Dear Loet, all, I agree with this. Our construction of reality is never that of a single system: there are always multiple systems and they interfere with each other in the way that you suggest. I would suggest that behind all the ins-and-outs of codification or information and meaning is a very simple principle of transduction. I often wonder if Luhmann’s theory isn’t really that different from Shannon’s (who talks about transduction endlessly). The fact that you've made this connection explicit and empirically justifiable is, I think, the most important aspect of your work. You may disagree, but if we kept transduction and jettisoned the rest of Luhmann's theory, I think we still maintain the essential point.
There is some resonance (interesting word!) with McCulloch’s model of perception, where he considered “drome” (literally, “course-ing”, “running”) circuits each bearing on the other: http://vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_heterarchy.pdf (look at the pictures on pages 2 and 3) Perception, he argued was a *syn-*drome: a combination of inter-effects between different circuits. There is a logic to this, but it is not the logic of set theory. McCulloch wrote about it. I think it’s not a million miles away from Joseph’s/Lupasco’s logic. Best wishes, Mark On 4 March 2018 at 07:03, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> wrote: > > Dear Xueshan Yan, > > May I suggest moving from a set-theoretical model to a model of two (or > more) helices. The one dimension may be the independent and the other the > dependent variable at different moments of time. One can research this > empirically; for example, in bodies of texts. > > In my own models, I declare a third level of codes of communication > organizing the meanings in different directions. Meaning both codes the > information and refers to horizons of meaning being specifically coded. > > Might this work as an answer to your paradox? > > Best, > Loet > > ------------------------------ > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of > Sussex; > > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, > Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; > > Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Xueshan Yan" <y...@pku.edu.cn> > To: "FIS Group" <fis@listas.unizar.es> > Sent: 3/4/2018 2:17:01 AM > Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox > > Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet, > > I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about > the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I > offer my responses as follows: > > Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals > the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and > source based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed > given the answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I > understand it right, we may have this conclusion from it: Information is > the carrier of meaning. Since we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier > of information, the task of our Information Science will immediately become > something like an intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and > Semantics (study of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. > For a long time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science > is so basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the > information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted of > axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates on > information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very > difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically > correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS > information." > > Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new > discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science > as well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to > review your opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I > don't know its content, same as I don't know what the content of > Biosemiotics is, but my view is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this > paradox. > > Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." > which are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will > lose its value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't > know how to answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an > information for B, while it has no information value for A. The difference > between the subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these > claims are the classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is > given by Mark Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a > lot of information for a mathematics student but no information for a > professional mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: > One should firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to define > their use of the term "information." I think this is effective and first > step toward to construct a general theory about information, if possible. > > For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted > information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree > with it kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell > accepts a sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic > information from paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission > has taken place, but is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be > aware that meaning only is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be > used in any other context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the > key we dissolve the paradox. > > In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so > far. > > > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > > > > *From:* Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedal...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM > *To:* Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> > *Cc:* Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu>; Xueshan Yan < > y...@pku.edu.cn>; FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es> > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Paradox > > > > Dear All: > > If a non English speaking individual saw the newspaper headline “*Earthquake > Occurred in Armenia Last Night*”: would that be "information?" > > My belief is - Yes. But he or she would have no idea what it was about- > the meaning would be : Possibly "something " as opposed to the meaning an > English speaking individual would draw. > > In both situations there would be still be meaning - A for the non English > speaking and B for the English speaking. > > > > Conclusion: Information is the container of meaning. > > > > Please critique. > > > > Syed > > > *Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are > confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or > entity to whom this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named > recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received > this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message > immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, > forward, printing, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited**.* > > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> > wrote: > > Hi FISers, > > > > I am not sure whether I am a Procrustes (*bed*) or a Peirce ( > *triadomaniac*), but I cannot help but seeing an ITR (irreducible Triadic > Relation) among Text, Context and Meaning, as depicted in* Figure 1*. > > > > > * f > g* > > *Context* --------> *Text * > ---------> *Meaning* > > | > ^ > > | > | > | > | > > > |_________________________| > > * > h* > > > > “The meaning of a text is irreducibly dependent on its context.” > > > > “Text, context, and meaning are irreducibly triadic.” The “TCM > principle” (?) > > > > *Figure 1.* The Procrustean bed, the Peircean triadomaniac, or both ? > > *f* = Sign production; *g = *Sign interpretation; *h = *Correlation > or information flow. > > > > According to this 'Peircean/Procrustesian' diagram, both what Terry said > and what Xueshan said may be valid. Although their thinking must have been > irreducibly triadic (*if Peirce is right*), Terry may have focused on (or > prescinded) Steps *f* and *h*, while Xueshan prescinded Steps *g* and *h,* > although he did indicate that his discussion was limited to the context > of human information and human meaning (i.e., Step f). Or maybe there > are many other interpretations possible, depending on the interpreter of > the posts under discussion and the ITR diagram. > > > > There are an infinite number of examples of algebraic operations: 2+3 = 5, > 3 - 1 = 2, 20 x 45 = 900, etc., etc. > > If I say "2 + 3 = 5", someone may say, but you missed "20 x 45 = 900". > In other words, no matter what specific algebraic operation I may come up > with, my opponent can always succeed in coming up with an example I > missed. The only solution to such an end-less debate would be to discover > the axioms of algebra, at which level, there cannot be any debate. When I > took an abstract algebra course as an undergraduate at the University of > Minnesota, Duluth, in 1962-5, I could not believe that underlying all the > complicated algebraic calculations possible, there are only 5 axioms ( > https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the- > 5-basic-axioms-of-algebra). > > > > So can it be that there are the axioms (either symbolic, diagrammatic, or > both) of information science waiting to be discovered, which will end all > the heated debates on information, meaning, data, etc. ? > > > > All the best. > > > > Sung > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Terrence W. > DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, February 26, 2018 1:13 PM > *To:* Xueshan Yan > *Cc:* FIS Group > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Paradox > > > > It is so easy to get into a muddle mixing technical uses of a term with > colloquial uses, and add a dash of philosophy and discipline-specific > terminology and it becomes mental quicksand. Terms like 'information' and > 'meaning" easily lead us into these sorts of confusions because they have > so many context-sensitive and pardigm-specific uses. This is well exhibited > in these FIS discusions, and is a common problem in many interdisciplinary > discussions. I have regularly requested that contributors to FIS try to > label which paradigm they are using to define their use of the term > "information' in these posts, but sometimes, like fish unaware that they > are in water, one forgets that there can be alternative paradigms (such as > the one Søren suggests). > > > > So to try and avoid overly technical usage can you be specific about what > you intend to denote with these terms. > > E.g. for the term "information" are you referring to statisitica features > intrinsic to the character string with respect to possible alternatives, or > what an interpreter might infer that this English sentence refers to, or > whether this reference carries use value or special significance for such > an interpreter? > > And e.g. for the term 'meaning' are you referring to what a semantician > would consider its underlying lexical structure, or whether the sentence > makes any sense, or refers to anything in the world, or how it might impact > some reader? > > Depending how you specify your uses your paradox will become irresolvable > or dissolve. > > > > — Terry > > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the > following inference, I call it *Paradox of Meaning and Information* or > *Armenia > Paradox*. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below > and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. > > > > Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main > media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two > students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper > headline “*Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night*”: > > Q: What is the *MEANING* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Q: What is the *INFORMATION* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Thus we come to the conclusion that *MEANING is equal to INFORMATION*, or > strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In > Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In > Information Science, the study of human information is called Human > Informatics. > > Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of > human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or > Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human > language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions > here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. > > Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its > main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one > of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with > the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, > thus we have the following corollary: > > A: *Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics*. > > According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle > for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human > Informatics, so we have another corollary: > > B: *Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics*. > > Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a > paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement > about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a > subject, but how should we understand this paradox? > > > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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%7Cdafadeb387ea48d49e8308d57d44af49%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636552656347721416&sdata=9iZiY5RL9vuquc0n7Gr111RwX0AIk9dFuw0ow3HOGMA%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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Dr. Mark William Johnson Institute of Learning and Teaching Faculty of Health and Life Sciences University of Liverpool Phone: 07786 064505 Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
