Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Otto E. Rossler]

roduct processing. 
  The double-chessboards based on the wisdom integrated theory and cultural 
gene system engineering practice came into being. Its primary feature is that 
it is a combination of humans and machines that can instantly complete the 
knowledge production of any one knowledge module. The formation and promotion 
of popularity has gradually highlighted its unique charm.   For example, 
any text segment imported into the word chessboard web development environment 
and application platform can instantly form almost all the language points, 
knowledge points, and original points contained in the world-wide super 
collaboration of the text segment. . This not only provides the convenience for 
the original creators or experts themselves to confirm their themes, styles, or 
characteristics, but also provides a common platform for teachers, students and 
the general public to participate in the finishing of knowledge modules.   
Such a large-scale production of knowledge is supported by the three major 
system engineering practices of language, knowledge, and software. It is a 
brand-new approach to education informatization. At the same time, it provides 
a typical example of collaborative innovation that focuses on the intelligence 
capabilities of human-computer dual-brain intelligence. Both men, women, and 
children can discover from their most interesting speech fragments. Their 
respective real interests, hobbies, and good at, and then used them to 
participate in the integration of teaching and learning of social system 
engineering and the combination of soft and hard language and formal system 
engineering double practice, so as to reflect the three basic categories of 
object-oriented text The generalized textual cultural genetic system project 
contributes meager forces and gradually discovers and finds their precise 
positioning in the overall system of human knowledge building construction. 
 Data, language, information, and knowledge all have intersections. Therefore, 
it is often misunderstood. The text that records knowledge is a typical type of 
data. Obvious ambiguity allows the machine to be automatically ejected; human 
experts are easily ambiguous in their respective fields; the most difficult 
ambiguity is the category of overlapping (basic concepts).
Best wish!         
       Zou Xiaohui
发自我的iPhone

-- Original --From: Syed Ali 
<doctorsyedal...@gmail.com>Date: 周二,3月 6,2018 11:20 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
Many thanks Zou.

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 Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:35 PM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote:

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

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[ZouXiaohui]

Dear colleagues


The era of large-scale or big production of knowledge and small-scale or normal 
production of knowledge is about to come. 
Author: Zou Xiaohui Time: 2018-03-19 08:57:37  
 In the age of mobile networks where information and knowledge exponentially 
grows, any one of a small WeChat group and a circle of friends can detonate the 
spiritual world of any individual. This is incredible in ancient times. 
Therefore, it is already lagging behind to rely on the 2,000-year-long 
knowledge production method to do spiritual product processing.The 
double-chessboards based on the wisdom integrated theory and cultural gene 
system engineering practice came into being. Its primary feature is that it is 
a combination of humans and machines that can instantly complete the knowledge 
production of any one knowledge module. The formation and promotion of 
popularity has gradually highlighted its unique charm.For example, any 
text segment imported into the word chessboard web development environment and 
application platform can instantly form almost all the language points, 
knowledge points, and original points contained in the world-wide super 
collaboration of the text segment. . This not only provides the convenience for 
the original creators or experts themselves to confirm their themes, styles, or 
characteristics, but also provides a common platform for teachers, students and 
the general public to participate in the finishing of knowledge modules.
Such a large-scale production of knowledge is supported by the three major 
system engineering practices of language, knowledge, and software. It is a 
brand-new approach to education informatization. At the same time, it provides 
a typical example of collaborative innovation that focuses on the intelligence 
capabilities of human-computer dual-brain intelligence. Both men, women, and 
children can discover from their most interesting speech fragments. Their 
respective real interests, hobbies, and good at, and then used them to 
participate in the integration of teaching and learning of social system 
engineering and the combination of soft and hard language and formal system 
engineering double practice, so as to reflect the three basic categories of 
object-oriented text The generalized textual cultural genetic system project 
contributes meager forces and gradually discovers and finds their precise 
positioning in the overall system of human knowledge building construction. 


 Data, language, information, and knowledge all have intersections. Therefore, 
it is often misunderstood. The text that records knowledge is a typical type of 
data. Obvious ambiguity allows the machine to be automatically ejected; human 
experts are easily ambiguous in their respective fields; the most difficult 
ambiguity is the category of overlapping (basic concepts).


Best wish! 


   Zou Xiaohui



iPhone

-- Original --
From: Syed Ali <doctorsyedal...@gmail.com>
Date: ,3?? 6,2018 11:20 
To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>
Cc: ?? <y...@pku.edu.cn>, fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox



 Many thanks Zou. 


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 Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:35 PM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote:
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! 


  Be

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Francesco Rizzo]

 Following Theatetus, as incompleteness saves it from Socrates critics.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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*”: wou

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Bruno Marchal]

uot;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 
> <mailto:doctorsyedal...@gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM
> To: Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu <mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>>
> Cc: Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu <mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>>; 
> Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn <mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>>; FIS Group 
> <fis@listas.unizar.es <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 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 
> <mailto: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 mea

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 <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 Engl

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 <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

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 <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 p

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 <doctorsyedal...@gmail.com>
Date: ,3?? 5,2018 4:26 
To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>
Cc: ?? <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 
  

 ??
 
