Re: [Fis] A definition of Information

Replying to S�ren's interesting questions, see interleavings:

>Dear Stan
>Then I did get it right the first time. My question is again how this
>view fits with being a pansemiotician
     SS: One relevant approach would be to look at how the different
semioses as outlined by John Deely relate to each other: {physiosemiosis
{chemosemiosis {biosemiosis {anthroposemiosis}}}}. Each level of semiosis
emerges from the more generally present one to its left. In a big picture,
each one to the right could be seen to be an interpretant generated by the
one to its left.

>, and how you see it fitting with a Peircean semiotic evolutionary
>philosophy.
>In other words where is mind and meaning?
     SS: Following Peirce, we can have {Universal Mind {inorganic realm
{organic realm {biological realm {human cognitive realm}}}}}. Each realm
is an intensification of the prior one (the subclass to its left).

>I presume that when you talk of energy you are using
>standard physical language.
     SS: Yes. As in the prior message below.

>So how does energy, information and
>semiotics fit together in a theory of FIS in your framework.
     SS: Information would generally be any restriction or constraint on
variety or possibilities. Meaning emerges from such restrictions when a
system of interpretance generates interpretants on the basis of such
restriction. A system of interpretance can be any system (abiotic or
biotic) that can modify its form or behavior after encountering a
constraint in its environment. I have elaborated on these things in
Semiotica 120:381-394; 127: 481-495, 134:359-380.

 Do you have
>a coherent and internal consistent theory developed?
    SS: I would say rather that I am working on it.

STAN
>
>"Stanley N. Salthe" wrote:
>>
>> Replying again to S�ren:
>> First, as a model of the intensional complexity of the world, the
>> specification hierarchy; {physical world {material world {biological world
>> {{{etc.}}} shows that energy is the primary, and primal, stuff in the
>> world, out of which all else comes. So it is in the most general category.
>> The material world generates friction and delay = entropy, and so entropy
>> is not as foundational as energy, as we can see by {energy {entropy
>> {{{etc.}}}. But entropy would be foundational with respect to biology
>> because the informational constraints found in genetic information are
>> historical in origin, and history is just a record of the results of
>> friction and delays. So: {energy {entropy {history {etc}}}. The etc. here
>> could be read as human cultural discourse. This could be summarized as
>> 'story telling'. Then we would have {energy {entropy {history {story
>> telling}}}}.
>>
>> STAN

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sat Feb 28 23:03:31 2004