Cari Tutti, sarebbe oltremodo interessante ed utile discutere sulla triade sintassi, semantica e pragmatica rievocata intelligentemente da Terry, piuttosto che continuare ad insistere esclusivamente sulla teoria dell'informazione matematica. Questo non è un intervento, ma una proposta. Grazie. Francesco Rizzo
2015-09-29 21:53 GMT+02:00 Terrence W. Deacon <dea...@berkeley.edu>: > The language metaphor is so very seductive. I fear that our discussion is > too easily ensnared by its ubiquity in our lives. From Günther's response I > am also not clear whether he is defending using the language model as > generic or as a special case (though we do not agree in our assessments of > von Frisch or Tomasello). > > To me, using language as the paradigm general case is like a biologist > studying mammalian hair from the perspective of porcupine quills and > defining all other forms of hair as simplified quills (quills minus some > properties). > > The problem is, of course, the way we define the distinctive properties of > language (simple property lists vs more basic semiotic analysis). Language > is the most developed form because its symbolic capacity depends on and > grows out of complex lower-order iconic and indexical forms of reference. > This is why one can also represent WHAT simpler forms represent in a > language-like system (but not vice versa). But the difference matters. > Saying that one is sad and sobbing may communicate the same content, but > the difference is significant. These more basic modes of representing are > presupposed in the concept of language (but typically bracketed from the > analysis). As a result we can erroneously ignore the difference in HOW > these other forms represent, as well as how language representation itself > is constituted. > > As is exemplified by coughs, smiles, music, and skunk odors (and thousands > of other forms), I consider mapping all communication onto language (even > in the form of e.g. language-minus-properties-X-and-Y) to be a truly > procrustean enterprise— as is defining these non-linguistic modes of > communication in terms of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. And so I am > advocating that we not too hastily assume that an information theory made > axiomatically isomorphic with natural language is the best most complete > model for all uses. Such a model may be sufficient for analyzing many human > linguistically-based communication systems, but that usefulness can blind > us to what formal language models tacitly assume and leave unexplained > about information in general. > > — Terry > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Günther Witzany <witz...@sbg.at> wrote: > >> Yes, I agree with Terrance, that language of humans is a highly >> specialized form used in communicative actions of various forms, although >> in the beginning the difference between our ancestors – great apes – and >> early hominoids was not so dramatically different (see M. Tomasello. The >> origin of human communication, 2008). As we learned with the success of the >> pragmatic turn thinkers which refuted the linguistic turn thinkers in their >> attempt to construct an exact scientific language ( mathematical theory of >> language) and to delimit exact science from metaphysics is that a natural >> language we can term any sign system that functions according semantic, >> pragmatic and syntactic rules. >> >> This means also body movements can express utterances, can be combined to >> serial content which has meanings according its pragmatic context. >> Interestingly decades before this, there was a controversy on the language >> of the bees between Karl von Frisch with several others in which they >> refuted v.Frischs termination of bee "language" just as being a metaphor >> not really a language. In an article v.Frisch proved the fact that it is a >> real language with all key features of real natural languages, including >> the fact of several dialects. 20 years later he was awarded with the >> nobelprize for his research results. The dialects he detected by mixing >> Austrian and Italian bees with the result, that the same sign sequences >> (dance movements) expressed different meanings according the original real >> lifeworld of the bees where they socialized. >> >> If we follow Juergen Habermas, the most cited philosopher of the present >> we can term “communication” every sign-mediated rule-governed >> interaction, although he did not mean this outside humans. As I tried to >> demonstrate in my "biocommunication and natural genome editing" approach we >> can identify such sign-mediated interactions throughout all >> organismic kingdoms in coordination and organization processes between >> cells, tissues, organs and organisms. Interestingly on the very basics of >> life, viruses and sub-viral groups of RNAs the difference between signs and >> sign-users can change rather fast, which means the passive function as >> template