Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Pedro, Terrence, and colleagues, 

 

“… to explain how this interpretive capacity could
possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal
influence is the rule."

 

The contiguity is relational. However, meaning is generated not relationally, 
but positionally. As the network system is shaped in terms of relations, it can 
be expected to develop an architecture. The structure is based on correlations, 
that is, patterns of relations

including zeros. For example, two synonyms may have similar meaning without 
co-occurring ever in a single text.

 

In other words, the vectors of relations span a vector space in which both 
nodes and links are positioned. A link may then mean something different for 
node A and node B; the link becomes directed because of its function in the 
network. The correlational analysis of the vector space adds to the graph 
analysis of the networks of relations.

 

Reflexivity adds to the mutual contingency in the relations by bringing the 
patterns of relations to bear. Human reflexivity enables us to change 
(self-organize) additionally the diaphragm of the reflection. Thus, degrees of 
freedom can be added recursively using the same principle that the network of 
relations develops a next-order architecture. 

 

Best,

Loet

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Emeritus University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

  l...@leydesdorff.net ;  
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Honorary Professor,   SPRU, University of 
Sussex; 

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

Visiting Professor,   Birkbeck, University of London; 

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

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:34 PM
To: Terrence W. DEACON; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

 

Dear Terry and colleagues, 

I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank you for 
the aftermath, it provides appropriate "closure" to a very intense discussion 
session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an essential point 
(at least in my opinion): 

"Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for
 a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize 
present
intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or
displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable
when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as
part of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it
becomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is being
assumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity could
possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal
influence is the rule."

My suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some 
previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that there is 
an entity capable  of dynamically building upon  an external absences, OK quite 
clear,  but what about "internal absences"? I mean at the origins of 
communication there could be the sensing of the internal-- lets call it 
functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some 
good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a "metabolic code" 
hypothesis crafted on the origins of cellular signaling. For instance, one of 
the most important environmental & internal detections concerns cAMP, which 
means "you/me are in an energy trouble"... some more evolutionary arguments can 
be thrown.  Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its self-production 
needs in the center of communication, and in the very origins of the 
interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen much reflections around 
the life cycle as the true provider of both communications and meanings, maybe 
it conduces to new avenues of thought interesting to explore...

All the best!
--Pedro

Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: 

Dear FIS colleagues,
Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said
yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart
the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but
conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds. Remember that in
less than ten days we will have a new session on info science and library
science. best --Pedro
 
--
 
Retrospective comments on the January 2015 FIS discussion
Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edu)
 
During the bulk of my career since the early 1980s I studied brain
organization with a particular focus on its

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

[Terrence W. DEACON]

Hi Guy,

Yes. At the very basic level that I explore with these ultra simple model
systems it would not be easy to distinguish perception and reaction. Both
involve interpretive steps, in that only some material
features—specifically those with potentially disruptive or constructive
potential for system organization—are "assigned" informative value in
consequence of the self-rectifying dynamics they correlate with.

— Terry

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Guy A Hoelzer  wrote:

>  Hi Terry,
>
>  I have used the term ‘perception’ in referring to in-formation that
> affects internal structure or dynamics.  This would contrast with forms of
> potential information that might pass through the system without being
> ‘perceived’.  For example, we have a finite number of mechanisms we call
> senses, each of which is sensitive to particular modes of information we
> encounter in our environment, but we are not able to perceive every form of
> information that we encounter (e.g., UV light).  I think you are using the
> term ‘interpretation’ to describe the same thing.  Do you agree?  Do you
> think the notions of perception and interpretation are effectively the same
> thing?
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  Guy
>
> Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
> Department of Biology
> University of Nevada Reno
>
> Phone:  775-784-4860
> Fax:  775-784-1302
> hoel...@unr.edu
>
>  On Apr 24, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Terrence W. DEACON 
> wrote:
>
>  Hi Pedro,
>
>  Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely agree
> with your comment about living processes and their internal "informative"
> organization. The three exceedingly simple molecular model systems (forms
> of autogenesis) that I discuss toward the end of the paper were intended to
> exemplify a minimal life-like unit that—because of its self-reconstituting
> and self-repairing features—could both exemplify an origin of life
> transition and a first simplest system exhibiting interpretive competence.
> It is only because these autogenic systems respond to disruption of their
> internal organizational coherence that they can be said to also interpret
> aspects of their environment with respect to this. My goal in this work is
> to ultimately provide a physico-chemical foundation for a scientific
> biosemiotics, which is currently mostly exemplified by analogies to
> human-level semiotic categories.
>
>  Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your mediation of these
> discussions.
>
>  Sincerely, Terry
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Terry and colleagues,
>>
>> I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank
>> you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate "closure" to a very intense
>> discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an
>> essential point (at least in my opinion):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *"Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for
>>  a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to
>> utilize present intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent
>> or displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable
>> when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as part of
>> the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it becomes relevant to
>> not only be more explicit about what is being assumed, but also to explain
>> how this interpretive capacity could possibly originate in a universe where
>> direct contiguity of causal influence is the rule." *My suggestion
>> concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some previous
>> discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that there is an
>> entity capable  of dynamically building upon  an external absences, OK
>> quite clear,  but what about "internal absences"? I mean at the origins of
>> communication there could be the sensing of the internal-- lets call it
>> functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some
>> good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a "metabolic code"
>> hypothesis crafted on the origins of cellular signaling. For instance, one
>> of the most important environmental & internal detections concerns cAMP,
>> which means "you/me are in an energy trouble"... some more evolutionary
>> arguments can be thrown.  Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its
>> self-production needs in the center of communication, and in the very
>> origins of the interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen much
>> reflections around the life cycle as the true provider of both
>> communications and meanings, maybe it conduces to new avenues of thought
>> interesting to explore...
>>
>> All the best!
>> --Pedro
>>
>>
>> Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
>>
>> Dear FIS colleagues,
>> Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said
>> yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, 

