Cari Xueshan, Stan e Tutti, queste gerarchie comunicative sono tanto diverse da quelle che Vi ho proposto il 28 novembre scorso, senza ricevere alcun riscontro da parte vostra? Naturalmente, la mia non è una domanda polemica, ma essenzialmente retorica. Almeno, lo spero. Un abbraccio. Francesco.
2015-12-03 9:16 GMT+01:00 Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn>: > Dear Stan， > > Generally speaking, we have two kinds of Information Science, one is > materialist, another is imformationist. Of course, what FIS colleagues are > discussing here is materialist one. As to the imformationist information > science, it sprang from John Wheeler and is becoming confirmative in some > frontiers of physics recently, for example, the string-net theory advocated > by some theoretical physicists of MIT. > > In materialistic information science, self-organization and autopoiesis > are two wonderful criteria, they can exclude those information sciences > based on information technology from real information science for their > hetero-organization and heteropoiesis. As to the information science based > on library science spread through the United States, whether it is a real > information science, undoubtedly, it is questionable. > > Let’s come back to our topic. Facing so many kinds of information and > disciplines of information theory/informatics/information science, we > urgently need a classification to handle them, and the hierarchy > consideration maybe is more fundamental. Which was activated by Pedro (He > said it is Fisher’s idea, really Pedro?) with Cell, Brain, Firm many years > ago, and advanced by Joshi these days. > > In fact, Joseph and I had some private communication about this issue > several weeks ago, the topic is something I named “From Mechanism to > Organicism” which was arisen when I predict the paradigm shift of > information studies in the next 10 years or more. In those mails, we have > touched this problem. > > According to your expression, we have several different hierarchies: > 1. [firm [brain [cell]]]: Pedro > 2. [society [cell [molecule]]]: Joshi > 3. [social [organism [cell [molecular [microphysical ]]]]]: Stan > 4. [organism [cell [molecule [fundamental particle]]]]: Xueshan > 5. [organism [cell [molecule]]]: Xueshan > > From its narrow sense, social character only belongs to organism, so we > can absorb “society” into “organism”. In the organism group, we have animal > and plant. In animal, we have man, chicken, dog, tiger, lion, etc. Of > course, our main object is man, just like medicine and physiology that > claim their object over all animals, but man is their main object. Man’s > information problem is our main aim here. > > From communication standpoint, that man (of course also all organism), > cell, molecule (at lest organic molecule) can communicate each other are > undoubtedly, so the information disciplines can emerge from this level > undoubtedly naturally. But question is: can communication take places > between two fundamental particles, such as two atoms? So, I am not sure if > we can have a physical informatics at last. > > It is very humorous, this will bring us to the FIS discussion 13 year ago > again: Is informational existences still only start with the biological? > Is it still a huge black hole? (Gyorgy Darvas). > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > ------------------------------ > *From:* Stanley N Salthe [mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:01 AM > *To:* y...@pku.edu.cn > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The > Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1 > > Xueshan -- Your hierarchy > > nformation studies. > Cellular (level2): It can indicate the all cellular/biological information > studies. > Molecular (level1): It can indicate the all molecular/chemical information > studies. > XXXXXXX (level0): Particlate/physical information studies?? > is OK, but, since it may be that not all organisms are social, to be more > general one could insert: > > [social [organism [cell [molecular [microphysical ]]]]] > > Of course, it could be argued that organisms are societies of cells! > > STAN > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn> wrote: > >> Dear Joshi, >> >> No matter what topic/title you used, no matter what goal you want to >> reach, your post has raised a very important theory which can decide the >> future of information science: Three Level Theory: Molecular (level1), >> Cellular (level2), Social (level3). (Please excuse my minor modification). >> >> The FIS colleagues can easily recollect the theory of Cell, Brain, Firm >> which was advocated by Pedro about 10 years ago, but I think this hierarchy >> is could be much better spent taking some positive action. >> >> Social (level3): It can indicate the all human/social information studies. >> Cellular (level2): It can indicate the all cellular/biological >> information studies. >> Molecular (level1): It can indicate the all molecular/chemical >> information studies. >> XXXXXXX (level0): Particlate/physical information studies?? >> >> As we know, due to the Technological Information Science (It includes >> computer science and telecommunications) is