 
 
 
 
 
??
 
 

 
 
??
 
 
 
??
 
??
 
??
 
??
 





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: ?? <y...@pku.edu.cn>
Date: ,3?? 4,2018 9:18 
To: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es>
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 li

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Mark Johnson]

 transducers to tweak,
how much, when and how long... and which ones to leave alone!

Best wishes,

Mark

On 4 March 2018 at 15:41, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> wrote:

> 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, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of
> Sussex;
>
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>
> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonm...@gmail.com>
> To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <l...@leydesdorff.net>
> Cc: y...@pku.edu.cn; "FIS Group" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> 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 <l...@leydesdorff.net> 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, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of
>> Sussex;
>>
>> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
>> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
>> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>>
>> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Xueshan Yan" <y...@pku.edu.cn>
>> To: "FIS Group" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> 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

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 <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<mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>>
Cc: Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu<mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>>; 
Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn<mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>>; FIS Group 
<fis@listas.unizar.es<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 

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 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;

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


-- Original Message --
From: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonm...@gmail.com>
To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <l...@leydesdorff.net>
Cc: y...@pku.edu.cn; "FIS Group" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
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 <l...@leydesdorff.net> 
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 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of 
London;


http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en 
<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en>



-- Original Message --
From: "Xueshan Yan" <y...@pku.edu.cn>
To: "FIS Group" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
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 

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 <l...@leydesdorff.net> 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, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of
> Sussex;
>
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>
> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Xueshan Yan" <y...@pku.edu.cn>
> To: "FIS Group" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> 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

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Loet Leydesdorff]

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 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;

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


-- Original Message --
From: "Xueshan Yan" <y...@pku.edu.cn>
To: "FIS Group" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
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 
‘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 dissol

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Xueshan Yan]

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, prin

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Sungchul Ji]

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<mailto: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 

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Søren Brier]

Dear Loet

I know that we have very divergent understandings of biosemiotics. The 
biosemiotic understanding of living systems is not based on a mechanistic 
either monistic or dualistic ontology but on a semiotic process philosophy 
based on an non-dual emptiness ontology that has some similarities to 
Bertallanffy’s General systems theory’s organicism or Aristotle’s hylozoism. I 
have tried to explain these differences in ontology in the papers from JPBMB 
below. I have summed up the cybersemiotic view as it looked some years ago here 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf


Best wishes

Søren Brier

New articles in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology
How Peircean semiotic philosophy connects Western science with Eastern 
emptiness ontology https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7KI6VGXcejand
Peircean cosmogony's symbolic agapistic self-organization as an example of the 
influence of eastern philosophy on western thinking 
https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7KI6VGXceX
2017 JPBMB Focused Issue on Integral Biomathics: The Necessary Conjunction of 
Western and Eastern Thought Traditions for Exploring the Nature of Mind and 
Life<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/131>  *
* free promotional access to all focused issue articles until June 20th 2018
Brier, S. (2017). C.S. Peirce’s Phenomenological, Evolutionary and 
Trans-disciplinary Semiotic Conception of Science and Religion. Research as 
Realization: Science, Spirituality and Harmony. Editor / Ananta Kumar Giri. 
Delhi : Primus Books, 2017. pp. 53-96






From: l...@leydesdorff.net [mailto:leydesdo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Loet 
Leydesdorff
Sent: 26. februar 2018 19:03
To: Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk>; Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>; 
fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] A Paradox

Dear Soren,

I agree with Stan's wording, but your wording is ambiguous. The meaning is not 
biologically given, but constructed in a discourse among biologists. The 
discourse can also be theological and then one obtains "theological" meaning.

Best,
Loet



Loet Leydesdorff
Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ.<http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> Beijing;
Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en



-- Original Message --
From: "Søren Brier" <sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>>
To: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssal...@binghamton.edu<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>; 
"fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Sent: 2/26/2018 6:41:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Thanks Stan. I agree: Behind production and  interpretation of all quantitative 
data, there is  either an biological or an existential or a religious or a 
philosophical framework of meaning.

   Best
Søren

From: Stanley N Salthe 
[mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>]
Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19
To: Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>>; fis 
<fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Following upon Søren:  Meaning is derived for a system by way of 
Interpretation.  The transmitted information has no meaning without 
interpretation.

STAN

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier 
<sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>> wrote:
Dear  Xueshan

The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass 
information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such a 
paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory  with 
it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf

Cordially yours

 Søren Brier

Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 
2000 Frederiksberg
Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , 
cybersemiotics.com<http://cybersemiotics.com>.



