[Fis] Re: about meaning (FIS)

Hi Sakari (and Risto)
Just went thru your FIS postings. You address interesting items
and we share same subjects of interest (but I may not have
understood evrything you write).
Let me answer your comments.

> Hi Christophe!
>
> Ref: Your message to FIS
>
> I read your paper about MGS with interest
> (http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/index.HTM)
>
> Have you look our hypotheses about "Evolutionary Networked and Systemic
> Information Theory" (ENSI- theory) in
>
> http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/mailings/1104.html and
>
> http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/mailings/1109.html ?
>
> Some comments to your article mentioned above:
>
> 1. CM (Christophe Menant): Information and Meaning are present everywhere
> around us and within ourselves.
> ENSI: We think that there is nothing else than differences. A different atom
> is a difference. A thought of "one" is difference in time, place (an
> individual) and context.
CM: We can agree, I feel, on the fact that differences per se are not
part of reality. Only what is measurable is part of reality. This implies
presence of Signal/Information (S/I) and of a system able to receive
and interpret the S/I.
Also, linked to some engineering background, I like to seperate signal
(variation of energy: air vibration, presence of ink, ..) from information
(component of the signal: amplitude modulation, shape of the ink deposit, ..).
> So if there is just differences it means that there is just information in
> the existence, well information AND matter. Some of these differences have a
> meaning for the system under study.
CM: More precisely, I would say that matter is S/I (presence vs lack of
matter is energy variation). And information can be meaningful or not.
Meaningfulness being understood relatively to the constraint of a system.
(small flying insect is meaningful information for a frog, not for a mouse
- meaning is there vs survival constraint, finding food -).
>
> 2. CM: Several studies have been made relatively to information and meaning:
>
> - Semiotics
> - Analytical philosophy
> - Psychology
> ENSI: Our starting point was information in the brains of a man, in books,
> in a living cell and in a computer. A meaningful difference appeared. And
> the system.
 CM: Regarding "meaning", I am carefull separating human (and human built
artefacts) from non human life. This because we do not know the nature of
human (the "hard problem"). So I feel it may be misleading to define a
meaning vs constraints we do not know (constraints for human are very
interesting subjects on which psychology and philosophy have been
working hard. But I feel more is to be done).
>
> 3. CM: No theory is available as covering the concept of meaning, whatever
> the system.
> ENSI: No in ENSI either. But it is a try to formulate a evolutionary,
> universal, information theory.
CM: I support your interest in working on this very interesting subject.
>
> 4. CM: The word "meaning " is related to performances of human.
> ENSI: This is a big threshold to overcome. "Meaning", interpretation",
> "knowledge" etc. have a less powerful and complex meaning in systems outside
> the human thinking. But still, the same basic process (e.g. "Meaning",
> interpretation", "knowledge") is happening in every (information) system.
CM: Agreed. Meaning is closely related to interpretation and to knowledge,
and can be generated by any system submitted to a constraint (but we need
to clearly define the corresponding constraints).
>
> 5. CM: Proposal is to analyse "meaning" at the level of elementary life
> (known domain), and
> reformulate results in a systemic approach with appropriate hypothesis.
> ENSI: Computer will also do.
CM: We are on the same track, but defining appropiate hypothesis is
very important. I choose to begin with basic life because
we understand its constraints. And I do not want to begin with human
because we do not understand its constraints. Understand the constraints
of human and correspondingly apply the MGS will be a second step
(bottom up or evolutionary approach). On the same token, I consider
all human build up (books, computers, ...) as capable to express only
derivated meaning. Derivated from human constraints. Consequently,
I will look at meaningfulness of S/I in books or computers only after
having covered the case of humans.*
>
> 6. CM: A meaning is a meaningful information that is created by a system
> submitted to a
> constraint when it receives an external information that has a connection
> with the
> constraint.
> The meaning is formed of the connection existing between the received
> information
> and the constraint of the system.
> The function of the meaningful information is to participate to the
> determination of
> an action that will be implemented in order to satisfy the constraint of the
> system.
> ENSI: A meaning is a difference that causes something in a system, that has
> an effect.
CM: Yes. More precisely, I see the difference as being the relation between
the received information and the constraint of the system.
But the effect is for me outside the MGS. The effect is a consequence of the
meaningful information generated by the system
> Notice the absence of words like "meaningful" or "information".
> And there is also inside meanings in every system. A part of a system is
> information for the system, hence meaning. Also a part = a difference =
> information. Hence: There is only differences, only information in a
> disguise of the matter.
CM: Yes. But again, difference per se do not exist (see 1). And consequently,
we need to speak explicitly about S/I from the beginning.
> And meaning = now, in the future or may have had an influence in some
> context. Hence (a) potential information and (b) information that causes
> something.
CM: This is the perhaps the point where, in your approach, meaningful
information can be differentiated from meaningless information.
Meaningful information exists to intiate an action that will satisfy
the constraint of the system. Potential information would be meaningless
information, and information that causes something would be
meaningful information. Would you agree ?
> And two kinds of information: Connection between the parts and the parts
> itself (its structure).
>
> 7. CM: MGS
> ENSI: We think that the structure of the system is its meaning generating
> system. Still, at a abstract level the functioning of MGS could be like you
> are presenting in the paper.
CM: So perhaps we are heading to follow the same path...
>
>
> I am happy to answer any of your questions.
>
>
>
> Regards: Sakari Ahvenainen (and Risto Korhonen)
>
>
  Cheers

Christophe

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Oct 10 20:17:40 2003