Re: [Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner
Replying to Loet. Well, I may or may not be be a nominalist (which kind?)
in the sense that I believe that qualia are actual as universals, and that
evolution has created entities -- us -- that can experience them, or focus
them, acutely. This is the same as universals created by language -- such
as 'space', 'heat', etc., all of which do relate to experience but not to
specific objects.
However, I also believe that each species of sentient beings has its own
'take' on actuality, lives in its own 'umwelt', and so my sense of, for lack
of a better term, a 'numinous realm' may be conditioned by my own sense
organs, and further conditioned again by my cultural heritage. Thus, I am
constructed as: {physico-chemical world {biology {primate {culture {my
experience}, showing the layers of information affording me.
STAN
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.netwrote:
Dear Joe, Stan, and colleagues,
It occurred to me that this is in a certain sense a repeat of the
nominalism/realism discussion. With his heavy emphasis on being/not-being,
Joe is on the realist side, while Stan’s qualia are nominalistic. I assume
that they don’t dwell around like the Greek Gods, but are reflexive
constructs shaped in scholarly discourse that clarifies them. This
discussion makes also clear to me why Joe’s approach is called “Logic in
Reality” and not “Reality in Logic”. Eventually, the grounding has a
direction.
I would consider the vagueness as tangential to the scholarly discourse;
the external referent. The further specification – the updating of
hypotheses – enables us to define new puzzles and thus perhaps to improve
the specification. This reality (as cogitatum part of res cogitans) cannot
be captured with derivatives from “esse”. One would need derivatives from
“frangere” – fractals, fragments, fragile – for the understanding. The
models remain volatile albeit more symbolically generalized than common
language.
With best wishes,
Loet
--
Loet Leydesdorff
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
*From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es]
*On Behalf Of *Stanley N Salthe
*Sent:* Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:05 PM
*To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
*Subject:* [Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner
-- Forwarded message --
From: *Stanley N Salthe* ssal...@binghamton.edu
Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner
To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
A comment on Joseph's concluding statement: It seems clear to me that
there is a world of qualia (spiritual realm, sentience, Peirce's 'universal
mind', whatever). I believe that the connection between this and the
physical/material world has increased in sharpness/definiteness at certain
locales (like the earth) during the development of the universe. It does
not, however, seem plausible that this connection is made 'from the bottom
up' via the QM realm, as in Conrad's 'fluctuons'. The glut of levels in the
material world just presents too many barriers for that to be the case.
Development generally goes from vaguer to increasingly more definite, and
our awareness of qualia likely has had that kind of development,
individually during our ontogeny.
STAN
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:
(For unknown reasons this message didn't went through last Tuesday---P.)
Mensaje original
*Asunto: *
The Fluctuon Model; Colophon
*Fecha: *
Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:44:48 +0100
*De: *
Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
*Responder a: *
Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
*Para: *
Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es,
fis fis@listas.unizar.es fis@listas.unizar.es
Dear All,
Pedro has asked me to renew with an earlier FIS Group practice and write a
colophon for our discussion of the fluctuon model of Michael Conrad.
Actually, not much has happened with regard to evidence for or against.
There is a lot of information in the latest StanLoet exchange, however,
that has made the exercise worthwhile. There has also been a discussion of
fluctuations, but essentially of fluctuations in *our* thermodynamic
world. Most interesting, but of no direct help with the original task.
