[Fis] Fwd: TR: RE: How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out.

Thu Mar 17 11:34:11 CET 2022

Dear Christophe and All,
In his note, reproduced below, Christophe provides an interim answer to my first response to his of the same day (March 13). In looking at the relation between Information and Meaning, he looked forward (as I certainly do) to further input by Terry regarding the potential of information as meaning and the process of emergence. (One should perhaps better write information_as_meaning.) In the meantime, I offer my own interpretation from my recent (2020) book with Andrei Igamberdiev:
"I
summarized the concept developed in LIR (Logic in Reality) in the following points:

1.      Information
generation and transfer occur in nature as a natural process that is
constituted by and requires energy.
2.      Information
is present throughout nature, but its conversion to meaning requires organisms
capable of recursive processing of it.
3.      Meaning
is constituted by all the information valuable to a living organism for its
survival, reproduction and well-being.
4.      Information
processes follow principles applicable to energy and energetic processes in
general  

Many authors have noted the complexity of information
and the difficulty of giving a ‘single, clear’ definition of it. Attempts to do
so are typical of standard substance ontologies, where firm definitions –
identities - are automatically given preference. The failure of such attempts
suggests that a major categorial error is being made. I therefore made the
following lapidary statement:

Meaningful information is reality in potential form.

It is
derived from the Lupasco/LIR conception of consciousness which basically looks at the real dialectical interactions in and between
internal and external, and internalizing and externalizing processes as they
move between potentiality and actuality.
I suggest that the above can be placed in relation to Christophe's Systemic Theory of Meaning, most recently of March 2020, (his reference MENITA-7 below), which constitutes the primarily epistemological part of a more complete theory embodying my ontological ideas as well.
These fit well, at least in my view, with Christophe's treatment of anxiety in which potential states are critical, also for emergence.
Thank you and best wishes,
Joseph
De : Christophe Menant <christophe.menant at hotmail.fr>
Envoyé : dimanche 13 mars 2022 18:26
À : joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
Objet : RE: RE: [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out. OFF-LINE for one point

Joseph, 

We can agree that a process transforms an input into an output.
 Reverse engineering, as I know it,  is a tool to improve processes. We know what we want at the output. We look at how the process builds it in order to see if it is the best way to do so (other ways may exist and be better).  
 The output is then the starting point. It needs to be clearly defined and understood to address possible improvements of the process that builds it.
 Our case is about an evolutionary process that transforms meaningless states present in a-biotic matter into meaningful states present in living matter. We need there a precise definition of what is expected as output of the process (meaningful information) in order to look at how the evolutionary process may have produced it. 
   Best

 Christophe

  De : joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
Envoyé : dimanche 13 mars 2022 15:12
À : christophe.menant at hotmail.fr <christophe.menant at hotmail.fr>
Objet : Re: RE: [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out. OFF-LINE for one point

  Before giving a full response to your very promising note, please let me ask you one question about reverse engineering: is it really necessary to know the outcome of the process, which may be difficult or impossible? If Information IS Meaning, then the relative weight of actual and potential defines the probability of an outcome, not the outcome itself. Qu'est-ce que tu en dit?

   Best,

   Joseph

    ----Message d'origine----

 De : christophe.menant at hotmail.fr

 Date : 13/03/2022 - 14:46 (CEST)

 À : joe.brenner at bluewin.ch

 Cc : fis at listas.unizar.es, deacon at berkeley.edu

 Objet : RE: [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out

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

P {
	margin-top: 0;
	margin-bottom: 0;
}
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220317/e113a4c7/attachment-0001.html>