Re: [Fis] What are information and science?
Dear colleagues, I see informational processes as essentially being proto-scientific – how is any science not an informational process? The sciences, in my opinion, are different in terms of what is communicated. As Maturana noted, the communication of molecules generates a biology. Similarly, the communication of atoms generates a chemistry, etc. The communication of words and sentences generates the interhuman domain of communication. One can also communicate in terms of symbolic media such as money. This can be reflected by economics. Thus, the sciences are different. The formal perspective (of the mathematical theory of communication) provides us with tools to move metaphors heuristically from one domain to another. The assumption that the mathematics is general is over-stated, in my opinion. One has to carefully check and elaborate after each translation from one domain to another. In this sense, I agree with “proto-scientific”. Best, Loet First, I think this places me in the camp of Peirce's view. Second, I am unsure of how to regard the focus on higher-order interdisciplinary discussions when a much more essential view of lower-order roles (i.e., What are science and information?) has not been first established. From my naive view I find myself wondering how informational process is not the ONE overarching discipline from which all other disciplines are born (is this too psychological of a framework?). As such, I argue for one great discipline . . . and thus wouldn't try to frame my view in terms of science, mostly because I am unclear on how the term science is being formally used here. Thoughts? Marcus Abundis about.me/marcus.abundis http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What are information and science?
Thanks Loet, that is helpful, and makes intuitively good sense. But I remain puzzled. I see two distinct cases: Case 1: For molecules 'communication' consists of interaction between the molecules themselves, resulting in biology. Similarly, for atoms 'communication' consists of interaction between the atoms themselves. They bang into each other and exchange their components. Case 2: For words and sentences (in my view of the world) it is human beings who communicate, not words and sentences. From a Maturana perspective, language is a recursive coordination between autopoietic entities, not interaction between linguistic items. In case 1, there is no mediating domain. Molecules and atoms interact directly. But in case 2, there is a hierarchy. Communication is between human beings, but interaction is through words and sentences in a linguistic domain. When I respond to your email, I do not have an effect on that email. Rather, I hope to have an effect on your thought processes. Of course there are other interactions between people which correspond to my case 1, for example when someone barges another person out of the way, or when they dance together. But I think Maturana would distinguish these examples by describing them in terms of structural coupling rather than languaging. By calling both of these cases 'communication' we gain some valuable traction on patterns of interaction in different domains. But I am concerned that we also make it more difficult to disentangle our idea of what information is, by equating it with a catch-all notion of 'communication'. Dai On 20/05/15 11:12, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: Dear colleagues, I see informational processes as essentially being proto-scientific – how is any science not an informational process? The sciences, in my opinion, are different in terms of what is communicated. As Maturana noted, the communication of molecules generates a biology. Similarly, the communication of atoms generates a chemistry, etc. The communication of words and sentences generates the interhuman domain of communication. One can also communicate in terms of symbolic media such as money. This can be reflected by economics. Thus, the sciences are different. The formal perspective (of the mathematical theory of communication) provides us with tools to move metaphors heuristically from one domain to another. The assumption that the mathematics is general is over-stated, in my opinion. One has to carefully check and elaborate after each translation from one domain to another. In this sense, I agree with “proto-scientific”. Best, Loet First, I think this places me in the camp of Peirce's view. Second, I am unsure of how to regard the focus on higher-order interdisciplinary discussions when a much more essential view of lower-order roles (i.e., What are science and information?) has not been first established. From my naive view I find myself wondering how informational process is not the ONE overarching discipline from which all other disciplines are born (is this too psychological of a framework?). As such, I argue for one great discipline . . . and thus wouldn't try to frame my view in terms of science, mostly because I am unclear on how the term science is being formally used here. Thoughts? *Marcus Abundis* about.me/marcus.abundis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- - Professor David (Dai) Griffiths Professor of Educational Cybernetics Institute for Educational Cybernetics (IEC) The University of Bolton http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC SKYPE: daigriffiths UK Mobile: + 44 (0)7826917705 Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912 email: dai.griffith...@gmail.com ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What are information and science?
