RE: [Fis] Realism
Dear John and colleagues,[...]> That said, I think that the evidence is that we construct our> understanding of the world out of materials from both our> mind and the world, so I fall into the category that is> usually called constructive realist.It seems to me that this division among mind and world begs the question about the nature of the constructed world. Is it the result of our previous constructions (and therefore contingent) or is it transcendental to these constructions?It is easier to see that "phlogiston" was never out there than to make the case for "oxygen". I don't wish to say that "oxygen" is just a convention, but perhaps it is only the result of a specific codification of the discourse in chemistry and physics which makes it possible for us (minds) to reflexively entertain the notion of "oxygen" as part of the organization of our world. In terms of the divide between nature and culture, "nature" can then be considered as a previous state of the cultural system of socially constructed understanding.In other words, the "mind" or a collective of "minds" are not the appropriate units of analysis since they only reflect on the (scientific) discourses which develop at the supra-individual level by reconstructing the "world".With best wishes,Loet Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX AmsterdamTel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, and SimulatedThe Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Realism
From: John Collier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 12:34 AMTo: Loet LeydesdorffSubject: RE: [Fis] Realism I just want to make it clear that I was using a standard type of reductio argument in which I assumed something I don't believe in order to show it is unsound. Of course the split between mind and world is phoney. My aim was to show that assuming an inner and outer at least has a plausible alternative, and that the arguments in its favour are not sound. So I agree with those who reject the split. As a philosopher I am concerned with getting the logic right. Since there are deep seated prejudices in Modern though about a split between mind and body that keep resurfacing and confusing our epistemic situation, I thought it was worthwhile.Without information channels to the world, we cannot have information about it. The only such channels we have evidence for are via the body. That implies we must be careful in interpreting that information, but it does not imply that we don't have direct information about the world (social or otherwise). Are interpretations are fallible, but that does not give us warrant to think they are false, or that we have no such information.I think I agree with what Loet said below.John Dear John, Let me take my second shot this week. Of course, I cannot deny that we need the body, but which senses we need for reading "nature" depends very much on whether we consider "reality" as a construction in the discourse or as something we have unmediated access to because of our body. As someone voiced it to me in an offline email: '"Nature" is our conceptual tool for confronting The World.' John Casti used the concept of a tangential approach for studying "alternate realities"; Niklas Luhmann used the concept of "a reality that remains unknown" when we construct it.I agree that it is a bit a sideline in this discussion.With best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Nanotechnology: Its Delineation in Terms of Journals and Patents -- preprint version available
Nanotechnology as a Field of Science: Its Delineation in terms of Journals and Patents Loet Leydesdorff and Ping Zhou The Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index 2004 were used to delineate a core set of nanotechnology journals and a nanotechnology-relevant set. In comparison with 2003, the core set has grown and the relevant set has decreased. This suggests a higher degree of codification in the field of nanotechnology: the field has become more focused in terms of citation practices. Using the citing patterns among journals at the aggregate level, a core group of ten nanotechnology journals in the vector space can be delineated on the criterion of betweenness centrality. National contributions to this core group of journals are evaluated for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Additionally, the specific class of nanotechnology patents in the database of the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) is analyzed to determine if non-patent literature references can be used as a source for the delineation of the knowledge base in terms of scientific journals. The references are primarily to general science journals and letters, and therefore not specific enough for the purpose of delineating a journal set. ** apologies for cross-postings Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX AmsterdamTel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ NEW: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Joined in consensus - after all!
> I am unhappy with this IF by 'human being' you go beyond > the organism itself. A culture can produce, say, machines > that have capabilities no human being has (X-ray, etc.), and > which no single human can have generated the theories > involved. If we observe humans using a battery of machines > that materialize various theories, then we can say that the > culture is observing human beings. Scientific data about > humans is of this kind. Dear Stan and colleagues, Would this not go beyond both the organism and the psyche, that is, as a next-order social system among human beings? Science can then be considered as a special codification of this system of communications. Technology as its intervention in nature. This system, of course, should not be considered as a demi-god, but as a consequence of the non-linear dynamics in the distributions. With best wishes, Loet ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [FIS] Re: Concluding replies
Dear Stan,There is a beautiful study by
Floris Cohen [Cohen, H. F. (1984). Quantifying Music. Dordrecht, etc.: Reidel]
in which he shows how during the 17th century gradually the appreciation of the
minor seventh changed in both theory (Huygens) and practice (Monteverdi). While
this was first considered as a dissonant, people began to consider it as a
consonant.Levi-Strauss, of course, is the author who convincingly made
this argument for any of the other senses (La pensee sauvage). This is not to
deny that the biological mediation may also play a role.With best
wishes,Loet
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)Kloveniersburgwal 48,
1012 CX AmsterdamTel.: +31-20- 525 6598;
fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured,
Simulated. 385 pp.; US$
18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based
Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics
> -Original Message->
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Stanley N.> Salthe (by way of Pedro
Marijuan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 10:10
AM> To: fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re: [FIS] Re: Concluding
replies>> Note on SPAM: there is lots of spam these days in the
server> of this university. If your message is rejected, like
this> one from Stan, resend it to me, please, and I will re-enter>
it into the list. ---Pedro>
->>
>To: fis@listas.unizar.es> >From: "Stanley N. Salthe"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >Subject: Re: [FIS] Re:
Concluding replies > >Commenting> on Arne's posting,
with which I substantially agree. I find> it >useful to
construct a specification hierarchy of 'realms> of nature' (each
>of which is a cultural construct), as:> >{physical dynamics
{material connections {biological forms> {sociocultural
>traditions> > This allows us to
put all of scientific knowledge in an orderly> >arrangement (in
the sprit of the Unity of Knowledge> outlook). Physics >subsumes
all other science discourses,> while sociology implies
(material> >implication) all the others.>
> Since an individual's knowing resides
within> sociocultural traditions,> >it is mediated by all
of these realms of nature. There> remains the >question of
to what extent, say, the 'taste of> an orange' is culturally
>mediated. If it is not, then it> is yet biologically
mediated. Some might >think that only> physical knowledge
could be directly about the World > >itself, but we biological
beings must construct> culturally-mediated >machines in order to
detect -- indeed> construct -- the data which we would >hold to
be physical> information.> >>
>STAN> >>>
___> fis mailing list>
fis@listas.unizar.es> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Is the US losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system in 2005
Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system in 2005 Loet Leydesdorff and Caroline Wagner Abstract Based on the Science Citation Index–Expanded web-version, the USA is still by far the strongest nation in terms of scientific performance. Its relative decline in percentage share of publications is largely due to the emergence of China and other Asian nations. In terms of citations, the competitive advantage of the American “domestic market” is diminished, while the European Union (EU) is profiting more from the enlargement of the database over time than the US. However, the USA is still outperforming all other countries in terms of highly cited papers and citation/publication ratios, and it is more successful than the EU in coordinating its research efforts in strategic priority areas like nanotechnology. In this field, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has become second largest in 2005 in both numbers of papers published and citations behind the USA. Keywords: national, science, bibliometrics, indicators, nanotechnology Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX AmsterdamTel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Triple Helix 6
SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS The 6th International Triple Helix Conference on University-Government-Industry Relations Singapore, 16-18 May 2007 http://www.triplehelix6.com The 6th Biennial International Triple Helix Conference on University-Industry-Government Links will be held in Singapore from 16-18 May 2007 with the theme “Emerging Models for the Entrepreneurial University: Regional Diversities or Global Convergence”. The conference will be organized by National University of Singapore (NUS) Enterprise in Singapore. Past Triple-Helix conferences have been held in Amsterdam, New York, Rio de Janeiro, Copenhagen/Lund, and Turin (http://www.triplehelix5.com/triple_helix.htm). Organized for the first time in Asia, Triple Helix VI 2007 will provide a global forum for academic scholars from different disciplinary perspectives as well as policy makers, university administrators and private sector leaders from different countries to exchange and share new learning about the diverse emerging models of the entrepreneurial university, the changing dynamics of University-Industry-Government interactions around the world and the complex roles of the university in local, regional and national economic development. We invite scholarly paper contributions that seek to advance our understanding of the dynamics of University-Industry-Government interactions in general and the emerging entrepreneurial university models in particular. We also welcome practitioner-oriented contributions that provide insights on new policy innovations and share knowledge on practices, as well as proposals for workshops and poster presentations that contribute to promoting exchange and dialogues on how universities in the 21st century can better cope with the challenges of globalizations while serving local and regional goals. We invite submissions of extended abstracts in the following categories: (A) Papers for presentation in Parallel Sessions (B) Papers for Workshop Sessions(C) Poster presentations Papers and poster presentations will be selected based on abstract submissions which should be of a maximum length of two pages including figures and references. Abstracts should be submitted through our online submission system, available on the conference website from 1st September 2006. Authors are invited to submit papers on one or more of the following sub-themes: 1. Role of Triple Helix Linkages in National Innovation System 2. Indicators/Measurement of Triple Helix Linkages and Dynamics 3. Models of Entrepreneurial University 4. University Technology Commercialization & Spin-offs 5. Technology commercialization from Public Research Organizations 6. Economic Impacts of Universities and Public Research Institutions 7. Triple Helix Linkages & Dynamics in Emerging Economies 8. Managing Triple Helix Relationships and Networks 9. Policies for Promoting Triple Helix Linkages 10. Organizational and Management Challenges in Triple Helix Nexus 11. Triple Helix Linkages in the context of Globalization Authors of accepted abstracts will be required to submit their full papers / poster abstracts according to the submission guidelines which are available in the conference website. Authors of the best papers presented at the conference will be invited to submit their contributions to a number of special issues of relevant international journals. For more details, please visit http://www.triplehelix6.com. You may direct any logistics-related query you may have about the conference to organizing chair ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Queries related to abstract/paper submissions and the conference theme can be directed to the organizing chair ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) KEY DATES Last Date For Online Abstract Submission : 8 January 2007 Notification Of Acceptance : 16 February 2007 Due Date for Submission of Full Papers - Papers for Parallel Sessions- Workshop Papers : 16 April 2007 Due Date for Submission of Poster Extended Abstracts : 30 April 2007 End Of Special Rate Registration For Conference Participants : 9 March 2007 Chairman, Scientific Committee Henry Etzkowitz University of Newcastle upon Tyne & Stony Brook University (SUNY) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chairman, Organizing Committee Poh Kam WONG National University of Singapore Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: FORWARD Re: [Fis] Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism: Lawsof nature? (fwd)
> SS: Concerning configurations, looking at
the> specification hierarchy:> {physical dynamics {material
connections {biological> organization}}}, we must conclude that physical
degrees of> freedom must become increasingly frozen out as we ascend
the> hierarchy. However, new degrees of freedom open up at
each> level. These new degrees of freedom cannot be confined
by> physical laws, but could be said to become subject to new>
'laws of matter', perhaps such as the purported 'laws of> biology' cited
by Richard (see below). In addition, the> effects of historicity
become increasingly important as we> ascend the hierarchy, and here is
where I meet Bob's> perspective. I represent this as an increase in
the effects> of contingency as we ascend the hierarchy.Beyond the biological, the psychological and the
sociological take over by introducing degrees of freedoms in the expectation.
One can see that from the bifurcation diagram for the logistic map and its
anticipatory equivalents below:
x(t+1) = a x(t) [1 -
x(t)]
The psyche is modeled
as a weakly anticipatory system using the incursive equivalent of the logistic
equation:
x(t+1) = a x(t) [1 -
x(t+1)]
The social system as a
strongly anticipatory one using a hyperincursive equivalent:
x(t) = a x(t+1) [1 -
x(t+1)}
Since this equation is
quadratic, one obtains two solutions at each time step. By taking turns (in
terms of the sign of the equation) the social system develops a trajectory in
real time within this field of possibilities.
(For those of you, who
do not receive these emails in html, please, consult http://www.leydesdorff.net/temp/index.htm
or allow html for this email only.)
With best wishes,
Loet
Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research
(ASCoR)Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX AmsterdamTel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured,
Simulated. 385 pp.; US$
18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based
Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [FIS] General remark
And to reiterate again. We are talking about information as a concept, or as a variable? If we talk variable, we should be aware of the above listed limitations. If we talk concept, than Shannon-Boltzmann is a misunderstanding, in the same way, as the object as a whole and the mass of an object (in kilograms) are not the same. We can consider a concept as a variable which is measured at the nominal level, that is, in terms of descriptors. The advantage of Shannon's (not Boltzmann's) definition seems to me that it formalizes information as a variable. It can be provided with meaning, namely: uncertainty. However, this meaning is not yet substantive like the information impact of a meaningful information on the stock exchange. Meaning can only be provided to the Shannon-type information by a system. With best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX AmsterdamTel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [FIS] General remark
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Igor RojdestvenskiSent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 9:18 AMTo: fis@listas.unizar.esSubject: Re: [FIS] General remark We cannot consider a concept as a variable. Simply because a concept is not measured in bits, grams, joules, etc. And a variable always is. We may, instead, associate variables with a concept, these variables describing certain measurable aspects of a concept. Similarly to the concept of matter, the variables for which represent mass, density, structural parameters, etc, etc. This is the key point, in my opinion. Information is a concept. And what we call information in Shannon's definition is, in fact, a variable associated with the concept of information. One of many possible variables. Igor Yes, the same concept can differently be operationalized. However, in the case of information we should not confuse two concepts: Shannon-type information and meaningful information. The Chinese language has two different expressions for these two concepts: Both words contain two characters . The above one, ‘sjin sji’, corresponds to the mathematical definition of information as uncertainty. The second, ‘tsjin bao,’ means information but also intelligence. In other words, it means information which informs us, and which is thus considered meaningful. The first concept can be operationalized as Shannon-type information. The second perhaps as Brillouin's "negentropy". "Meaningful information" assumes a system for which the information can have meaning. One can also call this "observed information", that is, the information is "observed" by the receiving system. Shannon-type information remains expected information content (of a message). It seems to me that operational definitions thoroughly solve the conceptual confusion. With best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX AmsterdamTel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] local citation impact and activity environments of scientific journals in 2005
Now available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr05/cited/index.htm and
http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr05/citing/index.htm :
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr05/citing/index.htm> Local Citation Impact
Environments of 7,525 Scientific Journals in 2005 ("cited")
Local Citation Activity <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr05/citing/index.htm>
Environments of 7,525 Scientific Journals in 2005 ("citing")
One can click on any of the journal names and obtain the Pajek file
corresponding to the citation impact environment of the journal ("cited" or
"citing," respectively). See for further explanation: "Visualization of the
Citation <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04/index.htm> Impact Environment of
Scientific Journals: An online mapping exercise," Journal of the Amererican
Society for Information Science and Technology (forthcoming).
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04/jcr2pajek.pdf>
The 2005 matrices are based on taking the one-percent threshold of "total
citations" after correction for within-journal citations. This main-diagonal
value is sometimes so large that it overshadows the environment and
therefore it is no longer included in setting the threshold for the
delineation of the set.
* apologies for cross-postings
_
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Now available:
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378>
The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$
18.95
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956>
The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society;
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816>
The Challenge of Scientometrics
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] INTRODUCING SOCIAL AND CULTURAL COMPLEXITY
Another dimension of complexity comes from the fact that human decision making is not only bounded by technical constraints related to information gathering and processing but is also significantly constrained by a bias that comes from the set of basic values and beliefs about the world and a society that a decision maker holds in his mind. In that sense certain solutions to a problem, which are technically accessible and rational, perhaps even optimal for an external observer, are discarded or unrecognized as such because they clash with certain socially shared beliefs and values (a worldview). What one holds in mind is a model of the system under study, including a model of oneself. In this sense, these are anticipatory systems a la Rosen (1985). In addition to holding this model in mind, these models can also be communicated. Thus, the social system processes meaning on top of the information processing (Luhmann, 1984). Meaning is provided from the perspective of hindsight and thus inverts the axis of time locally. The probabilistic entropy generation is thus provided with a feedback by each individual model. This feedback is further reinforced by the communication (stabilization, and potential globalization) of meaning in social systems. Unlike minds (psychological systems) which can provide the events with meaning and thereby construct an expectation, social systems can be considered as strongly anticipatory (Dubois, 1998). Strongly anticipatory systems co-construct their own future. I tried to model these relations using Dubois's incursive and hyperincursive equations. See: http://www.leydesdorff.net/temp . This paper has still to be written, but the main arguments can be found in: Hyperincursion and the <http://www.leydesdorff.net/casys05/index.htm> Globalization of a Knowledge-Based Economy, In: D. M. Dubois (Ed.) Proceedings of the 7th Intern. Conf. on Computing Anticipatory Systems CASYS'05, Liège, Belgium, 8-13 August 2005. Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, Vol. 839, 2006, pp. 560-569; http://www.leydesdorff.net/casys05/CASYS05.pdf> > With best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Pedro and collegaues, Anyhow, my general opinion on the problem of social complexity is that, like its homonymous biological counterpart, it stands beyond formal approaches, at the time being. Let us remind the recent exchanges on "biological computation"... If so, requests to directly algorithmize it, are ill posed directions: without new approaches to info it cannot be done meaningfully. In my opinion, this conclusion is drawn much too early and too much based on modelling the social system from the perspective of a biologist. Two important steps (since most relevant for the algorithmic approaches) have been suggested in which social systems differ from biological systems, at least in terms of the relative weights of subdynamics: 1. the unit of analysis. Unlike biological systems, social systems are not aggregates of individuals. Thus, the individual or the aggregate of individuals (e.g., in people) are not the proper unit of analysis, and the corresponding requirement of micro-foundation (prevalent in neo-classical economics) should not be accepted at forehand. The coordination mechanisms among human beings are generating the complexity. Therefore, communication (or another mechanism of social coordination?) should be considered itself as the unit of analysis. This makes the analysis more complex and more simple. Communications cannot be directly observed, but one can observe their "footprints". However, communication systems can be hypothesized and then the specified expectations can be tested against the data. Furthermore, we have an elegant apparatus in the mathematical theory of communication (and its elaboration into non-linear dynamics) for the operationalization. Communications are distributed, both socially and temporarily. The distributions can be expected to contain information (which is communicated when the systems operate). 2. the nature of the operation has to be specified. While information-processing proceeds with the axis of time, meaning is provided from the perspective of hindsight. Thus, the axis of time has to be inverted locally in the model. The inversion can lead to stabilization. This inversion is reinforced when meaning can also be communicated. This next-order inversion may lead to globalization. How does the probabilistic entropy evolve when these feedback mechanisms are operating on the information-processing. This is studied in computing anticipatory systems (Rosen, 1985; Dubois, 1998). It is clear by now that the mechanisms of anticipatory systems are very different from those without anticipation and that anticipation can be specified in terms of strong and weak anticiation, leading to different equations. For example, the anticipatory formulation of the logistic equation does not lead to chaotic phenomena when the bifurcation paramater approaches the value of four, as it does in population dynamics. Thus, meaning-processing systems (like studied in psychologies or sociologies) should not be studied using a biological model without further reflection. This is not to say that in mathematical biology, one is not interested in anticipation and communication. On the contrary, Robert Rosen's work is to be celebrated! However, one is often not sufficiently aware that at the level of weakly anticipatory systems like human beings (who can entertain models of themselves and their environments and make predictions on this basis) and at the level of strongly anticipatory systems like social systems which are under specific conditions able to restructure their future (e.g., using technosciences), other mechanisms prevail in the complex communication dynamics then the ones which can be derived from biological systems. The latter, for example, may exhibit a life-cycle, while a social system is not born: it emerges using a mechanism different from the underlying one or in other words as a structural coupling (Maturana). With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Pedro: 1. You are changing the subject from "social and cultural complexity" to "the nature of complexity". Thus, our previous communications seem to be discardable as "irrelevant." Initially, I do not find Stan, Guy and Loet's responses convincing enough. Properly speaking about the social realm, the impervious dominance of the "formal" organizations or "systems" separated form the intrinsic complexity of individual's life, hasn't it been the capital sin of the past century? Among other miscarriages, let us remind dialectical and historical materialism, that pretended science of social change... a form of social mechanics in its purest acception (social masses, social forces, social revolutions, etc.), creating a new standard for human beings, writing in the pretended "blank slate" of human minds. One of the lessons to learn is that the HUMAN FACTOR (or human nature if one prefers) will "systematically" defeat to any systemic planner --be it economic, urban, technological, political, etc.-- who does not care about it. All those "systems" superimposed upon individuals will plunder if they do not let open avenues for the advancement of the human life-cycle. I don't expect anybody to plea for imposing a system on human beings a la marxism or fascism. It is not obvious that the human factor is the correct unit of analysis if one is interested in social and cultural complexity. It is undoubtedly the right unit of analysis if one is interested in human complexity. However, many phenomena which emerge on the basis of human (non-linear) interactions cannot be reduced to the carriers. For example, a scientific paradigm (a la Kuhn) can be considered as a development of the pre-paradigmatic discourse into a more codified one. The discourse becomes locked-in and then sets the delineations of the relevant contributions to the discourse. Thus, human beings who were previously important to this social/cultural system, are now no longer. As Planck seems to have said, one has to wait till the old boys have died. This is not to deny that human beings are crucial as carriers of a socio-cultural system, but as the dynamics of the neural network are not determined at the level of the cells, but in terms of the wiring, analogously the dynamics of the networks of communications are not necessarily determined by the dynamics of the human carriers. Analytically, the human carriers are structurally coupled as the relevant environment of the social system. Of course, it sounds nice to proclaim a humanistic a priori. However, as a system of communications the social can be studied as providing a dynamics different and additional to human intentions. It is a different (sub)dynamic. For example, when one follows neo-evolutionary economics (Schumpeter) in stating that innovations can upset the equilibrium seeking tendencies in markets, we are discussing more abstract dynamics than can be explained in terms of carriers (e.g., individual entrepreneurs). In this sense, Marx was right: one creates society, but what happens is beyond control because it is part of another dynamics. (His answers of the possibility of a final reconciliation of these different dynamics was perhaps a bit naive.) I hope that this is helpful. Most likely, it is not "convincing enough". :-) With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics I remember that early computers contained a sort of "refresh" or "reset" tension affecting every transistor so that their functional state, after any work cycle, was effectively set as planned by the designer --probably contemporary microchips are above that limitation... what I mean is that there is no effective, generalized way to isolate the emergent or complex behavior in any realm from all the vagaries of upper and lower realms --except laboratories themselves and techno installations. Nature does not care about crossing our well established disciplinary borders: out-there, herein. The extrinsic versus the intrinsic--this motto transpires quite often (now, for instance) our discussions: the exo vs. the endo, the external vs. the internal, the mechanical vs. the organicist
[Fis] Season's greetings in anticipation of 2007
Dear colleagues, Click here for season's <http://www.leydesdorff.net/temp/HappyNewYear.exe> greetings using the logistic map and here for the same greetings using the incursive formulation of <http://www.leydesdorff.net/temp/incursive.exe> this map and the hyperincursive <http://www.leydesdorff.net/temp/hyperincursive.exe> one! With best wishes for 2007, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Re: Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Like the individual mind is somewhat constrained by the biology of the body,
society is constrained by the room of individuals to experience and
phantasize. This is no biological, but a psychological constrain. Thus, it
is not the volume of our brains, but the complexity with which we are able
to process meaning. The dynamics of meaning processing may be very different
from the dynamics of information processing. For example, information is
processed with the arrow of time, while meaning is provided from the
perspective of hindsight. Different meanings can be based on different
codifications (e.g., economic or scientific codifications), while meaning
itself can be considered as a codifying the information.
