Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

[Guy A Hoelzer]

Hi All,

I want to pick on Christophe’s post to make a general plea about FIS posting.  
This is not a comment on meaning generation by agents.  Christophe  wrote:

"Keeping in mind that communications exist only because agents need to manage 
meanings for given purposes”.

This seems to imply that we have such confidence that this premise is correct 
that it is safe to assume it is true.  However, the word “communication” is 
sometimes used in ways that do not comport with this premise.  For example, it 
can be said that in the building of a structure, two beams that are attached to 
each other with bolts are “communicating” with each other.  This certainly fits 
my notion of communication, although there are no “agents” or “meanings” here.  
Energy (e.g., movement) can be transferred from one beam to the next, which 
represents “communication” to me.  I would personally define communication as 
the transfer of information, and I prefer to define “information” without any 
reference to “meaning”.  If the claim above had been written as a contingency 
(e.g., “If we assume that communications exist…”), then I could embrace the 
rest of Christophe’s post.

I think the effectiveness of our FIS posts is diminished by presuming everybody 
shares our particular perspectives on these concepts.  It leads us to talk past 
each other to a degree; so I hope we can remain open to the correctness or 
utility of alternative perspectives that have been frequently voiced within FIS 
and use contingent language to establish the premises of our FIS posts.

Regards,

Guy


On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:19 AM, Christophe Menant 
> wrote:


Dear Terry and FISers,
It looks indeed reasonable to position the term 'language' as ‘simply referring 
to the necessity of a shared medium of communication’. Keeping in mind that 
communications exist only because agents need to manage meanings for given 
purposes.
And the concept of agent can be an entry point for a ‘general theory of 
information’ as it does not make distinctions.
The Peircean triadic approach is also an available framework (but with, alas, a 
limited development of the Interpreter).
I choose to use agents capable of meaning generation, having some compatibility 
with the Peircean approach and with the Biosemiotics 
Umwelt.(https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2)

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

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

[Christophe Menant]

Dear Terry and FISers,
It looks indeed reasonable to position the term 'language' as ‘simply referring 
to the necessity of a shared medium of communication’. Keeping in mind that 
communications exist only because agents need to manage meanings for given 
purposes.
And the concept of agent can be an entry point for a ‘general theory of 
information’ as it does not make distinctions.
The Peircean triadic approach is also an available framework (but with, alas, a 
limited development of the Interpreter).
I choose to use agents capable of meaning generation, having some compatibility 
with the Peircean approach and with the Biosemiotics 
Umwelt.(https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2)

All the best
Christophe







De : Fis  de la part de Terrence W. DEACON 

Envoyé : mardi 13 février 2018 06:33
À : Sungchul Ji
Cc : FIS Group; Jose Javier Blanco Rivero
Objet : Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the 
cateogry theory

To claim that:

"without a language, no communication would be possible"

one must be using the term "language" in a highly metaphoric sense.

Is scent marking a language?
Music?
Sexual displays, like a peacock's tail?
How about a smile or frown?
Is the pattern of colors of a flower that attracts bees a language?
Was the evolution of language in humans just more of the same, not
something distinct from a dog's bark?
When a person is depressed, their way of walking often communicates
this fact to others; so is this slight modification of posture part of
a language?
If I get the hiccups after eating is this part of a language that
communicates my indigestion?

Is this usage of the term 'language' simply referring to the necessity
of a shared medium of communication? Is it possible to develop a
general theory of information by simply failing to make distinctions?

— Terry




On 2/12/18, Sungchul Ji  wrote:
> Hi FISers,
>
>
> (1) I think language and communication cannot be separated, since without a
> language, no communication would be possible (see Figure 1).
>
>
>
>f
>g
>  Sender --->  Message
> >  Receiver
>   |
>^
>   |
> |
>   |
> |
>
> |_|
>
> h
>
> “Language and communication are both irreducibly triadic; i.e., the three
> nodes and three edges are essential for communication, given a language or
> code understood by both the sender and receiver.”   f =  encoding; g =
> decoding; h = information flow.
>
> Figure 1.  A diagrammatic representation of the irreducibly triadic nature
> of communication and language.
>
>
>
>
> (2) I think it may be justified and useful to distinguish between
> anthropomorphic language metaphor (ALM) and non-athropomorphic language
> metaphor (NLM).  I agree with many of the members of this list that we
> should not apply ALM to biology uncritically, since such an approch to
> biology may lead to  unjustifiable anthropomorphisms.
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus) and the anthropocentric theory of
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Alchemische_Vereinigung_aus_dem_Donum_Dei.jpg/1200px-Alchemische_Vereinigung_aus_dem_Donum_Dei.jpg]

Homunculus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A homunculus (/ h oʊ ˈ m ʌ ŋ k j ʊ l ə s /; Latin for "little man") is a 
representation of a small human being. Popularized in sixteenth-century alchemy 
and ...