Thanks Robert, I agree with what you say about DNA, so I may be on the same slippery path to catastrophic heterodoxy! In responding to the question what is information, started by Marcus, I was pointing out what seemed to me to be a shifting definition of 'communication', and wondering if this corresponded to a shifting definition of 'information'. Loet stated that the communication of words and sentences generates the interhuman domain of communication. I am not taking issue with this. My question is whether we are using the word 'communication' and 'generate' in the same sense when we also say the communication of molecules generates a biology. Your comments raise a related question. Perhaps it is not that molecules generate biology, but rather it is that biology (in the shape of the network of proteomic and enzymatic reactions) generates the communication of molecules? Perhaps the problem is one of keeping track of the system in focus, and demarcating it clearly (as Stafford Beer might have argued at this juncture). Dai On 20/05/15 16:05, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote: Dear Dai: To say that molecules only interact directly is to ignore the metabolic matrix that constitutes the actual agency in living systems. For example, we read everywhere how DNA/RNA directs development, when the molecule itself is a passive material cause. It is the network of proteomic and enzymatic reactions that actually reads, interprets and edits the primitive genome. Furthermore, the structure of that reaction complex possesses measurable information (and complementary flexibility). Life is not just molecules banging into one another. That's a physicist's (Lucreatian) view of the world born of models that are rarefied, homogeneous and (at most) weakly interacting. (Popper calls them vacuum systems.) The irony is that that's not how the cosmos came at us! Vacuum systems never appeared until way late in the evolution of the cosmos. So the Lucreatian perspective is one of the worst ways to try to make sense of life. We need to develop a perspective that parallels cosmic evolution, not points in the opposite direction. To do so requires that we shift from objects moving according to universal laws to processes giving rise to other processes (and structures along the way). The contrast is most vividly illustrated in reference to the origin of life. Conventional metaphysics requires us to focus on molecules, whereby the *belief* is that at some point the molecules will miraculously jump up and start to live (like the vision of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel). A process-oriented scenario would consist of a spatially large cycle of complementary processes (e.g., oxidation and reduction) that constitutes a thermodynamic work cycle. Those processes then can give rise to and support smaller cycles, which eventually develop into something resembling metabolic systems. A far more consistent progression! Of course, this view is considered catastrophically heterodox, so please don't repeat it if you don't already have tenure. ;-) Peace, Bob U. I see two distinct cases: Case 1: For molecules 'communication' consists of interaction between the molecules themselves, resulting in biology. Similarly, for atoms 'communication' consists of interaction between the atoms themselves. They bang into each other and exchange their components. Case 2: For words and sentences (in my view of the world) it is human beings who communicate, not words and sentences. From a Maturana perspective, language is a recursive coordination between autopoietic entities, not interaction between linguistic items. In case 1, there is no mediating domain. Molecules and atoms interact directly. But in case 2, there is a hierarchy. Communication is between human beings, but interaction is through words and sentences in a linguistic domain. When I respond to your email, I do not have an effect on that email. Rather, I hope to have an effect on your thought processes. -- - Professor David (Dai) Griffiths Professor of Educational Cybernetics Institute for Educational Cybernetics (IEC) The University of Bolton http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC SKYPE: daigriffiths UK Mobile: + 44 (0)7826917705 Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912 email: dai.griffith...@gmail.com ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What are information and science?
Dear Dai: To say that molecules only interact directly is to ignore the metabolic matrix that constitutes the actual agency in living systems. For example, we read everywhere how DNA/RNA directs development, when the molecule itself is a passive material cause. It is the network of proteomic and enzymatic reactions that actually reads, interprets and edits the primitive genome. Furthermore, the structure of that reaction complex possesses measurable information (and complementary flexibility). Life is not just molecules banging into one another. That's a physicist's (Lucreatian) view of the world born of models that are rarefied, homogeneous and (at most) weakly interacting. (Popper calls them vacuum systems.) The irony is that that's not how the cosmos came at us! Vacuum systems never appeared until way late in the evolution of the cosmos. So the Lucreatian perspective is one of the worst ways to try to make sense of life. We need to develop a perspective that parallels cosmic evolution, not points in the opposite direction. To do so requires that we shift from objects moving according to universal laws to processes giving rise to other processes (and structures along the way). The contrast is most vividly illustrated in reference to the origin of life. Conventional metaphysics requires us to focus on molecules, whereby the *belief* is that at some point the molecules will miraculously jump up and start to live (like the vision of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel). A process-oriented scenario would consist of a spatially large cycle of complementary processes (e.g., oxidation and reduction) that constitutes a thermodynamic work cycle. Those processes then can give rise to and support smaller cycles, which eventually develop into something resembling metabolic systems. A far more consistent progression! Of course, this view is considered catastrophically heterodox, so please don't repeat it if you don't already have tenure. ;-) Peace, Bob U. I see two distinct cases: Case 1: For molecules 'communication' consists of interaction between the molecules themselves, resulting in biology. Similarly, for atoms 'communication' consists of interaction between the atoms themselves. They bang into each other and exchange their components. Case 2: For words and sentences (in my view of the world) it is human beings who communicate, not words and sentences. From a Maturana perspective, language is a recursive coordination between autopoietic entities, not interaction between linguistic items. In case 1, there is no mediating domain. Molecules and atoms interact directly. But in case 2, there is a hierarchy. Communication is between human beings, but interaction is through words and sentences in a linguistic domain. When I respond to your email, I do not have an effect on that email. Rather, I hope to have an effect on your thought processes. ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