My main point is that the biological metaphor may be the wrong starting
point for a discussion of social and cultural complexity.
With best wishes,
Loet
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pedro Marijuan
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:39 PM
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Re: Continuing Discussion of Social and
> Cultural Complexity
>
> Dear Igor and colleagues,
>
> Your question is fascinating, perhaps at the time being
> rather puzzling or
> even un-answerable...
>
> What are the complexity limits of societies? Our individual
> limits are
> obvious ---the size of "natural bands" depended both on
> ecosystems and on
> the number of people with which an individual was able to communicate
> "meaningfully", keeping a mutual strong bond. Of course, at the same
> time the band was always dynamically subdividing in dozens
> and dozens of
> possible multidimensional partitions and small groups (eg.
> the type of
> evanescent grouping we may observe in any cocktail party).
> Pretty complex
> in itself, apparently.
>
> Comparatively, the real growth of complexity in societies is
> due (in a
> rough simplification) to "weak bonds". In this way one can
> accumulate far
> more identities and superficial relationships that imply the
> allegiance to
> sectorial codes, with inner combinatory, and easy ways to
> rearrange rapidly
> under general guidelines. Thus, the cumulative complexity is almost
> unaccountable in relation with the natural band --Joe
> provided some curious
> figures in his opening. And in the future, those figures may
> perfectly grow
> further, see for instance the number of scientific specialties and
> subspecialties (more than 5-6.000 today, less than 2-3.000 a
> generation ago).
>
> Research on social networks has highlighted the paradoxical
> vulnerability
> of societies to the loss of ... weak bonds. The loss of
> strong bonds is
> comparatively assumed with more tolerance regarding the
> maintenance of the
> complex structure (human feelings apart). Let us also note that
> considering the acception of information as "distinction on
> the adjacent" I
> argued weeks ago, networks appear as instances of new
> adjacencies... by
> individual nodes provided with artificial means of
> communication ("channels").
>
> In sum, an economic view on social complexity may be interesting but
> secondary. What we centrally need, what we lack, is a serious info
> perspective on complexity (more discussions like the current
> one!). By the
> way, considering the ecological perspectives on complexity
> would be quite
> interesting too.
>
> best regards
>
> Pedro
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Mapping the Knowledge Structures in Patents using Co-classifications
lt;http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/GE.txt> Georgia (9 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/GI.txt> Gibraltar (11 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/GR.txt> Greece (50 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/HK.txt> The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (20 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/HN.txt> Honduras (14 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/HR.txt> Croatia (28 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/HT.txt> Haiti (31 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/HU.txt> Hungary (157 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/IB.txt> International Bureau of the World Intellectual (9 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/ID.txt> Indonesia (38 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/IE.txt> Ireland (240 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/IL.txt> Israel (1183 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/IM.txt> Isle of Man (84 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/IN.txt> India (915 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/IR.txt> Iran (Islamic Republic of) (118 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/IS.txt> Iceland (222 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/IT.txt> Italy (1677 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/JO.txt> Jordan (6 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/JP.txt> Japan (15093 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/KE.txt> Kenya (57 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/KI.txt> Kiribati (24 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/KP.txt> Democratic People's Republic of Korea (4 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/KR.txt> Republic of Korea (2962 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/KY.txt> Cayman Islands (3 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/KZ.txt> Kazakhstan (7 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/LA.txt> Lao People's Democratic Republic (9 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/LB.txt> Lebanon (2 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/LI.txt> Liechtenstein (10 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/LS.txt> Lesotho (5 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/LT.txt> Lithuania (11 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/LU.txt> Luxembourg (40 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/LV.txt> Latvia (16 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/MA.txt> Morocco (75 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/MC.txt> Monaco (5 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/MD.txt> Republic of Moldova (9 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/ME.txt> Montenegro (52 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/MO.txt> Macao (10 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/MU.txt> Mauritius (4 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/MX.txt> Mexico (92 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/MY.txt> Malaysia (57 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/NA.txt> Namibia (27 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/NG.txt> Nigeria (4 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/NI.txt> Nicaragua (10 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/NL.txt> Netherlands (2261 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/NO.txt> Norway (492 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/NZ.txt> New Zealand (224 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/OM.txt> Oman (112 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/PE.txt> Peru (4 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/PH.txt> Philippines (18 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/PK.txt> Pakistan (2 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/PL.txt> Poland (91 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/PT.txt> Portugal (33 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/RO.txt> Romania (38 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/RU.txt> Russian Federation (501 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/SA.txt> Saudi Arabia (84 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/SE.txt> Sweden (1482 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/SG.txt> Singapore (387 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/SH.txt> Saint Helena (125 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/SI.txt> Slovenia (63 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/SK.txt> Slovakia (25 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/SO.txt> Somalia (14 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/TH.txt> Thailand (33 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/TN.txt> Tunisia (5 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/TO.txt> Tonga (98 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/TR.txt> Turkey (129 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/TW.txt> Taiwan, Province of China (101 patents) <http://www.leydesdorff.net/wipo06/UA.txt> Ukrai
RE: [Fis] Re: fis Digest, Vol 501, Issue 5
Dear colleagues,
I agree with most of what is said, but it does not apply to social systems
because these -- and to a lesser extent also psychological ones -- operate
differently from the hierarchical formations that are generated "naturally".
That is why we oppose "nature" to "culture" in the semantics: cultural (and
social) systems enable us to model the systems under study and this changes
the hierarchical order. I understand that Maturana et al. argue that the
next-order systems always model the lower-order ones, but then the word
"model" is used metaphorically. The model (e.g., the biological) model
enables us to reconstruct the system(s) under study to such an extent that
we are able to intervene in these systems, e.g. by using a technology. This
inverts the hierarchy.
Thus, let me write in Stan's notation: biological {psychological {social}}
-- or is this precisely the opposite order, Stan? -- then our scientific
models enable us to change nature, for example, by building dykes like in
Holland and thus we get: social {biological} since the ecological changes
can also be planned in advance.
While lower-order systems are able to entertain a model of the next-lower
ones -- and even have to entertain a model -- human language enables us not
only to exchange these models, but also to study them and to further codify
them. The further codification sharpens the knife with which we can cut into
the lower-level ones. We are not constrained to the next-order lower level,
but we can freely move through the hierarchy and develop different
specialties accordingly (chemistry, biology, etc.). Scientists are able to
adjust the focus of the lense. This is a cultural achievement which was
generated naturally, but once in place also had the possibility to
distinguish between genesis and validity. No lower-level systems can raise
and begin to answer this question. And doubling reality into a semantic
domain that can operate relatively independently of the underlying
(represented) layer increases the complexity which can be absorbed with an
order of magnitude.
The issue is heavily related to the issue of modernity as a specific form of
social organization. While tribes ("small groups") can still be considered
using the "natural" metaphor, and high cultures were still organized
hierarchically (with the emperor or the pope at the top), modern social
systems set science "free" to pursue this reconstruction in a
techno-economic evolution. "All that is solid, will melt into air" (Marx).
Because of our biological body, we are part of nature, but our minds are
entrained in a cultural dynamics at the supra-individual level ("culture")
which feeds back and at some places is able increasingly to invert the
hierarchy.
With best wishes,
Loet
_
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Now available:
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378>
The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$
18.95
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956>
The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society;
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816>
The Challenge of Scientometrics
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Collier
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 5:18 PM
To: Jerry LR Chandler; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Re: fis Digest, Vol 501, Issue 5
Hi folks,
I'll take a few minutes from my moving and dealing with academic emergencies
at UKZN to make a comment here.
Jerry brings up a point that keeps arising in the literature one constraints
and information. Recall that Shannon said that they are the same thing. That
is a clue.
Loet and I dealt with this issue previously on this list about a year ago
when he claimed that social communications channels open up new
possibilities (analogous to Jerry's position here), and I asked him why this
was so, since any further structure must reduce the possibilities, not
increase them. We each promoted out view for a while, and then stopped, as
it wasn't going anywhere. The reason is that there is nowhere to go with
this issue. Both positions are correct, and they do not contradict each
other; they are merely incompatible perspectives, much like Cartesian versus
polar coordinates. The positions are not logically incompatible, but
pragmatically incompatible, in that they cannot both be adopted at the same
time. This is a fairly common phenomenon in science. In fact I wrote my
dissertation on it. There is a paper of mine, Pragmatic Inc
RE: [Fis] Re: fis Digest, Vol 501, Issue 5
What is more, even atoms and molecules directly participate in inductive processes. When two hydrogen atoms form a hydrogen molecule in an empirical arena, no computation for getting a hydrogen molecule can stop insofar as one sticks to the axiomatic formalism preserving the hydrogen atom as an nonnegotiable element. This has been my entry to approaching Jerry Chandler's chemical logic. Dear Koichiro, That is precisely the point: we are able to negotiate about our identity in a way that hydrogen atoms are not. Thus, for example, we can enter in a gay-marriage or we can even reconstruct our sexuality by surgical intervention. The social system (represented here by the legislator or the surgeon) is much more powerful than the naturally given ones in reconstructing its environments. Thus, we are able to learn by induction, but also to revise the rules from the perspective of hindsight, for example, on analytical grounds. I don't think that atom have much room for the analysis. With best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Yes, politicians steer on the institutional constraints of the
self-organizing system. The center of control is dynamic and potentially
responsive to the steering. Thus, the steering of a complex and adaptive
system mainly generates "unintended consequences".
The function of politics, therefore, has changed. It is mainly propelling
itself as a political discourse which disturbs other subsystems of society,
both in terms of setting conditions and as legitimation. For example,
politicians try to be on television in order to legitimate their functions.
The political system can only gain in steering power by being more reflexive
about its functions.
With best wishes,
Loet
_____
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Igor Matutinovic
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:42 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear colleagues
I have the impression that there is an agreement about the existence of
biological and sociocultural constraints that impact on our ability to
understand and manage socioeconomic complexity. These constraints are
organized hierarchically, as Stan puts it, {biological {sociocultural }}.
As far as I can tell, social science is not much interested to explore the
constraints below the biological, and if we take the perspective of
evolutionary psychology, than the psychological level may be subsumed in the
biological.
Perhaps we could address socioeconomic complexity from the minimum of three
different perspectives: behavioral, informational or semiotic and material
(the latter refereeing to the artifacts and material substances that we pile
up in our environment and which impact we cannot fully understand nor
control; e.g. products of nanotechnology; toxic chemicals, weaponry).
One behavioral and informational aspect of socioeconomic complexity can be
identified in unintended consequences of political actions aimed to design
an institutional framework in order to achieve certain social or economic
purpose. Consider a simple example of the liberalization of electric energy
market in the US, UK and more generally in the EU. The aim of policy makers
was to unbundle the vertically integrated companies (power generation,
transmission, distribution and supply) in order to create a competitive
environment which would ensure investments in new capacity and in energy
efficiency, and at the same time drive down the prices of electrical energy
to the consumers and industry. What happened after nearly twd decades of
liberalization (apart the California energy crisis in 2000/01) is that
prices were fluctuating quite unpredictably, originally deintegrated firms
(like in England and Wells) started to vertically integrate while
cross-border mergers and acquisitions created bigger and more powerful
energy companies than before (market concentration was one of the thing that
lineralization wanted to change). According to some authors none of the
original aims (price reductions, energy-efficiency, new investments) was
fulfilled.
Now, the point for me is not that an unintended consequence did happen but
the fact that policy makers in the EU are continuing to push institutional
reforms in spite of the fact that it does not seem to work the way they want
it. As long as we do not postulate that there is a hidden agenda behind
their stated goals, then either the decision makers are not rational
(beacasue they push the agenda with full awareness that it will not work) or
they do not understand the processes and the constraints they hope to
affect. The latter may be the sign of the (social) system inability to
achieve certain goals in a complex sociocultural environment. This would not
be surprising: the signs that come from the energy market are not fully
consistent and thus allow for different interpretations; there are several
competing theories that may be used to explain the market dynamics and make
predictions; interpretations may be biased by different ideologies and
worldviews.
The liberalization of the energy market is a complexifying process: from the
monopolistic, and state regulated to the competitive, and profit driven
industry. In this process institutional constraints are continuously added:
markets are composite institutions themselves and to these the policy makers
add numerous new rules to achieve their specific goals. The aim to
streamline the energy sector by using markets with additional institutional
constraints may exceed our capability to handle the process and forsee the
consequences. To some extent, it may be a sign of diminishing returns to
complexity in problem solving tha
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Yes, Igor, I agree that we participate in two layers and with different
capacities to differentiate (e.g., rationally). Our (and the politicians')
reflexive capacities to communicate with a double (or even more complex)
hermeneutics are limiting the capacity of the social system to process
complexity. The remaining uncertainty will remain unresolved, and thus the
system of inter-human communications is failure-prone. One can expect it to
produce unintended consequences.
I don't share your optimism about experts who would be able to leave this
human condition behind them. It is like Marx's dream of a state of freedom.
:-)
With best wishes,
Loet
_
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Igor Matutinovic
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:21 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Pedro
regarding social openness: "very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire
company, or put a sector on its knees.. " This can only happen if there is
a fundamental reason for the company or the sector to get into trouble (e.g.
time before the collapse the WorldCom had been in financial troubles but was
corrupting its accounting data to hide it). Therefore, a rumor is only a
trigger, and if it is "rumor" only, nothing will happen to the system.
When I refer to {biological {sociocultural }} constraints in understanding
and managing complexity I primarily have in mind the nature of constraints
as such, in terms that certain things cannot or are not likely to happen
under their influence. For example, our brains cannot handle more than 3 or
4 variables at one time and grasp their causative interrelations, so we have
a natural heuristic process that cuts trough the "many" and reduces it to
few. This results in oversimplification of the reality and overemphasizing
of the variables that were not left out. A lot political and economic
reasoning suffers from that bias. Mathematical procedures and modeling can
help us with this biological constraint but math, unfortunately, did not
prove itself yet to be helpful to deal complex social problems. Artificial
societies may be a hopeful way, but this is yet to be seen.
Another biological constraint on our capacity to manage complex social
reality is that we intermittently use rational procedures and emotions, so a
situation which may be solved by an analytic process can erupt in conflict
only because certain words have been uttered or misinterpreted, which steers
the whole interaction and the problem solving process in a different
direction. This biological trait is only partially controlled by the culture
at the next integrative level, trough norms and rules of behavior
(institutions).
The impact of sociocultural constraints on managing complexity is evident
form my last example on managing the energy sector: there is no reason as
why the energy sector could not be managed in a fully planned and rational
way by a group of experts who would optimize the production and transmission
processes. Did we need the market process to send the spacecraft to the Moon
or it was a large-scale project carefully managed for years before it
succeeded? Or, is the carbon trading the best response to climate change
problem? However, the primacy of markets is part of our dominant worldview,
so we have the propensity to exclude other options that may do the job
better or with less uncertainty. So I have the feeling that as we continue
to build more socio-economic complexity our biological and cultral
capabilities to manage it are lagging seriously behind.
The best
Igor
Original Message -
From: Pedro <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Marijuan
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Igor and colleagues,
I have the impression that there is an agreement about the existence of
biological and sociocultural constraints that impact on our ability to
understand and manage socioeconomic complexity. These constraints are
organized hierarchically, as Stan puts it, {biological {sociocultural }}.
I would agree that this is the way to organize our explanations. But
dynamically the real world is open at all levels: very simple amplification
or feed forward processes would produce phenomena capable of escalating
levels and percolate around (e.g., minuscule oxidation-combustion phenomena
initiating fires that scorch ecosystems, regions). Socially there is even
more "openness": a very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire company, or put
a sector
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
> Aren't all constraints a form of information? I see > constraints as informing the bounds of the adjacent possible > and adjacent probable. If this is correct, then it would > seem to render the economy as "almosst pure information". In > fact, I think it would render all emergent systems as pure > information. Wouldn't it? In my opinion, one should distinguish between the distributional properties which are information and the substantive ones. The systems differ in terms of *what* is communicated. For example, one can consider an economy as an information system communicating prices and commodities. The constraints, for example, are then resources and regulations. The regulations, however, communicate information very different from prices and commodities. With best wishes, Loet ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
> Curiously, these complex societies also > devour far more > energy and produce far more physical entropy (both types of > entropies seem > to go hand with hand)... Well, and what are finally those > social "bonds" > but information? Dear Pedro: *Social* bonds are by their very nature generated by the social system, that is, the self-organization (or non-linear dynamics) of interhuman interactions. The specification of these dynamics in terms of how meaning is processed in interhuman relations generates a research program for sociology (socio-cybernetics). One can expect this system to operate differently from psychological systems because the latter are integrated into identities, while the former may remain differentiated in terms of distributions (which produce and self-reproduce entropy). With best wishes, Loet ________ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
> It is indeed tempting to suppose that, in the philosophical > perspective, the object of human economies is to produce entropy! > > STAN Yes: because the economy is equilibrating. Innovations upset the tendency towards equilibrium (Schumpeter) and thus induce cycles into the economy. This is the very subject of evolutionary economics. Marx's problem was that the cycles cannot be stopped and have a tendency to become self-reinforcing. However, the modern state adds the institutional mechanism as another subdynamics. I am sometimes using the metaphor of a triple helix among these three difference subsystems of communication and control: economic equilibration, institutional regulation, and innovation. A triple helix unlike a double one cannot be expected to stabilize (in a coevolution), but remains meta-stable with possible globalization. I suppose that this has happened. With best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Yes, Igor, that is how I define the neo-evolutionary model of a triple helix: three coordinating mechansims can be expected to interact into a complex dynamics. The market at each moment of time, knowledge production and innovation over time, and normative control by government and management. The system operates in terms of fluxes; the networks of university-industry-government relations provide the neo-institutional retention mechanisms. On cannot expect such a system to come to rest; the non-linear dynamics are non-trivial. Furthermore, the various subdynamics operate in terms of codified expectations of themselves and each other. Thus, the system become highly anticipatory; the past is continuously rewritten from the perspective of the future. The latter is specified in terms of expectations. With best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Igor Matutinovic > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:06 PM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and > Cultural Complexity > > Loet wrote: > Yes: because the economy is equilibrating. Innovations upset > the tendency > > towards equilibrium (Schumpeter) and thus induce cycles > into the economy. > > This is the very subject of evolutionary economics. > > > > Marx's problem was that the cycles cannot be stopped and > have a tendency > > to > > become self-reinforcing. However, the modern state adds the > institutional > > mechanism as another subdynamics. > > Besides innovations, even stronger cause of instability of > the capitalist > economy is its tendency to create diversity as a consequence > of competitive > interactions. Diversity, like in ecosystems, means redundancy and > informational entropy (just think about the variety of any > consumer product > available on the market). Because of general technical constraints in > production (production indivisibility, economy of scale, etc.) and > forward-looking investment decisions which are based on incomplete > information, redundancy of firms transfers aperiodically in absolute > redundancy of output (overcapacity) that clears itself during > the downward > phase of the economic cycle. Marx was right in that the > cycles cannot be > stopped but wrong on the prediction that they will become > worse. After the > Great Depression an nstitutional toolbox of countercyclical > policies was > gradually put in effect, which constrained the absolute > values of peaks and > bottoms, but did not eliminate the business cycle. > Redundancy/diversity, on > the other hand, is essential for competition and innovation > to persist in a > economy. It creates informational entropy and gives a momentum to > material/energy entropy production, as the constant influx of > diversity > maintains the economic system in it "juvenile", highly > dissipative state. > > Best > Igor > > > - Original Message - > From: "Loet Leydesdorff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Stanley N. Salthe'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:22 AM > Subject: RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and > Cultural Complexity > > > >> It is indeed tempting to suppose that, in the philosophical > >> perspective, the object of human economies is to produce entropy! > >> > >> STAN > > > > Yes: because the economy is equilibrating. Innovations > upset the tendency > > towards equilibrium (Schumpeter) and thus induce cycles > into the economy. > > This is the very subject of evolutionary economics. > > > > Marx's problem was that the cycles cannot be stopped and > have a tendency > > to > > become self-reinforcing. However, the modern state adds the > institutional > > mechanism as another subdynamics. I am sometimes using the > metaphor of a > > triple helix among these three difference subsystems of > communication and > > control: economic equilibration, institutional regulation, > and innovation. > > > > A triple helix unlike a double one cannot be expected to > stabilize (in a > > coevolution), but remains meta-stable with possible > globalization. I > > suppose > > that this has happened. > > > > With best wishes, > > > > > > Loet > > > > ___ > > fis mailing list > > fis@listas.unizar.es > > http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Social Complexity: concluding comments
Fyi. With best wishes, Loet
From: Loet Leydesdorff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 2:46 PM
To: 'Diskussionsforum zur soziologischen Systemtheorie Niklas Luhmanns'
Subject: Double contingency
Dear Franz and colleagues,
In a previous email I formulated:
The codes interact (co-vary) in both inter-human interactions and
organizations.
