Dear Pedro and colleagues,
Although I agree with Pedros conclusion, I dont agree with the reasoning which focuses on the meanings of information for individual minds. Information, in my opinion, is communicated whenever exchange processes occur. At this level of generality, we can work with a formal (or mathematical) theory of communication such as Shannons theory. As soon as one asks for the substantive meaning of information, the system of reference is to be specified. For example, when molecules are communicated in the Maturana-type autopoiesis of life, then the change in the probability distributions of these molecules can be appreciated both within this (biological!) system as information and in the reflexive theorizing about this system. The latter is a social system or a discourse; individual minds have reflexive windows on these discourses and can thus handle more types of information, but one may be easily become confused if the systems of reference are not clearly specified. For example, the communication of molecules is very different from the communication of money in economic transactions. For example, the dynamics can be different. In the study of both one can use mathematical tools like information theory. The mathematical models may enable us to specify the differences and similarities heuristically. However, the reflexive theories about the communication of molecules and the communication of money are spanned along different (nearly orthogonal) axes. One can perhaps, envisage the mathematical theory of communication as a hyper-cycle that enables us to span over the divides. At the individual level one may feel a need of integration. In terms of the theoretical discourses differentiation can be expected to prevail because one gains theoretically by understanding the differences. The need for a general theory of information can therefore be understood psychologically, but this is itself a special subject of possible theorizing. J The inference to a general theory is not warranted by this (empirical) philosophy of science. Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Fis] [Re: [Different GTI] Dear Igor, Joseph, Krassimir, QTQ... and All, It is my contention that the most universal form of information is unattainable. Whatever the notion chosen, it is always feeding back and forwards with the subject him/herself and the conceptions or frame of thought which are momentarily held by the subject. Given that our brains are configured into open-ended forms of "openness", there must be a "discipline" maintained throughout a series of conventions, principles, and standards, so that our concepts, percepts, and actions may collectively establish a sort of "unison". This is what we rigorously do in sciences, and of course, in very different ways, for languaging, economic activities, social relationships, etc. Following those conventions is like respiring, absolutely automatic and unconscious. The above does not mean that "information science" or "information theory" become empty or questionable purposes. Just the opposite. I think that Igor has made a good job putting together important aspects within the field of "information physics", though the consistency of the whole info views can be put into question --as Joseph has cogently dissected. Mark and Krassimir have worked hard of information theory, and that means counting with a substantial metrics regarding the diversity/heterogeneity of established information configurations. QTQ has also added views with novelty... But a new framework (way of thinking) is needed where we somehow de-anthropogenize the field, getting it partially free of the above circularity: "because I am philososphically or disciplinarily configured that way, info is this and that for me". My usual argument in this list has been that a few "informational entities" have to be taken as model systems, and then a comparative study undertaken. Now what I would ad is that a previous new "theory of mind" has to be advanced, a little bit at least. Let me include a couple of paragraphs from the work I am presenting in next fis session at Varna: It is of particular interest in the human case that the combined system formed by the frontal and prefrontal areas with their massive increase in connectivity are breaking the brains reliance on modular specialized subsystems and maximally expanding the combinatory possibilities. Following Dehaene (2009), a neuronal workspace emerges whose main function is to assemble, confront, recombine, and synthesize knowledge. This system is further endowed with a fringe of spontaneous fluctuation that allows for the testing of new ideas, related to both the emergence of reflexive consciousness and the human competence for cultural invention. Although conscious brain activity fluctuates stochastically it does not wander at random. Selection mechanisms stabilize the combinations of ideas that are most interesting, useful or just contagious: privileged neuronal projections coming from the evaluation and reward circuits of orbitofrontal and cingulate cortex as well as the subcortical nuclei of amygdala and the basal ganglia are participating in this process. Therefore, in the extent to which those premises are correct, a compact approach to knowledge automation and recombination by the central nervous system seems achievable, and further, a new Theory of Mind could be contemplated. It will be close to current attempts on formulating a motor-centered epistemology, which has been deemed by relevant neuroscientists as one the best foundations for explaining our "automated cognition". See different expostulations about the organization of action and advanced cognition (Allman, 1999; Berthoz, 2000; Edelman & Tononi 2000; Arbib, 2001; Fuster, 2003; Changeux, 2004; Buzsáki, 2006; Dehaene, 2009; Nunez, 2010). The proverbial benevolence of FISers is taken for granted! all the best ---Pedro ------------------------------------------------- Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554 [email protected] http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ -------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
