Caro Sun, e cari tutti, ecco la traduzione in inglese del messaggio del 21
febbraio scorso.
Cari saluti.
Francesco

Dear everyone,
on February 8 I sent you a message whose content, without any presumption,
can be useful to resolve the over-epistemo-logical issues that have arisen.
Then I send it again.
Dear Terry extensible to everyone,
It is always a pleasure to read and understand you. The general theory of
information is preceded by a system (or semiotic) of signification and
followed by a system (or semiotic) of communication. Except when there is a
communicative process such as the passage of a Signal (which does not
necessarily mean 'a sign') from a Source, through a Transmitter, along a
Channel, to a Recipient. In a process between machine and machine, the
signal has no 'significant' power. In this case there is no signification
even if we can say that we have information. When the recipient is a human
being (and it is not necessary that the source is also a human being),
there is a process of signification. A system of signification is an
autonomous semiotic construction, independent of any possible act of
communication that actualizes it. On the other hand, every process of
communication between human beings - or between any type of intelligent
apparatus or structure, both mechanical and biological, - presupposes a
system of signification as its own or specific condition. In conclusion, it
is possible to have a semiotic of signification independent of a semiotic
of communication; but it is impossible to establish a semiotic of
communication independent of a semiotic of signification.
I learned a lot from Umberto Eco to whom I dedicated chapter 10. Umberto
Eco and the process of re-interpretation and re-enchantment of economic
science (pp. 175-217) of "Value and evaluations. 'economy of science'
(FrancoAngeli, Milan, 1997). In my own book you can find:
- chapter 15. Economic-estimative semiotics (pp. 327-361) that is part of a
global theory of all signification systems and communication processes;
- subparagraph 5.3.3 The genetic psychology of Jean Piaget and the
neurobiology of Humberto Maturana and Francesco Varela. a new experimental
epistemology of quality and uniqueness (pp. 120-130).
I apologize to everyone if I get tired of you or if once again my writing
in Italian creates some problems. I think the gift you give me is, in terms
of QUALITY and UNITY, much greater than the (for) gift I ask of you. Thank
you.
A warm greeting.
Francesco

2018-02-21 17:17 GMT+01:00 Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>:

> Hi Francesco, FISers,
>
>
> Can someone translate your post in English so that everyone can understand
> what you are saying?
>
>
> Sung
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Francesco Rizzo <
> 13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 6:11 AM
> *To:* y...@pku.edu.cn
> *Cc:* FIS Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based
> on the cateogry theory
>
> Cari Tutti,
> l'8 febbraio Vi ho inviato un messaggio il cui contenuto, senza alcuna
> presunzione, può essere utile per dirimere le questioni
> onto-epistemo-logiche che sono sorte.
> Allora lo trasmetto nuovamente.
> Caro Terry estensibile a tutti,
> è sempre un piacere leggerTi e capirTi. La  general theory of information
> è preceduta da un sistema (o semiotica) di significazione e seguita da un
> sistema (o semiotica ) di comunicazione. Tranne che quando si ha un
> processo comunicativo come il passaggio di un Segnale (che non significa
> necessariamente 'un segno') da una Fonte, attraverso un  Trasmettitore,
> lungo un Canale, a un Destinatario. In un processo tra macchina e macchina
> il segnale non ha alcun potere 'significante'. In tal caso non si ha
> significazione anche se si può dire che si ha passaggio di informazione.
> Quando il destinatario è un essere umano (e non è necessario che la fonte
> sia anch'essa un essere umano) si è in presenza di un processo di
> significazione. Un sistema di significazione è una costruzione semiotica
> autonoma, indipendente da ogni possibile atto di comunicazione che
> l'attualizzi. Invece ogni processo di comunicazione tra esseri umani -- o
> tra ogni tipo di apparato o struttura 'intelligente, sia meccanico che
> biologico, -- presuppone un sistema di significazione come propria o
> specifica condizione. In conclusione, è possibile avere una semiotica della
> significazione indipendente da una semiotica della comunicazione; ma è
> impossibile stabilire una semiotica della comunicazione indipendente da una
> semiotica della significazione.