Fra: Fis 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] På 
vegne af Xueshan Yan
Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47
Til: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Emne: [Fis] A Paradox

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 Ar

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Terrence W. DEACON]

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  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
>
>


-- 
Professor Terrence W. Deacon
University of California, Berkeley
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Soren,

I agree with Stan's wording, but your wording is ambiguous. The meaning 
is not biologically given, but constructed in a discourse among 
biologists. The discourse can also be theological and then one obtains 
"theological" meaning.


Best,
Loet



Loet Leydesdorff

Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;

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


-- Original Message --
From: "Søren Brier" <sbr@cbs.dk>
To: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssal...@binghamton.edu>; "fis" 
<fis@listas.unizar.es>

Sent: 2/26/2018 6:41:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Thanks Stan. I agree: Behind production and  interpretation of all 
quantitative data, there is  either an biological or an existential or 
a religious or a philosophical framework of meaning.




   Best

Søren



From: Stanley N Salthe [mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu]
Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19
To: Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk>; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox



Following upon Søren:  Meaning is derived for a system by way of 
Interpretation.  The transmitted information has no meaning without 
interpretation.




STAN



On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk> wrote:


Dear  Xueshan



The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can 
encompass information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s 
semiotics is such a paradigm especially if you can integrate 
cybernetics and systems theory  with it. There is a summary of the 
framework of Cybersemiotics here:


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf



Cordially yours



 Søren Brier



Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 
(2VO25), 2000 Frederiksberg


Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc , cybersemiotics.com.







Fra: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På vegne af Xueshan Yan
Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47
Til: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Emne: [Fis] A Paradox



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 t

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Søren Brier]

Thanks Stan. I agree: Behind production and  interpretation of all quantitative 
data, there is  either an biological or an existential or a religious or a 
philosophical framework of meaning.

   Best
Søren

From: Stanley N Salthe [mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu]
Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19
To: Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk>; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Following upon Søren:  Meaning is derived for a system by way of 
Interpretation.  The transmitted information has no meaning without 
interpretation.

STAN

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier 
<sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>> wrote:
Dear  Xueshan

The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass 
information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such a 
paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory  with 
it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf

Cordially yours

 Søren Brier

Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 
2000 Frederiksberg
Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , 
cybersemiotics.com<http://cybersemiotics.com>.



Fra: Fis 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] På 
vegne af Xueshan Yan
Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47
Til: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Emne: [Fis] A Paradox

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<mailto: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

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Stanley N Salthe]

Following upon Søren:  Meaning is derived for a system by way of
Interpretation.  The transmitted information has no meaning without
interpretation.

STAN

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk> wrote:

> Dear  Xueshan
>
>
>
> The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass
> information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such
> a paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory
>  with it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here:
>
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b51
> 3bfbe2.pdf
>
>
>
> Cordially yours
>
>
>
>  Søren Brier
>
>
>
> Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15
> (2VO25), 2000 Frederiksberg
>
> Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc , cybersemiotics.com.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *På vegne af *Xueshan Yan
> *Sendt:* 26. februar 2018 10:47
> *Til:* FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> *Emne:* [Fis] A Paradox
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Karl Javorszky]

gt; Cordially yours
>
>
>
>  Søren Brier
>
>
>
> Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15
> (2VO25), 2000 Frederiksberg
>
> Mobil 28494162 <(28)%20494%20162> www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc ,
> cybersemiotics.com.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *På vegne af *Xueshan Yan
> *Sendt:* 26. februar 2018 10:47
> *Til:* FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> *Emne:* [Fis] A Paradox
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Søren Brier]

Dear  Xueshan

The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass 
information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce's semiotics is such a 
paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory  with 
it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf

Cordially yours

 Søren Brier

Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 
2000 Frederiksberg
Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , 
cybersemiotics.com.



Fra: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På vegne af Xueshan Yan
Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47
Til: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Emne: [Fis] A Paradox

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

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Dai Griffiths]

Dear Xueshan,

You ask "how should we understand this paradox?"

I suggest that we start by looking at what it might mean for information 
or meaning to be 'contained' in a sentence. Lakoff would have told us 
that this is a metaphor, and specifically the pervasive 'container 
metaphor'. According to https://glossary.sil.org/term/container-metaphor:


===

Container metaphor.

A containment metaphor is an ontological metaphor in which some concept 
is represented as:


 *      having an inside and outside, and
 *      capable of holding something else.

Examples:
(English)

 *      I’ve had a full life.
 *      Life is empty for him.
 *      Her life is crammed with activities.
 *      Get the most out of life.

Source:
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: 
University of Chicago.

29–30,



The paradox is dissolved by proposing that "In everyday speech it is 
usual to say that a sentence has 'an inside and an outside', and that it 
is 'capable of holding something else', but this is no more than a 
convenient fiction. Both 'information' and 'meaning' (in the senses you 
are using) are constituted by social and cognitive processes, and 
consideration of these processes can enable us to understand the 
relationship between the two terms".


Best

Dai


On 26/02/18 09:47, Xueshan Yan 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


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

[Fis] A Paradox

[Xueshan Yan]

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