Re: [Fis] INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF INFORMATION

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Emanuel,
It is good that you rise this question, as it is of common interest (and you 
are sending it to the fis list).
MDPI journals have independent review process.
As an editor of a special issue, you can only invite papers that you would like 
to have in your special issue.
Then MDPI journal organises review process choosing three independent 
reviewers. If all of them reject the paper, scientific editor cannot get paper 
published, as it is assumed that peer review reflects the judgment of the 
competent research community.
As author I am always prepared to be subject to peer review, and as editor I 
respect decisions of the peer review process.
Given steadily increasing number of specialised disciplines and much smaller 
number of available reviewers, what we can do to increase the quality of peer 
review is to bring right specialities of reviewers onboard, and MDPI is always 
willing to consider new proposals.
In our community peer review is still closed/blind (which e.g. in some journals 
in biology is not - instead with each published article they provide 
information about three reviewers) which is also a topic one might discuss in 
this forum, and people in other fora discuss currently.
What kind of peer review would be the best one for a journal, a book, a 
conference?

Thank you for your kind words about is4si summit in Gothenburg 2017, and I hope 
you will join the next edition in 2019 at Berkeley.
I also noticed that Proceedings of the summit http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3 
have excellent visibility which is great for the community.

With best regards,
Gordana



From: Fis > 
on behalf of Emanuel Diamant >
Date: Monday, 6 November 2017 at 05:43
To: 'Gordana Dodig Crnkovic' 
>
Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es" 
>
Subject: Re: [Fis] INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF 
INFORMATION

Dear Gordana,
I received your invitation letters (dated Nov. 5 and Nov. 1). However, I think, 
I will not be able to accept your kind offer.
For the following reason: After the Vienna 2015 Summit, I was invited (by MDPI 
Information journal) to submit an extended version of my conference paper to 
the journal’s Special Issue: Selected Papers from the ISIS Summit Vienna 
2015.
A few days after I have submitted my paper, I was informed “that your 
manuscript has been declined for publication in Information”. No further 
explanation or editorial comments were provided (Guest Editors of the Issue 
were M. Burgin and W. Hofkirchner).
As it follows from your invitation letter, M. Burgin will again be the Chief 
Editor for all volumes of the Gothenburg Summit selected papers.
As you understand, I cannot allow myself to be subjected again to M. Burgin’s 
editorial customs. Therefore, I am sorry but I must turn down your kind 
proposal.
My publication ambitions are pretty well satisfied with the publication in the 
MDPI Proceedings, 2017, Vol. 1, Issue 3, and the attention the two of my papers 
have achieved among the readers: Wu Kun’s paper – 148 reads / 56 downloads, 
Burgin’s paper – 216 reads / 67 downloads. (Not so bad, as you see).
I appreciate your efforts in Gothenburg Summit organization.
Best regards,
Emanuel.

From: Gordana Dodig Crnkovic [mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:17 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Cc: markburgin
Subject: INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF INFORMATION


Dear Emanuel,

As a result of Gothenburg meeting of the International Society for the study of 
information, Mark Burgin and I are preparing two volumes with World Scientific.
We would be very happy if  you could contribute to the volume addressing 
Philosophy and Methodology of Information.
We would expected a contribution on the topic you presented on the summit.

This is the first volume of two, the second one being dedicated to Theoretical 
Information Studies.
The books aim to chart the new interconnected territory and thus to set the 
foundation for the emerging research field of The study of information, 
presenting within the same context contemporary research in theoretical, 
philosophical and methodological aspects of information, with the goal of 
enabling new insights coming from cross-fertilization among the research 
fields. The structure of the books is given in the end of this message.
The schedule for the book project is defined by the following deadlines:
Expression of intention to contribute: November 15, 2017
Paper submission: January 15, 2018
Notification of acceptance/rejection: February 15, 2018
Submission of the final version of the paper: March 

Re: [Fis] INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF INFORMATION

[Emanuel Diamant]

Dear Gordana, 

I received your invitation letters (dated Nov. 5 and Nov. 1). However, I
think, I will not be able to accept your kind offer.

For the following reason: After the Vienna 2015 Summit, I was invited (by
MDPI Information journal) to submit an extended version of my conference
paper to the journal’s Special Issue:
 Selected
Papers from the ISIS Summit Vienna 2015. 

A few days after I have submitted my paper, I was informed “that your
manuscript has been declined for publication in Information”. No further
explanation or editorial comments were provided (Guest Editors of the Issue
were M. Burgin and W. Hofkirchner).

As it follows from your invitation letter, M. Burgin will again be the Chief
Editor for all volumes of the Gothenburg Summit selected papers. 