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

[joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]

Dear Pedro, Dear Terry,
Always an optimist, I was convinced that there could be a convergence of your 
approaches and my Logic in Reality starting from the domain of absence. What 
Pedro refers to as "functional voids, needs, gaps,
deficiencies" (absences) are all predominantly negative aspects of systems that 
operate especially in living systems 'together' with their positive 
counterparts (presences). The evolution of these elements in the 
physico-chemical domain follows this logic, in which negative elements always 
are given the necessary ontological 'status'. They are the basis for the 
emergence of higher level entities, following Terry's hierarchies of dynamics.
Thus we may have, to further support a scientific biosemiotics, a dynamic logic 
to replace the analogies to human-level semiotic categories many of which 
(read: Peirce) do not instantiate the necessary ontological complexity and 
commitment. 
Cheers,
Joseph
Message d'origine
De : dea...@berkeley.edu
Date : 24/04/2015 - 10:22 (PST)
À : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath
Hi Pedro,
Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely agree with your 
comment about living processes and their internal "informative" organization. 
The three exceedingly simple molecular model systems (forms of autogenesis) 
that I discuss toward the end of the paper were intended to exemplify a minimal 
life-like unit that—because of its self-reconstituting and self-repairing 
features—could both exemplify an origin of life transition and a first simplest 
system exhibiting interpretive competence. It is only because these autogenic 
systems respond to disruption of their internal organizational coherence that 
they can be said to also interpret aspects of their environment with respect to 
this. My goal in this work is to ultimately provide a physico-chemical 
foundation for a scientific biosemiotics, which is currently mostly exemplified 
by analogies to human-level semiotic categories.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your mediation of these discussions.
Sincerely, Terry
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan  
wrote:
  
Dear Terry and colleagues, 
I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank
you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate "closure" to a very
intense discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very
clearly an essential point (at least in my opinion): 
"Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary
for
 a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to
utilize present
intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or
displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable
when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as
part of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it
becomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is being
assumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity could
possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal
influence is the rule."
My suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared
in some previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You
imply that there is an entity capable  of dynamically building upon  an
external absences, OK quite clear,  but what about "internal absences"?
I mean at the origins of communication there could be the sensing of
the internal-- lets call it functional voids, needs, gaps,
deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some good arguments about that,
even in the 70's there was a "metabolic code" hypothesis crafted on the
origins of cellular signaling. For instance, one of the most important
environmental & internal detections concerns cAMP, which means
"you/me are in an energy trouble"... some more evolutionary arguments
can be thrown.  Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its
self-production needs in the center of communication, and in the very
origins of the interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen
much reflections around the life cycle as the true provider of both
communications and meanings, maybe it conduces to new avenues of
thought interesting to explore...
All the best!
--Pedro
Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
  
  
Dear FIS colleagues,
Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said
yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart
the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but
conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds. Remember that in
less than ten days we will have a new session on info science and library
science. best --Pedro
--
Retrospective comments on the January 2015 FIS discussion
  
Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edu)
During the bulk of my career since the early 1980s I studied brain
organization with a particular foc

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

[Guy A Hoelzer]

Hi Terry,

I have used the term ‘perception’ in referring to in-formation that affects 
internal structure or dynamics.  This would contrast with forms of potential 
information that might pass through the system without being ‘perceived’.  For 
example, we have a finite number of mechanisms we call senses, each of which is 
sensitive to particular modes of information we encounter in our environment, 
but we are not able to perceive every form of information that we encounter 
(e.g., UV light).  I think you are using the term ‘interpretation’ to describe 
the same thing.  Do you agree?  Do you think the notions of perception and 
interpretation are effectively the same thing?