In inter-human interactions the mechanism is double contingency.
In organizations the mechanism is decision-making.
The mechanism of decision-making and the consequent transformation of
organization and agency is endogenous to anticipation at the level of the
social system. The derivation can be found at pp 141ff. of "The
Knowledge-Based Economy" ("Hyper-incursion and the requirement of
decisions").
I realized that I did not yet formulate a mechanism for double contingency.
Double contingency is based on the expectation of Ego that Alter entertains
expectations. Thus, the expectations of Ego and Alter operate as selections
upon each other. In terms of anticipatory systems, I propose to model this
as follows:
x(t) = a (1 - x(t+1)) (1 - x(t+1))
.
.
x(t+1) = 1 + sqrt(x(t)/a) or x(t+1) = 1 - sqrt(x/a)
(a is the bifurcation parameter)
The following shows the result of a simulation of double contingency after
10,000 runs:
Figure 1: click here <http://www.leydesdorff.net/temp/fig1.htm>
The excel sheet cannot be attached in this email system, but can be found
here <http://www.leydesdorff.net/temp/doublcont.xls> . If one presses F9 (in
the excel file) the simulation changes, since it is assumed that the
alteration between Ego and Alter is random. The blue line provides the
simulation for a = 4 and the red line for a = 8 (because a is in the
nominator, the deviations from 1 become smaller with increasing values of
a). The dashed line represents the linear fit; by pressing F9 (in the excel
sheet) one can see that the slope can be negative or positive depending on
whether Ego or Alter is dominating the interaction.
Without interaction, Ego and Alter grow to an equilibrium value. The value
of this equilibrium is:
x = 1 + 1/2a ± 1/2a * sqrt(4a + 1). [a is the bifurcation parameter].
The corresponding chart is included in the excel sheet.
Single contingency can corresponding be modeled as:
x(t) = a x(t) (1 - x(t+1) → x(t+1) = 1; end of the process
or
x(t) = a x(t+1) (1 - x(t))
x(t+1) = x(t) / (1 - x(t)) * a
This latter formula can be shown to model reflection.
With best wishes,
Loet
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> .
385 pp.; US$ 18.95
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] The communication of meaning in social systems; preprint version available
The communication of <http://www.leydesdorff.net/meaning0704/index.htm> meaning in social systems <http://www.leydesdorff.net/meaning0704/meaning0704.pdf> pdf-version Abstract The sociological domain is different from the psychological one insofar as meaning can be communicated at the supra-individual level (Schütz, 1932; Luhmann, 1984). The computation of anticipatory systems enables us to distinguish between these domains in terms of weakly and strongly anticipatory systems with a structural coupling between them (Maturana, 1978). Anticipatory systems have been defined as systems which entertain models of themselves (Rosen, 1984). The model provides meaning to the modeled system from the perspective of hindsight, that is, by advancing along the time axis towards possible future states. Strongly anticipatory systems construct their own future states (Dubois, 1998a and b). The dynamics of weak and strong anticipations can be simulated as incursion and hyper-incursion, respectively. Hyper-incursion generates horizons of meaning (Husserl, 1929) among which choices have to be made by incursive agency. Loet Leydesdorff & Sander Franse _ Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics att1bec1.gif Description: GIF image ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] about fis discussions
Dear Karl, The expected information content of a distribution can be measured, for example, in bits of information. Does one need more than this for defining information? With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of karl javorszky Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:23 PM To: Pedro Marijuan Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] about fis discussions Dear FIS, Pedro is - as is his habitude - too modest again. He has through 15 years of patient work nurtured into being a discussion forum about the fundametals of information, as a general, basic, philosophical topic. To my knowledge, this endeavour is unique. Even more startling appears to some that this group does indeed offer an explanation to what information basically is. This group has come up with a proposition about information which is quite stringent: "information is that what we neglect as we conduct an addition". There is no other entrant on the field. Aside FIS no one has even tried to give a good definition of the term "information". The one-sentence definition points to a taboo: We were told as we were young that we have to disregard the difference between 3+3 and 4+2. This subtle something about which we were told it is irrelevant turns out not to be that irrelevant after all. FIS can be a beacon of technical innovation if the assembled group dares to discuss the taboo. The atmosphere here is suitable for a discussion without prejudices and with a deep disregard for established conventions and norms: and this is the main contribution to the work of the orchester by its patient and encouraging dirigent, Pedro. Looking forward the next discussions. Karl 2007/6/6, Pedro Marijuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Dear FIS colleagues, During last five years we have had quite many discussion sessions in a row (for the new parties arrived recently, there are a couple of web sites where messages are systematically archived--see below). As suggested by some discussants, having some long pause was needed --particularly by myself. During this interim, a refurbishing of the web pages has been planned, and also some way to organize the discussion topics, including the formation of a fis board. Well, we will see how things result but, in any case, the list should maintain its peculiar exploratory freedom and spontaneity. Ideas for next sessions will be very welcome. Preferably, proposed topics have to be accompanied by an invitee external to the list (we need novelty!) acting as a chair of the session and producing the kickoff text, with maybe a fis member accompanying as co-chair. Fifteen years from now FIS started its public activities. Michael Conrad and me, with the cooperation of Koichiro Matsuno and Tom Stonier, had attempted a conference in Toledo (Spain) for the summer of 1992, and a couple of preparatory newsletters on "foundations of information science" were circulated in photocopies (with curious contributions of people like Ramon Margalef, Gordon Scarrott, Rick Welch, Fernando Carvalho, etc.). Finally, we got our first FIS conference in Madrid in 1993, thanks to the involvement of Fivos Panetsos. And the rest of the story can be followed more or less in scholarly literature and the webs. During these years it was sad that Gordon, Tom, Michael and Ray passed away... great scientists, and great persons. Well, we are now close to 170 in the list, and a Science of Information Institute promoted by some fis members is almost ready to start public activities. Indeed a reflection on FIS itself would be convenient at the time being, and probably it will take place amongst the next sessions (but freewheeling comments on our enterprise can be posted perfectly during this pause). Overall, with more than 2700 messages exchanged and half dozen real and e-conferences convened, we have done a pretty intense collective work during all these years. However, it is amazing that the fundamental question of What is Information? has kept its freshness and initial appeal almost intact! cordial regards Pedro http://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/ http://fis.icts.sbg.ac.at/mailings/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] about fis discussions
Dear Karl, Unlike physical measures like the meter, information (probabilistic entropy) can be defined mathematically. Thus, one would not need an etalon in Paris. Similarly, I would consider the natural numbers as a special case. The definition can be kept more abstract. With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics _ From: karl javorszky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 10:44 PM To: Loet Leydesdorff Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] about fis discussions Hi Loet, we agree. The proposition is to use the "natural constants" as a distribution. The distribution - the etalon, encased in Paris - to serve as the basis of counting how many bits appear, is in the simplest case the natural numbersy themselves. Yes, I agree to your assertion that information reveals itself in the form of bits within a distribution. My proposition is to add to this thought of yours the following: let us take the natural numbers and their distribution (to be more precise: the distribution among the cuts that dissect units of the natural numbers) as the basis for the actual counting of the xtent of information. We say basically the same. My suggestion isto use the natural numbers as providers of distributions. (Exactement: the cuts among the summands of natural numbers as providers of informatioin, as standard). Hope you can accept this suggestion. Friendly: Karl 2007/6/6, Loet Leydesdorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Dear Karl, The expected information content of a distribution can be measured, for example, in bits of information. Does one need more than this for defining information? With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of karl javorszky Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:23 PM To: Pedro Marijuan Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] about fis discussions Dear FIS, Pedro is - as is his habitude - too modest again. He has through 15 years of patient work nurtured into being a discussion forum about the fundametals of information, as a general, basic, philosophical topic. To my knowledge, this endeavour is unique. Even more startling appears to some that this group does indeed offer an explanation to what information basically is. This group has come up with a proposition about information which is quite stringent: "information is that what we neglect as we conduct an addition". There is no other entrant on the field. Aside FIS no one has even tried to give a good definition of the term "information". The one-sentence definition points to a taboo: We were told as we were young that we have to disregard the difference between 3+3 and 4+2. This subtle something about which we were told it is irrelevant turns out not to be that irrelevant after all. FIS can be a beacon of technical innovation if the assembled group dares to discuss the taboo. The atmosphere here is suitable for a discussion without prejudices and with a deep disregard for established conventions and norms: and this is the main contribution to the work of the orchester by its patient and encouraging dirigent, Pedro. Looking forward the next discussions. Karl 2007/6/6, Pedro Marijuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Dear FIS colleagues, During last five years we have had quite many discussion sessions in a row (for the new parties arrived recently, there are a couple of web sites where messages are systematically archived--see below). As suggested by some discussants, having some long pause was needed --particularly by myself. During this interim, a refurbishing of the web pages has been planned, and also some way to organize the discussion topics, including the formation of a fis board. Well, we will see how things result but, in any case, the list should maintain its peculiar exploratory freedom and spontaneity. Ideas for next sessions will be very welcome.
[Fis] The communication of meaning in anticipatory systems
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/casys07/index.htm> The Communication of Meaning in Anticipatory Systems: A Simulation Study of the Dynamics of Intentionality in Social Systems Vice-Presidential Address at the 8th Int. Conference of Computing Anticipatory Systems (CASYS07), Liège, Belgium, 6-11 August 2007 < <http://www.leydesdorff.net/casys07/casys07.pdf> pdf-version> Abstract Psychological and social systems provide us with a natural domain for the study of anticipations because these systems are based on and operate in terms of intentionality. Psychological systems can be expected to contain a model of themselves and their environments; social systems can be strongly anticipatory and therefore co-construct their environments, for example, in techno-economic (co-)evolutions. Using Duboiss hyper-incursive and incursive formulations of the logistic equation, these two types of systems and their couplings can be simulated. In addition to their structural coupling, psychological and social systems are also coupled by providing meaning reflexively to each others meaning-processing. Luhmanns distinctions among (1) interactions between intentions at the micro-level, (2) organization at the meso-level, and (3) self-organization of the fluxes of meaningful communication at the global level can be modeled and simulated using three hyper-incursive equations. The global level of self-organizing interactions among fluxes of communication is retained at the meso-level of organization. In a knowledge-based economy, these two levels of anticipatory structuration can be expected to propel each other at the supra-individual level. _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Re: The communication of meaning in anticipatory systems
Dear Jerry and colleagues, Yes, I agree that your mind can be considered as a psychological system. :-) I do not expect to find any "model" of myself within my psychological system. Models, as I understand the term is used in scientific jargon, are based on communicable codes, not merely cues. Unlike you, I entertain a set of models of myself. Because as an individual, I also need to be integrated, I am not constantly differentiating these models, but in many situations I am perfectly able to exhibit the behaviour that I am expected to exhibit because I have a model in my mind of what is expected. With some effort, each role model can also be explicated and thus be communicated and even taught. It appears to me that your assertion is merely a linguistic ploy designed to create an illusion about how you would prefer to communicate about "mind". If you read the full article, you will see that the emphasis is not on the illusions, but on the math. The psychological system is not central, but the focus is on the system of social interactions. I try to model the latter using both incursive and hyperincursive equations. The psychological model can be further elaborated in a next paper. If, indeed, I have such a "model", perhaps the first step in a persuasive argument would be to tell me in which of my many symbol systems it is recorded and then give me some clues on how to retrieve the parts of interest to me now.;-) I am not so sure that this is of interest to you, but I would be interested in more detailed comments on the text. It appears to me that you are elevating mathematical reasoning to the level of a spiritual or religious source of truth. I fear that I am to much of an empiricist to believe that your semiotics is essential to intentionality. Deeper drives appear to me to be necessary to create organization. I don't like spiritual truths and I wish you good luck with modelling deeper drives. My claim is that organization of meaning in communication can be simulated as historically temporary. See Figure 9 based on Equation 16. Best wishes, Loet Cheers Jerry ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] RE: The communication of meaning in anticipatory systems
Dear Jerry and colleagues at the list, Your posting raises the important question about how simulation studies relate to empirical realizations. It seems to me in two respects: first, substantive theorizing about empirical phenomena provides us with constraints/selections/conditions when formulating the equations, and second further observations sometimes cause us to revise initial assumptions because the hypothesis/hypotheses can be tested. In my paper, it is the first of these two relations: the notion of "double contingency" in interhuman relations can be provided with a model using Dubois's hyperincursive equation: Ego (at xt) operates on the basis of an expectation of its own next state (xt+1) and the next state of an Alter (1 - xt+1): xt = axt+1(1 - xt+1) This second dimension of the contingency was expressed by the American sociologist Talcott Parsons in 1951 as follows: The expectation is not defined "Being what I am, alter's treatment of me must take one of the following alternatives" but "Depending on which of several alternatives open to me I take, I will set alter a problem to which he will react in terms of the alternative system of his own which is oriented to my action." This second dimension of the contingency was never operationalizable in sociology--it is partly in game theory--and Dubois's equation provides us, in my opinion, for the first time a model for this operationalization. Luhmann further specified that the interactions among reflexive expectations can be micro-interactions (face-to-face communications), organizations of interactions at the meso-level, and self-organizations of interactions among expectations at the macro-level of society. My paper is about the further elaboration of the anticipatory equations in relation to these theoretical notions. New equations are derived on the basis of these theoretical notions. The relation with the empirical "reality" can only be indirect in the case of intangibles like expectations and knowledge. Different from your body which is integrated and tangible :-), expectations operate upon each other in a second contingency. Nevertheless, the dynamics of these intangibles are of utmost importance for understanding something like a knowledge-based economy. Ideally, the simulations should enable us to specify the conditions under which one expects the production of positive or negative (probabilistic) entropy in the phenomena. I have tried to do this in my book (2006) and in a number of articles for the German and Dutch economies. For example: Loet Leydesdorff and Michael Fritsch, Measuring the Knowledge Base of <http://www.leydesdorff.net/germany> Regional Innovation Systems in Germany in terms of a Triple Helix Dynamics, Research Policy, 35(10), 2006, 1538-1553. http://www.leydesdorff.net/germany/germany.pdf> > The specification is still very preliminary: as you note, the perspective of hindsight inverts the time axis and therefore produces a negative entropy. In which empirical (social) systems can we measure the production of this negative entropy and why? Which production rules have to be distinguished? The theory and computation of anticipatory systems may enable us to specify answers to the latter question about the production rules. In the recent paper, I specified three of them: interaction, organization, and self-organization of expectations. The empirical elaboration of the differences in terms of empirical research are a next step. It follows from the equations, for example, that the meso-level organization of expectations can be expected to produce a positive entropy (unlike the self-organization of expectations at the macro-level). Please, do not consider this as a final answer to empirical questions about how your mind relates to your body :-), but as a step in a longer-term research program. These assumptions need to be tested! One can easily see the relation between my triple helix-model and Equation 17 in the current paper: xt = b(1- xt+1) (1- xt+1) (1- xt+1) The relation between the triple helix model and the production of negative entropy in the mutual information in three dimensions is explained in the above noted paper about the German economy using Bob Ulanowicz's notions from ascendency theory. It is therefore heavily related to the discussions on this list. The emerging paradigm about inversions of the time axis as the basis of knowledge-based systems needs further elaborations. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Kno
RE: [Fis] info & meaning
wledge Base in Inter-human Communication Systems, Canadian Journal of Communication 28(3), 267-289 (2003); < <http://www.leydesdorff.net/incursion/incursion.pdf> pdf version>. My conclusion is that there is still a long way to go in this research program and that unlike yours it is not confined to the biological domain because of the more abstract definitions. With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bob logan (by way of Pedro Marijuan<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 2:50 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] info & meaning 12th FIS Discussion Session: ON INFORMATION AND MEANING "The Relativity of Information and Its Relationship to Materiality, Meaning and Organization" Robert K. Logan Department of Physics University of Toronto This is an executive summary of the attached paper. It is too short to do justice to the subject, so the FIS reader is encouraged to read the whole article. A number of interesting questions will be raised in this article which examines the nature of information and its relationship to meaning, organization and materiality. The following questions will be addressed. Is there only one form of information or are there several kinds of information? In other words is information an invariant or a universal independent of its frame of reference or context? What is the relationship of information to meaning and organization? Is information a thing like a noun or a process like a verb? Is information material or is it a form of energy or is it just a pattern? Is information a uniquely human phenomenon or do non-human forms of life contain information? The origin of the term information is examined in the full paper. Shannon's definition of information as entropy using the formula H = - pi log pi is presented. It is noted that Wiener used the same definition with the opposite sign. Shannon information has nothing to do with meaning and is only concerned with how accurately a string of symbols is transmitted from point A to B. MacKay critiqued the Shannon definition of information and argued that he did not see "too close a connection between the notion of information as we use it in communications engineering and the determination of the semantic question of what to send and to whom to send it." He suggested that information should be defined as "the change in a receiver's mind-set, and thus with meaning" and not just the sender's signal (Hayles 1999b, p. 74). His version of information unfortunately did not survive because it was deemed by the reductionists as too subjective. Bateson (1973) famous definition of information as "the difference that makes a difference" which actually is derived from MacKay's earlier assertion that "information is a distinction that makes a difference" introduces the importance of meaning in understanding information. Information in Biotic Systems We next review the work of Propagating Organization: An Enquiry (POE) (Kauffman, Logan et al. 2007) in which it is shown that Shannon information cannot describe a biotic system. The core argument of POE was that Shannon information "does not apply to the evolution of the biosphere" because Darwinian preadaptations cannot be predicted and as a consequence "the ensemble of possibilities and their entropy cannot be calculated. Instead of Shannon information we defined a new form of information, which we called instructional or biotic information, not with Shannon, but with constraints or boundary conditions. The amount of information will be related to the diversity of constraints and the diversity of processes that they can partially cause to occur. The Relativity of Information In POE we associated biotic or instructional information with the organization that a biotic agent is able to propagate. This contradicts Shannon's definition of information and the notion that a random set or soup of organic chemicals has more Shannon information than a structured and organized set of organic chemicals found in a living organism. This argument completely contradicts the notion
RE: SV: [Fis] info & meaning