> creatiion.
>
>
> (3) Table 1 below may represent one possible example of NLM.  Although the
> linguistic terms such as letters, words, sentences, etc. are used in this
> table, they  are matrially/ontologically  different from their molecular
> coutner parts; e.g., letters are  different from nucleotides, protein
> domians , etc.,and  words are different from genes, proteins, etc., but
> there are unmistakable common formal features among them.
>
> Table 1.  The formal and material aspects of the cell language (Cellese).
>
> \  Material Aspect
> \(Function)
> \
> \
> \
>  \
> \
> Formal Aspect \
>(Function) \
>   \
>
> DNA Language
> (DNese;
> Information transmission in time)
>
> RNA Language
> (RNese;
> Information transmission in space, from DNA to proteins)
>
> Protein Language
> (Proteinese;
> Energy transduction
> from chemical to mechanical; i.e., conformon production)
>
> Chemical Language
> (Moleculese;
> Source of free 

[Fis] Digital Demagogue: Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Trump and Twitter

[Christian Fuchs]

Book Launch: “Digital Demagogue: Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of 
Trump and Twitter” by Christian Fuchs

Thursday 1 March 2018
19:00 – 21:00
117 Boardroom
309 Regent Street
University of Westminster
London W1B 2HW

Registration:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/digital-demagogue-authoritarian-capitalism-in-the-age-of-trump-and-twitter-tickets-41214808602?aff=erelexpmlt

WIAS, CAMRI and Pluto Press are pleased to invite you to the book launch 
of “Digital Demagogue: Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Trump and 
Twitter” by Christian Fuchs.


Christian Fuchs will be giving an introduction to “Digital Demagogue”, a 
timely and topical study of the expressions of ideology, nationalism and 
authoritarianism in the age of big data, Trump and social media.


We are all familiar with the ways that Donald Trump uses digital media 
to communicate, from the ridiculous to the terrifying. This book digs 
deeper into the use of those tools in politics to show how they have 
facilitated the rise of authoritarianism, nationalism, and right-wing 
ideologies around the world.


Digital Demagogue Competition: Books for Memes
https://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/announcement/view/32





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

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Hello Terry, Sung, FIS colleagues

There is a notion of “body language”.

Perhaps it might be possible to develop a general theory of language that can 
take into account bacteria and dogs (according to Nature 
http://www.nature.com/news/dogs-can-tell-when-praise-is-sincere-1.20514) as 
well as plants https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634130/ & 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688289/ cognitive agents with 
different levels of cognition which communicate and process information in 
order to survive.

One may build a theory of communication of information by just paying attention 
to what has been sent with respect to the cognitive structures of a sender and 
what has been received with respect to the cognitive structure of a receiver. 
Here cognitive means embodied and should include all sensors, actuators, memory 
and information processing mechanisms. As in biology thre are different kinds 
of organisms there are also different kinds of “languages”. There are small 
languages communicated in relatively simple ways between simple agents (like 
cells) and big languages used by complex agents like humans.

Why not?

Best wishes,
Gordana




On 2018-02-13, 06:33, "Fis on behalf of Terrence W. DEACON" 
 on behalf of 
dea...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

To claim that:

"without a language, no communication would be possible"

one must be using the term "language" in a highly metaphoric sense.

Is scent marking a language?
Music?
Sexual displays, like a peacock's tail?
How about a smile or frown?
Is the pattern of colors of a flower that attracts bees a language?
Was the evolution of language in humans just more of the same, not
something distinct from a dog's bark?
When a person is depressed, their way of walking often communicates
this fact to others; so is this slight modification of posture part of
a language?
If I get the hiccups after eating is this part of a language that
communicates my indigestion?

Is this usage of the term 'language' simply referring to the necessity
of a shared medium of communication? Is it possible to develop a
general theory of information by simply failing to make distinctions?

― Terry




On 2/12/18, Sungchul Ji 
> wrote:
Hi FISers,


(1) I think language and communication cannot be separated, since without a
language, no communication would be possible (see Figure 1).



f
g
  Sender --->  Message
>  Receiver
   |
^
   |
 |
   |
 |

|_|

 h

“Language and communication are both irreducibly triadic; i.e., the three
nodes and three edges are essential for communication, given a language or
code understood by both the sender and receiver.”   f =  encoding; g =
decoding; h = information flow.

Figure 1.  A diagrammatic representation of the irreducibly triadic nature
of communication and language.




(2) I think it may be justified and useful to distinguish between
anthropomorphic language metaphor (ALM) and non-athropomorphic language
metaphor (NLM).  I agree with many of the members of this list that we
should not apply ALM to biology uncritically, since such an approch to
biology may lead to  unjustifiable anthropomorphisms.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus) and the anthropocentric theory of
creatiion.


(3) Table 1 below may represent one possible example of NLM.  Although the
linguistic terms such as letters, words, sentences, etc. are used in this
table, they  are matrially/ontologically  different from their molecular
coutner parts; e.g., letters are  different from nucleotides, protein
domians , etc.,and  words are different from genes, proteins, etc., but
there are unmistakable common formal features among them.

Table 1.  The formal and material aspects of the cell language (Cellese).

\  Material Aspect
 \(Function)
 \
 \
 \
  \
 \
Formal Aspect \
(Function) \
   \

DNA Language
(DNese;
Information transmission in time)

RNA Language
(RNese;
Information transmission in space, from DNA to proteins)

Protein Language
(Proteinese;
Energy transduction
from chemical to mechanical; i.e., conformon production)

Chemical Language
(Moleculese;
Source of free energy)

Letters*
(To build)

4n nucleotides
n = 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .
Exons (?)



Protein domains

Partial chemical reactions

Words
(To denote)

Genes



Proteins

Full chemical reactions

Sentences