Current Information Science, particularly that purveyed by Fis, is far too poverty stricken to tackle this problem Xueshan.
Metaphor is a rich purveyor of meaning utlised by human consciousness, even in the earliest epics written by mankind, like the Valmiki Ramayana, simply because human awareness adopts 'forms' as its mode of information content, and not digits. The way that forms are encoded in experience is now well understood. A proof has even been given that 'ideas' and not 'digits' are the primary content of human awareness. Best wishes to all, Alex Hankey On 4 March 2018 at 06:47, Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn> wrote: > 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 > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 ____________________________________________________________ 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