Dear colleagues, I agree with a lot of Christophe Menant's last mail, but I think that I can take it a step further. The expression of Bateson "A difference which makes a difference" presumes that there is a system or a series of events for which the differences can make a difference. This system selects upon the differences (or Shannon-type information) in the environment of the system. The Shannon-type information is meaningless, but the specification of the system of reference provides the information with meaning. The Shannon-type information which is deselected is discarded as noise. Meaning is provided to the information from the perspective of hindsight. The meaningful information, however, still follows the arrow of time. Meaning processing within psychological and social systems reinforces the feedback arrow (from the hindsight perspective) to the extent that control tends to move to this next-order level. The system can then become anticipatory because the information which is provided with meaning can be entertained by the system as a model. Perhaps, human language is required for making that last step: no longer is only information exchanged, but information is packaged into messages in which the information has a codified meaning. Unfortunately, this email system does not allow to draw a picture. Maturana in his 2000-paper about "Nature and the Laws of Nature" nicely wrote about the orthogonal axis which the next-order system develops upon the stream from which it originates. (Shannon-type) information processing of differences would then be the stream. These differences can make a difference when they pass the interface with the emerging system. If the latter can develop a feedback mechanism, it can provide meaning to the information. The "difference that makes a difference" then becomes the mutual information between the information processing and the meaning-processing. It needs further elaboration. With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] info & meaning
Dear Bob and colleagues, Although I know that this comment was made in responding to another comment, let me react here because I think that this is not correct: The point I am making is that organization is a form of information which Shannon theory does not recognize. Shannon's theory is a mathematical theory which can be used in an application context (e.g., biology, electrical engineering) as a methodology. This has been called entropy statistics or, for example, statistical decomposition analysis (Theil, 1972). The strong methodology which it provides may enable us to answer theoretical questions in the field of application. An organization at this level of abstraction can be considered as a network of relations and thus be represented as a matrix. (Network analysis operates on matrices.) A matrix can be considered as a two-dimensional probability distribution which contains an uncertainty. This uncertainty can be expressed in terms of bits of information. Similarly, for all the submatrices (e.g., components and cliques) or for any of the row or column vectors. Thus, one can recognize and study organization using Shannon entropy-measures. The results, of course, have still to be appreciated in the substantive domain of application, but they can be informative to the extent of being counter-intuitive. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] info & meaning
> Loet - if your claim is true then how do you explain that a random soup of > organic chemicals have more Shannon info than an equal number of organic > chemicals organized as a living cell where knowledge of some chemicals > automatically implies the presence of others and hence have less surprise > than those of the soup of random organic chemicals? - Bob Dear Bob and colleagues, In the case of the random soup of organic chemicals, the maximum entropy of the systems is set by the number of chemicals involved (N). The maximum entropy is therefore log(N). (Because of the randomness of the soup , the Shannon entropy will not be much lower.) If a grouping variable with M categories is added the maximum entropy is log(N * M). Ceteris paribus, the redundancy in the system increases and the Shannon entropy can be expected to decrease. In class, I sometimes use the example of comparing Calcutta with New York in terms of sustainability. Both have a similar number of inhabitants, but the organization of New York is more complex to the extent that the value of the grouping variables (the systems of communication) becomes more important than the grouped variable (N). When M is extended to M+1, N possibilities are added. I hope that this is convincing or provoking your next reaction. Best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] info & meaning
On 10/12/07, bob logan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Loet et al - I guess I am not convinced that information and entropy > are connected. Entropy in physics has the dimension of energy divided > by temperature. Shannon entropy has no physical dimension - it is > missing the Boltzman constant. Therefore how can entropy and shannon > entropy be compared yet alone connected? Dear Bob: I agree. Thermodynamic entropy has a physical meaning, while probabilistic entropy is a purely mathematical concept. A mathematical concept is formal; bits are dimensionless. Probabilistic entropy, Shannon-type information and uncertainty are different words for the same concept. I am talking about information not entropy - an organized collection of organic chemicals must have more meaningful info than an unorganized collection of the same chemicals. However, in this next paragraph, you shift to "meaningful information". Meaning can only be provided to the (Shannon-type) information by a system of reference. The differences (i.e., the distribution can then make a difference for this observing system. Let's elaborate the "difference which makes a difference." For example, the first difference is "on/off" or [0,1]. For the purpose of the example, let's assume that the second difference is [1,0]. Cross-tabulation leads to a matrix with four possible combinations. More generally: if we have N classes in the first distribution and M classes in the second, we obtain a matrix with N x M classes and hence a maximum (Shannon) entropy of log(N x M). The difference which not yet made a difference, that is, the Shannon-type information of the random soup had only N classes. (N would be the number of different chemical molecules in the soup). The organization in the living organism has increased the redundancy with log(M), and therefore the Shannon-type information has decreased. This is just a straightforward answer on your question in a previous email. Organization decreases the expected information content of the distribution because a range of new possibilities is made available by adding a second dimension or --as John Collier mentioned it-- a second degree of freedom. Organization can always be written as an organization of a distribution which was previously unorganized. The matrix contains more redundancy than the vector. The advantage of this approach is that it remains mathematical and can be provided with an appreciation in different discourses. For example, one expects the appreciation in biological discourse to be different from the appreciation in economics. It seems to me that your definition of organization is *a priori *biological. This is unnecessarily reductionistic. Biology is a special theory which provides us with heuristics to study fields like the social sciences. These heuristics can be formalized by using a non-substantive, but formal apparatus. This enables us to specify the differences in the non-linear dynamics of different systems of reference. Furthermore, I would not know how to measure a "difference which makes a difference" if it were not in this way using probabilistic entropy as a methodology. I did not get that from your paper. Let me add for the good order that I heavily lean in the above on Henry Theil's *Statistical Decomposition Analysis *(Amsterdam: North Holland, 1972) and Brooks & Wiley's (1986) *Evolution as Entropy*. Best wishes, Loet On 11-Oct-07, at 5:34 PM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: >> Loet - if your claim is true then how do you explain that a random >> soup of >> organic chemicals have more Shannon info than an equal number of >> organic >> chemicals organized as a living cell where knowledge of some >> chemicals >> automatically implies the presence of others and hence have less >> surprise >> than those of the soup of random organic chemicals? - Bob > > Dear Bob and colleagues, > > In the case of the random soup of organic chemicals, the maximum > entropy of the systems is set by the number of chemicals involved (N). > The maximum entropy is therefore log(N). (Because of the randomness of > the soup , the Shannon entropy will not be much lower.) > > If a grouping variable with M categories is added the maximum entropy > is log(N * M). Ceteris paribus, the redundancy in the system increases > and the Shannon entropy can be expected to decrease. > > In class, I sometimes use the example of comparing Calcutta with New > York in terms of sustainability. Both have a similar number of > inhabitants, but the organization of New York is more complex to the > extent that the value of the grouping variables (the systems of > communication) becomes more important than the grouped variable (N). > When M is extended to M+1, N possibilities are added. > > I hope that this is convincing or
RE: [Fis] Re: info & meaning
> I'm with Guy. What is information if it is not the measure of > physical states? It is my view also that a scientific theory is only > valid if it attempts to map to something in the world. Otherwise it > is mere fantasy. > > With respect, > Steven Dear colleagues, The relation between ΔH and ΔS is provided as follows: ΔS = k ΔH k is the Boltzmann constant which provides a physical dimensionality (Joule/Kelvin) to the otherwise mathematical (dimensionless) expression ΔH (= Shannon entropy). I assume (as a non-physicist) that H is in this case a measure of the energy-distribution over the particles in the system. Szilard and Brillouin showed additionally that: ΔS >= k ΔH. In other words, the generation of uncertainty can be much smaller than the generation of thermodynamic entropy. I am not able to provide a physical appreciation of this. In my opinion, this (Boltzmann-Gibbs) relationship can be considered as the special case that the Shannon entropy is provided with a physical interpretation. Unfortunately, physicists tend to formulate it differently because they consider this relation as a necessary one and they are often not able to appreciate sciences other than physics. However, there is no reason to forbid using the Shannon entropy measures in other contexts (e.g., economic transactions) because they provide a mathematical apparatus that can be used as a methodology. The appreciation in that case has to be different, that is, in terms of the corresponding discourses (other than physics). In physics (and chemistry), the above specified relation is necessary. However, this is a special case because in other systems other things are distributed and redistributed (communicated) than physical energy. The entropy calculus provides us with a mathematical apparatus for the study of communication systems. For example, I used these measures extensively to study scientific communication in The Challenge of Scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications (Leiden: DSWO Press, 1995). I extend the apparatus with new algorithms for the measurement of the quality of clustering, system-transitions, and path-dependencies. (Several chapters are freely available as published articles from my homepage.) With best wishes, Loet -------- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] new routine for scientometric research
Dear colleagues, I added the program <http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/acc2isi/acc2isi.exe> Acc2ISI.exe to the collection at http://www.leydesdorff.net/indicators . This program allows the user (in combination with <http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/isi/index.htm> ISI.exe) to go back and forth between the data manipulation in MS Access (or another database program) and the so-called "tagged" format that is output of the Science Citation Index at the ISI Web-of-Knowledge. See for further explanation at http://www.leydesdorff.net/indicators/lesson7.htm#b . The tagged format can, among other things, be used as input to HistCite <http://www.histcite.com/> T, CoAuth.exe <http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/coauth/index.htm> , IntColl.exe <http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/intcoll/index.htm> , BibCoupl.exe <http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/bibcoupl/index.htm> , and BibJourn.exe <http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/bibjourn/index.htm> . With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] definitions of information
> 8. Any social, cultural, individual, neuronal, etc., visions or
> acceptations of meaning finally conduce to life cycles
> in-the-making and
> confronting an open ended environment.
>
> 9. Meaning can only be about life, around the multiple
> dimensions of fitness.
Dear Pedro,
In my opinion, providing meaning is primarily a human activity at
psychological and cultural levels. "Life" seems too biological to me for
understanding this phenomenon although some of the biological models may be
helpful. These models, however, have to be appreciated theoretically at the
level of psychological and cultural systems.
For example, Rosen's theory of anticipatory systems can be used for the
modeling as done by Dubois (computing anticipatory systems). Only including
notions from Husserl, Parsons, and Luhmann one fully exploit these models.
For example, the hyper-incursive formulation of the logistic equation:
x(t) = a x(t+1) {1 - x(t+1)}
models Parsons's notion of "double contingency": Ego [x(t)] entertains a
model of itself at x(t+1) and of Alter (non-Ego or 1 - x(t+1)) at a future
moment in time.
I am not so sure that these models about intentional systems have a
biological interpretation. Meaning is perhaps not to be attributed to life,
but to communication (Luhmann).
With best wishes,
Loet
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated.
385 pp.; US$ 18.95
The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of
Scientometrics
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] more thoughts about Shannon info
Dear Bob and colleagues: Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out. And energy is governed by the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy cannot be destroyed or created. Is there an equivalent 1st and 2nd law for information? Yes, there is. The proof of the non-negativity of the information expectation can be found at pp. 59f. of Henry Theil, Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1972. Entropy is used to describe systems that are undergoing dynamic interactions like the molecules in a gas. What is the analogy with Shannon entropy or information? Is Shannon’s formula really the basis for a theory of information or is it merely a theory of signal transmission? The issue is what you mean with "really": historically, it was only a theory of signal transmission. However, it can be further elaborated into a theory of information. Thermodynamic entropy involves temperature and energy in the form of heat, which is constantly spreading out. Entropy S is defined as ∆Q/T. What are the analogies for Shannon entropy? The analogy with the Shannon entropy is strictly formal. Shannon's is a mathematical theory; bits of information are dimensionless. The Boltzman-constant (k(B)) provides dimensionality to S. Thermodynamic entropy can be considered as a special case of Shannon entropy, from this perspective. Thermodynamics can thus be considered as a special case of non-linear dynamics from this perspective. One needs physics as a special theory for its specification. There is the flow of energy in thermodynamic entropy but energy is conserved, i.e. it cannot be destroyed or created. There is the flow of information in Shannon entropy but is information something that cannot be destroyed or created as is the case with energy? Is it conserved? I do not think so because when I share my information with you I do not lose information but you gain it and hence information is created. Are not these thoughts that I am sharing with you, my readers, information that I have created? One of the strength of the Shannon entropy is its application of dissipative systems. Dissipative systems are different from systems in which the substance of the information distribution is conserved. This can further be elaborated: in the special case of an ideal collision the thermodynamic entropy vanishes, but the Shannon-type entropy (that is, the change in the distribution of energy and momenta) does not vanish, but tends to become maximal. Shannon entropy quantifies the information contained in a piece of data: it is the minimum average message length, in bits. Shannon information as the minimum number of bits needed to represent it is similar to the formulations of Chaitin information or Kolomogorov information. Shannon information has functionality for engineering purposes but since this is information without meaning it is better described as the measure of the amount and variety of the signal that is transmitted and not described as information. Shannon information theory is really signal transmission theory. Signal transmission is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for communications. There is no way to formulate the semantics, syntax or pragmatics of language within the Shannon framework. Agreed. One needs a special theory for specifying any substantive framework. However, the mathematical framework allows us to entertain developments in one substantive framework as heuristics in the other. Thus, we are able to move back and forth between frameworks using the formalizations. With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] more thoughts about Shannon info
PS. I realized later during the day that the formal equivalence of the thermodynamic and probabilistic entropies follows directly from the formula: ΔS = k(B) * ΔH. Since k(B) is a constant, the dynamic properties of S have to be the same as the dynamic properties of H. The dynamics in S cannot find their origin in the dynamics of a constant. The constant provides only the dimensionality of the thermodynamic entropy. The probabilistic entropy is the general case (although historically later). In his book, Henry Theil additionally provides the proof that ΔH is always positive by taking the derivative of the formula H = - Σ p(i) log p(i). This can be considered as the probabilistic equivalent of the second law. Under specifiable conditions negative (probabilistic) entropies can occur, for example, in the case of the mutual information in three dimensions (Ulanowicz). However, the Boltzmann constant is irrelevant for the derivation. Best wishes, Loet Dear Bob and colleagues: Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out. And energy is governed by the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy cannot be destroyed or created. Is there an equivalent 1st and 2nd law for information? Yes, there is. The proof of the non-negativity of the information expectation can be found at pp. 59f. of Henry Theil, Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1972. Entropy is used to describe systems that are undergoing dynamic interactions like the molecules in a gas. What is the analogy with Shannon entropy or information? Is Shannon’s formula really the basis for a theory of information or is it merely a theory of signal transmission? The issue is what you mean with "really": historically, it was only a theory of signal transmission. However, it can be further elaborated into a theory of information. Thermodynamic entropy involves temperature and energy in the form of heat, which is constantly spreading out. Entropy S is defined as ∆Q/T. What are the analogies for Shannon entropy? The analogy with the Shannon entropy is strictly formal. Shannon's is a mathematical theory; bits of information are dimensionless. The Boltzman-constant (k(B)) provides dimensionality to S. Thermodynamic entropy can be considered as a special case of Shannon entropy, from this perspective. Thermodynamics can thus be considered as a special case of non-linear dynamics from this perspective. One needs physics as a special theory for its specification. There is the flow of energy in thermodynamic entropy but energy is conserved, i.e. it cannot be destroyed or created. There is the flow of information in Shannon entropy but is information something that cannot be destroyed or created as is the case with energy? Is it conserved? I do not think so because when I share my information with you I do not lose information but you gain it and hence information is created. Are not these thoughts that I am sharing with you, my readers, information that I have created? One of the strength of the Shannon entropy is its application of dissipative systems. Dissipative systems are different from systems in which the substance of the information distribution is conserved. This can further be elaborated: in the special case of an ideal collision the thermodynamic entropy vanishes, but the Shannon-type entropy (that is, the change in the distribution of energy and momenta) does not vanish, but tends to become maximal. Shannon entropy quantifies the information contained in a piece of data: it is the minimum average message length, in bits. Shannon information as the minimum number of bits needed to represent it is similar to the formulations of Chaitin information or Kolomogorov information. Shannon information has functionality for engineering purposes but since this is information without meaning it is better described as the measure of the amount and variety of the signal that is transmitted and not described as information. Shannon information theory is really signal transmission theory. Signal transmission is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for communications. There is no way to formulate the semantics, syntax or pragmatics of language within the Shannon framework. Agreed. One needs a special theory for specifying any substantive framework. However, the mathematical framework allows us to entertain developments in one substantive framework as heuristics in the other. Thus, we are able to move back and forth between frameworks using the formalizations. With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://w
RE: [Fis] more thoughts about Shannon info
> S: Agreed. There is, however, an interesting further
> recent viewpoint
> in physics (e.g., Dewar, R.C., 2005. Maximum entropy
> production and the
> fluctuation theorem. J. Phys. A, Math. & General 38:
> L371-L381), which
> pulls together the Shannon type entropy (variety) and physical entropy
> production. The idea here is referred to as the maimum
> entropy production
> principle (MEP). Dewar has shown that a system that can assume many
> different conformations will tend to tend to take up one that
> maximizes its
> entropy production. Thus, maximum entropy (H) (MaxEnt) facilitates
> maximizing entropy (S) production (MEP). And so, the
> connection is that if
> a system has greater behavioral entropy (H), it will better be able to
> further increase its entropy production. So, not only is S a
> refinement of
> H -- {H {S}} -- it will also be produced more by a system with larger
> behavioral H.
Dear Stan,
An interesting consequence from my perspective (anticipatory systems and
more generally, systems which provide meaning to models of themselves and
their environment) would be that the production of negative (Shannon)
entropy would also limit the entropy production flux.
Indeed, this follows from the algorithms: these systems function as filters.
Reflexivity suppresses chaotic development and makes it thus possible to
process more complexity.
With best wishes,
Loet
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated.