> Ho appreso molto da Umberto Eco a cui ho dedicato il capitolo 10. Umberto
> Eco e il processo di re-interpretazione e re-incantamento della scienza
> economica (pp. 175-217) di "Valore e valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia
> o l'economia della scienza" (FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1997). Nello mio stesso
> libro si trovano:
> - il capitolo 15. Semiotica economico-estimativa (pp. 327-361) che si
> colloca nel quadro di una teoria globale di tutti i sistemi di
> significazione e i processi di comunicazione;
> - il sottoparagrafo 5.3.3 La psicologia genetica di Jean Piaget e la
> neurobiologia di Humberto Maturana e Francesco Varela. una nuova
> epistemologia sperimentale della qualità e dell'unicità (pp. 120-130).
> Chiedo scusa a Tutti se Vi ho stancati o se ancora una volta il mio
> scrivere in lingua italiana Vi crea qualche problema. Penso che il dono che
> mi fate è, a proposito della QUALITA' e dell'UNICITA',  molto più grande
> del (per)dono che Vi chiedo. Grazie.
> Un saluto affettuoso.
> Francesco
>
>
> 2018-02-21 11:03 GMT+01:00 Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn>:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> In the first half of this month, we have a heated discussion about the
> relationship among Information, Language, and Communication started by
> Sung. I am simply summing up part of the different opinions as follows:
>
>
>
> *Sung: Without a language, no communication would be possible. Encoding,
> decoding, information (flow) are essential for communication*.
>
> Part of the related different opinions:
>
> Terry: (In this way), one must use the term "language" in a highly
> metaphoric sense. Communications take place in the following situations,
> are there languages? Such as scent, music, sexual display of some animals,
> smile, frown, pattern of colors of a flower that attracts bees, dog's bark,
> walk of a depressed person, hiccup after eating. There is a serious problem
> with using language as the model for analyzing other species’ communication
> in hindsight.…… It is an understandable anthropocentric bias.
>
> Javier: *Not every* communication process involves coding/decoding and
> meaning. so they could not be simply paralleled to language. For instance,
> there is no coding/decoding process when I communicate to my dog. It does
> not understand my speaking, and I do not understand its barking. Yet still
> both of us interact. I would not define communication as information
> transfer. There is no information "traveling" from one place to another,
> from sender to receiver. The system itself becomes the medium of
> information production and processing.
>
> Xueshan and Stan: The hierarchy idea is not only suitable for different
> species which communication take places between them, from elementary
> particle(?), molecule(?) to cell, brain(human, other animals), plant(?),
> even other different planets(?). It is also suitable for different
> information carrier. Stan think the carriers can be layered as {language
> {signal {information}}}, Xueshan think they can be layered as {substrate
> {signal {information}}}, here we simply consider sign, signal, symbol,
> token, marker and so forth as the same.
>
> Gordana: It might be possible to develop a general theory of language ……
> with different levels of cognition which communicate and process
> information in order to survive. As in biology there are different kinds of
> organisms there are also different kinds of “languages”. There are small
> languages communicated in relatively simple ways between simple agents
> (like cells) and big languages used by complex agents like humans.
>
>
>
> (In all the above discussions, we all omitted the Sung’s deep layer
> analysis of cell language and category theory).
>
>
>
> Others:
>
> Arturo: I suggest to fully REMOVE from the TRUE scientific adventures the
> terms: "symbol", "signal", "marker", "information".
>
> Howard: Information is anything a receiver can interpret. Information is
> in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Javier: Information and meaning are not the same.
>
> Christophe: I take communications as related to meaning generation.
>
> Mayank: Can we not make conceptual leap from networks, information,
> communication, and language to sound?
