Cari Tutti, la strada indicata da Terrence W. Deacon è quella giusta per smatassare il discorso che ha ripreso fiamma. Egli possiede la chiave per aprire la porta o il ponte dell'Informazione: legge generale che vale per l'intera esistenza e tutta la conoscenza. La distinzione tra processi biologici, fisici e semiotici non regge. Per portare l'acqua al mulino di tutti è necessario che ognuno, in modo local-globale o specifico-generale, comunichi, narri e racconti quel che ha compreso e sperimentato nel proprio campo di indagine e ricerca. Poi chi ha più sale condisce la minestra per tutti. Unica è la meravigliosa armonia che governa il mondo. Unico è il sapere che la coglie. Basta avere un poco di pazienza e sperare che la scintilla della sintesi o della visione olistica emani dalla mente e dal cuore di qualcuno o di più di uno. Per quel che mi riguarda, come detto in altri messaggi, ho applicato e verificato questi elementi epistemologici e suggerimenti logistici, metodologici e procedurali nel campo della scienza economica ed ho inventato o scoperto una "Nuova economia". Ritengo poco intelligente dire che tanto ho appreso e tanto comunico con grande umiltà e sempre pronto a ricredermi, aperto allo stupore delle cose nuove che non finiscono mai di meravigliare. Questa è la vita degli uomini. Questa è la "ragione creativa" di Dio. Un abbraccio affettuosissimo. Francesco Rizzo.
2015-01-12 22:39 GMT+01:00 Terrence W. DEACON <[email protected]>: > Dear Loet, > > Thanks for these comments. I very consciously avoided opening up my > argument to include anything psychological for many of the reasons you > cite as interesting and troublesome. But mainly because I wanted to > avoid allowing tacit homuncular assumptions to do any of the > explanatory work. And because my primary aim is to argue that > information in the full sense (involving reference and significance) > need not be treated as taboo in the physical and natural sciences. > Currently we talk about information in the shadow of a kind of tacit > methodological dualism: think of the common use of the term > 'mind-brain' that shows up in much modern consciousness talk. Such a > move as I try to make here is essential if we are to legitimate > biosemiotic and neurosemiotic sciences, for example. And although > Shannonian-inspired approaches to issues of human communication—such > as in the computational analysis of language structure—have yielded > remarkable insights, they basically just treat reference and > significance as unanalyzed givens and never addresses these issues > directly. Teleo-semantic issues may not be seen even to be worth > quibbling about in psychology but there are many in other domains who > consider representational theories to be unscientific. > > So my goal in this case is quite modest, and yet perhaps also a bit > foolhardy. I want to suggest a simplest possible model system to use > as the basis for formalizing the link between physical processes and > semiotic processes. Perhaps someday after considerably elaborating > this analysis it could contribute to issues of the psychology of human > interactions. I hope to recruit some interest into pursuing this goal. > > — Terry > > On 1/12/15, Loet Leydesdorff <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Terry and colleagues, > > > > > > > > I read the discussion paper with interest. Much of it makes sense to me, > > but I am not sure whether I follow everything. Thank you for this > > contribution. > > > > > > > > My main interest is with the special case (p. 8) of non-passive > information > > media; particularly in the relation to psychological systems, and social > > and cultural ones. In the latter, perhaps even more than the former, one > > can begin to see the contextual conditions to interact among themselves; > > for example, when expectations are expected such as in the double > > contingency among reflexive persons. As Parsons expressed it: Ego expects > > Alter to entertain expectations about Ego and Alter such as one’s own > ones. > > > > > > > > It seems to me that the systems then are layered: biological ones on top > of > > physical ones, but with a teleogical dimension of the entropy (or a > > next-order loop, in other words); psychological ones on top of some > > biological systems; and social and cultural ones processing exclusively > in > > terms of references (e.g., symbols). The time-subscripts of expectations > > refer to a next moment in time (t+1). In the theory and computation of > > anticipatory systems one finds the further distinctions between systems > > which refer both to their own past and their own current or next state, > and > > systems which operate exclusively in terms of expectations of next-moment > > of time states. The former are considered incursive, whereas the latter > are > > hyper-incursive ones. One can easily write the equations, and then it is > > obvious that the dynamics are very different from biological systems. > > Hyper-incursive systems operate against the arrow of time. > > > > > > > > Whereas the teleological dimension is only one among various dynamics in > > the case of biological and psychological systems, an additional degree of > > freedom is available when the teleological constraints can interact among > > them such as in the case that different value systems collide to various > > extents. For example, political discourse entertains meanings with a > > codification different from scholarly discourse. Since these > > hyper-incursive systems operate entirely with reference to future states > > (in terms of models), they generate redundancies instead of Shannon > > entropy, by enlarging the set of possible states continuously. The > > psychological carriers of these exchanges of expectations relate the > > redundancies thus generated reflexively to their teleology as discussed > in > > your paper. > > > > > > > > In summary, it seems to me that you perhaps too easily jump from > biological > > teleology to next-order systems and thus introduce a biologism in > studying > > the dynamics of references. The substrates of mediation can change with > > each turn. One can perhaps distinguish the system layers by answering the > > question of what is mediated (how and why) in each layer? For example, a > > biology is generated when molecules are exchanged instead of atoms (as in > > chemistry). > > > > > > > > The dynamics of the physical medium at the bottom lose relevance when one > > moves upwards, whereas the Shannon-dynamics remains relevant since > > statistical, potentially also with reference to next-order media. However > > paradoxical this may sound, one can study the variation of the redundancy > > generation or, in other words, the interactions among the conditions, > using > > entropy calculus because the latter is not constrained to the physics > > domain. Thus, your distinction of the Shannon and Boltzmann entropies > > provides room for a wider use of the Shannon entropy. > > > > > > > > Let me posit that the specification of the medium in terms of what is > > communicated (atoms, molecules, words, meaning, etc.) provides us with > room > > for each time a special theory of communication; for example, the > > communication of molecules in a biology, whereas the mathematical theory > of > > communication (Shannon, etc.) enables us to specify the differences and > > similarities among the special theories. This is a rich source of > > heuristics and algorithms. I sense a tendency in your discussion paper to > > ground all the theory in physics (thermodynamics) as a meta-theory or > grand > > theory of communication. Is this erroneous? Can the special cases further > > develop with a next-lower level as the noise generating medium? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Loet Leydesdorff > > > > > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam > > Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) > > Honorary Professor, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of > > Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > > <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; > > Visiting Professor at Birkbeck, University of London; Guest Professor > > Zhejiang University, Hangzhou; > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > > > -- > Professor Terrence W. Deacon > University of California, Berkeley > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > [email protected] > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected] http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