385 pp.; US$ 18.95
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] (no subject)
Dear Bob and colleagues, I looked into the paper entitled "Propagating Organization: An Enquiry" which you coauthored with Stuart Kauffman and other colleagues. Section 2 seems particularly relevant to our discussion. You state, in my opinion, correctly: "Importantly, and widely recognized, is the fact that Shannon information considers the amount of information, nominally in bits, but is devoid of semantics. There is no sense of what information is "about" in Shannon information. Now we ask whether Shannon information applies to the evolution of the biosphere. We answer that it does not. In particular, Shannon information requires that a prestated probability distribution (frequency interpreted) be well stated concerning the message ensemble, from which its entropy can be computed. But if Darwinian preadaptations cannot be prestated, then the entropy calculation cannot be carried out ahead of time with respect to the distribution of features of organisms in the biosphere. This, we believe, is a sufficient condition to state that Shannon information does not describe the information content in the evolution of the biosphere." The problem, in my opinion, is the state of the art of biological knowledge. In other words: the information content in the evolution of the biosphere cannot be computed because maximum information content (log(N)) cannot be specified on biological grounds. Nevertheless, you may find the use of entropy statistics useful for calculating the entropy changes from one state to another using I(q:p) = Σ(i) q(i) log(q(i)/ p(i)). We used this successfully in explaining the entropy changes in the distribution of scientific literature and in airplane development. See, for example: Koen Frenken & Loet Leydesdorff, <http://www.leydesdorff.net/aircraft/preprint.pdf> Scaling Trajectories in Civil Aircraft (1913-1997), Research Policy 29(3) (2000) 331-348. "One might be tempted to argue that a Shannon-like information theory could be applied to the vast set of selective events that have led to the specific DNA sequences that are in contemporary organisms. But does this move work? Can we specify a finite ensemble of possible DNA sequences out of which the present DNA sequences have been derived? If we consider all DNA sequences longer than, say 1000 nucleotides, it would take vastly large repetitions of the history of the universe for the universe to construct one copy of each possibility. This cannot physically consitute the ensemble. Is the ensemble the set of DNA sequences that have been explored in the actual evolution of the biosphere, some accepted, most rejected? This approach initially seems promising, but has the obvious difficulty that we cannot specify the ensemble explored in 3.8 billion years, hence do not and cannot know the Shannon information content of the biosphere. A further difficulty with this approach is that it measures the information content of the biosphere as a function of the number of DNA sequences "tried" in evolution. But very different numbers of attempted mutations might have led to the same biosphere, hence quantitating the information of the biosphere by the number of attempted DNA mutations is not in direct correspondence to any specific biosphere. We conclude that a Shannon Information content analysis of the information content of the evolving biosphere is not legitimate." In this case, you may be even succesful with the static formula (H) because it is not so difficult to compute with large amounts using the logarithms. The time span does not matter for the static entropy measure. The substantive argument that the time span would be very long is not valid in terms of the math because the latter abstracts from the physical and biological events. With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] more thoughts about Shannon info
> > JC: This is true. However any theory that is not consistent > > with physics is in > > LaLa Land as far as I am concerned. If you have a good > > argument why this is not reasonable, I would like to know. > > I suppose that most of the social sciences are not inconsistent with > physics, but also not so relevant for it. Entropy calculus > can be used in > much broader range of sciences because of its mathematical character. > > I am sure that on the stock exchange, stocks are physically or > electronically exchanged. However, the value of the stocks > has nothing to do with these physical carriers. However the information they carry does include information about things other the "physical carriers", or else there wouldn't be much point in trading them. If the connections don't line up the right way to fit the physical parametres, such as resources, waste, consumption, etc., then something will go wrong, in much the same way as it will go wrong if our representations do not correspond to the world. There has to be a match between the encoding and what is encoded, or anticipations will fail, eventually. At least that is what happens in the sort of biological system that I look at. For example the genetic code is fairly arbitrary, but unless it codes not just for aspects of phenotypic expression but also aspects of the environment (not to mention internal workings and processes of the organism), then maladaptation will occur. A completely free floating level would be irrelevant to anything else. Interesting perhaps, but pretty useless. John Dear John: Since this is a new week, let me assure you that I was not talking about "freely floating" angels sitting on the tip of a needle, but levels of (self-)organization other than physics which are indeed constrained and enabled by their physical conditions. The dynamics of these systems are not in LaLa Land, but for example, studied in the biological and social sciences. In a formal sense the physical determination is limited to the mutual information between the physical world and the self-organizing dynamics of the emerging systems. The relevance of the mutual information (transmission) can be rather limited, for example, in meaning-processing systems. I was just objecting to the (perhaps erroneous) impression that you had converted to reductionism with the expression of discarding all other systems as LaLa Land. The formalisms of entropy statistics are not constrained by their physical applications (except of course that one of us has to develop and communicate them). With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] An invitation
Congratulations with the appearance of your book! Best wishes, Loet On Nov 27, 2007 3:27 AM, bob logan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear FIS friends - please find enclosed two items. An invitation to my book > launch for those in the Greater Toronto Area. I have also included an order > form for those wishing to order my book at a 20% discount. This book is > about the origin of language, the human mind and culture all of which are > central to the study of media ecology. > > All the best - Bob Logan > > > > > University of Toronto Press is pleased to invite you to > > a book launch celebrating the publication of > > > > > > > > > > > The Extended Mind: > > The Emergence of Language, the Human Mind, and Culture > > By Robert K. Logan > > 4:30pm - 7pm > > Tuesday, December 4th, > > 2007Beal Institute for Strategic Creativity > > Ontario College of Art & Design > > 100 McCaul St., Suite 600 > > Toronto, Ontario > > Media inquiries please contact Andrea-Jo Wilson at 416.978.2239 ext. 248 mea > > > > > University of Toronto Press > > > Special 20% Discount Order Form > > The Extended Mind: > > The Emergence of Language, the Human Mind, and Culture > > By Robert K. Logan > > Special 20% Discount Price $31.96 ISBN 978-0-8020-9303-5 > > The ability to communicate through language is such a fundamental part of > human ex-istence that we often take it for granted, rarely considering how > sophisticated the process is by which we understand and make ourselves > understood. In The Extended Mind, acclaimed author Robert K. Logan examines > the origin, emergence, and co-evolution of language, the human mind, and > culture. > > Building on his previous study, The Sixth Language (2000), and making use of > emer-gence theory, Logan seeks to explain how language emerged to deal with > the complexity of hominid existence brought about by toolmaking, control of > fire, social intelligence, coordinated hunting and gathering, and mimetic > communication. The resulting emergence of language, he argues, signifies a > fundamental change in the functioning of the human mind – a shift from > per-cept-based thought to concept-based thought. > > This study will be of particular interest to linguists because of the way in > which the origin of language is tied to the emergence of cognitive science > and culture.From the perspective of the Extended Mind model, Logan provides > an alternative to and critique of Noam Chomsky's approach to the origin of > language. He argues that language can be treated as an organism that evolved > to be easily acquired, obviating the need for the hard-wiring of Chomsky's > Language Acquisition Device. > > In addition Logan shows how, according to this model, culture itself can be > treated as an organism that has evolved to be easily attained, revealing the > universality of human culture as well as providing an insight as to how > altruism might have originated. Bringing timely insights to a fascinating > field of inquiry, The Extended Mind will be of interest to readers in a wide > range of disciplines. > > > Robert K. Logan is a professor emeritus in the Department of Physics at the > University of Toronto. > > Special 20% Discount Order Form > > Author / Title Reg. Price Disc. Price > ISBN > > Logan/ Extended Mind (Cloth) $39.95 $31.96 > 978-0-8020-9303-5 > Enclosed please find: > Cheque Money order Institutional purchase order (please > attach to order form) > > > > ___ > CARD NUMBER > EXPIRY DATE SIGNATURE (REQUIRED) > > > > > > > Name > Telephone > > > > > Street > > > > > City > State/ProvZip/Postal Code > Mail to: Order Department Phone: 1-800-565-9523 or > 416-667-7791 > University of Toronto Press Fax: 1-800-221-9985 or > 416-667-7832 > 5201 Dufferin Street Email: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Toronto ON, Canada M3H 5T8 Web: www.utppublishing.com > > > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ --- Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] The development of scholarly communication about Nanotechnology, 1996-2006
Dear colleagues, See the animation at <http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/nanotech/index.htm> http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/nanotech/index.htm . The file contains some further explanation. The specialty emerged as a set of journals citing one another during the period 2000-2003. Best wishes for a Happy Newyear, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] dynamic animations of journal maps; preprint version
Dynamic Animations of <http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/index.htm> Journal Maps: <http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/index.htm> Indicators of Structural <http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/index.htm> Changes and Interdisciplinary Developments The dynamic analysis of structural change because of potentially interdisciplinary developments among fields of science requires the integration of multivariate and time-series analysis. Recent developments in animation techniques enable us to distinguish the stress originating in each time-slice from the stress originating from the sequencing of time-slices, and thus to optimize the trade-offs between these two sources of variance using multidimensional scaling (MDS). Unlike traditional MDS, network visualization programs allow us to show not only the positions of the nodes, but also their relational attributes like betweenness centrality. Betweenness centrality in the vector space can be considered as an indicator of interdisciplinarity. Using this indicator, the dynamics of the citation impact environments of the journals Cognitive Science, Social Networks, and Nanotechnology are animated and assessed in terms of processes of structural change among the disciplines involved. Loet Leydesdorff <http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/journals/#_ftn1> [a] & Thomas Schank <http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/journals/#_ftn2> [b] <http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/journals/#_ftnref1> [a] Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net <http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/journals/#_ftnref2> [b] Technical University of Karlsruhe, Faculty of Informatics, ITI Wagner, Box 6980, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.leydesdorff.net/journals/Dynamic%20Animations%20of%20Journal%20M aps.pdf> ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] animations of social networks: new release of visone (freeware)
Analysis, Visualization, and Animation of Social Networks using Visone (Dynamic CREEN edition based on visone-2.3.X; Copyright 2001-2008 visone project team.) This edition visone-2.3.X adds the handling of dynamic networks to visone (http://www.visone.info), notably: * the computation of layouts for dynamic networks * the animation of structural and analytical network dynamics See for more information at http://www.leydesdorff.net/visone/index.htm One can download a stand-alone version of the program from <http://www.leydesdorff.net/visone/visone-2.3.X.jar>; webstart of the program is available from <http://i11www.iti.uni-karlsruhe.de/members/schank/visone/visone.jnlp>. ** apologies for cross-postings ____ Loet Leydesdorff, Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] list discussions
Dear Stan, "Us" looking at the moon, is not a sufficient condition for the emergence of order. Woolfs may also look at the moon, but no order emerges; only the routine of howling can be expected to emerge. Order emerges only if our observational reports can be brought and interact in a discourse. Discursive knowledge constructs its own order. Best wishes, Loet ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe > Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:33 AM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions > > Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is > that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of > observations made using machines (embodied logic) constructed by us > for the purpose. Laws are highly corroborated regularities so > discerned. Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined > observation. Their relation to 'primitive nature' is necessarily a > philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high > corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which confronts us > naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats. Here we are > confronted by predictable sequences. The relation of such as these > to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I could > correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting the > beats. Talk about constructing regularity using logico-technical > procedures! Counting is a discipline of observation that can mediate > regularity (= order). Perhaps heartbeats are too close to us, and > the day / night alternation might be a better example of order in > 'primitive nature'. We might however, note that we know this > sequence only because we live long enough to experience it, which, > say, an ephemeral insect would not be able to appreciate. Then too, > when 'we' looked at the earth from the moon, and became convinced of > its spinning roundness in relation to the sun, the stark impression > of the order of day / night became somewhat attenuated. I feel > forced to maintain my stance that order is a creation of observation. > This is where the issue of order contacts the question of information. > > STAN > > > >Hi Steven, > > > >I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural > order and process > >order. At least I think this is another way of describing > your distinction. > >I had structural order in mind, as you correctly inferred. With this > >restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan subsequently posted > >answering the question "what is order?". > > > >If I understand you correctly, we may disagree about the ontology of > >structural order. I think structural order (e.g., patterns, > gradients) is > >objectively detectable (measurable), and that this is the > foundation of > >empirical science. The limited lens of perception (i.e., limited by > >modalities of sensation) tends to be biased and distorting > to some degree. > >Technology has greatly extended our (human) perceptive > range, accuracy and > >precision. Science has improved our ability to interpret > the perceived > >data. All of this leaves us far from perfection, but I > think we are also > >far better at characterizing natural order than you seem to > believe. You > >seem to be arguing that anything we think we have learned > beyond the raw > >data (0's and 1's) is just fantasy. Is that a fair approximation? > > > >I do think that structural order is ultimately a consequence > of universal > >natural laws, so maybe our views are not as opposed as they seem. > > > >Regards, > > > >Guy > > > > > >on 5/23/08 10:32 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> > >> Dear Guy, > >> > >> Let us get the first question out of the way. What, > exactly, do you > >> mean by orderly? As you use it here you appear to mean there is > >> manifest order and that changes to become another > manifest order. This > >> is not what I take the question "Is nature orderly?" to address. > >> > >> Is there order at all? What, exactly, is the ontological > status of an > >> ordered state? Is order merely the product of > apprehension (perception)? > >
Re: [Fis] list discussions
Dear Stan, If you would not go yourself to the moon, but send Ptolemy, he would not "observe" what you can see about day and night on earth. Not the observation, but the understanding is crucial. Thus, you statement: "I feel forced to maintain my stance that order is a creation of observation." is erroneous. Best wishes, Loet ________ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe > Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 8:44 PM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions > > Loet - the point of my moon example was only that, when seen from the > moon the regular day / night transitional order that we observe > spontaneously disappears. This means that even naively encountered > order in the world cannot be taken to be independent of the > observational platform. > > STAN > > > >Dear Stan, > > > >"Us" looking at the moon, is not a sufficient condition for > the emergence of > >order. Woolfs may also look at the moon, but no order > emerges; only the > >routine of howling can be expected to emerge. Order emerges > only if our > >observational reports can be brought and interact in a > discourse. Discursive > >knowledge constructs its own order. > > > >Best wishes, > > > > > >Loet > > > > > > > >Loet Leydesdorff > >Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), > >Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. > >Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe > >> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:33 AM > >> To: fis@listas.unizar.es > >> Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions > >> > >> Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is > >> that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of > >> observations made using machines (embodied logic) > constructed by us > >> for the purpose. Laws are highly corroborated regularities so > >> discerned. Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined > >> observation. Their relation to 'primitive nature' is > necessarily a > >> philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high > >> corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which > confronts us > >> naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats. Here we are > >> confronted by predictable sequences. The relation of > such as these > >> to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I could > >> correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting the > >> beats. Talk about constructing regularity using logico-technical > >> procedures! Counting is a discipline of observation that > can mediate > >> regularity (= order). Perhaps heartbeats are too close to us, and > >> the day / night alternation might be a better example of order in > >> 'primitive nature'. We might however, note that we know this > >> sequence only because we live long enough to experience it, which, > >> say, an ephemeral insect would not be able to appreciate. > Then too, > >> when 'we' looked at the earth from the moon, and became > convinced of > >> its spinning roundness in relation to the sun, the stark > impression > >> of the order of day / night became somewhat attenuated. I feel > >> forced to maintain my stance that order is a creation of > observation. > >> This is where the issue of order contacts the question of > information. > >> > >> STAN > >> > >> > >> >Hi Steven, > >> > > >> >I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural > > > order and process > >> >order. At least I think this is another way of describing > >> your distinction. > >> >I had structural order in mind, as you correctly > inferred. With this > >> >restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan > subsequently posted > >> >answering the question "what is order?". > >> > >
Re: [Fis] list discussions
> Loet -- I would think that your statement > supports my contention that what is taken to be > naive confrontation with order in The World, > differs according to which naive observer we are > interrogating. Perhaps I should mention that > view I take here goes back to Jacob von Uexküll, > who pointed out that different species experience > different 'Umwelten". This is basic to > Biosemiotics. Perhaps your contention rests on > the difference between observation and > understanding, but these cannot be neatly > separated since observation is THEORY LADEN. > > STAN In order not to annoy Pedro, this will be my last message of this week! When a predator observes its prey, it is using a routine and not a theory (except perhaps if if it is a human hunter). Observations are theory-laden only when they are theory-laden, but not necessarily and not across species. Theories enable us (humans) to specify expectations. Observations can update our expectations. Other species can also entertain expectations, but are not able to develop discursive theories. The whole emphasis on "bio" is the problem. Predators observe, but are not able to develop discursive knowledge for improving their specification of expectations. This is typically human and thus the subject of the sociology and philosophy of science. By stating that "observation is theory-laden", the problem seems erroneously defined away. However, the statement remains erroneous. Expectations are theory-laden; observations can then inform the expectations. Best wishes and till next week (tomorrow :-)), Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] (msg. from Bob Ulanowicz)
Dear Bob and colleagues, Great that you brought the book to our attention. I ordered it, this morning. Although I agree with most what you say, I cannot follow why the relation between information and thermodynamics would needed to be bridged: S = k(B) H S is thermodynamic entropy, H probabilistic entropy. H is dimensionless and can be applied to any probability distribution. S is expressed in Joule/Kelvin (because of k(B) ) and is only meaningfull in the physical domain. What has to be bridged? It seems clear to me. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ <http://topics.scirus.com/Measuring_Research_Output_with_Science_Technology_ Indicators.html> http://topics.scirus.com/Measuring_Research_Output_with_Science_Technology_I ndicators.html _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:30 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] (msg. from Bob Ulanowicz) Asunto: Re: [Fis] order/disorder De: Robert Ulanowicz <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fecha: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Para: fis@listas.unizar.es Just another word about the nature of information: As humans we are naturally self-centered and self-interested. Well and good. But we often miss connections by not casting our nets of interest a little wider. In particular and as regards information, there is a tendency to become bogged down in the theory of communication and digital forms of information, because that's what's closest to our immediate interests. But analog information was around long before evolution brought digital forms on the scene. What's more, the calculus of information theory, patterned after the leads of Boltzmann and Shannon, apply nicely to analog information as well. In the larger sense information can be regarded as constraint -- that which causes a non-random response to a random input. The beauty of this identification is that it allows information to be tied to the concept of work. This is done quite nicely by Stu Kauffman in Chapter 7 of his latest book, "Re-inventing the Sacred". Stu follows the lead of Peter Atkins in defining work as "the constrained release of energy into a few degrees of freedom". Stu then marries that definition with the notion of information cum constraint and the result is a work function resembling my own "ascendency", which Stu refers to without naming it. Notice there's nothing in the narrative about senders or receivers or alphabets. Those are particular instantations of a much more general phenomenon. And Boltzmann's calculus generalizes without difficulty, as well. I realize many are impatient with the Boltzmann/Shannon type of information, feeling that it cannot apprehend the concept of "meaning". Simply put, I do not agree. The *mutual* information between two distributions captures proto-meaning quite well. One can use it, for example, to quantify such things as the correspondence between the protein structures of antigen and antibody to each other. The mutual information between their surfaces peaks when they match in lock-and-key fashion -- precisely when each has greatest importance (meaning) to each other. The gulf between information and thermodynamics has now been bridged. The late Gregory Bateson once lamented, "Ecology has currently two faces to it: the face which is called bioenergetics-the economics of energy and materials and, second, an economics of information, of entropy, negentropy [exergy], etc. These two do not fit together very well precisely because the units are differently bounded in the two sorts of ecology." But identifying information with the constraint that identifies work melds the two faces into one (with consistent dimensions, I might add.) The best to all, Bob - Robert E. Ulanowicz| Tel: (410) 326-7266 Chesapeake Biological Laboratory | FAX: (410) 326-7378 P.O. Box 38| Email <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1 Williams Street | Web <http://www.cbl.umces.edu/%7Eulan> <http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan> Solomons, MD 20688-0038| -- ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] (msg. from Bob Ulanowicz)
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Robert Ulanowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Loet, You are absolutely correct! My formulation of ascendency is a strict analog of the formula you gave. Trouble is, H, in this instance, is the "entropy" or more precisely, the diversity of the distribution. It is not information per-se (as I discuss in Chapter 5 of Growth and Development [Springer 1986].) That is captured better by the mutual information of the distribution with itself an instant later. Secondly, it does not conform to Shannon's communication format, and so most feel that it does not truly deal with information. But you're right, there really is no mystery, once one gets one's definitions straight. The best, Bob Dear Bob, I don't know if I follow you using the mutual information of the distribution with itself an instant later. The would be something like the auto-covariation, wouldn't it? The crucial question seems to me whether a system is able to generate negative (Shannon-type) entropy endogenously. Following your advice, I use the mutual information in three dimensions as a measure for that. But the measure is static. For the dynamic development, I would follow Theil (1972) "Statistical decomposition analysis" for the specification of the Shannon entropy: I = Sigma(i) q(i) log q(i)/p(i) in which Sigma q(i) is the posterior distribution and Sigma p(i) the prior one. (This measure is also known as the Kuhlbach-Leibler divergence measure.) This measure allows one to compare transitions in systems in terms of probabilistic entropy. An advantage is its asymmetry, while the mutual information is symmetrical. Thus, we are able to distinguish, for example, between diffusion (in the forward direction) and codification of the information from the perspective of hindsight. In other words, I am not clear what you wish to show with the mutual information between S(t=1) and S(t=2) and how this can be provided with an interpretation. Can you, please, clarify? I bounce this back to the list because, in my opinion, it is interesting. (It is my second mail this week, but the week is almost done.) With best wishes, Loet Quoting Loet Leydesdorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Dear Bob and colleagues, Great that you brought the book to our attention. I ordered it, this morning. Although I agree with most what you say, I cannot follow why the relation between information and thermodynamics would needed to be bridged: S = k(B) H S is thermodynamic entropy, H probabilistic entropy. H is dimensionless and can be applied to any probability distribution. S is expressed in Joule/Kelvin (because of k(B) ) and is only meaningfull in the physical domain. What has to be bridged? It seems clear to me. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ <http://topics.scirus.com/Measuring_Research_Output_with_Science_Technology_ Indicators.html> http://topics.scirus.com/Measuring_Research_Output_with_Science_Technology_I ndicators.html _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:30 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] (msg. from Bob Ulanowicz) Asunto: Re: [Fis] order/disorder De: Robert Ulanowicz <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fecha: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Para: fis@listas.unizar.es Just another word about the nature of information: As humans we are naturally self-centered and self-interested. Well and good. But we often miss connections by not casting our nets of interest a little wider. In particular and as regards information, there is a tendency to become bogged down in the theory of communication and digital forms of information, because that's what's closest to our immediate interests. But analog information was around long before evolution brought digital forms on the scene. What's more, the calculus of information theory, patterned after the leads of Boltzmann and Shannon, apply nicely to analog information as well. In the larger sense information can be regarded as constraint -- that which causes a non-random response to a random input. The beauty of this identification is that it allows information to be tied to the concept of work. This is done quite nicely by Stu Kauffman in Chapter 7 of his latest book, "Re-inventing the Sacred". Stu follows the lead of Peter Atkins in defining work as "the constrained release of energy into a few degrees of freedom". Stu then marries that definition with the notion of information cum constraint and the result is a work function resembling my ow
[Fis] Forward from Bob Ulanowicz
Dear Loet, I'll use up my second posting to reply. Yes, I've used the Kullback-Leibler information as well -- namely, to include the influence of standing-stock biomasses into ecosystem process dynamics (Ecol. Modelling 95:1-10.) My point was not deep. I just wanted to emphasize that we should not regard information to be gauged by the Shannon "entropy", but rather by the *decrease* in that quantity (neg-entropy, in Schroedinger's sense.) Both the mutual information and the Kullback-Leible information are examples of such decrease. (You're quite right, the asymmetry of the K-L index can be useful. It can also cause problems, however, like when it comes to identifying a unique conditional entropy.) In my judgement there are far too many folks who want to use the Shannon entropy itself as the measure of information, and I believe that doing so erects major impediments to grasping what information truly is. Have a nice weekend! The best, Bob _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Visiting Professor 2007-2010, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow 2007-2010, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] msg. from Bob Ulanowicz
Dear Bob,
I now understand clearly what you mean to say. The Kullback-Leibler
information always increases the uncertainty (because the second law; Theil,
1972). While the mutual information between two distributions reduces the
uncertainty, however, the consequent conditionality in the probability
distribution seems not a sufficient condition for defining "meaning". One
needs a kind of feedback on the positive generation of probabilistic entropy
along the time axis. Meaning is provided from the perspective of hindsight,
i.e., against the axis of time. Dubois has called this incursion (as
different from recursion), and developed algorithms for the computation of
anticipatory systems.
Your measure of the mutual information in three dimensions ("configurational
information"; McGill, 1954) is very beautiful for this purpose. It makes the
generation of positive or negative entropy an empirical question. I used it,
for example, for measuring the knowledge base of the German and Dutch
economies. [Loet Leydesdorff and Michael Fritsch, Measuring the Knowledge
Base of Regional Innovation Systems in Germany in terms of a Triple Helix
Dynamics, Research Policy, 35(10), 2006, 1538-1553; at
www.leydesdorff.net/germany/index.htm ] We are currently involved in a
project where we use it to distinguish fields of science in terms of whether
knowledge is generated endogenously by using the mutual information among
three or more textual indicators. Knowledge can be defined as a meaning
which makes a difference. Meaning is defined as soon as a system of
reference is specified for the (Shannon-)information processing.
All these questions thus can be made empirical ones.
