Re: [Fis] {Disarmed} Re: New Year Lecture: Aftermath

[Srinandan Dasmahapatra]

Hi,
I've been lurking, semi-attentively through these discussions. Given Loet'sand 
Guy's recent interjections about the scope of the interpretive faculty,  a 
couple of comments came to mind. 

Loet talks about the correlation between words that occur in a corpus, but do 
not necessarily co-occur in any document as a buttress to their synonymous 
nature. This is actually interpreted by language proficient humans, as there 
would certainly be other correlative pairs of words that would not be synonyms. 
Hence it is important to remind ourselves of the framing of the discussion that 
Terry had initiated. When Guy mentioned that interactions between the sensory 
apparatus and the environment do not all end up with relational semantics, it 
occurred to me that this attribution of a relation necessarily comes from 
outside the frame. I.e., only when actions undertaken by the proto organism get 
triggered by the cocktail of sensoria that we can assign a semantic 
"intentionality." There will of course be modes that appear to miss this narrow 
specification. That may be because we have not had instruments to look into 
this proto organism's apparatus or life histories. And in the other contexts 
that we miss out, there may be traces of responsive modes that, in the context 
of the initial attribution of "intentional" semantics, could only, post hoc, be 
deemed "intensional". 

To ground this rather vague and generalist outline, let me give an example from 
a single celled organism, E. Coli. In chemotaxis, the binding of 
chemo-attracting molecules to surface receptors triggers a chain of molecular 
events leading to the clockwise movement of bacterial flagella. That is the 
behavioural correlate of the "interpretive" step, and the internal biochemistry 
that executes this response have been honed by natural selection. (This might 
already be too far down the history of selective refinement to fit the "proto" 
prefix that Terry might like, but it might still be appropriate to elaborate 
the argument.) This physical-chemical set of effects is a chain of 
phosphorylation events followed by diffusion. Alongside the response is a 
"higher order" property, that of adaptation whereby the bacterium modulates its 
sensitivity to the signal in order to reliably pick out changes in the signal 
to respond to. The correlative biochemistry is mediated by methylation events. 
It is only when we know, as external experimental observers, which actions are 
linked to which signals -- the response to signal, or the adaptation to 
anticipate other, changed, levels of signal -- that we can decide where among 
the plenum of sensory engagements is the token that will be type lies. Where, 
under possible worlds not directly encountered in one set of encounters is the 
ambit of the bacterium's intensional apparatus honed. 

It is in the framing of the investigations that we can demarcate associative 
states not directly linked to physical events lying outside the correlation 
time of dynamical variables into meaningful entities. The frames come built 
into solipsistic corrals of each organism, and the bumping of these corrals 
against each other shapes the formation of what we call meaning.


Cheers,
Sri

Srinandan Dasmahapatra

 Original message 
From: "Terrence W. DEACON"  
Date:24/04/2015  20:45  (GMT+00:00) 
To: Guy A Hoelzer  
Cc: Foundations of Information Science Information Science 
 
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath 

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 livin

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
a proposito della uni-dualità tra informazione e interpretazione, non
bisogna essere per forza pragmatici tifosi di R. Rorty per affermare che i
fatti-segni o segni-fatti restano chiusi nella loro arbitrarietà o
irrazionalità semiotica senza un'interpretazione o  ermeneutica adeguata.
Purtroppo, questo non l'hanno capito gran parte dei sor-passati economisti
e di tanti filosofi ancora alla ricerca dell'Araba Fenice del pensiero
assoluto, mentre contrassegna il poderoso avanzamento delle scienze fisiche
e matematiche. Ecco perché la sessione precedente, appena conclusa, a mio
giudizio ha avuto una grandissima importanza. La nostra esistenza e la
nostra conoscenza sono un grande mistero che sola la poesia e la musica,
impregnate di tenerezza o amore divino e umano, possono educarci a
com-prendere.
Un abbraccio affettuoso da un "poverino esponenziale", quale "sono io", che
per il disegno o progetto di Dio può diventare un "Io sono". E ciò vale per
tutti, credenti e non credenti. Oggi, più che mai, affascina la ricerca di
"Un incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza della
scienza" (F. Rizzo,Aracne editrice, Roma, 2014). Il valore dell'uomo non
dipende da ciò che è, ha, sa, ma dalla capacità di uscire da se stesso,
aprendosi e amando gli altri.La co-scienza dell'amore, vale più dell'amore
della scienza. Grazie.
Francesco Rizzo.


2015-04-25 8:00 GMT+02:00 Loet Leydesdorff :

> Dear Pedro, Terrence, and colleagues,
>
>
>
>
>
> *“… to explain how this interpretive capacity couldpossibly originate in a
> universe where direct contiguity of causalinfluence 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
> presentintrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent
> ordisplaced properties or phenomena. This research question is
> ignorablewhen it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters
> aspart of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, itbecomes
> relevant to not only be more explicit about what is beingassumed, but also
> to explain how this interpretive capacity couldpossibly originate in a
> universe where direct contiguity of causalinfluence 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,