>
> Koichiro: Focusing upon languaging comes to shed light on the
> communication in time between whatever parties.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Xueshan
>
>
>
> *From:* Stanley N Salthe [mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 14, 2018 11:44 PM
> *To:* y...@pku.edu.cn
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based
> on the cateogry theory
>
> Xueshan -- My {language {signal {information}}} is meant apply only to a
> system that has language. That is, my assertion would be that no
> information can be gained in such a system that has not passed through a
> linguistic filter. The idea is that in such a system language dominates
> everything. Perhaps this has not been definitively demonstrated as yet. I
> suppose it would depend upon, for example, whether or not we consider our
> bodily reaction to, for example, having just burned our finger to have been
> ‘informationally mediated. If not (which seems possible to me) then my
> supposition might be OK. But if we think that neuron communications mediate
> information, then I am wrong.
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn> wrote:
>
> Dear Javier and Dear Stan,
>
>
>
> Javier:
>
> 1. I very much agree with you as follows:
>
> “I think that only signals can be transmitted, not information.
> Information can only be gained by an observer (a self-referential system)
> that draws a distinction.”
>
> A Chinese scholar Dongsheng Miao’s argument is: There is no information
> can exists without carrier, i.e. No naked can exists.
>
> I think both of you two are expressing a principle of information science.
>
>
>
> 2. According to Linguistics, the relationship between language and
> communication is:
>
> Language is a tool of communication about information.
>
> Of course, this is only limited to the human atmosphere. So I think that
> all (Human) Semiotics ((Human) Linguistics), (Human) Communication Study
> should be the subdisciplines of Human Informatics.
>
>
>
> ==========================================================
>
> Dear Xueshan,
>
> Thanks for sharing your interesting remarks and references. I think no one
> really wants to deny the crucial role the language metaphor has played in
> the thinking of communication and information models. But I believe the
> crucial point is to distinguish between language and communication.
> Language is for us humans the main communication medium, though not the
> only one. We tend to describe other communication media in society and
> nature by mapping the language-like characteristics they have. This has
> been useful and sucessful so far. But pushing the language metaphor too far
> is showing its analytical limits. I think we need to think of a
> transdisciplinary theory of communication media. On the other hand, I agree
> with you that we need to check the uses of the concepts of signal and
> information. I think that only signals can be transmitted, not information.
> Information can only be gained by an observer (a self-referential system)
> that draws a distinction.
>
> Best,
>
> Javier
>
> ==============================================
>
> Stan:
>
> According to Peirce, language is only one of the systematic signs. Here we
> consider sign, signal, symbol as the same thing. So, more precisely in my
> opinion:
>
> {signal {information}},   or   {substrate {signal {information}}}
>
> But not
>
> {language {signal {information}}}
>
> If you remember, in our previous discussions, I much appreciate the
>
> The hierarchy idea is very important to our study which is initially
> introduced by Pedro, Nikhil and you.
>
> ===============================================================
>
> Xueshan -- I think one can condense some of your insights hierarchically,
> as:
>
> In a system having language, information seemingly may be obtained in
> other ways as well. It would be a conceptually broader category. Thus
> (using the compositional hierarchy):
>
>         [information [language [signal]]]
>
> Meaning that, when a system has language, all information will be
> understood or construed by way of linguistic constructs.
>
> (Here I am using ‘signal’ as being more specific than Peirce’s ‘sign’,
> where:
>
>         [sign [information [...]]] )
>
> Then, more dynamically (using the subsumptive hierarchy):
>
>         {language {signal {information}}}
>
> Information in a languaged system is derived by way linguistic formations,
> so that, even though it is an extremely broad category, information
> (informing) only emerges by way of linguistically informed transformations.
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Xueshan
>
> ===============================================================
>
> El feb 10, 2018 5:23 AM, "Xueshan Yan" <y...@pku.edu.cn> escribió:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I have read the article "The languages of bacteria" which Gordana
> recommended, and has gained a lot of inspiration from it. In combination
> with Sung's comparative linguistics exploration on cell language and human
> language, I have the following learning feelings to share with everyone:
>
> In this article, the author recognized that bacteria have evolved multiple
> languages for communicating within and between species. Intra- and
> interspecies cell-cell communication allows bacteria to coordinate various
> biological activities in order to behave like multicellular organisms. Such
> as AI-2, it is a general language that bacteria use for intergenera
> signaling.
