Re: [Fis] meaning of meaning

From: S�ren Brier <[email protected]>
Date: Thu 12 Feb 2004 - 11:17:57 CET

Dear Pedro

In biosemiotics we do believe that the molecules are the sign vehicles
of endosemiosis. We believe that neuropeptides for instance are
interpreted by the single cell depending on its individual history, the
tissue it participates in and the sate of 'the biological self'. This we
see as the self organized system of the immune, the hormone and the
neural systems coding onto them selves and each other. We also agree
that heredity is much more than the gene. At least there are genes also
in some of the organelles, but many other factors in the cytoplasm have
an hereditary influence. To understand the meaning of the biochemistry
processes in the living system we think you need a semiotic view on the
processes. if you look at them in themselves and for themselves an
informational approach may be sufficiently.

"Pedro C. Mariju�n" wrote:
>
> 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

-- 
Best wishes S�ren Brier
Copenhagen Business School
Dept. of Management, Politics and Philosophy 
Bl�g�rdsgade 23 B, 3. floor, room 326, DK-2200 Copenhagen N.
Telephone +45 38152208, mail sbr.lpf@cbs.dk .
Old home page with full text papers:
http://www.flec.kvl.dk/personalprofile.asp?id=sbr&p=engelsk
Ed. of Cybernetics & Human Knowing http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK  
Subscription sandra@imprint.co.uk, support this interdisciplinary
cybernetic, systemic and semiotic endeavor! Vol. 10:3-4 is a unique
tribute to Heinz von Foerster!
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Feb 12 11:26:06 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:46 CET