As you understand, I cannot allow myself to be subjected again to M.
Burgin’s editorial customs. Therefore, I am sorry but I must turn down your
kind proposal.

My publication ambitions are pretty well satisfied with the publication in
the MDPI Proceedings, 2017, Vol. 1, Issue 3, and the attention the two of my
papers have achieved among the readers: Wu Kun’s paper – 148 reads / 56
downloads, Burgin’s paper – 216 reads / 67 downloads. (Not so bad, as you
see).

I appreciate your efforts in Gothenburg Summit organization.

Best regards,

Emanuel.

  

From: Gordana Dodig Crnkovic [mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:17 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Cc: markburgin
Subject: INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF INFORMATION

 

 

Dear Emanuel,

 

As a result of Gothenburg meeting of the International Society for the study
of information, Mark Burgin and I are preparing two volumes with World
Scientific. 

We would be very happy if  you could contribute to the volume addressing
Philosophy and Methodology of Information.

We would expected a contribution on the topic you presented on the summit.

 

This is the first volume of two, the second one being dedicated to
Theoretical Information Studies.

The books aim to chart the new interconnected territory and thus to set the
foundation for the emerging research field of The study of information,
presenting within the same context contemporary research in theoretical,
philosophical and methodological aspects of information, with the goal of
enabling new insights coming from cross-fertilization among the research
fields. The structure of the books is given in the end of this message.

The schedule for the book project is defined by the following deadlines:

Expression of intention to contribute: November 15, 2017

Paper submission: January 15, 2018

Notification of acceptance/rejection: February 15, 2018

Submission of the final version of the paper: March 1, 2018.

 

In the expression of intention to contribute, please send us your tentative:


1. Title

2. Abstract (200-500 words) and 

3. Length of the proposed paper. 

The typical length of a paper is 15 pages. However, both shorter and longer
papers could be accepted where appropriate.

The final formatting of all papers will be in Word or LaTeX.

As usual, it is responsibility of the author to make certain that the
content of the contribution is significantly new and not submitted for
publication in any other venue - journal, conference, book or other. All
papers will be peer reviewed by at least two independent experts in the
field.

 

If you do not intend to submit a paper, please let us know as soon as
possible.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Gordana and Mark 

Editors

 

The structure of the planned volumes is as follows.

 

Vol 1 Philosophy and Methodology of Information

(G. Dodig-Crnkovic and M. Burgin, edts.)

Part 1. Philosophy of information

Part 2. Methodology of information

Part 3. Philosophy of information studies

Part 4. Methodology of information studies

 

Vol 2 Theoretical Information Studies

(M. Burgin and G. Dodig-Crnkovic, edts.)

Part 1. Foundations of information

Part 2. Information theory

Part 3. Information as a natural phenomenon

Part 4. Cognition and intelligence in natural and artificial systems

Part 5. Social, economic and legal aspects of information

Part 6. Technological aspects of information

 

 

 



__

Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science

Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Chalmers University of Technology 

School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University

  http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

General Chair of is4si summit 2017

http://is4si-2017.org   

 

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

Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism

[John Collier]

Loet, I have no disagreement with this. at least in the detailed summary 
you give. In fact I would argue that the notion of information as used 
in physics is empirically based just as it is in the cognitive sciences. 
Our problem is to find what underlies both.


My mention of the Scholastics was to Pierce's version, not the common 
interpretation due to a dep misunderstanding about what they were up to. 
I recommend a serous study of Peirce on te issues of meaning and 
metaphysics. He wa deeply indebted to their work iin logic.


Of course there may be no common ground, but the our project is 
hopeless. Other things you have said on this group lead me to think it 
is not a dead end of confused notions. In that case we are wasting our time.


John


On 2017/11/05 7:58 PM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:

Dear Krassimir and colleagues,

The Scientific Revolution of the 17th century was precisely about the 
differentiation between scholarly discourse and scholastic disputatio. 
A belief system is an attribute of agents and/or of a community. The 
sciences, however, develop also as systems of rationalized 
expectations. These are based on communications as units of analysis 
and not agents (communicators). This is Luhmann's point, isn't it?


Of course, individual scientists can be religious and groups like 
Jesuits can do science. At the level of (institutional) agency or 
organizations, one has both options. However, the communication 
dynamics is very different. In religious communication, there is an 
original (e.g., the Bible) which is copied. Textbooks are updated; 
error is removed, while error was added by transcriptions by monks. 
The origins of the invention of the printing press are relevant here: 
Galilei could not publish the Discorsi in Italy, but it could be 
published by Louis Elsevier in Leiden!


