Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
The problem with this approach (and approaches like it) is that it is descriptive and not explanatory. The distribution of the shape, in my model, can be described, perhaps, but the process or action decision point and response covariance is impossible to consider. It is for this reason that I use holomorphic functors and hyper-functors in which I can express the explicit role of a base universal (per gravitation). Nor is it clear to me that this is what Joe referred to as information as process. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear colleagues, Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis (North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures. In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write: in which can be considered as the a posteriori and the a priori distribution. This dynamic information measure can be decomposed and aggregated. One can also develop measures for systemic developments and critical transitions. In other words, information as a process can also be measured in bits of information. Of course, one can extend the dimensionality (*i*) for the multivariate case (*ijk*…), and thus use information theory for network analysis (including time). Best, Loet References: ·Leydesdorff, L. (1991). The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Network Data Using Information Theory. *Social Networks, 13*(4), 301-345. ·Theil, H. (1972). *Statistical Decomposition Analysis*. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. -- Loet Leydesdorff *Emeritus* University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.htmlBeijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 10:22 PM *To:* Joseph Brenner *Cc:* fis *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process I am a little mystified by your assertion of information as process. What, exactly, is this and how does it differ fro information in general (Shannon). Is it related to Whitehead's process notions? In terms of neuroscience it is important to move away from connectionism and modern computational ideas I believe. It is not clear to me how information theory can be applied to the operation of the brain at the synaptic level because the actions and the decisions made are made across the structure and not at a single location. Recognition, for example, is not a point event but occurs rather when a particular shape is formed in the structure (of the CNS, for example) and is immediately covariant with the appropriate response (another shape) which may be characterized as a hyper-functor (which may or may not include neurons and astrocytes in the brain). Regards, Steven On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote: Dear Carolina, Bob L., Bob U., Sören and Krassimir, First of all thanks to Carolina for having launched a most interesting thread, of which I have changed the title since the issues are broader than that of Neuroinformation alone, as Francesco has noted. My first point is a response to Sören since I feel his book does not address Information-as-Process as 'physically' as I think necessary. His reference to the use of this term by Buckland (on p. 77 not 87), (which I had missed when first reading /Cybersemiotics/), however, is followed by a reference to information processing. (He later states that a new metatheory is required to replace the information processing paradigm, and he proposes Peircean semiotics, whereas I have proposed Logic in Reality.) I also note that Buckland places Information-as-Process in the 'Intangible' column of his matrix and one can question the ontological meaning of this. In the compendium /Philosophers of Process/. 1998. Browning and Myers (eds.). New York: Fordham University Press, Peirce is represented by four papers: The Architecture of Theories, The Doctrine of Necessity Examined, The Law of Mind and Man's Glassy Essence. Unfortunately, in none of these is the word 'process' used, let alone described as a concept. 'Process' is not an entry in the COMMENS Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce, edited by Bergman and Paavola, so the most one can say is that process was not a common concept in Peirce. If Information-as-Process is to be developed as a concept, I doubt that Peirce's
Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
Dear Steven and colleagues, I did not (yet) study your approach. Is there a paper that can be read as an introduction? It seems to me that one can distinguish between formal and substantial theories of information. Shannon’s mathematical theory is a formal apparatus: the design and the results do not yet have meaning without an interpretation in a substantial context. On the other side, a theory about, for example, neuro-information is a special theory. One can in this context use information theory as a statistical tool (among other tools). Sometimes, one can move beyond description. :) The advantage of information theory, from this perspective of special theories, is that the formal apparatus allows us sometimes to move between domains heuristically. For example, a model of the brain can perhaps be used metaphorically for culture or the economy (or vice versa). The advantages have to be shown in empirical research: which questions can be addressed and which puzzles be solved? Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:13 PM To: l...@leydesdorff.net Cc: Joseph Brenner; fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process The problem with this approach (and approaches like it) is that it is descriptive and not explanatory. The distribution of the shape, in my model, can be described, perhaps, but the process or action decision point and response covariance is impossible to consider. It is for this reason that I use holomorphic functors and hyper-functors in which I can express the explicit role of a base universal (per gravitation). Nor is it clear to me that this is what Joe referred to as information as process. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear colleagues, Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis (North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures. In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write: in which can be considered as the a posteriori and the a priori distribution. This dynamic information measure can be decomposed and aggregated. One can also develop measures for systemic developments and critical transitions. In other words, information as a process can also be measured in bits of information. Of course, one can extend the dimensionality (i) for the multivariate case (ijk…), and thus use information theory for network analysis (including time). Best, Loet References: *Leydesdorff, L. (1991). The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Network Data Using Information Theory. Social Networks, 13(4), 301-345. *Theil, H. (1972). Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es ] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:22 PM To: Joseph Brenner Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process I am a little mystified by your assertion of information as process. What, exactly, is this and how does it differ fro information in general (Shannon). Is it related to Whitehead's process notions? In terms of neuroscience it is important to move away from connectionism and modern computational ideas I believe. It is not clear to me how information theory can be applied to the operation of the brain at the synaptic level because