>
> I found an interesting phenomenon in this paper: the author use the
> concept *information* 3 times but the concept *signal* (signal or
> signaling) 55 times, so we have to review the history and application of “
> information” and “signal” in biology and biochemistry, it is helpful for
> us to understand the relationship between language, signal, and information.
>
> The origin of the concept of signal (main the signal transduction) can be
> traced back to the end of the 1970s. But until 1980, biochemist and
> endocrinologist Martin Rodbell published an article titled: “The Role of
> Hormone Receptors and GTP-Regulatory Proteins in Membrane Transduction" in 
> *Nature,
> *in this paper he used the "signal transduction" first time. Since then,
> the research on signal transduction is popular in biology and biochemistry.
>
> As for any information transmission system, if we pay more attention to
> its transmission carrier instead of its transmission content, we are used
> to employing "signal transmission" instead of "signal transduction". From
> the tradition of the early use of information concept, the signal
> transduction study of cells is only equivalent to the level of
> telecommunications before 1948. Outwardly, before the advent of Shannon's
> information theory, the central issue of telecommunications is "signal"
> rather than "information". After that, the central issue of
> telecommunications is "information" rather than "signal".
>
> According to the application history of information concept, nearly all
> the essential problems behind the concepts of communication, messenger,
> signal and so on may be information problems. Just as the language problem
> what we are discussing here, our ultimate goal is to analyze the
> information.
>
>
>
> For the same reason, I recommend another two papers:
>
> 1. Do Plants Think?  (June 5, 2012, *Scientific American*)
>
> (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-d
> aniel-chamovitz/#rd?sukey=fc78a68049a14bb24ce82efd8ef931e640
> 57ce6142b1f2f7b919612d2b3f42c07f559f5be33be0881613ccfbf5b43c4b
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fdo-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz%2F%23rd%3Fsukey%3Dfc78a68049a14bb24ce82efd8ef931e64057ce6142b1f2f7b919612d2b3f42c07f559f5be33be0881613ccfbf5b43c4b&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Ccf7011421f7d4bcd2ed608d5791c0cbd%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636548083771120620&sdata=a1GVysVkgzvGb8ubmHSpWRm4hyRNFKqldZ6bm8zDsR0%3D&reserved=0>
> )
>
> 2. Plants Can Think, Feel and Learn  (December 3, 2014, *New Scientist*)
>
> (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429980-400-root-int
> elligence-plants-can-think-feel-and-learn
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2Fmg22429980-400-root-intelligence-plants-can-think-feel-and-learn&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Ccf7011421f7d4bcd2ed608d5791c0cbd%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636548083771120620&sdata=rpQkgGUH%2BKqy2hedbGTTt%2FLSUIDFHmfXwKLhEMMOutE%3D&reserved=0>
> )
>
> From which we can judge whether or not a plants informatics can exists.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Xueshan
>
>
>
> *From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es]
> *On Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:10 PM
> *To:* Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>; Terrence W. DEACON <
> dea...@berkeley.edu>
> *Cc:* Fis, <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based
> on the cateogry theory
>
>
>
> Hi Terry,  and FISers,
>
>
>
> Can it be that "language metaphor" is akin to a (theoretical) knife that,
> in the hands of a surgeon, can save lives but, in a wrong hand, can kill?
>
>
>
> All the best.
>
>
>
> Sung
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2018 2:56:11 AM
> *To:* Terrence W. DEACON
> *Cc:* Fis,; Sungchul Ji
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based
> on the cateogry theory
>
>
>
> Caro Terry estensibile a tutti,
>
> è sempre un piacere leggerTi e capirTi. La  general theory of information
> è preceduta da un sistema (o semiotica) di significazione e seguita da un
> sistema (o semiotica ) di comunicazione. Tranne che quando si ha un
> processo comunicativo come il passaggio di un Segnale (che non significa
> necessariamente 'un segno') da una Fonte, attraverso un  Trasmettitore,
> lungo un Canale, a un Destinatario. In un processo tra macchina e macchina
> il segnale non ha alcun potere 'significante'. In tal caso non si ha
> significazione anche se si può dire che si ha passaggio di informazione.