In science studies, we have learned to distinguish between social and 
intellectual organization. While at the level of social organization, 
scientific and religious structures are comparable, the intellectual 
organization is very different. For example, the notion of "truth" is 
preliminary in science, while it is sacrosanct in religious 
philosophy. Thus, we can elaborate the functional differentiation 
between these two codes of communication. Scientific discourse is 
validated using criteria that are coded in communication; religious 
disputatio is about a given truth.


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, University of 
Sussex;


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


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London;

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


-- Original Message --
From: "John Collier" >
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Sent: 11/5/2017 4:28:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism


Krassimir,

What, if like me, you see materialism and idealism as both incorrect, 
and adopt something like Russell's neutral monism. I mention this 
because I believe information to be neutral between material and 
ideal. It is a false dichotomy on my view


I disagree that information cannot be given by concrete examples. 
There are examples in both physics and of course in cognition that 
are used in both consistent and I think compatible ways.


I would go so far as to say that the division has been a sad one for 
sound philosophy, and that in some respects we should start over 
again from Aristotle (to whom the division did not seem to even 
occur, in line with general Greek thinking) and the later Scholasticism.


Regards,

John


On 2017/11/05 3:07 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear Bruno and FIS Colleagues,

Thank you very much for your useful remarks!

This week I was ill and couldn’t work.
Hope, the next week will be better for work.

Now I want only to paraphrase my post about Idealism and Materialism:

The first is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation exists.

The second is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation does not
exist.

Both are kinds of religions because they could not prove their foundations
by experiments and real examples.

The scientific approach does not believe in anything in advance. The
primary concepts have to be illustrated by series of real examples. After
that the secondary concepts have to be defined and all propositions have
to be proved.

Are the mathematicians materialists or idealists?
Of course neither the first nor the second!

Mathematics is an example of the scientific approach.

Informatics lacks of well 

Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Krassimir and colleagues,

The Scientific Revolution of the 17th century was precisely about the 
differentiation between scholarly discourse and scholastic disputatio. A 
belief system is an attribute of agents and/or of a community. The 
sciences, however, develop also as systems of rationalized expectations. 
These are based on communications as units of analysis and not agents 
(communicators). This is Luhmann's point, isn't it?


Of course, individual scientists can be religious and groups like 
Jesuits can do science. At the level of (institutional) agency or 
organizations, one has both options. However, the communication dynamics 
is very different. In religious communication, there is an original 
(e.g., the Bible) which is copied. Textbooks are updated; error is 
removed, while error was added by transcriptions by monks. The origins 
of the invention of the printing press are relevant here: Galilei could 
not publish the Discorsi in Italy, but it could be published by Louis 
Elsevier in Leiden!


In science studies, we have learned to distinguish between social and 
intellectual organization. While at the level of social organization, 
scientific and religious structures are comparable, the intellectual 
organization is very different. For example, the notion of "truth" is 
preliminary in science, while it is sacrosanct in religious philosophy. 
Thus, we can elaborate the functional differentiation between these two 
codes of communication. Scientific discourse is validated using criteria 
that are coded in communication; religious disputatio is about a given 
truth.


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, University of 
Sussex;


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


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London;

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


-- Original Message --
From: "John Collier" 
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: 11/5/2017 4:28:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism


Krassimir,

What, if like me, you see materialism and idealism as both incorrect, 
and adopt something like Russell's neutral monism. I mention this 
because I believe information to be neutral between material and ideal. 
It is a false dichotomy on my view


I disagree that information cannot be given by concrete examples. There 
are examples in both physics and of course in cognition that are used 
in both consistent and I think compatible ways.


I would go so far as to say that the division has been a sad one for 
sound philosophy, and that in some respects we should start over again 
from Aristotle (to whom the division did not seem to even occur, in 
line with general Greek thinking) and the later Scholasticism.


Regards,

John


On 2017/11/05 3:07 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear Bruno and FIS Colleagues,

Thank you very much for your useful remarks!

This week I was ill and couldn’t work.
Hope, the next week will be better for work.

Now I want only to paraphrase my post about Idealism and Materialism:

The first is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation exists.

The second is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation does not
exist.

Both are kinds of religions because they could not prove their foundations
by experiments and real examples.

The scientific approach does not believe in anything in advance. The
primary concepts have to be illustrated by series of real examples. After
that the secondary concepts have to be defined and all propositions have
to be proved.

Are the mathematicians materialists or idealists?
Of course neither the first nor the second!

Mathematics is an example of the scientific approach.

Informatics lacks of well established primary concepts.
The concept of information couldn’t be primary because it couldn’t be
illustrated directly by real examples.