not self-organizational, or >> antipoetic, so we generally don't consider it as a real information science. >> >> With my best regards! >> >> Xueshan >> Peking University >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] >> *On Behalf Of *Nikhil Joshi >> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:35 PM >> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es >> fis@listas.unizar.es >> *Cc:* Nikhil Joshi >> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The >> Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1 >> >> Dear Joseph and Stan, >> >> Both of you mention about earlier work on isomorphisms, and you also >> mention hetero-organization. If it is not inconvenient, may I request more >> information on this? You also mention that the use of self-organisation >> could be a distracting, could you recommend an alternate formulation? >> >> At this time, I must clarify that I am not suggesting a hierarchical >> relationship between the three levels. I am referring to hierarchical >> organisation within the species at each level - molecules (level1), >> cellular species (level2) and social groups (level3). >> >> Coming to your question- how does the concept of hierarchy affect the >> analysis? >> The common multilevel organisational pattern presented here suggests that >> a core element in human social organisation involves exchange networks >> based on flow of human resources between kinship based social groups (like >> families) and non-kinship based social groups (like businesses). This >> implies that evolution of social organisation is based on the emergence of >> two species classes with greater complexity and greater compositional >> hierarchy- kinship based social groups and non-kinship. >> >> The question then are- why and how do living species give rise to >> exchange networks between species with increasing complexity (and >> compositional hierarchy) ? Will this pattern continue at the next higher >> level? >> >> Bob Logan and others point to the role of human language and the >> generation of conceptual knowedge in the emergence of non-kinship based >> social groups. It is interesting that Timo Honkela and Kohonen generalise >> these ideas and describe processes that gives rise to conceptual knowledge >> in systems of interacting agents. Do Alphabetic catalysts like DNA and >> Proteins play a similar role as human language in the emergence of exchange >> networks at two different levels? (see section 4.4., paper II in this kick >> off email). >> >> While many theoretical perspectives have been presented on the evolution >> of such systems (Stanley Salthe- Evolving Hierarchial Systems, Ch 8, John >> Holland- aggregate agents, Eric Chaission- growing energy rate density, and >> others) what is most interesting here is that the CMOP provides opportunity >> to examine processes that give rise to such organisation in much greater >> details. This could provide more insights into the emergence and evolution >> of such organisations. >> >> Given the diverse research interests and great depth in this group, I >> would love to get your views on these questions. Your views are greatly >> appreciated. >> >> Thanking you, >> Regards, >> Nikhil Joshi >> >> >> >> >> Given the wide >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dear Nikhil, >> >> I think it is a very interesting exercise to see how a consensus might be >> reached on your work by both adding to and subtracting from the different >> perspectives. Thus, I agree with Stan that we are looking at instances of >> isomorphism at different levels, and this for me is entirely logical (;-). >> Levels of reality exist and the rules that apply in them are not identical, >> and this constitutes a discontinuity between them. Also, within a given >> level involving three elements, even if they all influence one another, it >> should be possible to decompose the interactions into those between A and >> B, the resultant of which interacts with C. This is Pedro's comment in >> somewhat different terms. >> >> On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, the use of the term >> 'self-organization' does not bring any additional knowledge. It diverts >> attention from the dynamics of the different flows, which are also affected >> by such a multitude of external factors, actual and potential, that the >> process could equally well be called hetero-organization. Also, and I >> really just ask this as a question, how does the concept of hierarchy >> affect the analysis? If as you write there are different species involved >> in exchange networks across ascending levels, what would be important to >> know are the details of these exchanges. Here, the above discontinuity >> between levels seems to be replaced by a degree of continuity. Your >> statement implies to me interactions /between/ different levels, but are >> these interactions bi-directional reactions? How would the rates of forward >> and back reactions be related? >> >> I look forward to your comments on the above which I assure you is >> intended to be constructive. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Joseph >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