Best wishes,
Loet
________
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.leydesdorff.net/>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] A dynamic extension of multidimensional scaling: animating the development of _Social Networks_
Animating the development of _Social Networks_ over time using a dynamic extension of multidimensional scaling <http://www.leydesdorff.net/socnetw/paper/index.htm> Loet Leydesdorff, Thomas Schank, Andrea Scharnhorst, & Wouter De Nooy The animation of network visualizations poses technical and theoretical challenges. Rather stable patterns are required before the mental map enables a user to make inferences over time. In order to enhance stability, we developed an extension of stress-minimization with developments over time. This dynamic layouter is no longer based on linear interpolation between independent static visualizations, but change over time is used as a parameter in the optimization. Because of our focus on structural change versus stability the attention is shifted from the relational graph to the latent eigenvectors of matrices. The approach is illustrated with animations for the journal citation environments of Social Networks, the (co-)author networks in the carrying community of this journal, and the topical development using relations among its title words. Our results are also compared with animations based on PajekToSVGAnim and SoNIA. pdf-version: <http://www.leydesdorff.net/socnetw/socnetw.pdf> ____ Loet Leydesdorff, Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] streams of order (III)
> Helas, a good theoretical scheme (info theory, mutual info, > etc.) is a > must, but something else is needed for the inclusion of > meaning. In my opinion, we should not make things more difficult than they are. A difference can only make a difference if there is a second degree of freedom for making a difference from the differences in the first degree of freedom. The differences first can be considered as a distribution containing Shannon-type information. Using the second degree of freedom, these differences can be appreciated as differences or, in other words, provided with meaning. Knowledge can (recursively) be considered as a meaning which makes a difference. Thus, one would need a third degree of freedom. The mutual information among three dimensions can be negative, i.e., reduce the uncertainty. In general, I submit that four degrees of freedom are sufficient: the first one for the variation or Shannon-type information. This first degree of freedom can also be considered as a vector (of differences). A second and third for providing the information with meaning and position within the system, respectively. Meaning operates over time, while the positional appreciation is attributed at specific moments of time. Using a fourth degree of freedom the system can self-organize by selecting among different positions and meanings, and their recombinations. I hope that this resonates a bit. Best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] streams of order (III): Logic
Dear Joseph, Why would one limit this to two possible perspectives like foreground and background? The famous Escher-Goedel-Bach triplet already indicates that one can have three orthogonal perspectives at each moment of time. Including time, one would have four possible (and increasinlgy orthogonal) perspectives. I elaborated on this in "The Non-linear Dynamics of Sociological Reflections," International Sociology 12 (1997) 25-45. [preprint version available at http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/commsoc.htm] For example, one can understand why structural-functionalism and symbolic interactionism are different research traditions in sociology while studying similar phenomena. With best wishes, Loet ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner > Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 9:17 AM > To: Pedro C. Marijuan; fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: Re: [Fis] streams of order (III): Logic > > Dear Colleagues (and Anti-leagues?), > > Pedro has just called attention, again, to a possible role of logic in > facilitating new approaches to seemingly intractable problems and > divergences of opinion. The question is "What logic?" In my > view, it cannot > be any classical or neo-classical bivalent predicate logic or > its modal or > tense extensions. The reason is that these all have, as their > elements, some > classical truth values or their mathematical equivalents. > > As some of you know, I have recently had published a book, > entitled Logic in > Reality, that sets forth a new kind of logic (LIR) extended to real > phenomena, including object entities seen primarily as processes and > including theories as well as the subjects of those theories. > This logic is > grounded in what I see as the fundamental, oppositional > dualities in nature. > It is a logic of Conditional Contradiction: A and non-A can > exist at the > same time when there is an interaction between them, but only > to the extent > that when A is actual (and never to the extent of 100%), > non-A is potential > (also never to the extent of 100%) alternately and > reciprocally. Since this > is a new logical system with essentially no literature, it is > difficult to > outline it without "giving the whole book". Those of you interested in > reading more may wish to get the book which is now available > either from > Springer Verlag > ( > http://www.springer.com/philosophy/logic/book/978-1-4020-8374- > 7?detailsPage= > toc )or Amazon. > > In the meantime, let me just try to show how the "principle of dynamic > opposition" I espouse might play itself out in some of the > themes discussed > by Pedro in this thread: > > ·Disciplines: disciplines that give radically different > interpretations of the same phenomenon do not have to be > combined, mixed or > superimposed in an arbitrary manner. One "moves" > epistemologically from an > emphasis (actualization) of one to emphasis on the other. > > ·Streams of order: outside the laboratory, streams of order do > interact (compound upon each other), but the process is not totally > disorganized. It will tend in the direction 1) of identity, diversity > (non-contradiction) > or maximum interaction (counter-action or contradiction) from > which a new > entity may emerge; or 2) without any clear direction (this discussion, > sometimes), but both processes can been seen as logical chains of > implication, hence scientific, hence manageable. > > ·Order and disorder: simply, no real process is > totally ordered or > disordered, and does not have to be so considered in my > logic. Every process > includes both a tendency to degradation of information (via > the 2nd Law) and > creation of new information, morphogenesis, new functionality based > ultimately on the differentiation or diversification of > elements possible > due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle for electrons. > > ·Adaptability in an informational vision: I claim > that LIR includes > an new element of structure that is common to such domains as cells, > societies and brains that avoids absolute separation between > "internal" and > "external", "presence" and "absence" in phenomena that are > sufficiently > complex. The problems associated with "self-"production or > autopoësis are > avoided since the information nec
Re: [Fis] streams of order (III)
Dear Stan: S: It seems to me that only two of three aspects of information are used here - reduction of uncertainty, and difference that makes a difference. A third aspect is acting as a constraint on dynamics (which is implied in Bob's posting), or, even more basic, a constraint on entropy production (confining it to less-than-explosive). I wonder how this would fit into this three-dimensional scheme. The constraining of subdynamics to each other, in my opinion, can be discussed in terms of mutual information. The mutual information between each two dimensions is always positive, and thus there is conditionality in the entropy fluxes on both sides. The mutual information among three dimensions can be positive or negative. This can also be called configurational information. Whether the mutual information among three dimensions is positive or negative, is an empirical question. --- A question for Loet. The animation shown in http://www.leydesdorff.net/socnetw/paper/index.htm Is like turning a crystal and viewing it from different angles. Is the new information you get analogous to that obtained in crystalography? STAN Yes, this is a nice metaphor. However, in the case of the crystal we may be able to reduce the number of orthogonal views to three (or six?) while in the case of a socio-cognitive construct, the number of dimensions itself may be in flux. I think that this is what Joseph Brenner wishes to argue in his book. Joseph: Thank you for your generous reply. With best wishes, Loet The Triple Helix Model and <http://www.leydesdorff.net/th_kbe/index.htm> the Knowledge-Based Economy Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer Abstract. The Triple Helix model of university-industry-government relations can be generalized from a neo-institutional model of networks of relations to a neo-evolutionary model of how three selection environments operate upon one another. Two selection mechanisms operating upon each other can mutually shape a trajectory, while three selection environments can be expected to generate a regime. The neo-evolutionary model enables us to appreciate both organizational integration in university-industry-government relations and differentiation among functions like wealth creation, knowledge production, and legislation. The specification of systems of innovations in terms of nations, sectors, and regions can then be formulated as empirical questions: is synergy generated among functions in a network of relations? Thus, this Triple Helix model enables us to study the knowledge base of an economy in terms of a trade-off between locally stabilized and (potentially locked-in) trajectories versus techno-economic regimes at the global level. <http://www.leydesdorff.net/th_kbe/th_kbe.pdf> ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] The Knowledge-Based Economy: Globalization and Self-Organization in the Dynamics of Communication
The http://www.leydesdorff.net/codification/index.htm> Knowledge-Based Economy: The http://www.leydesdorff.net/codification/index.htm> Potentially Globalizing and Self-Organizing Dynamics of Interactions among Differently Codified Systems of Communication Alongside economic exchange relations and political control, the organization of codified knowledge in scientific discourses has become increasingly a third coordination mechanism at the level of the social system. When three coordination mechanisms interact, one can expect the resulting dynamics to be complex and self-organizing. Each coordination mechanism is specific in terms of its code of communication. For example, "energy" has a meaning in physics very different from its meaning in the economy or for policy-makers. In addition to providing the communications with functionally different meanings, the codes can be symbolically generalized, and then meaning can be globalized. Symbolically generalized codes of communication can be expected to span competing horizons of meaning that 'self-organize' given historical conditions. From this perspective, the historical organization of meaning-for example, in discourses-can be considered as instantiations or retention mechanisms. In other words, meaning can further be codified in communication flows. Knowledge, for example, can be considered as a meaning which makes a difference. In the case of discursive knowledge, this difference is defined with reference to a code in the communication. When discursive knowledge is socially organized (e.g., as R&D) its dynamics can increasingly compete with other social coordination mechanisms in the construction and reproduction of a knowledge-based order. < http://www.leydesdorff.net/codification/codification.pdf> pdf-version> _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Visiting Professor 2007-2010, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow 2007-2010, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex Now available: http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581 129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581 126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ; http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581 126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Breaking my silence
> The material reason that Shannon information cannot be used to > calculate information carrying capacity in biology (or for any > dissipative structures), is that there is no way way to find the > complete repertoire of any such system. Thus, it is not > technologically 'useful'. However, it does carry conceptual weight > nevertheless. It can be used to roughly assess relative > configurations. Thus, a tornado has more possible macroscopic > conformations than does a bird, and this has more than a snail. In my opinion, Stan, this is confusing. For the computation of the Shannon-type information one only needs the number of categories at specific moments of time (log(N)). Both the maximum entropy and the observed complexity can be expected to change over time (Brooks & Wiley, 1986). Of course, one cannot specify all possible repertoires in the future, but in anticipatory systems the possible repertoires at each moment can again be specified, in principle. Thus, we may hold to information theory. This is desirable for reasons of parsimony and because there is no alternative. As I have argued before, the organization of the Shannon-type information can be modeled by allowing for a second degree of freedom in the probability distribution, or in other words to distinguish an organizing variable versus an organized uncertainty. In addition to the Shannon-type information, one can then also most easily compute the mutual information as a representation of the organizational (and historical!) constraints. Best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] reactions to ...
S: My reply is that the difficulty (?impossibility) of quantitatively estimating the maximum entropy of a natural system does not derive from our inability to foresee its future states, but from an inability to categorize its many present possible states. Consider the human body. How may conformations shall we say that it could assume in the next moment? Of course, if we are attempting this from some narrowly pragmatic project, we could impose, say, three categories of conformations relative to the problem at hand and sample only for these, thus eliminating an unknown number of conformations of no interest. Perhaps I am too 'philosophical, but it seems to me that the 'entropy' concept is no longer of much interest here. 1. I agree that the concept of probabilistic entropy (information) is yet content-free and cannot provide you with the specification of biological categories. It is more like a calculus. 2. The claim that the maximum entropy of natural systems cannot be specified in principle because the number of categories remains unknown for philosophical reasons can easily be read as vitalism. Methodologically, however, the possibility to specify the number of categories and hence the maximum entropy depends on the research question. In population dynamics, for example, this may be more easy than in the case of the human body. Stuart Kauffman once proposed to consider the number of functionally differentiated cell types as a variable across species. Wouldn't the inability to specify the number of categories mean that the system is not properly specified? A human body, for example, is specified only phenotypically? Would one not have to specify the number of categories once one specifies in terms of what one wishes to describe/explain the phenomena? (The human body is then an explandum, but the crucial specification is the one of the explanantes.) My main argument, however, was that we do not have a parsimonous alternative at the methodological level. In the social sciences, for example, one is able to decompose the static complexity using multi-variate analysis or to a very limited extent to do time-series analysis with two co-variates. When there are three sources of variance, it often becomes too complex for the methodological apparatus (e.g., SPSS). This brought me to entropy statistics long ago. One can extend the dimensionality by writing the number of subscripts. The time dimension can additionally be brought in as another set of subscripts (t, t-1, t+1, etc.). In addition to the Shannon formulas, one can elaborate into Kullback-Leibler, etc. It is a pity if this would not work also for biological systems. I sometimes get the impression that with these Piercean notions which you propose as an alternative, vitalism comes back on stage as another (non-mechanistic) explanatory scheme. Perhaps, this would explain the differences of opinion that pop up on this list from time to time. For example, I would consider your systems of interpretance -- yes, I read your book! -- as theoretical, while you may wish to consider them as a (Piercean) methodology. Best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Reactions to ...
ity", and in order to make sense
of his/her moving-reactions to "meaningful" informations received, we need
the overall reference of his life cycle (or an abbreviated set of states,
preferences, experiences, etc.). Again, in the scientific analysis a
plurality of disciplines are called, even for very trivial cases.
Alas, providing the integrative guidelines for the merely mechanical
response is pretty well established in our system of knowledge, but a
similar construct for informational entities is missing yet. Maybe that
quotation from Whitehead I stated days ago deserves more attention
("operations of thought are like cavalry charges...") in order to continue
the discussion. Seriously, how science, the sciences, are affected by the
limitations of the individual?
S: Completely. Science cannot fathom individual cases. It can only
deal with ensembles using various statistical methods.
STAN
Best wishes,
Loet
_
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Visiting Professor 2007-2010, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>
ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow 2007-2010, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>
SPRU, University of Sussex
Now available:
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378>
The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$
18.95;
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956>
The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ;
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816>
The Challenge of Scientometrics
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The Fascination of Art
Dear Joseph and colleagues, This information is non-Shannon because it is meaningful. One provides meaning from the perspective of hindsight, that is, against the arrow of time. The meaning provides us with a model and thus enables us to relate this to the theory and computation of anticipatory systems. Meaning cannot directly be measured because it does not belong to the res extensa (but the res cogitans). Meaningful information, however, can sometimes be measured in terms of the footprints (along a trajectory or not) which the system of meaning-processing may leave behind. Perhaps, one can also consider this as the mutual information between information processing and meaning processing. With best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 6:14 PM To: Srinandan Dasmahapatra; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] The Fascination of Art Dear Colleagues, This comment by Sri is right on, but it further calls on us to answer the question of what does constitute artistic value. Market value is perhaps one indicator, but I feel this is only one aspect, and not the most interesting from an Information Science standpoint. (Nietzsche, exaggerating as usual, said that what has a price has no value.). I think one way to look at art may be the way Bob Logan looks at language in his book The Extended Mind, a cultural artifact that "is neither of the brain nor in the brain", (or perhaps both outside the brain and in the brain). This is what Bob calls a neo-dualistic formulation to which I think my logic in reality applies. I essentially proposed that the real value of art is related to the (non-Shannon) information it can deliver, and I would hope that some of you might be able to formulate this in a more rigorous way. Thank you and cheers, Joseph - Original Message - From: Srinandan <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dasmahapatra To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] The Fascination of Art I'm surprised to not see any of the obvious issue that come to my head -- conspicuous consumption by the wealthy and powerful, choosing to focus on buying up that which some consider valuable. After all, this continues in a more distributed market driven manner, commissions issued by noblemen to gifted artists who would gladly paint their patrons in generous light, showcasing their worldly wealth and property and even depicting servants with smiles on their faces to round off the aura of benevolence. (See, for instance, Ways of seeing, by John Berger.) Sri On 4 Oct 2008, at 17:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Send fis mailing list submissions to fis@listas.unizar.es To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of fis digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: The Fascination of Art (Joseph Brenner) From: "Joseph Brenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 4 October 2008 09:09:41 BST To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "fis" Subject: Re: [Fis] The Fascination of Art Reply-To: Joseph Brenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dear Colleagues, I plead guilty to having contributed to the overstretching and apologize herewith. To try to answer Pedro's specific question, I feel that the source of fascination in art definitely goes beyond the art object, the physical "antique painting" as such. The fascination with art might be related to the information content of art works, which I see as concentrating a great deal of emotional and social information in a more or less dynamic entity (a dance performance). A play by Shakespeare or Goethe, a Rembrandt, or a Picasso condenses information at several levels of complexity such that the perceptual processes that are activated are both conscious and unconscious. As Heidegger said, the Angel in Rilke's "Elegies" "assures the recognition of a higher level of reality". I think one can apply some of E. O Wilson's ideas outlined in my first reply to Sonu: there seem to be some kind of epigenetic rules governing the process of attraction to art. Being able to receive this complex information content of art, e.g. from a cave painting, and store it might have good survival aspects as well. This is not i
[Fis] The Triple Helix Model: Configurational Information as Potentially Negative Entropy
<http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/10/4/391> Configurational Information as Potentially Negative Entropy: The Triple Helix Model Entropy 10(4) (2008), 391-420 Abstract: Configurational information is generated when three or more sources of variance interact. The variations not only disturb each other relationally, but by selecting upon each other, they are also positioned in a configuration. A configuration can be stabilized and/or globalized. Different stabilizations can be considered as second-order variation, and globalization as a second-order selection. The positive manifestations and the negative selections operate upon one another by adding and reducing uncertainty, respectively. Reduction of uncertainty in a configuration can be measured in bits of information. The variables can also be considered as dimensions of the probabilistic entropy in the system(s) under study. The configurational information then provides us with a measure of synergy within a complex system. For example, the knowledge base of an economy can be considered as such a synergy in the otherwise virtual (that is, fourth) dimension of a regime. Keywords: Information theory; probabilistic entropy; anticipation; triple helix; transmission; configuration; university-industry-government relations; scientometrics; emergence < <http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/10/4/391/pdf> pdf-version> _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Visiting Professor 2007-2010, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow 2007-2010, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] The Communication of Meaning and Knowledge
The Communication of Meaning and Knowledge in a Knowledge-Based Economy, Guest Column, SemiotiX nr. 13, at http://www.semioticon.com/semiotix/semiotix13/sem-13-02.html With kind regards, Loet ** apologies for cross-postings Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] information(s)
Dear colleagues,
In Dutch, the two words/concepts would mean something differently. We can
use units of information ("eenheden van informatie") like in English. The
plural ("informaties"), however, would be used more colloquially as the
results of an inquiry.
I assume that this is similar in French.
Best wishes,
Loet
________
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Collier
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:12 AM
> To: Michel PETITJEAN; fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] information(s)
>
> At 04:35 PM 12/6/2008, Michel PETITJEAN wrote:
> >Hello FISers.
> >
> >Recently, one of my colleagues attract my attention on the
> following point.
> >In French, we often use information as a countable quantity,
> >so that we can write "informations".
> >In English, it seems that it is unusual, if not incorrect,
> to do that.
> >(1) Please can some English native FISers give their opinion
> about that ?
> >(2) Please can some FISers from non English-speaking
> countries tell us
> >how is the situation in their own language ?
>
> Michel, folks,
>
> I haven't seen anything on the specific philosophical grammar of
> 'information' in English yet, so I will add some remarks. In English
> there are count nouns and mass nouns. Count nouns always take an
> adjective, like a South African, the Pope, a bicycle, and have plural
> forms. Mass nouns do not take an adjective when referred to
> singularly, such as water, gold, and humanity, and do not have a
> plural form. Mass terms refer to things not collectively per se, but
> in a distributed way. So we can say "Dogs are typically larger than
> cats", but we have to say "Gold is heavier than water." Mass terms
> can take an adjective, however, such as in "The gold in this ring is
> 90% pure." 'Information', in English, is a mass term. Note that count
> nouns and mass nouns can both have quantitative values, such as
> "There are ten dogs in this pen." and "The gold in this ring weighs 2
> grams." However, typically, count nouns need no modifiers for their
> quantities, whereas mass nouns do, as in the previous examples.
> Information, as a mass term, follows this practice, and requires a
> measure, typically bits or entropy units, or something of the like.
> Furthermore, count nouns require something like 'the number of' in
> comparisons, for example, "The number of dogs in this pen is less
> than the number of cats in that pen." Contrast this with, "The
> information in this data is less than the information in the previous
> set of data." The phrase "the number of informations" is not
> grammatical in English, indicating that information is not a
> count noun.
>
> I my French is not sufficiently idiomatic to speak with any authority
> here, but I had thought that the mass/count distinction was pretty
> much the same, so I am surprised that 'informations' is grammatical.
> I think that there is a mass/count distinction in all languages (it
> is far to handy to not use), but grammatical markers are quite
> different (English articles, for example, are hard to translate). I
> should also point out that there are often hidden or suppressed
> grammatical differences that do not appear in the surface structure,
> or are apparently violated in surface structure. An example is that
> in English ships are feminine gender, even though there are no gender
> markers in English. I suppose the mass'count distinction could be
> hidden in some languages. It is possible that even in English the
> distinction is hidden or grammatically violated; I am not that expert
> on idiomatic English, either.
>
> The mass/count distinction I know mostly from work on identity, in
> which it is a very basic distinction that must be understood before
> one can go on. Count nouns are sometimes called 'sortals', with
> sortals applying to a period of time but not the whole period of
> existence of something being called 'phasal sortals'. There is no
> similar concept for mass terms, so one has to circumlocute, or else
> use implication. For example, if some clay is made into a statue of
> the Baby Goliath, and then squeezed down into a lump again, we can't
> really call the Baby Goliath a phase of the clay, but have to refer
Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?
> "3. Thereafter, the coordination dynamics deals with "informational > quantities" that transcend the medium through which the parts > communicate. The "binding" or coupling is mediated by information and > not by conventional forces (or not only)" > > But isn't that exchange of information carrier the way physical forces > conventionally are - exchange forces? > Particles that are exchanged in particle physics are > information carriers > (or "messages" if one so will). > > Best regards, > Gordana Dear Gordana, I understood this as Shannon-type information which is dimensionless (bits) and merely dependent on changes in the distributions. The carriers in different systems (to be coordinated) can in this case be substantially different, but the distributions may communicate in terms of the transmission (etc.). Best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?
