Dear Stan Really nice work. I strongly agree. But this discussion is paradigmatic and your represent a Peircean inspired semiotic ontology that we may be the only two on the list that subscribe to, because we do not think that you can solve the problem of meaning without chancing into this paradigmatic frame. I have tried to outline the view in a way that is as compatible as possible with both the natural sciences as well as the cybernetic informational paradigm in my coming book.
Venlig hilsen/best wishes Søren Brier, http://uk.cbs.dk/content/view/full/9710 Cybersemiotics book forthcoming at UTP http://www.utppublishing.com/pubstore/merchant.ihtml?pid=8894&lastcatid=116&; step=4 -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Stanley N. Salthe Sendt: 2. oktober 2007 22:25 Til: fis@listas.unizar.es Emne: 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/fis>http://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 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 23-09-2007 13:53 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 23-09-2007 13:53 _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
