P.s.: nel quarto rigo dal basso bisogna sostituire bene-capitale ad ALTRO valore con bene-capitale ad ALTO valore. Grazie. Francesco.
2018-03-05 6:21 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>: > 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