for genetic replication or being active as catalyst using a >> colonized (former) catalyst as template may switch. But this is a dynamic >> process that drives evolution into a constantly continuing process since >> nearly 4 billion years. We can imagine how successful artificial genetic >> engineering will be to manage genetic parasites… >> >> Am 28.09.2015 um 07:13 schrieb Terrence W. Deacon: >> >> As exemplified in Guenther's auxin example, and Pedro's worries about the >> procrustean use of language metaphors in the discussion of inter- and >> intra-cellular communication, it is likely to be problematic to use >> language as the paradigm model for all communication, much less as the >> foundation upon which to build a general theory of information. From an >> evolutionary point of view, language is a highly derived human >> idiosyncratic form of communication that evolved only very recently in >> vertebrate phylogeny, in only one species, and is supported by a vast >> semiotic cognitive and social infrastructure. Communication in a more >> general sense is vastly older and far more generic. For this reason, it is >> wise to avoid talking in terms of the semantics of a cough, the meaning of >> a piece of music, or the syntax of a skunk's odor. The use of Carnap's >> approach to language semantics and various other uses of linguistic >> categories in information theoretic analyses needs to be understood as >> a special case, not the generic form. I would recommend that presentations >> and comments to them be framed with appropriate caveats, indicating whether >> they address such special cases of human information or are intended to be >> generic. >> >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < >> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: >> >>> Dear FISers and all, >>> >>> I include below another response to Immanuel post (from Guenther). I >>> think he has penned an excellent response--my only addition is to >>> expostulate a doubt. Should our analysis of the human (or cellular!) >>> communication with the environment be related to linguistic practices? In >>> short, my argument is that biological self-production becomes "la raison >>> d'etre" of communication, both concerning its evolutionary origins and the >>> continuous opening towards the environment along the different stages of >>> the individual's life cycle. It is cogent that the same messenger plays >>> quite different roles in different specialized cells --we have to >>> disentangle in each case how the impinging "info" affects the ongoing life >>> cycle (the impact upon the transcriptome, proteome, metabolome, etc.) There >>> is no shortcut to the endless work necessary--wet lab & in silico. So I >>> think that Encode and other big projects are quite useful in the continuous >>> exploration of biological complexity and provide us valuable conceptual >>> stuff--but looking for hypothetical big formalisms (I quite agree) is out >>> sight. Molecular recognition which is the at the fundamentals of >>> biological organization can only provide modest guidelines about the main >>> informational architectures of life... beyond that, there is too much >>> complexity, endless complexity to contemplate, particularly when we try to >>> study multicellular organization. Anyhow, this topic of the essential >>> informational openness of the individual's life cycle appears to me as the >>> Gordian knot to be cut for the advancement of our field: otherwise we will >>> never connect meaningfully with the endless info flows that interconnect >>> our societies, generated from the life cycles of individuals and addressed >>> to the life cycles of other individuals. Info sources, channels for info >>> flows, and info receptors are not mere Shannonian overtones, they >>> symbolically refer to the very info skeleton of our societies; or looking >>> dynamically it is the engine of social history and of social complexity. >>> >>> Well, sorry that I could not express myself better. >>> >>> all the best--Pedro >>> >>> Günther Witzany wrote: >>> >>> Dear all! >>> >>> What is the opposite of a linguistic description? a non-linguistic >>> description? Please tell me one possible explanation of a non-linguistic >>> description. So Im not convinced of the sense of the term "information". >>> >>> Concerning the "difference" of physical and semantic information: What >>> would you prefer in the case of plant communication. Does the chemical >>> Auxin represent a physical or a semantic information? Auxin is used in >>> hormonal, morphogenic, and transmitter pathways. As an extracellular signal >>> at the plant synapse, auxin serves to react to light and gravity. It >>> also serves as an extracellular messenger substance to send electrical >>> signals and functions as a synchronization signal for cell division. At the >>> intercellular, whole plant level, it supports cell division in the cambium, >>> and at the tissue