Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Alex Hankey]

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  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 
> *Cc:* Terrence W. DEACON ; Xueshan Yan <
> y...@pku.edu.cn>; FIS Group 
> *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.
>
>
>
> Conclu

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Francesco Rizzo]

P.s.:
nel quarto rigo dal basso bisogna sostituire bene-capitale
ad ALTRO valoreconbene-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 
>> *Date:* 周一,3月 5,2018 4:26 上午
>> *To:* ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>
>> *Cc:* 闫学杉 , fis 
>> *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 discu

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Francesco Rizzo]

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 
> *Date:* 周一,3月 5,2018 4:26 上午
> *To:* ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>
> *Cc:* 闫学杉 , fis 
> *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

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[ZouXiaohui]

Dear Colleagues and Syed??
  Thank you for your attention!Let me answer your 
questionCould 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
   


iPhone

-- Original --
From: Syed Ali 
Date: ,3?? 5,2018 4:26 
To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>
Cc: ?? , fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox



Dear Colleagues:Could you critique a view: Information is the container of 
meaning ?
Syed 
  

 ??
 
 
 
 
 
 
??
 
 

 
 
??
 
 
 
??
 
??
 
??
 
??
 





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 









??
  
 
 
1.1.??
 
1.2.
 
1.3.
 
2.??
 



??







 





iPhone

-- Original --
From: ?? 
Date: ,3?? 4,2018 9:18 
To: FIS Group 
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox





 
Dear Dai, S?0?3ren, 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

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Mark Johnson]

Dear Loet, all,

Pedro has just helped me significantly: it's what he refers to as
"interlocking goals" (although I'm not sure about "goals" - too
teleological?)

What does that mean? Let's think about a transducer we are all familiar
with (and one which I am doing a lot of work around at the moment -
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/01/31/liverpool-lead-international-diabetic-eye-disease-research-project/
)

The eye is an operationally-closed system perturbed by its environment. It
converts these perturbations into signals which (via many other transducers
- neurons, etc) we determine what we are looking at. The fact that we
determine that the thing we are looking at is a "thing", and its thingness
(the category, the distinction) is stable indicates that the transduction
is an ongoing process: indeed, it not only determines the thingness of the
thing, but I-ness (and eye-ness!) of me, the observer. If we'd taken LSD,
we can mess with our transducers, and the thingness of the thing might
appear to be unstable. The thingness of what we see is the product of the
interlocking goals of the transducers of the eye in its environment. In my
project, I'm having to worry about the transductions in the
discourse-related judgements of doctors looking at scans of eyes (taken
through cameras... another transducer!).

In more detail, the eye is a complex system, but its environment is more
complex. The transduction process must involve attenuation of the
perturbations from the environment: which ones to deal with? Which ones to
ignore? However, if it was just attenuative, then we would not survive very
long: some unnoticed (attenuated-out) catastrophe would soon see us off! So
something else must happen alongside attenuation. Stafford Beer called this
"amplification" - but the electronics analogy is perhaps misleading.
Amplification refers to the generative capacity derived from the attenuated
information. In reality, amplification means "adding redundancy" (some of
this redundancy may involve actions in the world). So attenuation is
leaving things out, amplification is adding redundancy to the attenuated
description.

But that's not quite it either. Because there will be a difference, or
error, between the amplified descriptions and the actual perturbations.
Transduction, then, is continually adjusting its amplifications and
attenuations to produce a stable state. The thing is recursive: news of
error at one transducer is passed on to other transducers - this is
McCulloch's neural network; it's what the neurons do to the visual signal.
As an aside, Bill Powers's Perceptual Control Theory could well be right (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory)

What does Shannon say?

Shannon and Weaver (1998) The Mathematical Theory of Communication,
University of Illinois Press p57

"Either of these [sender and receiver] will be called a discrete
transducer. The input to the transducer is a sequence of input symbols and
its output a sequence of output symbols. The transducer may have an
internal memory so that its output depends not only on the present input
symbol but also on the past history. We assume that the internal memory is
finite, i.e. there exist a finite number m of possible states of the
transducer and that its output is a function of the present state and the
present input symbol. The next state will be a second function of these two
quantities. Thus a transducer can be described by two functions:
y(n) = f(x(n), α(n))

α(n+1) = g (x(n), α(n))

where x(n) is the nth input symbol

α(n) is the state of the transducer when the nth symbol is introduced

y(n) is the output symbol (or sequence of output symbols) produced when
x(n) is introduced if the state is α(n)

If the output state of the one transducer can be identified with the input
symbols of a second, they can be connected in tandem and the result is also
a transducer."

Although Shannon's idea of "memory" in the transducer is specifically
related to his engineering challenge, the emergent state of the transducer
is basically a generative model which produces output according to the
input. In order to compensate for a noisy connection, one of the functions
of the transducer is to add redundancy to the communication.

Luhmann, of course, based his theory on Maturana's structural coupling. But
what's that really? It's "interlocking goals" again, isn't it? Luhmann
rightly sees the dynamics of discourse emerging from structural coupling
between the social and psychic systems, double-contingency, etc... but
isn't that just a complex way of saying "There are multiple recursive
transductions in communication - some in peoples' heads, and some in the
conversations between people across different media and contexts"?
(Conversation is a transduction process). Again, if we all took LSD, it
would all go haywire!

