[Fis] On the definition of meaning and information

Dear Colleagues,

Much has been said here about the definition of /meaning/ and
/information/ by different people. Let me bundle my objections into the
following observations.

Information and meaning are distinct, IMHO, in one very fundamental
respect. Information, by my definition, does not require our experience
while meaning does.

"The difference that makes a difference" is, I will contend, a statement
materially relevant to the definition of information in that it
describes consequence in a system of information. But if we are to
define meaning formally in this context alone then I do not know how to
distinguish one from the other.

Such a definition would argue that the production of Helium has
meaning, for example.

I, at least, contend that Helium evolves in stars without our experience
of it - although, I have a caveat here that has to do with my model that
I will not pursue at this juncture.

Information, in my definition, is not statically descriptive, it
includes how things change.

Meaning might be called "the /experience of/ information" and plays a
lone role in apprehension and a one-to-many role in communication - but
it is a little more complex than this for one needs to introduce the
notions of knowing and intent.

Meaning in apprehension is the experience of the embodied /trace/ of a
/sign/ - the experience of a /mark/. Meaning in communication exits in
both apprehension by the reader and /intent/ by the writer. In the
writer, it is the experience of the creation process - that I call
/semiosis/ (distinct in detail from Peirce's definition) - that is,
intent is the meaning embodied by the writer in their creation of a
metaphysical mark - it continues as the experience that the writer has
in their experience of the mark.

I might put this more generally as information is not something that
requires consciousness while meaning is. A rock falling through space
is an information system in an information system. A rock falling
through space in an information system that includes its impact with the
planet Earth has meaning only because conscious entities will choose to
engage with the information system involved.

I understand the appeal of the phrase "a difference that makes a
difference" as a definition of meaning but it makes me uncomfortable.
It is esoteric and has Lao Tzu's cryptic mysticism - "all can know
beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness" - is the difference
that makes a difference but at least Lao Tzu makes it clear that it is
the /experience of/ the difference that makes a difference. Meaning is
an aesthetic.

In formal matters I prefer that we use the notion of /correctness/.

My discomfort arises primarily from any attempt to disembody meaning -
or to detach it from consciousness. To do so leaves those of us
interested in such matters with unnecessary neology. Worse, it changes
how we all behave toward information - and this derives from the common
informal idioms found in language use of the term.

"What does 1 + 1 mean?" is no distance from "What does a solar eclipse
mean?" - both mean something in our experience of them and that meaning
is strongly sensitive to the context of what we know. If we know about
planetary orbits we may come to know that there is no meaning to be
associated with the solar eclipse and some coincidental calamity.

As an aside one of my favorite and most evocative examples related to
meaning is the work "de Kooning erased" by Robert Rauschenburg. For
those of you not fortunate enough to live close to the Museum of Modern
Art in San Francisco where this wonderful piece resides, let me explain.

One day in New York in the 1950s Robert Rauschenburg asks his fellow,
and successful, abstract expressionist Willem de Kooning for a drawing.
He explains that he wishes to erase the drawing as a work of art and
insists that de Kooning gives him a drawing that he would feel the lose
of. de Kooning says he does not like the idea but he appreciates what
Rauschenburg is tying to achieve. He agrees but retaliates by giving
Rauschenburg a drawing of such merit that he will find it very hard to
commit the act.

When explaining the piece - often shown on video at the SFMOMA when the
piece is on display (it is in the permanent collection so it not always
in the available rotation) - Rauschenburg says with emphasis, "It was
just the IDEA!"

Think awhile about the role and definition of meaning here, among the
players and, if you can, get to see the piece. It is a fully erased
drawing of de Kooning's - it took months to complete - in a frame,
behind glass with a title (executed by Jasper Johns incidentally) "de
Kooning erased".

Now your responses and reasoning - the meaning you assign - to my
description here will be profoundly different from your experience of
the piece and I encourage you to watch people react to it if you get the
chance.

Sincerely,
Steven
Received on Mon Feb 23 23:30:00 2004