> Quando il destinatario è un essere umano (e non è necessario che la fonte
> sia anch'essa un essere umano) si è in presenza di un processo di
> significazione. Un sistema di significazione è una costruzione semiotica
> autonoma, indipendente da ogni possibile atto di comunicazione che
> l'attualizzi. Invece ogni processo di comunicazione tra esseri umani -- o
> tra ogni tipo di apparato o struttura 'intelligente, sia meccanico che
> biologico, -- presuppone un sistema di significazione come propria o
> specifica condizione. In conclusione, è possibile avere una semiotica della
> significazione indipendente da una semiotica della comunicazione; ma è
> impossibile stabilire una semiotica della comunicazione indipendente da una
> semiotica della significazione.
>
> Ho appreso molto da Umberto Eco a cui ho dedicato il capitolo 10. Umberto
> Eco e il processo di re-interpretazione e re-incantamento della scienza
> economica (pp. 175-217) di "Valore e valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia
> o l'economia della scienza" (FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1997). Nello mio stesso
> libro si trovano:
>
> - il capitolo 15. Semiotica economico-estimativa (pp. 327-361) che si
> colloca nel quadro di una teoria globale di tutti i sistemi di
> significazione e i processi di comunicazione;
>
> - il sottoparagrafo 5.3.3 La psicologia genetica di Jean Piaget e la
> neurobiologia di Humberto Maturana e Francesco Varela. una nuova
> epistemologia sperimentale della qualità e dell'unicità (pp. 120-130).
>
> Chiedo scusa a Tutti se Vi ho stancati o se ancora una volta il mio
> scrivere in lingua italiana Vi crea qualche problema. Penso che il dono che
> mi fate è, a proposito della QUALITA' e dell'UNICITA',  molto più grande
> del (per)dono che Vi chiedo. Grazie.
>
> Un saluto affettuoso.
>
> Francecso
>
>
>
>
>
> 2018-02-07 23:02 GMT+01:00 Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu>:
>
> Dear FISers,
>
>
>
> In previous posts I have disparaged using language as the base model for
> building a general theory of information.
>
> Though I realize that this may seem almost heretical, it is not a claim
> that all those who use linguistic analogies are wrong, only that it can be
> causally misleading.
>
> I came to this view decades back in my research into the neurology and
> evolution of the human language capacity.
>
> And it became an orgnizing theme in my 1997 book The Symbolic Species.
>
> Early in the book I describe what I (and now other evolutionary
> biologists) have come to refer to as a "porcupine fallacy" in evolutionary
> thinking.
>
> Though I use it to critique a misleading evolutionary taxonomizing
> tendency, I think it also applies to biosemiotic and information theoretic
> thinking as well.
>
> So to exemplify my reasoning (with apologies for quoting myself) I append
> the following excerpt from the book.
>
>
>
> "But there is a serious problem with using language as the model for
> analyzing other
>
> species’ communication in hindsight. It leads us to treat every other form
> of communication as
>
> exceptions to a rule based on the one most exceptional and divergent case.
> No analytic method
>
> could be more perverse. Social communication has been around for as long
> as animals have
>
> interacted and reproduced sexually. Vocal communication has been around at
> least as long as frogs
>
> have croaked out their mating calls in the night air. Linguistic
> communication was an afterthought,
>
> so to speak, a very recent and very idiosyncratic deviation from an
> ancient and well-established
>
> mode of communicating. It cannot possibly provide an appropriate model
> against which to assess
>
> other forms of communication. It is the rare exception, not the rule, and
> a quite anomalous
>
> exception at that. It is a bit like categorizing birds’ wings with respect
> to the extent they possess or
>
> lack the characteristics of penguins’ wings, or like analyzing the types
> of hair on different mammals
>
> with respect to their degree of resemblance to porcupine quills. It is an
> understandable
>
> anthropocentric bias—perhaps if we were penguins or porcupines we might
> see more typical wings
>
> and hair as primitive stages compared to our own more advanced
> adaptations—but it does more to
>
> obfuscate than clarify. Language is a derived characteristic and so should
> be analyzed as an
>
> exception to a more general rule, not vice versa."
>
>
>
> Of course there will be analogies to linguistic forms.
