Dear All,
In the discussion about the nature of science and the role of quantitative and 
qualitative methods I would like to add the following statement:
Logic is the science of rational thinking or reasoning.
Logic is not a quantitative science.

This connects to ancient Greek science that sprung out of philosophy of nature 
(even Newton was still natural philosopher) which relied more on reason than on 
observation/experience. And where they indeed made quantitative predictions 
like Eratosthenes who calculated the circumference of the Earth, the central 
part of his prediction was based on logical reasoning.

The main works of Aristotle were the Prior Analytics (Logic), the Physics, the 
Animal History, the Rhetorics, the Poetics, the Metaphysics, the Ethics, and 
the Politics. Today we consider Logic, Physics and Biology to be sciences, 
while Rhetorics, Poetics, Metaphysics, Ethics and Politics are not. How 
compulsory is it for something to be “science” in order to be a respectable 
form of knowledge?
Perhaps it is useful at some point in the development of human knowledge to 
have a holistic view bridging across sciences and other fields? Rational, 
logical view.
Science itself is not everywhere quantitative in its various layers and 
branches. There are theoretical non-observables in quantum mechanics and other 
physical theories and they play important role in their construction and 

Regarding the other discussion point, the necessity to differentiate between 
"the difference that makes the difference" for a machine and for a living 
organism I would say that the difference exists but is becoming less and less 
clear-cut the more machines become cognitive and intelligent. It is not 
difficult to imagine a limit case where intelligent machine talks to other 
intelligent machine. Would that be then mixing Shannon with (bio)semiotics?

The notion of communication might be constructed in a useful way to cover 
different levels of organisation of phenomena.
As growth of a crystal is different from a growth of a plant is different from 
a growth of a child – and yet it makes sense to talk about growth.
So I see using the word “communication” to machines or why not simplest 
physical systems that interact with other physical systems causing "the 
difference that makes the difference” for the system itself.
Definitions indeed are just the question of making good sense – they are matter 
of choice.

All the best,

Mark Burgin and I have sent invitations to contribute to World Scientific 
Vol 1 Philosophy and Methodology of Information (G. Dodig-Crnkovic and M. 
Burgin, edts.)
Part 1. Philosophy of information
Part 2. Methodology of information
Part 3. Philosophy of information studies
Part 4. Methodology of information studies

Vol 2 Theoretical Information Studies (M. Burgin and G. Dodig-Crnkovic, edts.)
Part 1. Foundations of information
Part 2. Information theory
Part 3. Information as a natural phenomenon
Part 4. Cognition and intelligence in natural and artificial systems
Part 5. Social, economic and legal aspects of information
Part 6. Technological aspects of information

Please let us know as soon as possible if you intend (and even if you do not 
intend) to contribute, in order to help us keep the deadlines.

From: Fis <<>> 
on behalf of "<>" 
Reply-To: "<>" 
Date: Friday, 17 November 2017 at 17:44
To: Sungchul Ji <<>>, 
Subject: [Fis] R: Re: some notes

Dear Sungchul,
I do not have anything against you, therefore sorry for my words, but your 
propositions gave me the opportunity to demonstrate the weirdness of such 
approaches for science.

YOU find it convenient to define communication as an irreducibly triadic 
process (physical, chemical, biological, physiological, or mental).  YOU 
identify such a triadic process with the Peircean semiosis (or the sign 
process) often represented as the following diagram which is isomorphic with 
the commutative triangle of the category theory.  Thus, to YOU, communication 
is a category.

I do not agree at all: therefore, could your proposition be kept as science?
All the scientists agree on the definition (even if operational) of an atom, or 
agree that E=mc^2.  If we are talking of something qualitative, that one agrees 
and another do not, we are not in front of Science.

Nothing personal.

Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

----Messaggio originale----
Da: "Sungchul Ji" <<>>
Data: 17/11/2017 17.12
A: "Pedro C. 
"fis"<<>>, "Loet 
Ogg: Re: [Fis] some notes

Hi FISers,

I find it convenient to define communication as an irreducibly triadic process 
(physical, chemical, biological, physiological, or mental).  I identify such a 
triadic process with the Peircean semiosis (or the sign process) often 
represented as the following diagram which is isomorphic with the commutative 
triangle of the category theory.  Thus, to me, communication is a category:

                               f                g

                        A ------>  B  -------> C
                         |                               ^
                         |                               |

Figure 1.  A diagrammatic representation of semiosis, sign process, or 
communication.  The names of the nodes and edges can vary depending on the 
communication system under consideration, which can be chemical reaction 
systems, gene expression mechanisms, human communication using symbols, 
computer systems using electrical signals.  If applied to the Shannon 
communication system, A = source, B = signals, C = receiver, f = encoding, g = 
decoding, and h = information transfer/flow.  When applied to human symbolic 
communicatioin, A = object, B = sign, C = interpretant, f = sign production, g 
= interpretation, and h = information flow.

One usefulness of Figure 1 is its ability to distinguish between "interactions" 
(see Steps f and g) and "communication" (see Steps f, g and h); the former is 
dyadic and the latter triadic.

All the best.


From: Fis <<>> 
on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 8:06 AM
To: Pedro C. Marijuan; fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes

Dear Pedro and colleagues,

2. Eigenvectors of communication. Taking the motif from Loet, and continuing 
with the above, could we say that the life cycle itself establishes the 
eigenvectors of communication? It is intriguing that maintenance, persistence, 
self-propagation are the essential motives of communication for whatever life 
entities (from bacteria to ourselves). With the complexity increase there 
appear new, more sophisticated directions, but the basic ones probably remain 
intact. What could be these essential directions of communication?
I am not so convinced that there is an a priori relation between life and 
communication. Communication is not alive. Non-living systems (e.g., computers, 
robots) also communicate. Perhaps, it matters for the communication whether the 
communicators are living systems; but this needs to be specified.

Communication studies is not biology. Perhaps, there is a specific biological 
communication as Maturana claims: when molecules are exchanged, one can expect 
life. Can one have life without communication? It seems to me that one can have 
communication without life. Communication would then be the broader category 
and life a special case.


3. About logics in the pre-science, Joseph is quite right demanding that 
discussion to accompany principles or basic problems. Actually principles, 
rules, theories, etc. are interconnected or should be by a logic (or several 
logics?) in order to give validity and coherence to the different combinations 
of elements. For instance, in the biomolecular realm there is a fascinating 
interplay of activation and inhibition among the participating molecular 
partners (enzymes and proteins) as active elements.  I am not aware that 
classical ideas from Jacob (La Logique du vivant) have been sufficiently 
continued; it is not about Crick's Central Dogma but about the logic of 
pathways, circuits, modules, etc. Probably both Torday and Ji have their own 
ideas about that-- I would be curious to hear from them.

4. I loved Michel's response to Arturo's challenge. I think that the two 
"zeros" I mentioned days ago (the unsolved themes around the cycle and around 
the observer) imply both multidisciplinary thinking and philosophical 

Best wishes--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 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)<><>

Fis mailing list<><>

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to