[Fis] How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out

[Christophe Menant]

Thanks Joseph for your position.

If I understand you well:
1) There is information and meaning in our world (I&M).
2) There is no information nor meaning in an a-biotic/inert world.
3) In that a-biotic/inert world there is only “potential for information as meaning”.
4) Information is defined in the process of its emergence from some energetic ground.

In addition, I feel we can say that:
a) I&M can be defined (https://philpapers.org/rec/MENITA-7).
b) Having from Terry his definitions for I&M would allow a better understanding of the “potential for information as meaning” and of the “process of emergence”.
This is about the well known reverse engineering activity where the outcome of a process is available, and when we look for some understanding about the process itself. The more we know about the outcome of the process, the more we can pretend understanding the process.
Here we need to clearly know the outcome of the process. We need definitions for I&M by Terry. Their availability is needed to look at understanding the “potential for information as meaning” and the “process of emergence”.

All the best
Christophe

________________________________
De : joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
Envoyé : dimanche 13 mars 2022 11:51
À : christophe.menant at hotmail.fr <christophe.menant at hotmail.fr>
Cc : fis at listas.unizar.es <fis at listas.unizar.es>; deacon at berkeley.edu <deacon at berkeley.edu>
Objet : Re: [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

There is one way out of the dilemma which has not been directly refuted. When Christophe and others ask if can we talk of information in an a-biotic or pre-biotic world, if information means something actual, present, the answer is no. If one asks instead did the potential for  information as meaning exist, the answer for me is yes.

An additional statement must be added, otherwise the above is no more than a trivial tautology. It is that information is defined in the process of its emergence from some energetic ground. Since no process, nothing in process is complete, complete and incomplete parts of the process are present simultaneously and dynamically. The locus of this "nascent" information is the detailed physico-chemical structure of the living entities involved and their non-living constituents. These or parts of them move from actual to potential and vice versa and this movement is what ultimately defines their meaning.

One reading of the above is that I have given a new interpretation of the nature of a sign. I would gladly accept this, provided it can be subsequently decided whether or not the concept of sign adds further information. It may not.

Thank you and best wishes,
Joseph



----Message d'origine----
De : christophe.menant at hotmail.fr
Date : 13/03/2022 - 00:02 (CEST)
À : deacon at berkeley.edu, fis at listas.unizar.es
Objet : [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs

Dear Friends,
that war is a horrible drama for innocent civilians. And I agree with your comments.
Our FIS discussions cannot bring much help to that human drama, but our tentative analysis of what is “information” may somehow lead to a better understanding of human motivations guide behaviors.
Let me add another comment to Terry’s work.

Dear Terry,
In addition to my Feb 23 post I would appreciate some information on parts of your paper I may not have understood that well.
Regarding the concept of information, you consider that information in a pragmatic-functional sense can be understood in terms of molecular evolution.
This brings to consider that “information” is present in an a-biotic or pre-biotic world (a purely molecular world). Such pre-biotic world has existed before the emergence of life in our universe. But can we talk of information and meaning, of signs, in such a world? How should they be understood in a purely material world devoid of living entities?
As said,  it would be nice if you could clarify these points by making available definitions for information, meaning and sign in such an a-biotic world. This would allow a better understanding of your starting point.
Also, I do not see that well using the Peircean term of “Interpretant” for an inert world. We know that the Interpretant (the meaning) needs an Interpreter (the meaning generator). So introducing Interpretants in your paper also brings to introduce Interpreters in an inert world. Your sentence “In Peircean terms, this amounts to asking what sort of molecular system is competent to produce the Interpretants” is equivalent to: “what sort of molecular system is competent to generate meanings”. I’m not sure that meaning generation by a molecular system in a purely material and inert world can be clearly understood by today science or philosophy. And I do not remember Peirce theory of sign being about inert matter. Could you tel us more about your position on these subject?
Thanks again for your time
Christophe


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220313/72660ae6/attachment.html>