Info & Physics

In reply to Edwina Taborsky who wrote on Tuesday, May 21:

>With regard to the last few posts (Fenzl, Brier, Menant), I agree very
>much with all of Norbert's comments on the nature of signs and
>information - and that physico-chemical systems are most certainly
>involved in information processing. As he points out, the difference
>between abiotic and biotic information processing is the difference in
>quality' of the whole process. I feel that all systems process
>information' in a triadic manner (input of sensate data; mediation
>via normative rules; and resultant interpretation). That is, our
>universe is a complex system at all levels. However, the relations in
>this triadic process are different at each level, moving from the most
>simple relation (iconic) to indexical to symbolic. Only humans process
>information within symbolic relations.

>However, I think that terms have to be clarified, for I feel that we
>are confusing 'sign', 'information'.

>The interpretive process is triadic. A variation of energy, between X
>system and Y system, as pointed out by Menant, is experienced by the
>two systems as a signal. In Peircean terms it would be an 'immediate
>object' in a categorical mode of Firstness. This is NOT YET
>information. It is 'data', signal, sensation'..or whatever term you
>use to mean an acceptance of energy/matter within your system's
>boundaries...but not yet an interpretation (absorption, functional
>usage) of that energy/matter.
>This input of energy/matter is then transformed by the normative rules
>of your system. These normative rules can be both innate (laws of
>chemical molecular formation; genetic patterns) or learned (behaviour)
>but they act as normative constraints that consider all input
>energy/matter. This mode is defined by Peirce as Thirdness. Another
>term is 'knowledge'. Or Representamen in Peirce's terms.
>THEN - the final result is an 'interpretant' (and there can be several
>steps to this)...which is 'information'. It is in a state of
>Secondness.

Edwina, FISers,
When reading the above post, I'm not sure to get clearly what is
meant about problem related to confusing 'sign' and 'information'.
My understanding of the Peircean triadic approach (Object, Sign,
Interpretant) is that information is in the domain of the Sign,
and meaning (meaningful information) is in the domain of the
Interpretant. So meaning comes to reality after the action of
interpretation. Prior the interpretantation, there is only
information (meaningless information) which is the domain
of the Sign.
And we can consider information a being part of the sign/signal.
Ex: digital information as combination of zeros and ones in
a computer is the component of an electrical signal (amplitude
modulation of electrical signal by high and low values). The
interpretation of this signal/sign takes place when we read
on the computer screen the words that were coded in
zeros/ones. We attribute meaning to these words.
So I fell that confusing sign and information has rather
limted consequences. But on the other hand, not
discriminating correctly information from meaning can
be real detrimental to the correct positioning of
information. Looks to me as puting in a same domain
the Sign and the Interpretant. (see my May 21 post on
Info & Physics).
Regards
Christophe Menant
Received on Sat May 25 22:26:35 2002