Dear Gordana, Pedro, and colleagues, That would be unfortunate because a reduction of the information-theoretical approach to physics unnecessarily sacrifices explanatory power. (As would by the way, a reduction to biology or any other substantive theory.) At issue is --as you correctly note-- the autopoiesis model itself which allows for coordination at different systems level. The formalisms allow us to move from one level to another heuristically, and thus to specify if necessary counter-intuitively. For example, the market can be considered as a social coordination system with its own dynamics. The coordination with other coordination mechanisms by various forms of couplings can also be studied using the information-theoretical approach because the expected information content of a distribution is yet content-free. The specification of a system of reference provides the (Shannon-type) information with meaning. For example, when H is multiplied with the Boltzmann constant, the entropy is expressed in Joule/Kelvin and physics is the system of reference. However, this is a special case. Joule and degrees have no clear meaning in the case of the operation of the market as a coordination mechanism. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 2:46 PM To: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis? Dear Gordana and Loet, This is what the editors of the book literally say: "The third main idea is that Coordination Dynamics deals with informational quantities that transcend the medium through which the parts communicate. Evidence shows that things may be coupled by mechanical forces, by light, by sound, by smell, by touch and by intention. In Coordination Dynamics, "binding" or coupling is mediated by information, not --or not only-- by conventional forces. Such information may not only be of a material but also of a structural or topological nature. It may cause qualitative changes in the dynamics of the coordinating parts and new states to emerge. Hence, "bound" coordinative states in Coordination Dynamics are informational, and information that changes bound states is "meaningful" to the system." (Preface, p. IX) I agree with Gordana that it may support a pan-physicalist approach to information, and vice versa, a pan-informationalist approach to physics too. Besides, the ongoing conceptualization of meaning looks rather meager. From my view, another important objection to the "8 main ideas" is the absence of any reference to self-production (very different from self-organization!); the life-cycle notion is also missing... Linking with the discussion that Michel started weeks ago, rather than situating a similar recollection of main ideas about the term "information", it could be more interesting putting into question what it means "being informational". Say, the adjective as more holistic than the name. The whole process around the message (generation & needs, coding, emission, transmission, reception, decoding, interpretation, action...) becomes the natural universe of information science, rather than the focus on any single conceptual item (wherever we may be willing to situate "information"). Curiously, "informational" in English & in Spanish does not exist (only "informative", I think, but it means something completely different). What "informational" would be indicating, roughly, is that an entity self-constructs itself through the coupling of inner and environmental signals... as happens with cells, organisms, enterprises, etc. best regards Pedro "3. Thereafter, the coordination dynamics deals with "informational quantities" that transcend the medium through which the parts communicate. The "binding" or coupling is mediated by information and not by conventional forces (or not only)" But isn't that exchange of information carrier the way physical forces conventionally are - exchange forces? Particles that are exchanged in particle physics are information carriers (or "messages" if one so will). Best regards, Gordana Dear Gordana, I understood this as Shannon-type information which is dimensionless (bits) and merely dependent on changes in the distributions. The carriers in different systems (to be coordinated) can in this case be substantially different, but the distributions may communicate in terms of the transmission (etc.). Best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] The Dynamics of Exchanges and References among Scientific Texts, and the Autopoiesis of Discursive Knowledge; preprint version
The Dynamics of <http://www.leydesdorff.net/autopoiesis/index.htm> Exchanges and References among Scientific Texts, and the <http://www.leydesdorff.net/autopoiesis/index.htm> Autopoiesis of Discursive Knowledge <http://www.leydesdorff.net/autopoiesis/autopoiesis.pdf> Abstract Discursive knowledge emerges as codification in flows of communication. The flows of communication are constrained and enabled by networks of communications as their historical manifestations at each moment of time. New publications modify the existing networks by changing the distributions of attributes and relations in document sets, while the networks are self-referentially updated along trajectories. Codification operates reflexively: the network structures are reconstructed from the perspective of hindsight. Codification along different axes differentiates discursive knowledge into specialties. These intellectual control structures are constructed bottom-up, but feed top-down back upon the production of new knowledge. However, the forward dynamics of diffusion in the development of the communication networks along trajectories differs from the feedback mechanisms of control. Analysis of the development of scientific communication in terms of evolving scientific literatures provides us with a model which makes these evolutionary processes amenable to measurement. Diana Lucio Arias & Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands <>___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Lock-In and Break-Out from Technological Trajectories: Modeling and Policy Implications; preprint version
Wilfred Dolfsma & Loet Leydesdorff, Lock-In and Break-Out from Technological Trajectories: Modeling and Policy Implications, Technological Forecasting and Social Change (2009, forthcoming); <http://www.leydesdorff.net/breakout/index.htm> http://www.leydesdorff.net/breakout/breakout.pdf> Abstract. Arthur provided a model to explain the circumstances that lead to technological lock-in into a specific trajectory. We contribute substantially to this area of research by investigating the circumstances under which technological development may break-out of a trajectory. We argue that for this to happen, a third selection mechanism--beyond those of the market and of technology--needs to upset the lock-in. We model the interaction, or mutual shaping among three selection mechanisms, and thus this paper also allows for a better understanding of when a technology will lock-in into a trajectory, when a technology may break-out of a lock-in, and when competing technologies may co-exist in a balance. As a system is conceptualized to gain a (third) degree of freedom, the possibility of bifurcation is introduced into the model. The equations, in which interactions between competition and selection mechanisms can be modeled, allow one to specify conditions for lock-in, competitive balance, and break-out. ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Interaction Information: a Triple Helix indicator?
Interaction Information: Linear and Nonlinear Interpretations, Intern. Journal of General Systems (forthcoming). <http://www.leydesdorff.net/interactioninformation/interactioninformation.pd f> Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The notion of "meaning" in the COST proposal
Dear Stan and colleagues,
Meaning itself is pervasive: any system that maps another system can be
considered as providing it with a meaning. At issue is that only some
systems can also communicate meaning because that requires human language as
an evolutionary achievement. Meaning at the biological level changes because
of wear and tear along the life-cycle, but not because of communication of
meaning.
Best wishes,
Loet
_
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
_
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of Stanley Salthe
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:05 PM
To: Christophe Menant
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] The notion of "meaning" in the COST proposal
Folks -- I think that meaning can be generalized to contextuality.
I have proposed, for example, that meaning exists in occult form in physics,
in the function of constant variables in descriptive equations. We know
that the values of constants in an equation will influence the result. So,
if we have Y = aX^b, we are putatively interested in the dyadic relations
between X and Y. But these relations depend upon the values of a and b
(which might, for example, be universal constants). Given this role for
the constants, we in reality have triadic relations here, with the constants
representing the context. Physical ideology has obscured this by way of the
'epistemic cut', delineating the distinction between observer and observed.
But, in utilizing the values of the constants in order to calculate the
value of Y, they have actually pulled the constant values into the observer
rather than being associated with the observed, leaving X and Y in evidently
dyadic relations, without context. In many cases this would seem to be
pragmatically reasonable because the values of some constants may always be
taken to be the same. One branch of chaos theory illuminated this by
showing the range of different results one gets by changing the constants
instead of the variable parameters.
STAN
Thanks Stan,
Biosemiotics can indeed be part of the story (
<http://crmenant.free.fr/Biosemiotics3/INDEX.HTM>
http://crmenant.free.fr/Biosemiotics3/INDEX.HTM ), but part only.
My point is about the importance of the notion of "meaning" when talking
about information. Interpretation of information (meaning generation) is key
when information is processed by finalized systems. Our lives are embedded
in meaning generation, from auto-immune disease to the smile of the Joconde.
Meaning generation has probably an evolutionary story, and can deserves (I
feel) a systemic approach (http://cogprints.org/6279/ ). So I'm just kind of
surprised not to see the notion of meaning explicited in the proposal.
Perhaps Pedro could tell us more on this point.
All the best
Christophe
_
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:28:54 -0400
To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr
From: ssal...@binghamton.edu
Subject: Re: [Fis] FW: Denumerability of information (II)
.ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul,
.ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li {padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
For your interest, I think you are tending towards semiotics -- in
particular, Biosemiotics. You could look at the web pages of the
Biosemiotics journal.
STAN
Dear all,
Comments from Michel and Rafael bring up an aspect of the proposal that has
perhaps been underestimated. It is the interpretation of information which
generates its content, its meaning. From "Information in cells" to
"information for cells" we precisely have the interpretating function where
an agent creates meaning for its own usage. Different agents generate
different meanings. And information in antennas is not for antennas as they
contain no interpretating function.
Can the paragraph "Semantics" cover this point? Perhaps, but I'm not sure
that "semantics for bioinformation" is currently used.
The concept of interpretation looks to me as key when talking about
information in agents. If the proposal takes it into account from a
different perspective, perhaps it would be worth expliciting it.
Best regards
Christophe
> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:57:53 +0200
> From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: [Fis] Denumerability of information (II)
>
>
> (message II, responses from Díaz Nafría and Rafael Capurro)
>
> --
>
> Dear Michel:
>
> Thank you for your good remarks. I agree about both. Of course, data
> banks may be considered in the list. In any case, that list should be
> too long if it we
[Fis] Krippendorff's three-way interaction information I(ABC->AB:AC:BC); freeware
Krippend.EXE available at <http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/krippendorff/index.htm> This program computes the three-way interaction information in bits using Krippendorff’s (2009, at p. 200) algorithm for the decomposition I(ABC→AB: AC:BC). The user is prompted for the eight (= 2^3) frequency values (which can also be considered as values at the eight corners of a cube). Only positive values are accepted because the program transforms these values into a probability distribution. Output is a file wmax.dbf in which the iterations are stored on the hard disk in the same folder as the one in which the program is run. The file can be read using programs such as excel or spss. The program runs in a DOS environment. Furthermore, the program brings to screen the value of I(ABC→ AB:AC:BC) in bits of information. References: Klaus Krippendorff (2009). "Ross Ashby’s information theory: a bit of history, some solutions to problems," International Journal of General Systems 38(2), 189-212. ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net <http://www.leydesdorff.net/ <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] An Indicator of Research Front Activity: Measuring Intellectual Organization as Uncertainty Reduction in Document Sets
An Indicator of Research Front Activity: Measuring Intellectual Organization as Uncertainty Reduction in Document Sets When using scientific literature to model scholarly discourse, a research specialty can be operationalized as an evolving set of related documents. Each publication can be expected to contribute to the further development of the specialty at the research front. The specific combinations of title words and cited references in a paper can then be considered as a signature of the knowledge claim in the paper: new words and combinations of words can be expected to represent variation, while each paper is at the same time selectively positioned into the intellectual organization of a field using context-relevant references. Can the mutual information among these three dimensions-title words, cited references, and sequence numbers-be used as an indicator of the extent to which intellectual organization structures the uncertainty prevailing at a research front? The effect of the discovery of nanotubes (1991) on the previously existing field of fullerenes is used as a test case. Thereafter, this method is applied to science studies with a focus on scientometrics using various sample delineations. An emerging research front about citation analysis can be indicated. Diana Lucio-Arias & Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. http://www.leydesdorff.net/synergy/index.htm> http://www.leydesdorff.net/synergy/synergy.pdf> ** apologies for cross-postings ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Definition of Knowledge?
Dear John and colleagues,
Very clear: thanks. For my own thinking, I make reference to different
systems: we communicate discursive knowledge and we hold reflexively
knowledge as persons. Both types of knowledge are reflexive, but with
different dynamics. For example, discursive knowledge can circulate in
networks relatively independent of specific persons.
What is basic, is also different between these two knowledge systems. At the
individual level "know how" may be more basic than "know what", but in the
communication system one would expect "know what" to be more basic. The
system can only "know how" by entertaining a discourse in the
philosopy/history/sociology of science.
Best wishes,
Loet
_
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
_
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of John Collier
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:40 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Definition of Knowledge?
I accidentally sent this only to Pedro last time.
Pedro, everyone,
There are two basic approaches to representational knowledge (knowing that)
in philosophy. The traditional one is that knowledge is justified true
belief. This goes back to Plato. It is an internalist account of the sort
suggested by starting with a Cartesian perspective that what matters is my
inner experience. A more recent one is that a representation is knowledge if
it is reliable. Dretske, Knowledge and the Flow of Information is a primary
source. As the title suggests, this approach is very compatible with
information theoretical ideas. It is an externalist approach in that it
rejects the Cartesian perspective that is such a big part of modernity, and
takes it that whether there is knowledge is a matter of certain conditions
occurring in the world. In either case, the representation must be true for
it to be knowledge (this is almost universally agreed on, but philosophers
are a disagreeable lot, and I am sure that at least some peripheral
philosopher has argued that knowledge does not require truth). A
representation is true, again pretty much universally among philosophers who
talk about information (Peirce, for example), inasmuch as it contains
(accurate) information about what it represents. Accuracy can be understood
in terms of justification or reliability, giving us the two versions of
knowledge. So that is the state of the art. There have been attempts
(Solomonoff, which led to algorithmic information theory) to connect
justification to information theory using the idea that a theory or idea
compresses the information in what it refers to, and that the most accurate
representation is the most compressed for. John Dorling has been a big
advocate of this idea of justification, and I like it. Belief is sometimes
seen as a psychological state, but sometimes as a logical state, and
sometimes as both (e.g., Frege, Peirce). That pretty much covers the basics.
In my opinion knowledge is a not a natural kind. There are degrees of
knowledge, and kinds. The justification account and the reliability account
are both flawed, and each makes up for problems with the other. So,
paradigmatic cases of knowledge will satisfy both, but as we relax either
the justification or reliability conditions we tend to judge that knowledge
claims are weaker, so that at the extremes, justification without
reliability is not knowledge, and reliability without justification is not
knowledge. So we have a two-dimensional set of degrees, and successful
knowledge claims will map a fuzzy region within the range, with a bias
towards the extreme of high justification, high reliability.
John
At 06:16 PM 2009/10/01, you wrote:
Dear FISers,
I was asked several months ago, in the context of the Leon conference
(BITrum & interdisciplinary elucidation of the information concept, last
June) to participate in the definition of some info-related concepts.
"Knowledge" was one of them (if I am not wrong). After some trials I
have realized that the task is outside the bounds of my competence
--except in a rather trivial, anthropomorphic sense, one gets caught in
regressions almost inevitably... Maybe one has to take care
simultaneously of the whole lot of basic characteristics pertaining to
informational entities ("concepts" included...). Well, sorry to the Leon
colleagues that I have failed to fulfill the compromise, but I think
there is interesting discussion to be advanced behind it.
best
Pedro
PS. We are starting the firs steps in the neurodynamic central theory
proyect (NCT). Interested parties might have openings yet, co
Re: [Fis] FW: Fw: Definition of Knowledge?
> S: The difference between us and animals is basically language. > S: Why not 'check out' 'Biosemiotics'? > > STAN Dear Stan, I don't understand the "bio" in this. If we distinguish between two systems of reference for knowledge -- discursive knowledge to be attributed to interhuman communication, and personal knowledge to be attributed to human psychologies -- the latter one is biologically embedded by the body, but the former is only embedded by human minds (which are of course embodied). Knowledge can then also be globalized and become person-independent. In other words: discursive knowledge is generated bottom-up, but control can be top-down. Shouldn't it therefore be "psycho-semiotics"? "Bio-semiotics" is only valid for personalized knowledge. (For the good order, let me hasten to add that the two systems of knowledge -- the interpersonal and the personal ones -- are reflexive to each other.) Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: FW: Definition of Knowledge] from Bill Hall
> Although information is often defined > in a communications theory context (i.e., Shannon-Weaver) > information of significance to people and other living things is better defined as ?a > difference that makes a difference? (Bateson) that has little > connection to the Shannon-Weaver kind. The relationship between knowledge > and information > also needs to be examined in an evolutionary context ? where the DIKW > pyramid makes more sense than when looked at in isolation. Dear colleagues, It seems to me that one has to specify the unit of evolution. In this case, the unit of evolution is communication: that is, communication --and not agency-- is evolving. First, this can be expressed as simply the communication of differences (true/false). Shannon-type communication of information is contained in probability distributions which can be considered as aggregates of differences and therefore measured in bits. A difference can make a difference for a receiving system. The first-order differences --Shannon-type information-- can then be provided with meaning. Some information can be considered as meaningful and other information then is considered as noise. Knowledge can be considered as a meaning which makes a difference. The communication is then not only positioned (by a receiving --observing-- system), but additionally coded over the time axis. Knowledge codifies both information and meaning. Whether the observing system is an observer or a networked system does not yet make a difference at this abstract level of specifying the recursion of selections. However, the reflection and therefore codification operates differently in human agents from interhuman communications. The latter cannot "embody" the communications. Tacit knowledge can only be developed by agents; discursive knowledge in networks on which agents can reflect. Best wishes, Loet ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: FW: Definition of Knowledge] from Bill Hall
Dear Bill and colleagues, The distinction between agents evolving or communications can be made without accepting Luhmann's more far-reaching claims. It enables us to understand why cultural phenomena based on interhuman communications exhibit a dynamic so differently from biological phenomena. For example, a constitution enables us to distinguish how to organize political communication differently from exchange processes on the market (negotiations) or religious communication. Scientific communication -- discourse -- is part and parcel of this cultural evolution process. The discourse enables us to entertain models at the supra-individual level. Systems which can entertain models can be considered as anticipatory (Rosen, 1985). While the social network among us has one more degree of freedom than we individually, the anticipation can be modeled as hyper-incursive: the strongly anticipatory system not only entertains a model of itself, but it is also able to co-construct its future state because of a potential feedback from the modelling system onto the modeled one (Dubois, 1998). Of course, we (as agents) remain a necessary condition like in the case of structural coupling (Maturana & Varela; Luhmann). However, we are not only structurally coupled as systems (like ants to the antshill), but also in terms of how we communicate, that is, provide meaning to the uncertainty. The communications among us can be reflected by each of us, and each of our utterances and understanding can be reflected at the level of the network in a semiosis. The network can reflect these contributions using codes of communications. These codes of communications are not given (as in nature), but remain culturally constructed and therefore anticipatory, that is, advanced as intentions from the perspective of the present. This model enriches our capacity to understand social and cultural phenomena beyond the biological domain. Questions about how an economy or society can be knowledge-based can be addressed because knowledge cannot only be defined with reference to individual (rational?) actors, but also with reference to interhuman communications which can be more or less informed and meaningful. I hope that this contributes. It is more or less an invitation to entertain a hypothesis. The philosophical source is not Luhmann, but Husserl. Best wishes, Loet ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > -Original Message- > From: william-h...@bigpond.com [mailto:william-h...@bigpond.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 3:34 AM > To: l...@leydesdorff.net > Cc: 'fis'; 'Pedro C. Marijuan' > Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: FW: Definition of Knowledge] from Bill Hall > > Loet, > > re your comment that it is "communication" that is evolving, > I have major difficulties of paradigmatic incommensurability > with Luhmann's version of autopoiesis. This appears to place > communications on a plane orthogonal to entities actually > engaged in communication, akin to the imaginary plane of a > complex number, and I assume that it is this kind of > communication your note refers to. > > At least this is what I understand Luhmann to be saying in > his 1991 "System as difference". Organization 13(1), 37-57 > (2006); and in his 1995. The paradox of observing systems. > (in) Rasch, W. (ed.) Theories of Distinction: Redescribing > the Descriptions of Modernity. Stanford University Press, > Stanford (2002), pp. 79-93 [Reprinted from Cultural Critique > 31 (1995): 37-53]). > > In my own understanding of reflexivity and recursion in > autopoietic systems from an evolutionary point of view and in > communications between them, I don't see the same paradoxes > that concerned Maturana and Varela and that Luhmann took to > extremes. I think that Popper's general theory of evolution > that he proposed as a resolution to the matter/mind problem > (e.g., in his 1972 chapter on Clouds and Clocks) also > eliminates the supposed paradoxes of self-reference. > > Maturana and Varela mostly missed the significance of history > and evolution along the time dimension. The recursive > processes of autopoiesis are never instantaneous - the > autopoietic system progresses from one instant to the next > via historically constrained "adjacent possible" states in > the phase space of all possibilities (Kauffman 2000. > Investigations. Oxford Univ. Press). Selection favors the > evolution of recursive processes that preserve autopoiesis, > but the self-reference of semantic closure is always open > along the time axis.