>
> This is inevitable, since language emerged from and is supported by a vast
> nonlinguistic semiotic infrastructure.
>
> So of course it will inherit much from less elaborated more fundamental
> precursors.
>
> And our familiarity with language will naturally lead us to draw insight
> from this more familiar realm.
>
> I just worry that it provides an elaborate procrustean model that assumes
> what it endeavors to explain.
>
>
>
> Regards to all, Terry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero <
> javierwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In principle I agree with Terry. I have been thinking of this, though I am
> still not able to make a sound formulation of the idea. Still I am afraid
> that if I miss the chance to make at least a brief formulation of it I will
> lose the opportunity to make a brainstorming with you. So, here it comes:
>
> I have been thinking that a proper way to distinguish the contexts in
> which the concept of information acquires a fixed meaning or the many
> contexts on which information can be somehow observed, is to make use of
> the distinction between medium and form as developed by N. Luhmann, D.
> Baecker and E. Esposito. I have already expressed my opinion in this group
> that what information is depends on the system we are talking about. But
> the concept of medium is more especific since a complex system ussualy has
> many sources and types of information.
> So the authors just mentioned, a medium can be broadly defined as a set of
> loosely coupled elements. No matter what they are. While a Form is a
> temporary fixed coupling of a limited configuration of those elements.
> Accordingly, we can be talking about DNA sequences which are selected by
> RNA to form proteins or to codify a especific instruction to a determinate
> cell. We can think of atoms forming a specific kind of matter and a
> specific kind of molecular structure. We can also think of a vocabulary or
> a set of linguistic conventions making possible a meaningful utterance or
> discourse.
> The idea is that the medium conditions what can be treated as information.
> Or even better, each type of medium produces information of its own kind.
> According to this point of view, information cannot be transmitted. It can
> only be produced and "interpreted" out of the specific difference that a
> medium begets between itself and the forms that take shape from it. A
> medium can only be a source of noise to other mediums. Still, media can
> couple among them. This means that media can selforganize in a synergetic
> manner, where they depend on each others outputs or complexity reductions.
> And this also mean that they do this by translating noise into information.
> For instance, language is coupled to writing, and language and writing to
> print. Still oral communication is noisy to written communication. Let us
> say that the gestures, emotions, entonations, that we make when talking
> cannot be copied as such into writing. In a similar way, all the social
> practices and habits made by handwriting were distorted by the introduction
> of print. From a technical point of view you can codify the same message
> orally, by writing and by print. Still information and meaning are not the
> same. You can tell your girlfriend you love her. That interaction face to
> face where the lovers look into each others eye, where they can see if the
> other is nervous, is trembling or whatever. Meaning (declaring love and
> what that implies: marriage, children, and so on) and information (he is
> being sincere, she can see it in his eye; he brought her to a special
> place, so he planned it, and so on) take a very singular and untranslatable
> configuration. If you write a letter you just can say "I love you". You
> shall write a poem or a love letter. Your beloved would read it alone in
> her room and she would have to imagine everything you say. And  imagination
> makes information and meaning to articulate quite differently as in oral
> communication. It is not the same if you buy a love card in the kiosk and
> send it to her. Maybe you compensate the simplicity of your message by
> adding some chocolates and flowers. Again, information (jumm, lets see what
> he bought her) and meaning are not the same. I use examples of social
> sciences because that is my research field, although I have the intuition
> that it could also work for natural sciences.
>
> Best,
>
> JJ
>
> El feb 7, 2018 10:47 AM, "Sungchul Ji" <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> escribió
> :
>
> Hi  FISers,
>
>
>
> On 10/8/2017, Terry wrote:
>
>
>
> " So basically, I am advocating an effort to broaden our discussions and
> recognize that the term information applies in diverse ways to many
> different contexts. And because of this it is important to indicate the
> framing, whether physical, formal, biological, phenomenological,
> linguistic, etc.
>
> . . . . . . The classic syntax-semantics-pragmatics distinction introduced
> by Charles Morris has often been cited in this respect, though it too is in
> my opinion too limited to the linguistic paradigm, and may be misleading
> when applied more broadly. I have suggested a parallel, less linguistic
> (and nested in Stan's subsumption sense) way of making the division: i.e.
