Re: [Fis] A definition of Information (II)

Dear Pedro,
Thanks for your comments. Let me try to answer them.
> --- when the term 'constraints' is addressed to
> organismic cells, shouldn't such constraints be understood as 'covenants'
> resulting from convergent workings of cell populations?
Yes, I would agree. In the case of organismic cells, the summ
of constraints can be looked as 'covenants'. The Meaning Generator
System (MGS) approach being systemic, it is to cover as many cases
cases as possible (a system being an ensemble of elements linked by an
ensemble of relations). Consequently, the 'constraint' (part of the MGS)
is to be taken as a generic wording that needs to be defined as precisely
as possible for each practical system considered. When the system is
made of a cell population existing as an ensemble, one could look to the
cells synergy as the global constraint to be satisfied in order for the
ensemble to keep on being.
> Also, a global
> constraint of the type 'being alive' appears as a symbolic open-ended
> statement both from the side of the environmental occurrences and from the
> response actions of the system, and seemingly it has to be introduced from
> the outside of the model by an interpretant---then the whole approach
> becomes non-autonomous in an important sense.)
Regarding the 'staying alive' constraint, it is indeed a global/generic
constraint that can appear as symbolic. But it is the dominant constraint
for a simple living element (case of the paramecium facing a hostile
environment, choosen as example to clearly define the MGS, far enough
from complex cases like Human where constraints are too difficult to
understand). Obviously, more complex organisms will also be submitted
to additionnal constraints, and some may look more important depending
upon the level of observation choosen. For a thirsty dog, a presence of
water will generate a meaningfull information relatively to the constraint
of his homeoastatic equilibrun to be maintained.
When climbing the ladder of evolution up to mankind, the constraints
become so complex that we are not currently in a position to understand
nor combine them all (survive, homeostatic equilibrum, principle of
pleasure/reality, satisfy the Id/Ego/Superego, impulse of life/death, any
characteristic of human .....).
But basically, the MGS is a building block. In a given system, several
MGSs can exist and interact together or with other functions (perception,
representation, memory, simulation, optimisation, action,...).
Regarding the origins of the constraints, they are related to the natures
of the systems. So they can come from outside in the case of learning
experience or interacting systems, which are indeed not autonomous
(acquired constraints from group life, education, ..). Also, different
MGSs can interact together (ex: the transmission of a meaningful
information betwen different systems (
http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf. )
Comming back to Human, I may have told already about a try to
identify and define some generic constraints. First step has been
presented at Biosemiotics 3 last summer where 'anxiety limitation'
was proposed as a basic constraint for Human
(http://crmenant.free.fr/Biosemiotics3/INDEX.HTM ).
Next step is to rationalize this 'anxiety' component of Human in
some approach to phylogenesis of mind (planned poster presentation at
"Toward a Science of Consciousness 2004"
https://bandura.sbs.arizona.edu/login/consciousness/report_web_detail.aspx?
abs=262 ).
Foundations of Information Science and Philosophy of Mind are pretty close...
Best wishes
Christophe

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sat Feb 28 22:51:49 2004