I therefore now exercise my editorial authority by offering, by way of
colophon, and with his agreement, the notes of a discussion I had with Pedro
in Beijing. They were not and are not proposed as science, information
science or other; but I like to think they are more than just opinion. For
people, and I assume
[Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner
-- Forwarded message -- From: Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es A comment on Joseph's concluding statement: It seems clear to me that there is a world of qualia (spiritual realm, sentience, Peirce's 'universal mind', whatever). I believe that the connection between this and the physical/material world has increased in sharpness/definiteness at certain locales (like the earth) during the development of the universe. It does not, however, seem plausible that this connection is made 'from the bottom up' via the QM realm, as in Conrad's 'fluctuons'. The glut of levels in the material world just presents too many barriers for that to be the case. Development generally goes from vaguer to increasingly more definite, and our awareness of qualia likely has had that kind of development, individually during our ontogeny. STAN On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: (For unknown reasons this message didn't went through last Tuesday---P.) Mensaje original Asunto: The Fluctuon Model; Colophon Fecha: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:44:48 +0100 De: Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Responder a: Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Para: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis fis@listas.unizar.es fis@listas.unizar.es Dear All, Pedro has asked me to renew with an earlier FIS Group practice and write a colophon for our discussion of the fluctuon model of Michael Conrad. Actually, not much has happened with regard to evidence for or against. There is a lot of information in the latest StanLoet exchange, however, that has made the exercise worthwhile. There has also been a discussion of fluctuations, but essentially of fluctuations in *our* thermodynamic world. Most interesting, but of no direct help with the original task. I therefore now exercise my editorial authority by offering, by way of colophon, and with his agreement, the notes of a discussion I had with Pedro in Beijing. They were not and are not proposed as science, information science or other; but I like to think they are more than just opinion. For people, and I assume that is some of us, who have ever pondered such deep issues, these notes may suggest some ideas and comments. For others, for whom talk of Being and Nothingness or Non-Being, *pace* Sartre, is pure nonsense, pure non-information, I have some sympathy. The only point I would take issue with is the pure . . . 1. We are aware of our atoms and molecules and those of others through our adjacencies to them. They have Being for us; they are Being. The corresponding changes in their states constitute information at several levels. 2. Our atoms and molecules are composed of strings of which we are *not * aware. They have no Being for us, they are Non-Being. Whether any fluctuations or changes in strings can constitute information is not clear. 3. Non-Being has been described both scientifically and traditionally, * e.g.* the Mind of God, the quantum vacuum, holomovement. 4. Spontaneity and indeterminism (randomness) are possible, but only in Non-Being. These are reflected in Being only in radioactive decay and in catastrophic cosmological phenomena (black holes). The shifts of perspective in this note are non-random. 5. We in Being are aware of the existence of Non-Being, therefore, as something internal and external to us at the same time. The LIR Principle of Dynamic Opposition (PDO) describes this epistemological and ontological state-of-affairs as real and logical. 6. Non-Being is not and does not have to be aware of itself nor of us here in Being. We take care of that little function for it. 7. The influence of Non-Being and its changes, *e.g.*, in local information content. which are not perceived by nor interact with us in the usual manner, may be due to our awareness of Non-Being, which is a *kind*of information about it, causally effective. Conrad claims that interactions with Non-Being (the unmanifest world) also exist and can influence biological states. These two perspectives may or may not converge. 8. In either case, the information content of vacuum fluctuations and the informational content of our awareness/understanding of it and them are, by the PDO, and at the current state of knowledge, the same and not the same. 9. The existence of a direct energetic (thermodynamic) relationship or information transfer between Being and Non-Being, as in the fluctuon model, below the quantum level, remains an open question, but such a relationship may not be necessary as a basis for information theory. 10. An alternate basis is available in the self-duality and dualities of energy, at and above the quantum
Re: [Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner
Dear Joe, Stan, and colleagues, It occurred to me that this is in a certain sense a repeat of the nominalism/realism discussion. With his heavy emphasis on being/not-being, Joe is on the realist side, while Stans qualia are nominalistic. I assume that they dont dwell around like the Greek Gods, but are reflexive constructs shaped in scholarly discourse that clarifies them. This discussion makes also clear to me why Joes approach is called Logic in Reality and not Reality in Logic. Eventually, the grounding has a direction. I would consider the vagueness as tangential to the scholarly discourse; the external referent. The further specification the updating of hypotheses enables us to define new puzzles and thus perhaps to improve the specification. This reality (as cogitatum part of res cogitans) cannot be captured with derivatives from esse. One would need derivatives from frangere fractals, fragments, fragile for the understanding. The models remain volatile albeit more symbolically generalized than common language. With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:05 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner -- Forwarded message -- From: Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es A comment on Joseph's concluding statement: It seems clear to me that there is a world of qualia (spiritual realm, sentience, Peirce's 'universal mind', whatever). I believe that the connection between this and the physical/material world has increased in sharpness/definiteness at certain locales (like the earth) during the development of the universe. It does not, however, seem plausible that this connection is made 'from the