I am reluctant to discuss the information matters related to our language as
they too easily mess things up. But Eric Werner short paper (2010, Science
329, 629-630) makes a very adequate remark in the context of Shannon's
theory and biologic information that may also apply to language use: "The
meaning of a message is determined by how it affects the informational and
intentional state of the agent. Agents coordinate their actions by using
communication to adjust their respective strategies so that they cohere to
achieve their interlocking goals."
The point on "interlocking goals" by Werner brings me to the centrality of
life cycles (synchronization of lives), in all quarters pertaining to the
biological and to the social, and also in our languages. But they are not
still recognized as a central concern to ponder. They are like the water for
the fish, that invisible
stuff which permeates our societies.
Finally, let me return to Joseph's interpretation of meta-observers below,
which I concur. In actuality, the full world of disciplines with all their
institutional collective bodies, Institutes, Departments, Journals,
Reviewers, Meetings, formal and informal gatherings, etc. constitute a
thought collective well beyond the individual. In our case, the "meta"
complexity is well credited, as the problems around information cross along
some of the deepest conundrums: from a new evolutionary/cellular theory to
the absence of an efficient central theory of neurosciences
(&consciousness); from quantum information (&measurement&coherence
interpretations) to cosmology; from the relationship with entropy to the
information society, and of course including the new "dataism" to be
And this is my second cent of the week.
On Sat, 3
Mar 2018 02:58:28 +0100 (CET) "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch" wrote:
Dear Pedro and All,
If I go back to Pedro's original note, I see a further aspect which might be
worked into its discussion. There are no ideal meta-observers; we are all, to a
certain extent, both meta-observers of the discussion and participants in it.
This is not a simple vertical hierarchy. We move between these two roles,
switching from actualizing one to the other. Recognition of both should help
accomplish what I have tried to propose, namely, that we force ourselves to
emphasize someone else's work in our proposals, rather than our own.
De : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Date : 28/02/2018 - 05:34 (PST)
À : email@example.com
Objet : [Fis] Meta-observer?
Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think
expostulating one's general framework is going to facilitate the
discussions. Perhaps opposite, as it will introduce a trend towards
generalization that fortifies the perspectival differences and makes
the rhetorics less adjusted to the concrete. The problem basically
resides in the persistent immaturity of the "information synthesis" so
to speak. Defenders of each approach advocate a different "observer",
charged in each case with their favorite conceptualizations. Taking
into account the apparent multitude of dimensions of information, and
its almost unfathomable reach, a "battery" of those observers has to
be in place. And an agile switching among the observers has to be
established. A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious
displacements of the focus... helas, this means a meta-observer
or an observer-in-command.
But what sort of reference
may such a
metaobserver arbitrate? There is no conceivable book of rules about
the switching between heterogeneous disciplinary bodies.
only one way, imitating the central goal of nervous systems: the
metaobserver should finally care about our collective social life. It
was Whitehead, as far as I remember, who put it: "to live, to live
better." In each level of organization it is the life cycle of the
concerned entities and the aggregates built upon them what
Information is not only about logic-formal
aspects. It is the bread and butter of complexity, that which allows
contemporary social life.
So, in the coming session about
"dataism" we can also explore these themes.
Fis mailing list