Re: Info & Physics

In reply to Christophe Menant, who wrote:
>
> Edwina, FISers,
> When reading the above post, I'm not sure to get clearly what is
> meant about problem related to confusing 'sign' and 'information'.
> My understanding of the Peircean triadic approach (Object, Sign,
> Interpretant) is that information is in the domain of the Sign,
> and meaning (meaningful information) is in the domain of the
> Interpretant. So meaning comes to reality after the action of
> interpretation. Prior the interpretantation, there is only
> information (meaningless information) which is the domain
> of the Sign.
> And we can consider information a being part of the sign/signal.
> Ex: digital information as combination of zeros and ones in
> a computer is the component of an electrical signal (amplitude
> modulation of electrical signal by high and low values). The
> interpretation of this signal/sign takes place when we read
> on the computer screen the words that were coded in
> zeros/ones. We attribute meaning to these words.
> So I fell that confusing sign and information has rather
> limted consequences. But on the other hand, not
> discriminating correctly information from meaning can
> be real detrimental to the correct positioning of
> information. Looks to me as puting in a same domain
> the Sign and the Interpretant. (see my May 21 post on
> Info & Physics).
> Regards
> Christophe Menant
>

No, your understanding of the Peircean triadic process is not correct.
The triadic process is not a serial, cumulative action, but a kind of
moebius strip interlinked action. So, one can't say that the
energy/matter in an existential phase which is called The Immediate
Object is completely lacking in information because that phase
doesn't exist in an isolate form. Yes, in itself, we can say that the
phase is pure sensate data and without meaning ...which is to say, it
does not exist as 'informed matter'....but the phase doesn't exist by
itself.

Notice also what you have said...which shows how unclear the term of
'information' is. You state that "information is in the domain of the
Sign, and meaning (meaningful information) is in the domain of the
Interpertation.... Prior to the interpretation, there is only
information (meaningless information) which is the domain of the Sign.
 I think that the multiple uses of 'information' are unclear in the
above quote. Furthermore, I don't see how one can have 'meaningless
information'.

Why do you say that 'information is in the domain of the Sign'? The
Sign is the Representamen, and is the whole set of relations of the
whole semiosic process. It operates as a communal code...and I would
define its content as 'knowledge' rather than information. It is most
certainly not 'meaningless'.

My use of the term 'information' is not that of Shannon. That is, when
I use the term 'information', I consider that it has meaning. What is
matter that has not yet been interpreted? It is data, signal. In
Peirce's terms, it would be the Dynamic Object and the Immediate
Object. The former is external to your system; the latter has been
internally accepted by your system but can dissipate rapidly unless it
is 'understood' and transformed into information (Interpretant).
Received on Sun May 26 00:50:25 2002