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

Thu Mar 17 11:57:32 CET 2022

Yes, this is absolutely correct
*Meaningful information is reality in potential form*

*Congratulations! *


joe.brenner en bluewin.ch <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch> schrieb am Do., 17. März
2022, 11:34:

> 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 en hotmail.fr>
> *Envoyé :* dimanche 13 mars 2022 18:26
> *À :* joe.brenner en bluewin.ch <joe.brenner en 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 en bluewin.ch <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
> *Envoyé :* dimanche 13 mars 2022 15:12
> *À :* christophe.menant en hotmail.fr <christophe.menant en 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 en hotmail.fr
> Date : 13/03/2022 - 14:46 (CEST)
> À : joe.brenner en bluewin.ch
> Cc : fis en listas.unizar.es, deacon en 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
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Frec%2FMENITA-7&data=04%7C01%7C%7C51d6eef991104b4f37b108da04fb8e0e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637827775706215913%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=e2LmaRbblxmlDLTa90ByDnVicS4oek6hA%2Bjm4g4qb8c%3D&reserved=0>
> ).
> 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 en bluewin.ch <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
> *Envoyé :* dimanche 13 mars 2022 11:51
> *À :* christophe.menant en hotmail.fr <christophe.menant en hotmail.fr>
> *Cc :* fis en listas.unizar.es <fis en listas.unizar.es>; deacon en berkeley.edu <
> deacon en 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 en hotmail.fr
> Date : 13/03/2022 - 00:02 (CEST)
> À : deacon en berkeley.edu, fis en 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220317/9572583c/attachment-0001.html>