Re: [Fis] meaning of meaning

Dear FISers

Quite many interesting directions are explored during these days. Although
we cannot 'meaningfully' advance all of them, at least they will remain as
dormant seeds for future periods of calm. In what follows I respond to a
few points.

Shu-Kun: Your suggestion about some numerical relationship between Message,
Information and Meaning (M<I<D) is very difficult to ascertain in general
(first of all, under what type of 'bounds' could one think about it?).
There was a very intriguing point by Efim Liberman on the entropy
constraints related to enzyme size where a germane consideration was
raised, I think. Also, Landauer's principle on energy expenditure
associated to 'information erasing' is another important direction to think
about. In a private discussion with Xerman, we were thinking on inviting
you and Angel Vegas to compare how a 'chunk' of living matter responds to a
signaling event (and reorganizes itself) and how a piece of solid state
alloy 'signaled' (perturbed) by a laser reorganizes non-destructively its
own structural elements. It is a divertimento and we do not to imply any
big conclusions at all --but to highlight some of the 'info' differences in
the response to perturbation between the animate and the inanimate...
Hopefully in next fis discussions oriented toward 'information and entropy'
we shall deal in depth with these matters. (en passant, has anyone read
Tom Siegfried on the new physics of information? "The Bit and the Pendulum"
2000. Could we revise and refocus our attempts on an axiomatics of
Information Physics, again --don�t you think, Igor, Shu-Kun, John and other
parties?).

To Soeren: I appreciate your comments on Wiener, Shannon, and particularly
on Bateson. In actuality I do not feel much close to them, as the road I
try to advance is the 'molecular approach to meaning'. Like in the
arguments on autopoieisis, I bring molecularly based points, but they are
left unresponded or lightly commented at another level --I do not complain
about your views at all, and I really appreciate the comments, the problem
is the absence in this discussion of molecularly interested parties.
Meaning is ALSO a molecular problem, and to my chagrin this part of the
bioinformation and semiotic 'galaxy' has left almost unexplored. You will
understand better what I mean if we go to the 50's, before the molecular
explanation of HEREDITY advanced by Watson and Crick (reductionist?
functionalist? cynermetic?). Of course, 'reducing' heredity only to that
view would be myopic, but even more myopic would be to dismiss the
molecular approach to it... In any case, I accept the challenge of stating
the fundamentals of signaling and meaning at the molecular level (at least,
summarizing what I can gather at the time being).

to Rafael, Jim, Viktoras and other parties: living a 'meaningful' life is a
crucial piece in some sociological and philosophical approaches --what
'cultures' attempt more or less. Do the arts contribute to the 'missing'
meaning that our pan-socialized ways of life fail to convey? Do the arts
detect the relevant 'absences' in our lives and fabricate ad hoc
information --channeled toward the 'desserts' and the enigmatic inside?

best

Pedro

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Feb 11 14:00:07 2004