<html>
<body>
I would agree with this. I also agree with Bob. And of course I agree
with Stan. However I do think that the technical problems are rather more
than Stan estimates. More on this later. I don't feel so good right
now.<br><br>
John<br><br>
At 12:45 AM 2014-10-24, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Bob et al., <br><br>
I take semiotics as the science of meaning, which I separate from the
science of information (information theory?). Along the line of
your argument, meaningfulness would be exclusive to dynamical systems
where agency, purpose, and self-interest have emerged. When such a
system encounters a bit of physical information it might or might not
apprehend the bit. It can only apprehend the bit if something about
the system's dynamics is changed as a result of the encounter. It
would only be meaningful to that system if it is “a difference that makes
a difference”. In other words, if the change in the system’s
dynamics affects system function in some way, then that bit of
information was meaningful to that system. The example of the
gravitational pull of the sun on the earth can<br>
be considered in this framework. The first think I would say
is that there are plenty of systems in and on the earth, but the planet
itself does not necessarily constitute a system. A big rock
floating in space does not imply an internal system that could apprehend
or change dynamically in response to gravitational pull. On the
other hand, dynamical geological processes within the earth,
biological/ecological systems on the earth, or weather systems in the
atmosphere might qualify; and these system could potentially apprehend
and respond meaningfully to the sun’s gravitational pull. On the
other hand, the information encountered as a result of exposure to the
gravitational pull might be entirely transparent to (not detectable by)
some of these systems. At least this is how I think about this
interesting issue.<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
Guy<br><br>
Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor<br>
Department of Biology<br>
University of Nevada Reno<br><br>
Phone: 775-784-4860<br>
Fax: 775-784-1302<br>
<a href="mailto:hoelzer@unr.edu">hoelzer@unr.edu</a> <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Oct 23, 2014, at 7:13 AM, Bob
Logan
<<a href="mailto:logan@physics.utoronto.ca">
logan@physics.utoronto.ca</a>> wrote:<br><br>
Dear Stan - could you clarify that last sentence of your = perhaps I
misinterpreted it - are you saying that context in a purely physical
abiotic situation is somehow related to interpretation and hence
information. I apologize in advance if I mis-interpreted your remarks.
<br><br>
In framing my advanced apology to you Stan, I inadvertently used the term
mis-interpreted. This sparked the following idea: Mis-information is due
to misinterpretation of the receiver whereas dis-informatio is due to the
intended deception of the sender. <br><br>
A further thought about whether abiotic physical processes can be
construed as information: Meaning and hence information can only
exist for a system that has a purpose, a telos, or an end it wishes to
achieve, i.e abiotc system such as a living organism or even a
cell. "So-called information" with out meaning is
only signals. And even there, to say that the sun's gravitational pull on
the earth is a signal is to engage in anthropomorphic thinking. And to
suggest that the sun's gravitational pull on the earth is information
does not make sense because there is no way that anything can have
meaning for the earth. The earth has no objective or purpose, Gaia
hypothesis not withstanding, For us earthlings it is another matter. We
have figured out that the sun exerts a gravitational pull on the earth
and the statement to that effect has meaning for those able to grasp
elementary physics but the gravitational pull is not information in
itself only a description of that gravitational pull of the sun on the
earth is information. <br><br>
Bob<br><br>
______________________ <br><br>
Robert K. Logan<br>
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto <br>
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD <br>
<a href="http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan">
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan</a> <br>
<a href="http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan" eudora="autourl">
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan</a><br>
<a href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications">
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications</a><br><br>
On 2014-10-23, at 9:27 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Pedro wrote: <br><br>
PM: Regarding the theme of physical information raised by Igor and
Joseph, the main problematic aspect of information (meaning) is missing
there. One can imagine that as two physical systems interact, each one
may be metaphorically attributed with meaning respect the changes
experimented. But it is an empty attribution that does not bring any
further interesting aspect.<br><br>
SS: I have advanced ( On the origin of semiosis. <i> Cybernetics
and Human Knowing</i> 19 (3): 53-66. 2012 ) the idea that whenever
context influences importantly any reaction which, even in the physical
realm, might be viewed as an informational exchange, there is the
forerunner of the interpretation of an interaction, Such a simple
'interpretation' (proto-interpretation) would then be the forerunner of
meaning generation. When context importantly influences the outcome
of a physical interaction, this brings a "further interesting
aspect" beyond the purely physical.<br><br>
STAN <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" eudora="autourl">
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a></blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" eudora="autourl">
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a></blockquote><br>
</blockquote></body>
<br>
<body>
<hr>
John
Collier
collierj@ukzn.ac.za<br>
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa<br>
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F:
+27 (31) 260 3031<br>
<a href="http://web.ncf.ca/collier" eudora="autourl">
Http://web.ncf.ca/collier<br>
</a></body>
</html>