I am sorry but you certainly require me to read a lot between the lines! Your note is not clear at all!
***When I catch a baseball, I am not shifting the assignment of meanings. I am predicting the behavior of the ball.***
I am guessing here that you are referring to my use of the word learning. I am making the presumption that you are viewing "learning to catch the baseball" as an example of learning and that you are incapable of viewing that particular phenomena as a shift in assignment of meanings. Consider, if you can, the idea that learning to catch the baseball is intimately connected to understanding that one visual image is apt to be a precursor to being hit in the face with a base ball while a slightly different image (your glove moved slightly) is more apt to lead to the state defined as "catching the ball". From this perspective, learning to catch the baseball can be seen as a shift in meaning of information.
*** But it also involves a relationship of the definitions that is mathematical. I do not see the relationship as just another definition. ***
I am not bothered by the fact that you do not see it so, but I think the idea that you cannot see it so is quite disappointing. I would also like to point out the "IF" at the beginning of my sentence.
In the final analysis, is it your intention to stand behind the position that it is unreasonable to consider the issue of what constraints those assignments must obey in order to provide an acceptable assignment of meaning? Your comments need clarification.
Have fun -- Dick