Dear Pedro, 

The framework you present is interesting and deserves some comments.

You write: “Without
entering self-production of the living there can be no sense, no meaning”. I
agree. You positions meaning generation with the coming up of life in evolution,
assuming there is no meaning generation in the world of inert matter. But what
is life? The best definition I know: “the sum of the functions by which death
is resisted” [Bichat]. So life is organized around maintaining its nature, 
satisfying a “stay alive” constraint (not that circular if you position the
constraint as local vs ubiquist laws). But we should keep in mind that the 
of life is a mystery for today science and philosophy.

Then come humans: “But, little problem, how can the gap to the human dimension
be crossed?" Humans are indeed living entities, but with self-consciousness
and free-will in addition. And these performances also are mysteries for today
science & philosophy. Also comes in language ” amorphously structured around 
the advancement of one's life”. And,  key point: ”most of our social exchanges 
supradetermined by status, self-image, ambitions, affinity, collective 
deception, self-deception, attraction, etc. Rather than noise, it is life

The only point I would disagree with you is the last part of the sentence, as 
human behavior
is much more than life itself. The constraints that humans have to satisfy 
some specificities like valorize ego and limit anxiety. The field of human 
constraints is not that well understood. Probably because it is closely linked 
to these mysterious
human specificities. 
So we are looking at a difficult subject: understand information
flow within entities that we do not understand. 
The former can indeed feed the
latter but I feel that an evolutionary thread should be explicitly considered in
order to make available a background that we understand. 

(More on this in ).



Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 20:52:58 +0000
Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow

Dear FIS colleagues,

Many thanks for the comments exchanged. 

Welcome to Roly, the first party of the Xian's conference publishing in the 
list (I mean concerning the invited speakers, as Bi-Lin who also posted 
recently was a Xian participant too). I agree with Roli's interpretation and 
Joseph's points, and also with the
 direction started by John. It is one of the few times we are producing 
interesting ideas on social information infrastructures. Perhaps at the time 
being the "received wisdom" on communication & social information is not 
working terribly well.  For instance,
 Jakobson six communication functions could be perfectly collapsed into three, 
or expanded into nine... I have found a similar "relativity" in the not so many 
approaches to cellular / biological communication.

One of the essential points to reconsider is, in my opinion, the lack of 
connection between communication and life itself. Without entering 
self-production of the living there can be no sense, no meaning. The notion of 
information flow (rather than the "signal")
 has helped me to cohere the cellular intertwining scheme. But, little problem, 
how can the gap to the human dimension be crossed? Essentially human 
communication is not logical, but bio-logical... amorphously structured around 
the advancement of one's life,
 and that includes masterminding well organized motor apparatuses, as those 
involved in language production and language interpretation ("cerebellar 
computation"). Logics is a byproduct of this motor/perceptual system underlying 
our concepts and the interlinking
 of our exchnges, which becomes mastermined by the fitness demands within 
social groups --responding to Bi-Lin's off line comments too. Actually most of 
our social exchanges are supradetermined by status, self-image, ambitions, 
affinity, collective identities,
 deception, self-deception, attraction, etc. Rather than noise, it is life 

Haven't we a lot of work to be done in these essential matters?

best ---Pedro

De: Joseph Brenner []

Enviado el: jueves, 21 de noviembre de 2013 20:22



Asunto: Re: [Fis] social flow

Dear Roly, Dear Pedro,
Thank you for taking this thread in a for me very interesting direction. As you 
know, interesting means what I find my logical system can confirm, improve, 
validate, etc. The two notes share one feature that one might criticize, namely,
 that they deal essentially with present, conscious material, whereas 
"information flow" almost  by defintion seems to involve components that are 
absent, potential, unconscious, etc.
Similarly, the application of the Square of Opposition in Roly's reference 
would at first sight appear to be explanatory, but on closer inspection, I find 
everything reduced back to binary logic, arrows in a box. What has to
 be added, pace Jakobson, is some notion of the actual dynamics of what Roly 
calls "a mutual relateable framework". And let's not be too greedy: let's get 
the pairwise interactions right and then see where we can go with more complex 

----- Original Message ----- 
Roly Belfer 
Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow

Dear Pedro

Thank you! there is some sort of synchronicity here: I was just recently 
thinking about Roman Jakobson and his 6 levels of semiotic analysis. Especially 
phatic expression, as some kind of white noise that is necessary for the 
interpersonal informational "handshake". That is, an infosphere - be it organic 
or more like artificial info networks - would need to have actants operate in a 
mutually relateable
 framework (even if it is only pairwise).

The meaningless/senseless datum is important for establishing the lines of 
communication, and perhaps some emergent properties (such as intimacy, 
grouping, pre-communicative  acceptance). 
Do you know of any quantified work re Jakobson? (I keep 
this around for different purposes) 


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
<> wrote:

Dear FIS colleagues,

Just a wandering thought, in part motivated by the highly formal

contents of the other discussion track. What are the major contents,

topics, and styles in our social, spontaneous exchanges? Seemingly the

response is that most of those exchanges are just casual, irrelevant,

performed for their own sake. There are scholarly references about

that---though our own perusal of social life may quite agree. The

information flow, the circulation of social information, becomes the

message itself (echoing McLuhan), amorphously gluing the different

networks of the social structure... Flowing naturally in spontaneous

exchanges and also fabricated and recirculated by the media. Our

talkative species needs the daily dose --otherwise mental health resents

quite easily.

I am these days reading Robert Trivers (2011) on self-deception and how

the info flow we are conscious of becomes a highly self-centered

concoction for for our own social self-promotion. I think it partially

dovetails with the above: "we are the content."

best ---Pedro



Pedro C. Marijuán

Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group

Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud

Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)

Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X

50009 Zaragoza, Spain

+34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)



fis mailing list


fis mailing list

fis mailing list                          
fis mailing list

Reply via email to