We need other primary concepts which will permit us to define information
and to prove all consequences.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir








-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 12:30 PM
To: Foundation of Information Science
Subject: Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles



Dear Krassimir,


On 31 Oct 2017, at 15:07, Krassimir Markov wrote:



Dear FIS Colleagues,

Many years ago, in 2011, I had written a special remark about
scientific
and non-scientific approaches to try to understand the world around.
The
letter of Logan Streondj returns this theme as actual today.

The interrelations between scientific and non-scientific creating and
perceiving the data and models as well 

Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Krassimir,


On 31 Oct 2017, at 15:07, Krassimir Markov wrote:


Dear FIS Colleagues,

Many years ago, in 2011, I had written a special remark about  
scientific
and non-scientific approaches to try to understand the world around.  
The

letter of Logan Streondj returns this theme as actual today.

The interrelations between scientific and non-scientific creating and
perceiving the data and models as well the proper attitude to the  
world

cultural heritage is one of the main problems to be investigated. The
world common data bases make possible to exchange data of any kind.  
Some
data could not be proved easy, some are assumed as "clear". What is  
the

proper attitude to the ocean of the data we create and perceive? In
addition, now we have a new phenomenon – artificially created data.


The Modern Societies

Every group of Infoses, people in particular, forms a society if  
there is
an agreement for communication interactions. An important element of  
this

agreement is the availability of a common data base.
We should not picture the data base like a number of drives with a  
certain
data recorded, although it is the way it has been since the  
beginning – it
was recorded on clay plates, papyrus, paper, etc. The ability for  
digital

storage of the data lays the beginnings of the genesis of the “modern
societies”. It is obvious that, there are as many societies as many
different data bases exist, and a single Infos could belong to more  
than

one society.


OK.




The difference between the beliefs and the science
---
Every belief is a totality of models, which are assumed and followed.
Where is the difference between the belief and the science, which is  
also

a combination of models to be followed?
The answer is in the way we perceive these models and the attitude  
to them.

There are two approaches – a hard and an easy one.
The easy one is wonderfully described by the motto of the medieval
theologian Anselm of Canterbury, lately canonized as St. Anselm
(1033-1109): "Credo, ut intelligam!" (I believe in order to understand
[St.Anselm]). One has to believe in the model, to understand and  
follow
it. This is the religious approach – every subjective notion can  
turn into
a commonly accepted model or dogma, as long as there is someone to  
believe

in it and follow it implicitly.
The “difficult” approach is described with the phrase "Intelligo, ut
credam !" (I understand in order to believe), used by the German  
reformer
Thomas Muentzer (~1490-1525) [Muentzer]. You have to understand the  
model

and only after then to trust it if possible. This is the scientific
approach – every science builds models – hypothesizes, which are
repeatedly tested before assumed to be true. The scientific approach
includes a permanent revaluation and improvement of the existing  
models

according to the permanently changing environment.
In every society, building and exchanging of models are basic  
activities.
Whether they are perceived with the “easy” or the “difficult”  
approach is

a question only of the circumstances, executors and users.
Keeping in mind the limited abilities of the human brain, we can  
presume
that the “easy” approach would probably dominate. Just a small part  
of the
humanity would be able to build and understand the “difficult”  
scientific

models. The users will not have the strength to test the models for
themselves so the only option left would be to “believe in order to
understand”.
The role and the importance of particular beliefs in a certain  
society are

determined by the influence of the people ready to doubt the religious
models, on the others who easily and “blindly” follow the dogmas. Let
remark that in the scientific world the “easy approach” is everyday
practice. We all believe that the scientific works represent proved  
facts

(maybe by authors). However, who knows? We trust in authorities.

Sometimes we have to doubt!

That is why the background to modern science is in the wisdom of St.
Augustin (354-430):  "Intelligo ut credam, credo ut intelligam!" [St.
Agustin], i.e. it is in the harmony and dialectical unity of the
scientific and beliefs’ approaches [K.Markov, 2008].


Very nice, although in my approach, I identify "science" and belief,  
in a first axiomatic approximation. later, new axioms can be added to  
introduce the nuances, when needed (and such nuances does exist, and  
eventually are imposed by the working hypothesis (mechanism).






Materialism or Idealism
---
Very important theme, raised from letter of Logan Streondj, is about
Idealism and Materialism.
Let note that both are religious approaches but not scientific.


I agree. But if we decide to do metaphysics or theology with the  
scientific method, we can put the metaphysics in the hypothesis, and  
search for criteria of verification.






The first,
Idealism, is based on belief about existence of