> into intrinsic, referential, and normative analyses/properties of
> information."
>
>
>
> I agree with Terry's concern about the often overused linguistic metaphor
> in defining "information".  Although the linguistic metaphor has its
> limitations (as all metaphors do), it nevertheless offers a unique
> advantage as well, for example, its well-established categories of
> functions (see the last column in *Table 1*.)
>
>
>
> The main purpose of this post is to suggest that all the varied theories
> of information discussed on this list may be viewed as belonging to the
> same category of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) diagrammatically
> represented as the 3-node closed network in the first column of *Table 1*.
>
>
>
> *Table 1.*  The postulated universality of ITR (Irreducible Triadic
> Relation) as manifested in information theory, semiotics, cell language
> theory, and linguistics.
>
> *Category Theory*
>
>
> *   f            g*
>
>
>
>
> *   A -----> B ------> C     |                           ^
>     |                            |     |______________| **   h*
>
>
>
> *ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation**)*
>
> *Deacon’s theory of information*
>
> *Shannon’s*
>
> *Theory of*
>
> *information*
>
> *Peirce’s theory of signs*
>
> *Cell language theory*
>
>
> *Human language (Function)*
>
> A
>
> *Intrinsic *information
>
> Source
>
> Object
>
> Nucleotides*/
> Amion acids
>
> Letters
> (Building blocks)
>
> B
>
> *Referential *information
>
> Message
>
> Sign
>
> Proteins
>
> Words
> (Denotation)
>
> C
>
> *Normative *information
>
> Receiver
>
> Interpretant
>
> Metabolomes
> (Totality of cell metabolism)
>
> Systems of words
> (Decision making & Reasoning)
>
> f
>
> ?
>
> Encoding
>
> Sign production
>
> Physical laws
>
> Second articulation
>
> g
>
> ?
>
> Decoding
>
> Sign interpretation
>
> Evoutionary selection
>
> First and Third articulation
>
> h
>
> ?
>
> Information flow
>
> Information flow
>
> Inheritance
>
> Grounding/
>
> Habit
>
> *Scale*
>
> *Micro-Macro?*
>
> *Macro*
>
> *Macro*
>
> *Micro*
>
> *Macro*
>
>
>
> *There may be more than one genetic alphabet of 4 nucleotides.  According
> to the "multiple genetic alphabet hypothesis', there are n genetic
> alphabets, each consisting of 4^n letters, each of which in turn
> consisting of n nucleotides.  In this view, the classical genetic
> alphabet is just one example of the n alphabets, i.e., the one with n = 1.
> When n = 3, for example, we have the so-called 3rd-order genetic alphabet
> with 4^3 = 64 letters each consisting of 3 nucleotides, resulting in the
> familiar codon table.  Thus, the 64 genetic codons are not words as widely
> thought (including myself until recently) but letters!  It then follows
> that proteins are words and  metabolic pathways are sentences.  Finally,
> the transient network of metbolic pathways (referred to as
> "hyperstructures" by V. Norris in 1999 and as "hypermetabolic pathways" by
> me more recently) correspond to texts essential to represent
> arguement/reasoning/computing.  What is most exciting is the recent
> discovery in my lab at Rutgers that the so-called "Planck-Shannon plots" of
> mRNA levels in living cells can identify function-dependent "hypermetabolic
> pathways" underlying breast cancer before and after drug
> treatment (manuscript under review).
>
>
>
> Any comments, questions, or suggestions would be welcome.
>
>
>
> Sung
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c284584fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c284584fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
> University of California, Berkeley
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c284584fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Ccf7011421f7d4bcd2ed608d5791c0cbd%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636548083771120620&sdata=FGUK5e3T0IGcQeVaNgXlcJEMhvgYgLdPUsfK1eHSPac%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Ccf7011421f7d4bcd2ed608d5791c0cbd%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636548083771120620&sdata=FGUK5e3T0IGcQeVaNgXlcJEMhvgYgLdPUsfK1eHSPac%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to