Cari tutti, permettetemi di dirVi alcune cose: * l'IN-FORM-AZIONE è un processo attraverso il quale prendono forma: le persone, gli animali, le piante, le idee, le cose, etc. * l'Informazione è preceduta dalla significazione e seguita dalla comunicazione; * è possibile classificare quattro tipi di informazione: naturale o termodinamica, genetica, matematica e semantica; * una cosa è il concetto-significato di informazione, un'altra cosa è la MISURA dell'informazione che, seguendo la "Scienza della logica di Hegel, può essere quantitativa, qualitativa e quantitativo-qualitativa o qualitativo-quantitativa; * la TRASDUZIONE è la trasformazione di una grandezza fisica, ad es. acustica, in un'altra,ad es. elettrica, conservando la forma d'onda del segnale: - nel campo biologico è il trasferimento di un carattere ereditario da una cellula batterica a un'altra senza contatto fra le due particelle; - nel campo economico può coincidere con la trasmutazione di liquidità--la proprietà più rilevante della moneta -- da un bene-capitale (che perde valore) a un altro un bene-capitale (che guadagna valore) verificandosi il passaggio di una FORMA D'ONDA MONETARIA che si conserva arricchendo alcuni e impoverendo altri, una sorta di effetto ricchezza o di effetto povertà; * nella mia "Nuova economia" ho definito l'entropia finanziaria (la liquidità monetaria si sposta da un bene-capitale a basso valore ad un bene-capitale ad altro valore) e la neg-entropia finanziaria (la liquidità monetaria si sposta da un bene-capitale ad alto valore ad un bene-capitale a basso valore). Questo ultimo punto meriterebbe un'esposizione più completa e matematica che si ritrova in tanti miei libri. Ancora una volta Vi prego di scusarmi per l'uso della lingua italiana e Vi invio un saluto affettuoso. Davvero! Francesco.
2018-03-05 1:35 GMT+01:00 ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>: > Dear Colleagues and Syed： > Thank you for your attention! Let me answer your > question（“Could you critique a view: Information is the container of > meaning ?”）: > Undoubtedly,the point of view “ information is the container of > meaning” is certainly wrong. > For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, > in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the > physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or > generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content > information. > Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified > in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to > disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come > from ambiguity. > Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information > that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or > subject of information science). > These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or > suggestions! > Thank you! > > Best wish! > > Zou Xiaohui > > > 发自我的iPhone > > > ------------------ Original ------------------ > *From:* Syed Ali <doctorsyedal...@gmail.com> > *Date:* 周一,3月 5,2018 4:26 上午 > *To:* ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> > *Cc:* 闫学杉 <y...@pku.edu.cn>, fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Paradox > > Dear Colleagues: > Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ? > Syed > 附中文： > > 谢谢关注！ > > 让我来回答你的问题： > > 毋庸置疑，信息是容器的观点，它肯定是错误的。 > > 因为，首先，除了具有质量和能量的载体之外，现象信息是无所不包的，它们可以是物质世界的任何表现， > 也可以是心智的任何情形，还可以是狭义和广义的语言，或广义文本。其中，既有形式信息，也有内容信息。 > > 进而，再来看本体信息，它由多种形式简化之后再聚焦于同一内容，旨在排除歧义。人们的许多认知错误与误解，都源于歧义。 > > 最后，实际上也是最重要的就是：可用真值计算的本质信息（这才是信息科学根本的研究对象）。 > > 以上是邹晓辉的观点。请各位给予评价、意见或建议！ > > 谢谢！ > > 祝 > > 愉快！ > > 邹晓辉 > > > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:00 AM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues and Xueshan， >> >> >> The relationship between meaning and information: >> >> 1. Three levels to understand them >> >> 1.1 words in language: there are just two different words,meaning and >> information. >> >> 1.2 concepts in thought: the meaning of meaning, the meaning of >> information, where both are the same, then they are two usages of one use >> of synonymy, respectively; if both mean something different then they are >> two different concepts. >> >> 1.3 objects in world: the meaning and the information of these two terms >> specifically refer to. >> >> 2. Either look at them from a linguistic point of view, or talk about >> them both from an informational perspective. In principle, they should not >> be discussed both in linguistics and in information science. Otherwise, >> they will encounter the contradiction between the two. >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Xiaohui, Zou >> >> >> 附中文： >> >> >> 意义与信息的关系： >> >> 1. 分三个层次来理解 >> >> 1.1.语言的词：意义与信息就是两个不同的词。 >> >> 1.2.思想概念：意义的意义或含义，信息的含义或意义，两方面如果所指相同，那么在此它们就是同义项的一个用法分别采用了两个 >> 说法；两方面如果所指不同，那么在此它们就是两个不同的词。 >> >> 1.3.对象世界：意义与信息这两个词的具体所指。 >> >> 2.要么都从语言学的角度来看它们，要么都从信息科学角度来谈它们。原则上不应该同时既从语言学又从信息科学两个角度来谈它们。 >> 否则，就会遭遇两者的自相矛盾。 >> >> >> 祝 >> >> 愉快 >> >> >> 晓辉 >> >> >> >> 发自我的iPhone >> >> >> ------------------ Original ------------------ >> *From:* 闫学杉 <y...@pku.edu.cn> >> *Date:* 周日,3月 4,2018 9:18 上午 >> *To:* FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es> >> *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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
