Re: [Fis] art and meaning

Dear Pavel,
The problem of the observer has for me one unique nature, be it applied to
humans or to simple organisms. The difference is about complexity, not about
nature. The Meaning Generator System covers this point by an evolutionary
approach. It is clore to the Peircean triadic system (MGS has been discussed
at the Peirce-l forum, and the paper “Information and Meaning” (1) is
referenced as Peirce related paper (2)).
Pls note that “information” is taken here in its basic form as a component
of a signal, a signal being a variation of energy (sound vibration, presence
of element like ink, …). Information is then the content of the energy
variation of the signal (modulation of sound, ink density, …). These points
are detailed in (1).
So the position of the observer is well determined by the MGS approach.
However, the grounding of the meaning is not only in the MGS. It is also in
the received information coming from the environment (see the two components
in/out of the grounding in last summer FIS2005 presentation (3)).
But the MGS approach does not take the case of human as a starting point.
And this is the point where it differs from the existing theories on meaning
anchored in phenomenology or in analytic philosophy.
In order to correctly chain the levels of analysis with an evolutionary
approach, you have to explicitly consider what you know or don’t know
relatively to the systems you are considering. Basic reflex behaviour in
simple living organisms match easily with a MGS having to satisfy a
constraint like staying alive. The MGS introduces explicit causal relations.
No “animating spirit” is assigning meaning to a substance. And at this level
of evolution, there is no human entity to consciously understand the
process. Like in all evolutionary approaches, it is just about proposing a
reverse engineering scenario built up by us humans, after the facts.
Going higher thru evolution of life brings us to the problems related to the
nature of self-consciousness where there are still many open questions. At
this level, the constraints of the MGS are much more complex to define
because notions that we do not understand are to be introduced like
conscious autonomy, freedom of action, conscious subjectivity and ethics. A
lot of work is to be done in order to relate these new performances to
constraints satisfactions. Will it even be possible ? … I Like to consider
that we will some day reach this level understanding, and I feel that such
approaches can even introduce original views on the nature of
self-consciousness. See abstract for TSC 2006 (4).
Regarding your last point about heterogeneity of observers, the MGS allows
to look at it in terms of heterogeneity of constraints and systems (same
object, same sign, different interpreters). And going one step further, this
subject is close to the transmission of meaningful information between
systems when a meaningful information generated by a system is transmitted
to another system. The receiving system can generate a meaning that will be
consistent or not with the one generated by the transmitter, depending on
the similarity of the systems and constraints. There we have to introduce
the notion of “domain of efficiency of a meaning” (1) which brings us to
subjects like share of values and ethics.

Best
Christophe (http://crmenant.free.fr/Home-Page/index.HTM)

(1) http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf
(2) http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/aboutcsp.htm
(3) http://www.mdpi.org/fis2005/F.45.paper.pdf
(4) http://crmenant.free.fr/TSC2006.Abstract/index.HTM