level, it promotes the maturation of vascular tissue >>> during embryonic development, organ growth as well as tropic responses and >>> apical dominance. In intracellular signaling, auxin serves in >>> organogenesis, cell development, and differentiation. Especially in the >>> organogenesis of roots, for example, auxin enables cells to determine >>> their position and their identity. These multiple functions of auxin >>> demonstrate that identifying the momentary usage (its semantics) is >>> extremely difficult because the context (investigation object of >>> pragmatics) of use can be very complex and highly diverse, although the >>> chemical property remains the same. >>> Yes, mathematics is an artificial language. Last century the Pythagorean >>> approach, mathematics represents material reality, (if we use mathematics >>> we reconstruct creators thoughts) was reactivated: Exact science must >>> represent observations as well as theories in mathematical equations. Then >>> it would be sure to represent reality, because brain synapse logics then >>> could express its own material reality. But this was proven as error. Prior >>> to all artificial languages we learned how to interconnect linguistic >>> utterances with practical behavior in socialisation; therefore the ultimate >>> meta-language is everyday language with its visible superficial grammar and >>> its invisible deep grammar that transports the intended meaning. How should >>> computers extract deep grammar structures out of measurable superficial >>> syntax structures? In the case of ENCODE project (to find the human genome >>> primary data structures) this was the aim which got financial support of 3 >>> billion dollars with the result of detecting the superficial grammar only, >>> nothing else. >>> >>> Best Wishes >>> Guenther >>> Am 24.09.2015 um 07:47 schrieb Emanuel Diamant: >>> >>> Dear FIS colleagues, >>> >>> >>> >>> As a newcomer to FIS, I feel myself very uncomfortable when I have to >>> interrupt the ongoing discourse with something that looks for me quite >>> natural but is lacking in our current public dialog. What I have in mind is >>> that in every discussion or argument exchange, first of all, the grounding >>> axioms and mutually agreed assumptions should be established and declared >>> as the basis for further debating and reasoning. Maybe in our case, these >>> things are implied by default, but I am not a part of the dominant >>> coalition. For this reason, I would dare to formulate some grounding axioms >>> that may be useful for those who are not FIS insiders: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. *Information is a linguistic description of structures observable in >>> a given data set* >>> >>> 2. Two types of data structures could be distinguished in a data set: >>> primary and secondary data structures. >>> >>> 3. Primary data structures are data clusters or clumps arranged or >>> occurring due to the similarity in physical properties of adjacent data >>> elements. For this reason, the primary data structures could be called >>> physical data structures. >>> >>> 4. Secondary data structures are specific arrangements of primary data >>> structures. The grouping of primary data structures into secondary data >>> structures is a prerogative of an external observer and it is guided by his >>> subjective reasons, rules and habits. The secondary data structures exist >>> only in the observer’s head, in his mind. Therefore, they could be called >>> meaningful or semantic data structures. >>> >>> 5. As it was said earlier, *Description of structures observable in a >>> data set should be called “Information”. *In this regard, two types of >>> information must be distinguished – *Physical Information and Semantic >>> Information*. >>> >>> 6. Both are language-based descriptions; however, physical information >>> can be described with a variety of languages (recall that mathematics is >>> also a language), while semantic information can be described only by means >>> of natural human language. >>> >>> >>> >>> This is a concise set of axioms that should preface all our further >>> discussions. You can accept them. You can discard them and replace them >>> with better ones. But you can not proceed without basing your discussion on >>> a suitable and appropriate set of axioms. >>> >>> >>> >>> That is what I have to say at this moment. >>> >>> My best regards to all of you, >>> >>> Emanuel. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& >>> 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ >>> ------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fis mailing list >>> Fis@listas.unizar.es >>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Professor Terrence W. Deacon >> University of California, Berkeley >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Professor Terrence W. Deacon > University of California, Berkeley > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