Cheers,

Guy

Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nevada Reno

Phone:  775-784-4860
Fax:  775-784-1302
hoel...@unr.edu

On Apr 24, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Terrence W. DEACON 
mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>> wrote:

Hi Pedro,

Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely agree with your 
comment about living processes and their internal "informative" organization. 
The three exceedingly simple molecular model systems (forms of autogenesis) 
that I discuss toward the end of the paper were intended to exemplify a minimal 
life-like unit that—because of its self-reconstituting and self-repairing 
features—could both exemplify an origin of life transition and a first simplest 
system exhibiting interpretive competence. It is only because these autogenic 
systems respond to disruption of their internal organizational coherence that 
they can be said to also interpret aspects of their environment with respect to 
this. My goal in this work is to ultimately provide a physico-chemical 
foundation for a scientific biosemiotics, which is currently mostly exemplified 
by analogies to human-level semiotic categories.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your mediation of these discussions.

Sincerely, Terry

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:
Dear Terry and colleagues,

I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank you for 
the aftermath, it provides appropriate "closure" to a very intense discussion 
session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an essential point 
(at least in my opinion):

"Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for
 a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize 
present
intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or
displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable
when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as
part of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it
becomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is being
assumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity could
possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal
influence is the rule."

My suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some 
previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that there is 
an entity capable  of dynamically building upon  an external absences, OK quite 
clear,  but what about "internal absences"? I mean at the origins of 
communication there could be the sensing of the internal-- lets call it 
functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some 
good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a "metabolic code" 
hypothesis crafted on the origins of cellular signaling. For instance, one of 
the most important environmental & internal detections concerns cAMP, which 
means "you/me are in an energy trouble"... some more evolutionary arguments can 
be thrown.  Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its self-production 
needs in the center of communication, and in the very origins of the 
interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen much reflections around 
the life cycle as the true provider of both communications and meanings, maybe 
it conduces to new avenues of thought interesting to explore...

All the best!
--Pedro


Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Dear FIS colleagues,
Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said
yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart
the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but
conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds. Remember that in
less than ten days we will have a new session on info science and library
science. best --Pedro

--

Retrospective comments on the January 2015 FIS discussion

Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edu)

During the bulk of my career since the early 1980s I studied brain
organization with a particular focus on its role in the production and
interpretation of communication in vertebrate animals an

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

[Terrence W. DEACON]

Hi Pedro,

Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely agree with
your comment about living processes and their internal "informative"
organization. The three exceedingly simple molecular model systems (forms
of autogenesis) that I discuss toward the end of the paper were intended to
exemplify a minimal life-like unit that—because of its self-reconstituting
and self-repairing features—could both exemplify an origin of life
transition and a first simplest system exhibiting interpretive competence.
It is only because these autogenic systems respond to disruption of their
internal organizational coherence that they can be said to also interpret
aspects of their environment with respect to this. My goal in this work is
to ultimately provide a physico-chemical foundation for a scientific
biosemiotics, which is currently mostly exemplified by analogies to
human-level semiotic categories.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your mediation of these
discussions.

Sincerely, Terry

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:

>  Dear Terry and colleagues,
>
> I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank
> you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate "closure" to a very intense
> discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an
> essential point (at least in my opinion):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for  a
> system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize
> present intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or
> displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable when
> it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as part of the
> system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it becomes relevant to not
> only be more explicit about what is being assumed, but also to explain how
> this interpretive capacity could possibly originate in a universe where
> direct contiguity of causal influence is the rule." *My suggestion
> concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some previous
> discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that there is an
> entity capable  of dynamically building upon  an external absences, OK
> quite clear,  but what about "internal absences"? I mean at the origins of
> communication there could be the sensing of the internal-- lets call it
> functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some
> good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a "metabolic code"
> hypothesis crafted on the origins of cellular signaling. For instance, one
> of the most important environmental & internal detections concerns cAMP,
> which means "you/me are in an energy trouble"... some more evolutionary
> arguments can be thrown.  Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its
> self-production needs in the center of communication, and in the very
> origins of the interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen much
> reflections around the life cycle as the true provider of both
> communications and meanings, maybe it conduces to new avenues of thought
> interesting to explore...
>
> All the best!
> --Pedro
>
>
> Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
>
> Dear FIS colleagues,
> Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said
> yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart
> the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but
> conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds. Remember that in
> less than ten days we will have a new session on info science and library
> science. best --Pedro*
> --
>
> Retrospective comments on the January 2015 FIS discussion*
>
> Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edu)
> During the bulk of my career since the early 1980s I studied 
> brainorganization with a particular focus on its role in the production 
> andinterpretation of communication in vertebrate animals and humans. Onecore 
> target of these studies was to understand the neurologicalchanges that led to 
> the evolution of the human language capacity andwhy it is so anomalous in the 
> context of the other diversecommunication systems that have evolved. This 
> work was largelyconducted using standard lab-based neuroscience tools—from 
> axonaltracer techniques, to fetal neural transplantation, to MRI imaging,and 
> more—and studying a diverse array of animal brains. Besidesevolutionary and 
> developmental neuroscience, this path led me toexplore ethology, linguistics, 
> semiotic theories, information theoriesand the philosophical issues that 
> these research areas touched upon.Indeed, my first co-authored book was not 
> on neuroscience but on thedesign of the early Apple desktop computers. So I 
> came at the issuesexplored in my FIS essay from this diverse background. This 

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Terry and colleagues,

I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank 
you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate "closure" to a very 
intense discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very 
clearly an essential point (at least in my opinion):


/"Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for
a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to 
utilize present

intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or
displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable
when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as
part of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it
becomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is being
assumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity could
possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal
influence is the rule."

/My suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in 
some previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply 
that there is an entity capable  of dynamically building upon  an 
external absences, OK quite clear,  but what about "internal absences"? 
I mean at the origins of communication there could be the sensing of the 
internal-- lets call it functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, 
etc. Cellularly there are some good arguments about that, even in the 
70's there was a "metabolic code" hypothesis crafted on the origins of 
cellular signaling. For instance, one of the most important 
environmental & internal detections concerns cAMP, which means "you/me 
are in an energy trouble"... some more evolutionary arguments can be 
thrown.  Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its 
self-production needs in the center of communication, and in the very 
origins of the interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen much 
reflections around the life cycle as the true provider of both 
communications and meanings, maybe it conduces to new avenues of thought 
interesting to explore...


All the best!
--Pedro

Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Dear FIS colleagues,
Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said
yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart
the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but
conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds. Remember that in
less than ten days we will have a new session on info science and library
science. best --Pedro
*
--

Retrospective comments on the January 2015 FIS discussion*
Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edu)

During the bulk of my career since the early 1980s I studied brain
organization with a particular focus on its role in the production and
interpretation of communication in vertebrate animals and humans. One
core target of these studies was to understand the neurological
changes that led to the evolution of the human language capacity and
why it is so anomalous in the context of the other diverse
communication systems that have evolved. This work was largely
conducted using standard lab-based neuroscience tools—from axonal
tracer techniques, to fetal neural transplantation, to MRI imaging,
and more—and studying a diverse array of animal brains. Besides
evolutionary and developmental neuroscience, this path led me to
explore ethology, linguistics, semiotic theories, information theories
and the philosophical issues that these research areas touched upon.
Indeed, my first co-authored book was not on neuroscience but on the
design of the early Apple desktop computers. So I came at the issues
explored in my FIS essay from this diverse background. This has led me
to pose what may be more basic questions than are usually considered,
and to reconsider even the most unquestioned assumptions about the
nature of information and the origins of its semiotic properties.

I am aware that many who are following this discussion have a
career-long interest in some aspect of human communication or
computation. In these realms many researchers —including many of
you— have provided sophisticated analytical tools and quite extensive
theories for describing these processes. Though it may at first seem
as though I am questioning the validity of some of this (now accepted)
body of theory, for the most part I too find this adequate for the
specific pragmatic issues usually considered. The essay I posted did
not critique any existing theory. It rather explored some assumptions
that most theories take for granted and need not address.

I believe, however, that there remain a handful of issues that have
been set aside and taken as givens that need to be reconsidered. For
the most part, these assumptions don't demand to be unpacked in order
to produce useful descriptions of communicative and information
processes at the machine or interpersonal level. Among these givens is