Re: [Fis] meaning of meaning

Dear Luksha

This is a very (classical mechanistic) scientific approach that ignores
the basic problems of meaning and makes into a sort of "technical"
problem that will be solved as "science progresses". My claim is that it
is not possible without contemplating the concept of meaning, life and
mind in the foundation of "science" and thus transcend the frames of
traditional mechanistic science, yes even complexity science based on
systemic ideas of emergence.

????? ????? ???????? wrote:
>
> Dear Soeren,
> sorry for coming back to old postings, as I was not able to answer them in a good time.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Soren Brier [mailto:sbr.lpf@cbs.dk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 18:29
> > To: Ëóêøà Ïàâåë Îëåãîâè÷
> > Cc: fis-listas.unizar.es
> > Subject: Re: [Fis] Information, autopoiesis, life and
> > semiosis (Part I)
> > We still have not discussed what the impact is for a science of
> > information of having to accept level theory. In my opinion
> > it destroys
> > the idea of information science and forces us into a much bigger
> > project.
>
> PL:
> I disagree that it does. The scope of FIS project is to forge sounding foundations of information science;
> this implies that, probably, we should start with simpler cases: information in biochemical reactions, technical devices, elementary behavior acts etc.
> Meaning, as it seems, emerges with psychic life; and there still little understanding in psychology / psychiatry (correct me if I am wrong) how psychic processes and their neurophysiological substrate are interrelated. Scientificly strict theory of meaning can hardly be developed before these issues are resolved.
>
> However, this should not be an insurmountable obstacle; thermodynamics has realized a succesful research program despite the prevailing number of phenomena that, at first impression, violate its basic assumptions (open systems in far-from-equilibrium state).
> What should be sought is - invariant properties of information systems. Shannon's theory has been successful in introducing first formalizations when he analyzed an "elementary communication act"; what he has excluded was "operation cycle", or the "life cycle". Operation cycle may only be important when autonomous, and evolving, systems are considered - systems that maintain and reproduce themselves (the major class of such systems is those autopoetic).
> What are the invariant, and formalizable, properties of such systems?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Soren Brier [mailto:sbr.lpf@cbs.dk]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 19:19
> > To: Ëóêøà Ïàâåë Îëåãîâè÷
> > Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
> > Subject: Re: [Fis] meaning of meaning
> > Dear Pavel
> > I doubt that we can formalize meaning. Meaning may be the horizon for
> > science. It is a human social concept involving linguistic, embodied,
> > self-concious beings with emotions, will and qualia. We then
> > ascribe a
> > more reduced version of the to all sentient beings. From a biosemiotic
> > point of view I have then attempted to say that the
> > individuality of the
> > system is a crucial foundation for interpretation; bee it the single
> > individual or the single species with its gene pool. Interpretation is
> > not only on the basis of survival value. It is also in the light of
> > procreation, which could be seen as the survival of the
> > species. But as
> > animals are sentient beings they also chooses in the light of
> > "The good
> > life", which as a deeper and broader existential meaning, but can lead
> > to early death. We and the all other living beings do not only live to
> > survive, we also live to experience and enjoy life. For human at least
> > meaning seems to be a great pleasure!
> >
> PL:
> I may be too straight to ask - what is the scope of discussion then?
> Either the concept of meaning is formalized (which most likely will not consider all nuances), this way or the other (Steven, Viktoras and some other colleagues have suggested their interpretation), or the discussion may end up as speculation about the subject too vague.
> As for examples that you have suggested, I do not see a contradiction. Meaningful, or evolutionary adaptive, behavior of an animal is driven by the "need" of survival. But there is no internalized "need of survival" - it has been embodied into mechanisms of pleasure and displeasure, satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Sometimes, and quite frequently, this mechanism may malfunction, e.g. the chemistry of animal or human body may be such that potentially dangerous substances impact neural network in the way that pleasure is perceived (drugs, alchogol, etc.) Again, the meaning, and corresponding behavior, arises on one level of a system, but is driven by another level of a system - and again, this is the issue of psychic life and its neurophysiological foundation.

-- 
Venlig hilsen/Best wishes Søren Brier
Handelshøjskolen København/Copenhagen Business School
Inst. For Ledelse, Politik og Filosofi/Dept. of Management, Politics and
Philosophy, Blågårdsgade/Blaagaardsgade 23 B, 3. floor, room 326,
DK-2200 Copenhagen N.
Telephone +45 38152208, mail sbr.lpf@cbs.dk .
Old home page with full text papers:
http://www.flec.kvl.dk/personalprofile.asp?id=sbr&p=engelsk
Ed. of Cybernetics & Human Knowing http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK  
Subscriptions sandra@imprint.co.uk,
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis