email@example.com>
Envoyé : vendredi 25 mai 2018 13:13
À : Christophe Menan
You are right to recall that a transdisciplinary theory of cognition and
communication has to include meaning. But I’m not sure that the Peircean
approach is enough for that.
The triad (Object, Sign, Interpretant) positions the Interpretant as being the
meaning of the Sign created
À : Christophe Menant; Terrence W. DEACON
Cc : FIS Group
Objet : RE: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the
I think you hit on a most interesting problem of how to establish
interpretation and agency in a philosophical fra
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
Thanks for that Pedro,
Just a few comments.
All the best,
De : Fis de la part de Pedro C. Marijuan
Envoyé : lundi 13 novembre 2017 14:30
À : 'fis'
Objet : [Fis] some notes
the Moreno-Mossio book is an interesting and recent treatment of autonomy but,
as the title indicates, it is focused on biological autonomy.
FYI there is also a 2009 paper by Barandiaran & all (some from the Moreno IAS
team) that addresses agency and autonomy in a different way,
Your proposal for elementary particles and social institutions as two limit
cases for agency is interesting as it also positions limit cases for
highlighted as implicit parts of agency by Terry. And it brings in perspectives
on your subject.
Resent to FIS correct address
De : Christophe Menant
Envoyé : jeudi 19 octobre 2017 11:15
À : is
Cc : Krassimir Markov
Objet : RE: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
Dear FIS colleagues,
Looking at defining agency is an interesting subject, somehow close to
Thanks for these comments Terry.
We should indeed be careful not to focus too much on language because 'meaning'
is not limited to human communication. And also because starting at basic life
level allows to address 'meaning' without the burden of complex performances
It is interesting you bring us to the Interpretant in the Peircean triad where
“meaning” is indeed key.
The Interpretant is understood as the meaning of a sign, created by the mind of
the Interpreter (Nöth, Handbook of Semiotics).
But the triad Sign/Object/Interpretant does not
A hot discussion indeed...
We can all agree that perspectives on information depend on the context.
Physics, mathematics, thermodynamics, biology, psychology, philosophy, AI, ...
But these many contexts have a common backbone: They are part of the evolution
of our universe and of
Interesting points Guy,
Let me proposed a few things that can come in addition.
“Fitness” could be worded “conformance to a demand”, or “satisfaction of a
constraint”. And there we are talking about existing relations, like satisfying
a ”stay alive” constraint for animals, a ”look for happiness
Indeed information can be considered downwards (physical meaningless) and
upwards (biological meaningful). The difference being about
interpretation or not.
It also introduces an evolutionary approach to information processing and
There is a chapter
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
Commenting the points 2 to 5, you write:
“Yes, but the differentia specifica is that meaning can be communicated using
human language as an evolutionary achievement. Biological systems generate
meaning, but cannot communicate it.”
Human language is indeed a great evolutionary advantage.
Dear Loet, Joe and all,
We are reaching again the question of “meaning” as attached to information.
Let me remind a few points addressed more or less explicitly in some previous
1) A “meaning” does not exist by itself. It is a “meaningful information”
(Shannon type information) related
Let me put it a bit differently, in terms of systems and types of laws.
Prior the emergence of life in evolution we have only physico-chemical laws.
Energy exchanges just obey these laws. There is no purpose, just matter in the
interaction of laws (putting aside the question of the
In a few sentences, a summary of my contribution addressing some of Pedro’s
formulations of Yixin's questions:
It is difficult to consider a unique perspective on the relations between
intelligence and information as they depend upon the agent being considered
Resent to the correct address
Subject: FW: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:33:12 +0100
Looking at relations between information and intelligence brings in the need to
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.
- Original Message -
From: Christophe Menant
Dear FIS colleagues,
Knowledge is a wide and interesting subject as applied to us humans. But what
about knowledge in the world of animals ?
What about an evolutionary approach to knowledge that takes into account
simpler forms of knowledge management as existing in animals ?
We Humans can
the living brain would always keep the upper hand of complexity with
respect any syntactic, computational procedures...
Christophe Menant escribió:
Biosemiotics can indeed be part of the story
(http://crmenant.free.fr/Biosemiotics3/INDEX.HTM ), but part only.
Comments from Michel and Rafael bring up an aspect of the proposal that has
perhaps been underestimated. It is the interpretation of information which
generates its content, its meaning. From “Information in cells” to “information
for cells” we precisely have the interpretating
Robin, Wittgenstein’s “meaning as use” is mostly related to meaning of words
and sentences. And analytic philosophy is not in favour of considering
evolutionary approaches.As the systemic approach goes with a bottom-up
perspective usable for simple organisms, I do not feel that it can be
at MGS as a building block can offers some possibilities
(see http://cogprints.org/4531/ ).
All the best
De : Steven Ericsson-Zenith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : vendredi 5 octobre 2007 01:26
À : Christophe Menant
Cc : firstname.lastname@example.org
Objet : Re: SV
Dear Soren, I agree with your reading of Pedro’s 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 I’m afraid I
Mail list logo