>From: "Pavel Luksha" <bowin@mail.ru>
>To: "Christophe Menant" <christophe.menant@hotmail.fr>
>CC: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>Subject: Re: [Fis] art and meaning
>Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 02:03:39 +0300
>
>Dear Christophe
>[in response to your remark, and also in the relation to the upcoming
>session]
>
>concerning your remark that it is impossible to identify meaning precisely
>ONLY if we confine meaning to the realm of humans, and your suggestion that
>in more basic system (e.g. simple living organisms) it could be usably
>described. I wonder how do you get around the problem of observer. This
>meaning of interaction between elements of a basic living system (or even a
>complex chemical system) exists only for us humans. In respect to your
>paper: you identify behavioural regularities and constraints, and thus
>create a causal link between them. We could look at the living system in
>Cartesian manner, claiming that simple mechanical laws underlie what you
>called a 'meaningful behaviour': living organisms could be but automata
>conditioned to move in the presence of acid. Or, we can say there is an
>animating spirit that assigns meaning to the substance of acid as much as
>does to the action of an organism: could meaning be 'dissolved' in acid and
>'absorbed' by organism placed into acid? Or, we can say that an organism
>extracts meaningful information from its interaction with the acid.
>Different frames of the observer fill in the observed situation with
>different meanings, yet the ultimate essence of meaning still seems to
>escape - and this allows for multiple descriptions.
>
>What I claim here is that meanings are intrinsic to the observer (I believe
>Maturana and Varela held the same p.o.v.), and they are revealed in the
>observation, yet cannot be homomorphically transormed into descriptions of
>observation, that use language invariant to all observers (e.g.
>mathematical formulas). If meanings are intrinsic, observers could only
>describe these observations to themselves, but heterogeneity of observer
>qualities would retain them from adequate descriptions to others. Maybe I
>am wrong though, and I would appreciate your point on the issue.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Pavel.
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Christophe Menant"
><christophe.menant@hotmail.fr>
>To: <bowin@mail.ru>
>Cc: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 2:19 PM
>Subject: Fw: [Fis] art and meaning
>
>
>>Dear Pavel,
>>If we limit the question on "meaning" to "meaning for us humans", I'm
>>affraid
>>we are today in the fog of our subjectivity and irrational cognitive
>>dimensions
>>as you say. But if we try to address the subject of meaning for simple
>>living
>>organisms, we can get some usable answers.
>>You may remember the case of meaning generation modelized for a system
>>submitted to a constraint where relations between information and meaning
>>are
>>explicited (short paper: http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/index.HTM).
>>The proposed Meaning Generator System is simple and applies easily to
>>simple
>>animals. But it becomes more difficult to use when the constraints of the
>>system
>>are difficult to identify. This is the case for us humans where free
>>will, emotions
>>and consciousness are not well enough understood today.
>>And regarding art as an mode of human expression, I feel we can consider
>>it as
>>being a way to satisfy our anxiety limitation constraint. More on this at
>>http://www.mdpi.org/fis2005/F.45.paper.pdf
>>So bottom line, I feel we can say two things:
>>- Relations between information and meaning are addressable assuming we
>>can
>>define the constraints of the system generating the meaningful
>>information.
>>- Correctly addressing the notion of meaning for us humans needs a better
>>understanding of our nature (consciousness, free will, subjectivity,
>>emotions ..)
>>in order to get clear enough an understanding of our constraints. And art
>>is part of
>>our constraints satisfactions.
>>All the best
>>Christophe Menant
>>
>>>From: "Pavel Luksha" <bowin@mail.ru>
>>>To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>>>Subject: Re: Fw: [Fis] art and meaning
>>>Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:34:22 +0300
>>>
>>>Dear Soeren and Loet,
>>>
>>>it stroke my mind that the meaning could be something that avoids being
>>>measured. It is the same problem that we have with science itself: the
>>>more
>>>we try to describe world in rigid terms, the more of the real world slips
>>>through these terms. Since we humans as cognitive subjects have both
>>>verbal
>>>and non-verbal cognition, rational and irrational cognitive dimension, we
>>>only capture part of the picture. New narratives are created, but meaning
>>>of
>>>original narratives, or objects from which they originate, is never fully
>>>explained.
>>>
>>>Is this a methodological cul-de-sac?
>>>
>>>Pavel
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Søren Brier" <sbr.lpf@cbs.dk>
>>>To: "Stanley N. Salthe" <ssalthe@binghamton.edu>; <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>>>Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:13 PM
>>>Subject: SV: Fw: [Fis] art and meaning
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear Stan and Gordana
>>>>
>>>>When you talk information here are you thinking of Shannon or Wiener
>>>>information? Or some logical measure of structure and organization? Or
>>>>do
>>>>you include meaning?
>>>>
>>>>Luhmann says that a message is consisting of meaning, information and
>>>>the
>>>>form of expression.
>>>>
>>>>It makes sense to me that information is the quantitative and structural
>>>>aspect of meaning and intention.
>>>>
>>>>But I see no way of measuring meaning. Luhmann talks of a surplus of
>>>>possibilities of choice and action, which, I do not find sufficient for
>>>>instance to describe the meaning of a religious og philosophical message
>>>>about the meaning of suffering and love.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Søren
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>fis mailing list
>>>fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>MSN Messenger : appels gratuits de PC � PC partout dans le monde !
>>http://www.imagine-msn.com/Messenger/?locale=fr-fr
>>
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger : appels gratuits de PC � PC partout dans le monde !
http://www.imagine-msn.com/Messenger/?locale=fr-fr

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sat Mar 4 01:59:43 2006