Re: the meaning of meaning

(from gott@ufba.br)

GOTT@UFPA.BR

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John wrote:

>As we have seen from the discussion so far, there is not a lot of agreement
on the meaning of 'information'. However, we have been able to communicate
fairly well, despite diverse views on the matter. This suggests that the
definition of 'information' is far less important than the enthusiasm about
the correct definition of the term might lead one to believe.<

Stockinger:
The meaning of information may be a good point of reentry. However, the
meaning of the meaning is different from the meaning. Thats why i think that
the enthusiasm is not only about a correct definition o information
(meaning), but about what it means to work with the notion of information
and get insights in the area where one applies it. We search for
"information" because we already experienced that by doing so we can get a
closer look to processes and relations in nature and society. The
unification of the concept, therefore, does not necessarily rely on a common
definition, but on a second order level, where the information concept
stands for a processual, relational and operational approach to the fenomena
of life and other forms of selforganized existence.

>"information processing" and "communication theory". Both deal solely with
syntactic or formal aspects of information, but have had a powerful impact
on our conceptions of information in general. These applications of the
idea of information are essentially technological, notwithstanding their
highly formal nature, and were developed primarily by engineers, or those
working in an engineering environment.<

To connect: thats still the case. What has changed is the IT itself, where
interactiviy and multimediality caracterize the actual state. So, even when
appliying shannos infotheory to actual comm.systems, its complexity has to
be elevated to get hold of the context.

>1) How much can technical applications tell us about information "in the
wild"?, <
In the wild, does that mean in "nature"? Because in society, the "wild" is
civilized by channeled information, isnt it? Or do you mean "daily life",
everyday events?
However, de novo, there is the double meaning of information. The one need
to communicate, and the one "within" the objects communicated. How do they
relate, thats the question. Does the object express itself in its
"wildness", or is it formed purely by interpretation of the observer. What
we learn by IT applications is, that whatever is communicated, it belongs to
the receiver, no matter if he/she/it is an internal or external
construction. Another point that IT tells us, is that there is a channel
which may operate on its own rules and get relative autonomy in the
information process. In biology the channel may represent a messaging
environment. In society, all kinds of mediated communication ar channeled
for some kind of benefit.

  2) How far can we go with formal and mechanical models of the properties of
information?
When you mean by mechanical that "actio est reactio", there is no
information availiable, and not even necessary. Nothings changes which would
be worth it to be communicated.
Formalisms, on the ohter hand, may do their job, while abstracting from
observed principles in nature and society, like structuring, order
maintainance, equilibrium (and its opposites).

> "The 'hardware + software' dualism leads to a misleading conception
of cell. In cells 'biomolecule + function' are inseparable elements in
contrast with computers. in cells it is impossible to have biomolecules
without biological function.

Also: "the body + mind dualism leads to a wrong conception of person. In
persons "thought + action". In persons, there is no communication-act
without functions.

Gottfried
Received on Tue Jul 2 10:14:40 2002