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

[Stanley N Salthe]

Dear All,

Stan’s message brings home, if need be, the utility of the hierarchical
approach in a specific instance. I agree with his reordering. Moreover, it
suggests that any discussion of complex problems such as those of
information requires more than one perspective. I suggest that in the
future we might try to apply to information the three approaches jointly
and explicitly:

-          Hierarchies

-          Systems

-          Processes

There is a gradation here between emphasis on ontological *vs. *epistemological
aspects. My concept of a logic of energy is applicable primarily to
processes, rather than hierarchies or systems *per se*, but it can also
capture a sense of the movement, more or less complete, from one domain to
another.

     S: Processes will themselves be hierarchical. Thus, for example, a
mousetrap will have been activated by larger than it human hands. When a
mouse blunders into it, forces of larger scale than its own will come
crashing down on it. This results in internal damage of smaller scale than
the mouse as a whole so that its life activities will be interrupted
fatally.

.As a test, recursive case, what might the above mean in relation to the
original subject of this thread, “How Molecules Became Signs”? My
conclusion is that we are examining here a hierarchical, epistemic concept.
The title itself begs several ontological questions, such as how to deal
with the realities which are the basis of the “signs”.

For me, molecules become other molecules, with new and different
structures, potential energies, and available reaction paths. Their
designation as signs is possible in some hierarchical. epistemic framework,
but I do not consider it necessary since a real process (*e.g.* a
biochemical reaction) has its own meaning-for-us as part of knowledge.

      S: “Becoming other molecules” itself involves hierarchical
arrangement of its environment.


I am not arguing that even the above approach is the only one possible or
necessary, only that it might be taken into account for progress in the
information field.

      S: And the information field, and any activities contributing to it,
exist at different scales.

STAN

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 6:34 AM joe.brenner en bluewin.ch <
joe.brenner en bluewin.ch> wrote:

> 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/20220319/6220caee/attachment-0001.html>