> >[1] Could we possibly start up a discussion here on Hofstadter's definition
> >of meaning -- namely that meaning emerges because of an isomorphism? Is
> >this concept related to David's meaning=effect (which itself illustrates
> >the meaning of "meaning" with an isomorphism)?
>
> *****
> i-so-mor-phism n.
> 1. Biology. Similarity in form, as in organisms of different ancestry.
> 2. Mathematics. A one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two
> sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set
> corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in
> the other set.
> 3. A close similarity in the crystalline structure of two or more
> substances of similar chemical composition.
An isomorphism is that which is noticed by a metaphor or analogy:
a similarity of structure between something and something else. The
meme-gene and the meme-virus analogies are two familiar (here)
examples.
>
> I'll admit I had to look up isomorphism- I ain't a mathematician, nor a
> biologist, nor a chemist, or even, Random Quanta forbid, a crystal-rubber.
>
> So H. sees meaning arising because two similar things are compared? Is
> this not simple metaphorical description, and as such an elementary
> statement about the function of language?
> Or is he going for the _third_ level of information produced by this
> comparison- the symbols which can begin to stand for all things likely to
> be this way? and is that not simple pattern finding? Even, gasp,
> statistical reduction?
>
> I'll admit I have not read Hofstadter, so please excuse this, but so far,
> with what I have seen of the simple 'meaning emerges because of an
> isomorphism' I see only jargon and obviousness if applied in other
> directions.