Re: Data and meaning

Dear Colleagues:

This response addresses several issues related to information and meaning.
In particular, I respond to Chistophe's and Rafael's posts.

I proposed on September 28, in an extension of John Holgate post of Sept 20.
> >As John notes, the separation of meaning is not restricted to grammar
> >and Shannon information theory. Most philosophers of mathematics
> >claim that no meaning is attached to mathematical rules or
> >structures. By way of contrast, the language of chemistry and
> >chemical grammars are meaningful - a matter of common experience.
> >If one assumes that formally, "information" has no meaning, then one
> >must turn elsewhere to identify the source of meaning and
> >communication.
> >As a logical parallel, I would point out that the nature of entropy
> >(as a physical phenomenon) depends of the co-existence of temperature
> >and energy.
> >In bare bone terms:
> >you get nothing from nothing;
> >you get something from something.

Chistrophe Menart writes on Sept. 29, 2002:

>The two points brought up by John and Jerry underline aspects of
>our discussion that could deserve further developments:
>
>1) Separation of meaning from information:

I strongly concur that these topics need further development. At
issue is the nature of relation between the terms "communication" as
a community based activity and information as a reductionistic
concept of isolationism.

>
>As already written in a previous post, I feel that a meaning
>cannot exist without an information carrying it.

Your feelings are important. But how do you relate these feeling to
meaningful communication with colleagues?

>In other words, a meaning is an information, a meaningful information.
>(Information being the component of a signal, a variation of energy.
>Ex: sound, light, chemical element, protein,...).

But, what are the other components of a signal if other than
information? What else exists that is placed with information to
give the fullness to meaningful? In particular, can you spatially
separate the transport of information from the generating functions
creating meaning?

>In our brains, mental states are related to variation of
>neurotransmitter patterns. The meanings in our brains are based on
>information status in neurons (understanding that a lot is to be done in
>this field, specially regarding the nature of consciousness).

I find this paragraph blurs together several distinctions. Brains
are anatomical components of our bodies, brains have biochemical
components and an underlying genetic basis for the generating
functions.
I do not understand how the concept of a "mental state" relates to these facts.
The postulate that "information status in neurons" exists is equally
unclear to me. Perhaps you could relate these terms to principles of
communication?

>
>But this does not mean that all information is meaningful. Many
>information are meaningless, but most information can participate to the
>creation of meaningful information Ex: Noise from thunderstorm is not
>a meaningful information per se. But this noise in going to participate to
>the creation of a meaning in our brain. For instance, the created meaning
>will be "rain is comming". And this meaning will generate an action
>"look for shelter".

This example hardly supports your thesis unless one assumes that
"information" is tightly coupled to human values and utilitarian
patterns of belief. "Thunder" has quantitative physical qualities
(intensity as a function of duration and frequency) that communicate
a great deal of information. As Wordsworth said, the ear can not but
to hear, the eye can not but to see. We are coupled to nature
*NATURE!* in an intimate and detailed manner that is rooted in human
history, not just conceptual abstractions.

>2) Origin of meaning:
>If we agree that a meaning is a meaningful information, we have to look
>for the generation of this information.
>As some already know, I feel there is a way to modelize a
>"Meaning Generator System" (MGS) as being a system submitted to a
>constraint that has to be satisfied.

I strongly concur that we must examine the origin of meanings.

The concept of a "Meaning Generator System" (MGS)" could perhaps be useful.
Why introduce the notion of restrictions on freedoms in order to
generate meaning.

   Nature is. Why should nature be denied freedom in the process of
communication?

Are these constraints intended to give a physical gloss to the concept of MGS?

In the notion of "organic communication" I presuppose that intrinsic
to a living system is a chemical dynamic that generates change, that
such change is intrinsic to the life cycle of the organism.
Information entering the system changes the intrinsic dynamic in a
specific manner.

Is this view close or distant from your view of MGS?

Rafeal writes:

  "I mean,
if I am thirsty it is because my body is
of this kind that it needs water."

JLRC responds:
This appears to capture at least one aspect of the concept
distinction between Shannon information as a isolationistic statement
of great value to mathematics and engineering and the core values of
biological communication in an organic world.

Christophe responds:
  I feel we can say that it is more
> a question about a difference of complexity than about a
> difference of nature.
> Would you agree ?
>
And Rafael responds:
yes, but the difference does not just come from the
progammer, it comes basically from the kind of being
a robot is (in case it is not a *flesh* one... at least...

JLRC responds:

Christophe chooses to introduce the ill-defined notion of complexity
as a means to bridge the distinction between mechanical communication
and organic communication. It is not clear to me why this term
(complexity) resolves anything. Communication has the potential to
relate various ideas and concepts about information and meaning. I
am skeptical that the term "complexity" has an analogous potential
resolving power.

On a practical level, one distinction between robotics and living
organisms is the capability of living organisms to sustain an
dynamic by purposeful acquisitions from the external world. This is
coupled with an evolutionary potential for organic change. The
abstract Platonic world of mathematics generates many images of the
type proposed by Christophe. How are such images validated? or
reified?

The data collected by the robot can not be placed in correspondence
with the meaning acquired by a living organism, can it? Without
success, I have sought such a quantitative translation for more than
two decades. Christophe, if you feel that you can construct such a
correspondence relation, I would delighted if you would help me learn
your method of construction.

Cheers

Jerry LR Chandler

 
Received on Mon Sep 30 17:46:10 2002