bottom up' via the QM realm, as in Conrad's 'fluctuons'. The glut of levels in the material world just presents too many barriers for that to be the case. Development generally goes from vaguer to increasingly more definite, and our awareness of qualia likely has had that kind of development, individually during our ontogeny. STAN On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: (For unknown reasons this message didn't went through last Tuesday---P.) Mensaje original Asunto: The Fluctuon Model; Colophon Fecha: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:44:48 +0100 De: Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Responder a: Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Para: Pedro C. Marijuan mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es fis@listas.unizar.es Dear All, Pedro has asked me to renew with an earlier FIS Group practice and write a colophon for our discussion of the fluctuon model of Michael Conrad. Actually, not much has happened with regard to evidence for or against. There is a lot of information in the latest StanLoet exchange, however, that has made the exercise worthwhile. There has also been a discussion of fluctuations, but essentially of fluctuations in our thermodynamic world. Most interesting, but of no direct help with the original task. I therefore now exercise my editorial authority by offering, by way of colophon, and with his agreement, the notes of a discussion I had with Pedro in Beijing. They were not and are not proposed as science, information science or other; but I like to think they are more than just opinion. For people, and I assume that is some of us, who have ever pondered such deep issues, these notes may suggest some ideas and comments. For others, for whom talk of Being and Nothingness or Non-Being, pace Sartre, is pure nonsense, pure non-information, I have some sympathy. The only point I would take issue with is the pure . . . 1. We are aware of our atoms and molecules and those of others through our adjacencies to them. They have Being for us; they are Being. The corresponding changes in their states constitute information at several levels. 2. Our atoms and molecules are composed of strings of which we are not aware. They have no Being for us, they are Non-Being. Whether any fluctuations or changes in strings can constitute information is not clear. 3. Non-Being has been described both scientifically and traditionally, e.g. the Mind of God, the quantum vacuum, holomovement. 4. Spontaneity and indeterminism
Re: [Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner
Dear Loet and other friends It is my guess that qualia is a co-production of the physical world, our perception apparatus biological development or intentional awareness in a life world driven by psychological interests and a cultural linguistic conceptual shaping of our sense experiences, which by the way may also have had an evolutionary impact as our brains seem to have been under the selection pressure of being able to pride the biological prerequisites for language production. Venlig hilsen/best wishes Søren Brier Professor in the Semiotics of Information, Cognition and Communication Science Department of International Culture and Communication Studies, Copenhagen Business School Dalgas Have 15, room 2V053, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark, +45 38153132 Ed. in Chief of Cybernetics Human Knowing: http://www.chkjournal.org/ Fra: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På vegne af Loet Leydesdorff Sendt: 4. november 2010 15:32 Til: 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es Emne: Re: [Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner Dear Joe, Stan, and colleagues, It occurred to me that this is in a certain sense a repeat of the nominalism/realism discussion. With his heavy emphasis on being/not-being, Joe is on the realist side, while Stan's qualia are nominalistic. I assume that they don't dwell around like the Greek Gods, but are reflexive constructs shaped in scholarly discourse that clarifies them. This discussion makes also clear to me why Joe's approach is called Logic in Reality and not Reality in Logic. Eventually, the grounding has a direction. I would consider the vagueness as tangential to the scholarly discourse; the external referent. The further specification - the updating of hypotheses - enables us to define new puzzles and thus perhaps to improve the specification. This reality (as cogitatum part of res cogitans) cannot be captured with derivatives from esse. One would need derivatives from frangere - fractals, fragments, fragile - for the understanding. The models remain volatile albeit more symbolically generalized than common language. With best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:05 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner -- Forwarded message -- From: Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edumailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es A comment on Joseph's concluding statement: It seems clear to me that there is a world of qualia (spiritual realm, sentience, Peirce's 'universal mind', whatever). I believe that the connection between this and the physical/material world has increased in sharpness/definiteness at certain locales (like the earth) during the development of the universe. It does not, however, seem plausible that this connection is made 'from the bottom up' via the QM realm, as in Conrad's 'fluctuons'. The glut of levels in the material world just presents too many barriers for that to be the case. Development generally goes from vaguer to increasingly more definite, and our awareness of qualia likely has had that kind of development, individually during our ontogeny. STAN On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: (For unknown reasons this message didn't went through last Tuesday---P.) Mensaje original Asunto: The Fluctuon Model; Colophon Fecha: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:44:48 +0100 De: Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Responder a: Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Para: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es Dear All, Pedro has asked me to renew with an earlier FIS Group practice and write a colophon for our discussion of the fluctuon model of Michael Conrad. Actually, not much has happened with regard to evidence for or against. There is a lot of information in the latest StanLoet exchange, however, that has made the exercise worthwhile. There has also been a discussion of fluctuations, but essentially of fluctuations in our thermodynamic world. Most interesting, but of no direct help with the original task. I therefore now exercise my editorial authority by offering, by way of colophon
