[Fis] How Molecules Became Signs

[Marcus Abundis]

>
> Hi Terry – nice to see your work discussed here! Thanks for taking the
> time to lead these exchanges. I am now re-reading your paper so I will
> likely have more questions, but for now I raise two issues:
>
>
> #1 In reading your material over the years I am never sure if you
> believe/assert information *always* requires an interpreter. You seem to
> take different positions at different times, which feels inconsistent to
> me. This same issue often arises in FIS posts as  (paraphrasing):
> 'Information ONLY occurs in the presence of Life', versus 'Information
> exists independent of Life (or interpreters)'.
>
>
> This is also shown with a mechanical example where:
>
>    1. there is an innate about-ness in how a machine nut turns about a
>    threaded bolt. Or, even more reductively, there is an aboutness innate to
>    the machine threads (incline plane re simple machines).
>    2. alternatively, one could say information arises ONLY in a nut
>    TURNING about a bolt – where the 'who' or 'what' is causing the nut to turn
>    is informatic.
>
> Many lower order mechanical examples are possible here (atoms, elementary
> particles). I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter this core
> difference.
>
>
> #2 Has to do with your original post:
>
> > three distinct and nested senses: a physical-statistical sense, a
> relational-referential sense, and a pragmatic-functional sense.<
>
> in framing a
>
> >a simple-as-possible model system,<
>
> If you introduced these as THREE DISPARATE parts that remain unreconciled,
> I would agree. But your phrasing here as a unified 'truism' seems odd,
> especially as I already know you know of related problems. Is there perhaps
> some reference you can point me to that speaks to this 'truism'?
>
>
> Moreover, I have in mind a note I saw from you on FIS (from 2005?) where
> you mention 'normative, referential, and [direct]' as three similarly
> distinct nested information roles. [DIRECT is my word, I do not recall your
> exact word]. I find this framing more accurate and useful. The last two
> noted roles obviously tie to the last 2 of 3 above. That said, I have never
> seen you truly develop this 'more useful' view, which I mentioned to you in
> the past. I still wonder why you have not done so as it seems important
> (and it ties to my own view).
>
>
> Lastly, as a point of clarification, your 'icon, index, and symbol'
> framing of things is wholly referential, is it not? This would make them
> nested, within a prior (referential) nest, no?
>
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220222/44cfe7f5/attachment.html>