I suspect out priority in life is to determine which transducers to tweak,
how much, when and how long... and which ones to leave alone!

Best wish

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Søren Brier]

Dear Sung

May I suggest that you take a look at this paper that sums up the book 
http://www.integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
  and the point  relevant to your objection is that you have to integrate 
cybernetics, systems and semiotics to create this transdisciplinary framework, 
It will therefore integrate a concept of information within a communicative 
concept of meaning developed from Peirce’s phenomenologically based triadic 
pragmaticist and fallibilist philosophy of science created long before Popper’s.
 Best
Søren

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Xueshan Yan
Sent: 4. marts 2018 02:17
To: FIS Group 
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 mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>>
Cc: Terrence W. DEACON mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>>; 
Xueshan Yan mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>>; FIS Group 
mailto: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 woul

Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?

[PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ]

Dear Colleagues,

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 
discussed soon.

And this is my second cent of the week.
Best--Pedro


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.

Best regards,

Joseph

Message d'origine
De : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Date : 28/02/2018 - 05:34 (PST)
À : fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : [Fis] Meta-observer?



head>

Dear FISers,

Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think

that

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.
I see
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
matters. 
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.

Best--Pedro








___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Mark,

Can you, please, explain "transduction" in more detail? Perhaps, you can 
also provide examples?


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, University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London;

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en


-- Original Message --
From: "Mark Johnson" 
To: "Loet Leydesdorff" 
Cc: y...@pku.edu.cn; "FIS Group" 
Sent: 3/4/2018 1:03:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox


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  
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, University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of 
London;


http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en 




-- Original Message --
From: "Xueshan Yan" 
To: "FIS Group" 
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 mis

[Fis] two senses of near phenomena: testable previsions

[James Peters]

Dear FISers,

In  reply to Arturo Tozzi's incisive observations about the occurrence
of phenomenon A implying the occurrence of phenomenon B, there are
two quantifiable means of testing the concurrence of A and B.

1.  Spatially overlapping.   Every physical phenomenon can be represented
by a set of particles.   Let A and B be sets of particles that overlap.   That 
is,
some particles in A also appear in B.   If the A and B overlap, then the
occurrence of A guarantees the occurrence of B.

Example: If A is a set of photons in an optical Soliton X, we can always find
one or more photons in A that are also in a set of photons B in X.

2.  Descriptively overlapping.  Every physical phenomenon has features that
are also features of other physical phenomena.   Let A and B be sets of 
particles
with one features, namely, volume and colour.   This means that A and B are
described with a feature vector of the form (volume, colour).   Colour in this
case would be either a dominant color intensity value such as green or an 
average
colour value.

The sets of particles A and B overlap descriptively, provided the feature 
vector 
that describes A matches the feature vector that describes B.

Example: If an optical soliton A collides with water molecules, then A has a
particular volume and one can observe a band of colours from refraction of
the light from the collision of A with the water molecules.Both the volume 
of
A and the dominant colour in the refraction from A can be measured at an instant
in time.   Then if B is another optical solition described by a feature vector
(volume, colour), which matches A, then A and B overlap descriptively.

These two cases are the beginning of an approach to answering Arturo Tozzi's
challenge.

Best,
Jim


James F. Peters, Professor
Computational Intelligence Laboratory, ECE Department
Room E2-390 EITC Complex, 75 Chancellor's Circle
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB  R3T 5V6 Canada
Office: 204 474 9603   Fax: 204 261 4639
email: james.pete...@ad.umanitoba.ca
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Peters/?ev=hdr_xprf

From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of tozziart...@libero.it 
[tozziart...@libero.it]
Sent: March 4, 2018 6:30 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] testable previsions

Dear FISers,

I read about a lot of models and theories.

May you provide, please, just a single empirically testable, quantifiable 
prediction suggested by your framework?

I mean:

"If the phenomenon a occurs, then the phenomenon b occurs".

Given your own model, may you fill the letters "a" and "b" with anything that 
is testable with an experiment?

Thanks a lot.




Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] testable previsions

[tozziarturo]

Dear FISers, 

I read about a lot of models and theories.

May you provide, please, just a single empirically testable, quantifiable 
prediction suggested by your framework?

I mean: 

"If the phenomenon a occurs, then the phenomenon b occurs".

Given your own model, may you fill the letters "a" and "b" with anything that 
is testable with an experiment? 

Thanks a lot. 


  

Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Mark Johnson]

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  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, University of
> Sussex;
>
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. ,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
> Beijing;
>
> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London;
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Xueshan Yan" 
> To: "FIS Group" 
> 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 ‘

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[ZouXiaohui]

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 









??
  

  
1.1.??
 
1.2.
 
1.3.
 
2.??
 



??







 





iPhone

-- Original --
From: ?? 
Date: ,3?? 4,2018 9:18 
To: FIS Group 
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox



 
Dear Dai, S?0?3ren, 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." 

S?0?3ren 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