[Fis] networks among cities on the basis of the Science Citation Index
Dear colleagues, In the series of programs available from http://www.leydesdorff.net/indicators for analyzing data from the major Science & Technology databases in terms of networks of communication, I added one which enables the user to extract city names in the address field as a separate networks. This program may prove useful, for example, in the regional geography of science. Currently, the program was tested for city names and postcodes in the US, Western Europe (including the UK and some Commonwealth nations), China and Japan. I expect problems in other parts of the world. Please, provide me with feedback if such is the case. (Preferentially send me the download records that cause the problems.) The program is available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/CityColl/index.htm . Let me take the opportunity to mention also the availability of Pajek input files for mapping the citation environments of the 1,157 journals included in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index 2008, at http://www.leydesdorff.net/ah08/index.htm . These journals can be studied in terms of both their cited and citing patterns using these files. The data contains cosine-normalized matrices of the k = 1 environments of these journals (without thresholds). With best wishes, Loet Leydesdorff ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The Inventor of Information as Asymmetry
Dear John and colleagues, Without having read Leyton, may I ask whether the distinction or asymmetry is not the same as between expected and observed. The Shannon-type information contains an expected information value and is yet content-free in terms of its meaning, while observed information implies the notion of an observing system which provides meaning to the information. Expected and observed are of older dates and, for example, implied in the computation of chi-square. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of John Collier Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 9:57 PM To: David Weiss; Pedro C. Marijuan; fis Subject: Re: [Fis] The Inventor of Information as Asymmetry Folks, Just a follow up on this. Leyton's work seems to me, from the reviews to have more to do with the psychology of information perception and cognition than with the nature of information itself. The causal basis of information goes back to at least Leo Brillouin's work of the 50s and 60s, and there is also work by Landauer and Bennett, as well as others connecting information to causation in computers. I doubt very much that there is a single inventor of other the asymmetry principles, which seems to be much more general than Leyton's ideas, or of the connection to causation. The asymmetry idea I got from reading Donald MacKay's Information Mechanism and Meaning, MIT Press, 1969. He makes the basic move (often attributed to Gregory Bateson) of information and a distinction that makes a difference. Of course a distinction implies and asymmetry. MacKay was one of the first to tackle the issue of meaning and information. There are a couple of chapters on the topic in the book, which is still in print as an MIT Classic. He also made an attempt (not very good, to get a hierarchical theory of information). No doubt Leyton's books are important, but the reviews I read suggest there is very little of interest to me directly except his connections of form to group theory, which again is not a new idea, but can be found in Weyl, Hermann. 1952. Symmetry. Princeton: University of Princeton Press, a beautiful little book. Also, Leyton's ideas about perception and cognition may be of interest to me due to my work in cognitive science, but Michael Scriven wrote a book on the basics of the topic that I read as an undergraduate in 1972 or so. Unfortunately I don't have the reference on my computer, and it is too old to make it onto Amazon.com. I can't find a completely bibliography for Scriven, who has written or edited many dozens of books. Sorry I can't provide more information right now due to time constraints (it is exam grading time). The history of this field needs to be written by a proper historian. Cheers, John = Thanks. I still maintain my student carried this idea much further then anyone before. As I said before, priority in such issues issues is very hard to establish. I think that Michael Scriven was well ahead on these ideas. He is now known as Tal Scriven. His ideas date much earlier than 1992, to say the least. I first encountered them in 1971 at MIT. John John At 05:49 PM 2009/11/14, David Weiss wrote: The inventor of the concept of Information as Asymmetry is Michael Leyton in his enormous book 640 pages Symmetry,Causality, Mind (MIT Press, 1992). Furthermore: Leyton invented the concept of the causal basis of information. In addition, Leyton's book A Generative Theory of Shape in Springer (2001), invents an enormous mathematical theory of information as asymmetry. Leyton's work is used by scientists in over 40 disciplines. His theorems are used 1000s of times a minute all around the world. Also, because of the importance of his work he was awarded a major prize from the president of the united states. Symmetry Causality Mind. By Michael Leyton. MIT Press 1992: Berlin. A Generative Theory of Shape. By Michael Leyton. MIT Press 2001. best wishes David Weiss _ Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://www.ukzn.ac.za/undphil/collier/index.html ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Asymmetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear John and colleagues,
What I find beautiful about Shannon's information concept is that it is
formal. Specification of a system of reference is left free. Thus,
information can be provided with meaning in a physical discourse or a
biological or any other one in which distributions can be studied. When a
system of reference is specified (e.g., physics, biology) the information is
made meaningful to that system, and of course everyone then claims priority
for his/her specific notion of information. When one comes from
bio-semiosis, biology is the ultimate frame of reference and when one comes
from physics, information is physical.
Perhaps, I should not use the word information because this has two
meanings: uncertainty and meaningful information ("a difference which makes
a difference"). The latter is system-specific while the former is not
necessarily. I am particularly interested in this because models generate
alternative possibilities and therefore redundancies. Are redundancies also
physical or biological? I don't think so.
With best wishes,
Loet
_
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
_
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of John Collier
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 5:09 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymmetry and Information: A modest proposal
I am about to go out, so this will be short. In addition to the
applications Pedro mentions below, it has become commonplace
in physics to speak of information in a physical entity or process.
For example, there is a problem concerning black holes that they
seem to destroy information, but the physical notion of information
does not allow it to be destroyed, only transformed. It is analogous
to energy in many respects, but has to do with form or structure
rather than effort. There was an article on the black hole problem
in Scientific American a couple of months ago..
I try to keep this usage in mind when I work on information theory,
making distinctions as required for the specific application. I think
that there is a nested hierarchy of information types with increasing
independence from (or perhaps more correctly specification of from
the top down) the physical basis. In Stan's terminology this would
be {it from bit {negentropy {hierarchical {functional {intentional}.
There is a discussion of this in my paper
<http://www.ukzn.ac.za/undphil/collier/papers/Information%20in%20Biological%
20Systems.pdf> Information in biological systems
<http://www.ukzn.ac.za/undphil/collier/papers/Information%20in%20Biological%
20Systems.pdf>
(Handbook of Philosophy of Science, vol 8, Philosophy
<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/716648/descriptio
n#description> of Information,
2008, Chapter 5f). You can find a preprint at
http://www.ukzn.ac.za/undphil/collier/papers/Information%20in%20Biological%2
0Systems.pdf
In that paper I focus on biological (functional) information, with
a special emphasis on the role of information channels in determining
information dynamics. The channels themselves, in this case, are
also information bearing, and are typically dynamical, which is
different from the average physical case.
At 03:40 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote:
Dear Jerry and John H,
As far as I see the problem, rather than a "gold standard" for the term
information, an enlargement of context is required. We should speak
about "informational entities" ---living cells, organisms, nervous
systems, companies and institutions, countries, global civilization) and
their peculiar way of handling very different categories of
information-related constructs (e.g., knowledge, meaning). A new
perspective is needed, just a way of thinking that provides a economic
view of this realm.
In computer science they study the "Knapsack Problem" of combinatorial
optimization. An optimal composition has to be chosen for the multiple
contents of the rucksack needed in a trip, given a certain limit weight
and keeping the total value as large as possible. We cannot accumulate
endless discussions on quantum information, thermodynamics, open
systems, origins of life, etc. and finally devote a few lines to say
what info is or not is. We should make a light recollection of starting
points so that the rucksack can carry a new assortment of analytical
items to apply in the social-problems of today --multidisciplinary
recombination, sustainability and social use of knowledge...
Thus, as a matter of play, we might pen the "10 basic principles of
information science":
1. Information goes beyond communication, involving info generatio
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear Joseph, Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. In addition to a mathematical theory of communication, we need substantive theories of communication. This became clear to me when Maturana formulated life as a consequence of the communication of molecules. If atoms are communicated, one obtains a theory of chemical evolution (Mason), etc. All these special theories of communication can usefully be matched with a mathematical theory of communication (or perhaps more generally non-linear dynamics). The special case, of course, is when one multiplies H with k(B) that one obtains S (Joule/Kelvin). John seems to imply that there is another unit of information in physics which is a conserved entity. John: Can you perhaps provide the dimensionality of this unit and provide the derivation? With best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > -Original Message- > From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es > [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 8:43 PM > To: Pedro C. Marijuan; fis > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > Dear All, > > Let me please first call attention to a key phrase in Pedro's note: > > "a new assortment of analytical items to apply in the > social-problems of > today --multidisciplinary recombination, sustainability and > social use of > knowledge..." > > As some of you may not know, the phrase "A Modest Proposal" > is the title of > a deadly political satire by Jonathan Swift against the cruelty and > indifference of late 18th Century British society. He > "proposed" (much > earlier than H.G. Wells' adaptation of the idea in /The Time > Machine/) that > the babies of poor Irish couples be fattened and eaten as > meat, to save the > costs of bringing them up. > > Although I respect Loet's esthetic view of formalism, I am > concerned that > with all the other calls for formalism being made we will > wind up with > something so abstract it will have little relevance to the > real world, and > how information is actually used. I for one do not wish to be > a target of a > Swiftian satire. > > "Cheers", > > Joseph > > - Original Message - > From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" > To: "fis" > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > > Dear Jerry and John H, > > As far as I see the problem, rather than a "gold standard" > for the term > information, an enlargement of context is required. We should speak > about "informational entities" ---living cells, organisms, nervous > systems, companies and institutions, countries, global > civilization) and > their peculiar way of handling very different categories of > information-related constructs (e.g., knowledge, meaning). A new > perspective is needed, just a way of thinking that provides a economic > view of this realm. > > In computer science they study the "Knapsack Problem" of combinatorial > optimization. An optimal composition has to be chosen for the multiple > contents of the rucksack needed in a trip, given a certain > limit weight > and keeping the total value as large as possible. We cannot accumulate > endless discussions on quantum information, thermodynamics, open > systems, origins of life, etc. and finally devote a few lines to say > what info is or not is. We should make a light recollection > of starting > points so that the rucksack can carry a new assortment of analytical > items to apply in the social-problems of today --multidisciplinary > recombination, sustainability and social use of knowledge... > > Thus, as a matter of play, we might pen the "10 basic principles of > information science": > > 1. Information goes beyond communication, involving info generation, > signaling, reception, meaning elaboration and response by the > "informational entities". > > 2. Information is a way of existence, based on the exchange of signals > that are used to guide the inner self-production (and self > degradation) > processes of informational entities. > > 3. Informational entities are capable of modifying their own > structures > adaptively, by means of inner "adaptive codes" (DNA& RNA, neural > memories, cultural ru
Re: [Fis] Asymmetry and Information: A Modest Proposal
> I do not understand your concerns about uniqueness and redundancy. A > desire for a symbolic encoding opens an unbounded number of possible > coding tactics, or am I missing your point? Living systems > demonstrate this very clearly. Yes, I agree that the number of logical possibilities is unbounded. However, one has to distinguish between the number of logical possibilities and empirical possibilities: what has been achieved evolutionarily in terms of new coding schemes which are reflexively available in discursive knowledge? (That is different from hypothesized in living systems.) In terms of the cultural evolution of codes operating in discourses, the definition of the bit of information h (at p = 0.5) seems the achievement (of Shannon) here. Let me propose that those who favor another concept of information try to define it operationally: how would one measure this other type of information? What would be the unit of measurement? At that level, in my opinion, we could make real progress. For example, Stan: could you explain how one measures these constraints given a constant (e.g., R in Boyle's law). I can intuit some relation with Newman & Simon's computer programs, but I cannot clearly see it. Best wishes, Loet ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal; preprint version now available
Giddens' "structuration," Luhmann's "self-organization," and the operationalization of the dynamics of meaning Abstract: Luhmann's social systems theory and Giddens' structuration theory of action share an emphasis on reflexivity, but focus on meaning along a divide between inter-human communication and intentful action as two different systems of reference. Recombining these two theories, simulations of interaction, organization, and self-organization of intentional communication can be distinguished by using algorithms from the computation of anticipatory systems. The self-organizing and organizing layers remain rooted in the double contingency of the human encounter which provides the variation. Organization and self-organization of communication are reflexive upon and therefore reconstructive of each other. Using mutual information in three dimensions, the imprint of meaning processing in the modeling system on the historical organization of uncertainty in the modeled system can be measured. This is shown empirically in the case of intellectual organization as "structurating" structure in the textual domain of scientific articles. http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.5565v1 http://www.leydesdorff.net/GiddensLuhmann/index.htm ** apologies for cross posting Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Generating network overlays to Google Maps from Pajek files (geographical networks)
Paj2KML for generating (Pajek) network overlays to Google Maps at http:///www.leydesdorff.net/gmaps/index.htm Paj2KML uses a 1-mode pajek file (.net) with geographical encodable labels for generating a .kml file that can be used as an overlay to Google Maps (or Google Earth). The procedure is as follows: 1. Save the Pajek network file as .net file using the default in Pajek; use a DOS-based file name (? eight characters); 2. Use the labels for the geo-encoding, for example, at http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/geocoder/ . (Choose the Google option.) 3. Save the results file using a simple (DOS-based) file name; for example, "geo.txt"; 4. Store the Pajek .net-file, the geo-information (e.g., geo.txt), and the program in a single folder; 5. Run the program which prompts you for file names and generates "citycoll.kml"; (if one runs the program in a DOS-box, one obtains an error message if something goes wrong); 6. Upload the file at a web server; read it with Google Maps. (KML-files can also be read directly into Google Earth.) The output-file citycoll.kml is readable and can be changed with an ASCII editor (such as NotePad). For example, one can wish to change the colors of the lines or the shapes of the icons. See for an axample at http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=http:%2F%2Fwww.l eydesdorff.net%2Fgmaps%2Fcitycoll.kml&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.644639, 79.013672&ie=UTF8&z=2 . The program is based on CityColl.exe and Geo2KML.exe. The former program reads tagged-format files of the ISI Web-of-Science, and produces, among other things, a file cities.txt which can be used directly for the geo-encoding. See at http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/citycoll/index.htm. ** apologies for cross-postings Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Redundancy in Systems which Entertain a Model of Themselves: Interaction Information and the Self-organization of Anticipation
Redundancy in Systems which Entertain a Model of Themselves: Interaction Information and the Self-organization of Anticipation, Entropy 12(1) (2010) 63-79 <http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/1/63> Mutual information among three or more dimensions (μ* = -Q) has been considered as interaction information. However, Krippendorff (2009a, 2009b) has shown that this measure cannot be interpreted as a unique property of the interactions and has proposed an alternative measure of interaction information based on iterative approximation of maximum entropies. Q can then be considered as a measure of the difference between interaction information and redundancy generated in a model entertained by an observer. I argue that this provides us with a measure of the imprint of a second-order observing system-a model entertained by the system itself-on the underlying information processing. The second-order system communicates meaning hyper-incursively; an observation instantiates this meaning-processing within the information processing. The net results may add to or reduce the prevailing uncertainty. The model is tested empirically for the case where textual organization can be expected to contain intellectual organization in terms of distributions of title words, author names, and cited references. Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> ** apologies for cross-postings ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Derrida's "diferAnce" and Kolmogorov's Information Operator
At the end of all this, then, one has, starting from the lowest level: a) information as what is processed by a computer; b) information as a scalar quantity of uncertainty removed, the entropy/negentropy picture; c) semantic information as well-formed, meaningful data (Floridi); d) information as a process operator that makes a difference to and for other processes, including above all those of receivers and senders. Dear Joseph and colleagues, I agree with the distinction of four operations, but it seems to me that this can be expressed more parsimoneously using information theory. Given Bateson's (1972) formulation that information can be considered as "a difference which makes a difference", one should distinguish between the first type of differences and the second. Let's say difference(1) and difference(2). (I'll need difference(3) and difference(4) below.) A difference(1) can only make a difference(2) for a system (or more generally the expectation of a system). This difference(2) is analytically preceded by difference(1), that is, pure differences. Shannon-type information is contained in probability distributions. In the binary case, this is only one difference (Y/N, F/T, open/closed); in the non-binary case probability distributions provide us with sets of differences(1). These differences(1) can only make a difference(2) for a system which contains other (orthogonal) differences. In this case one needs one-more (orthogonal) dimension of the probability distribution that positions the incoming (Shannon-type) information at specific moments in time. Thus, difference(2) presumes at least a dimensionality of two in the probabilistic entropy. When the system develops, difference(3) can be defined with reference to the time axis (recursion). This is Brillouin's (1962) Delta H. The difference(1) that made a difference(2) for the system makes a difference(3) over time. When the system operates as a self-organizing, autonomous or autopoietic system it is additionally able to provide the information with a meaning from the perspective of hindsight, that is, against the axis of time. This "incursion" can make a difference(4). In other words, one needs at least a vector (one dimension of the entropy) for containing an uncertainty. One needs (at least) two dimensions of the probabilistic entropy for positioning the information in a network (matrix) at specific moments of time. Three dimensions are needed when the time axis is additionally included; four when the direction in the time axis can be considered as another degree of freedom. The two approaches seem very akin to me, but I claim that mine is more strict and parsimoneous because I only need numbers of dimensions of the probabilistic entropy and not concepts like differance. The next-order probability distributions can be considered as the probability of probability distributions, etc. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Derrida's "diferAnce" and Kolmogorov's Information Operator
Dear Joe, 5. The description of differences in terms of levels of complexity and recursion affecting Shannon-type information is essential because it provides an analytical basis of meaning also. Perhaps the sequence goes from vector to tensor to spinor (?) as you go up in dimensionality of the entropy to yield valuedness or valence? Yes, it yields valuedness because the differences(1) make a difference(2), etc. For example, the information contained in a vector is positioned in the network/matrix, and this position has a value. The operation is recursive. But it closes itself off at the level of four. First, there are only difference(s)(1): expected information content of a distribution. This can make a difference(2) to an extension. Difference(3) when this is not only once, but repeated over time, that is, in a three-dimensional array. (Is that a 3-dimensional tensor?) In the next recursion, difference(4) has the additional degree of freedom of playing with the direction of time: incursion versus recursion becomes possible. Let us reformulate this in terms of evolution theory: differences(1) is only variation. Difference(2) positions the variation selectively. The structure of the system determines the value of the variation. Difference(3) adds the time axis and therefore stabilization: some selections are selected for stabilization. Difference(4) adds globalization: some stabilizations are selected for globalization. Globalization means that a next-order systems level folds back on the system, closes it of, and makes it a possible carrier for a next order systems dynamics. In other words: stabilizations can be at variance and thus provide a next-order variation with reference to difference(1). Difference(4) can analogously be considered as a next-order selection mechanism. But the system now already contains time (difference(3)) and performs by using also time as a degree of freedom. The monad is constituted. It closes off --performing its own autopoiesis-- but remains open in terms of its stablizations (= second order variations) for other systems dimensions to build further upon. Because of its fourth dimension it is not subsumed but remains as an independent reality. Is this consonant with Logic in Reality? Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:33 PM To: lo...@physics.utoronto.ca Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Derrida's "diferAnce" and Kolmogorov's Information Operator Dear Bob, Loet, Gyuri and All, Progress?! Between Bob, Loet, and something of my logical approach, I see the art of understanding information developing in its necessarily dialectically connected synthetic and analytical aspects. Here are a few of the ideas suggested by Bobs historical notes, very useful for me, and by Loets elaboration of the complexity of difference. 1. The quantitative characteristics of information are more or less clear. My list of definitions was not intended to be exhaustive. 2. The semantic question of MacKay of what to send and where to send it is a process taking place in the senders mind. His definition of information as the change in a receivers mind-set and thus (concerned) with meaning also describes a dynamic process. He should have added simply that there is, when the signal is finally sent, a change in the senders mind-set also. These relations and changes can be described in my logical terms. 3. The Gestalt description of sufficiently complex information and meaning connected as figure and ground should have been obvious to me long ago, it wasnt, but it certainly is now. Logic in Reality provides a principled dynamic description of the linked changes of figure and ground, alternately predominating in the mind in two dimensions. The analogy is not perfect, however. One needs to keep in mind, here, the vertical, inter-level relation between information and meaning. It is this kind of information, and that in point 2., that I would like to describe as logical information operators. 4. Information without meaning, (Bobs paragraph 2) is information that is incapable of making a direct causal difference, to all intents and purposes, such as a data base. 5. The description of differences in terms of levels of complexity and recursion affecting Shannon-type information is essential because it provides an analytical basis of meaning also. Perhaps the sequence goes from vector to tensor to spinor (?) as you go up in dimensionality of the entropy to yield valuedness or valence? 6. The conc
[Fis] The creative tension between Habermas' critical theory and Luhmann's social systems theory: Communicative Competencies and the Structuration of Expectations
Communicative Competencies and the Structuration of Expectations: The creative tension between Habermas' critical theory and Luhmann's social systems theory <http://www.leydesdorff.net/complicity/index.htm> I elaborate on the tension between Luhmann's social systems theory and Habermas' theory of communicative action, and argue that this tension can be resolved by focusing on language as the interhuman medium of the communication which enables us to develop symbolically generalized media of communication such as truth, love, power, etc. Following Luhmann, the layers of self-organization among the differently codified subsystems of communication versus organization of meaning at contingent interfaces can analytically be distinguished as compatible, yet empirically researchable alternatives to Habermas' distinction between "system" and "lifeworld." Mediation by a facilitator can then be considered as a special case of organizing historically contingent translations among the evolutionarily developing fluxes of intentions and expectations. Accordingly, I suggest modifying Giddens' terminology into "a theory of the structuration of expectations." Complicity 7(2) (2002) in press; pdf-version at <http://www.leydesdorff.net/complicity/complicity.pdf> ** apologies for cross-postings Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Program Combine.EXE for Mapping Heterogeneous Network Analysis (Co-word, Co-authorship, and Journal Analysis combined)
Program <http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/animation/combine.exe> Combine.EXE for Mapping Heterogeneous Network Analysis (Co-word, Co-authorship, and Journal Analysis combined) This program enables the user to generate a representation of the co-words, coauthorship relations, and journals in a document set. Input is a set saved using ISIs Web of Science, and output is, among others, a file cosine.dat in Pajek format. The input file has to be saved in the tagged format from the Science Citation Index (Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index) at the Web-of-Science. The default filename savedrecs.txt should not be used, but data.txt instead. The program is based on DOS-legacy software. It runs in a MS-Dos Command Box under Windows. The programs and the input files have to be contained in the same folder. The output files are written into this directory. Please, note that existing files from a previous run are overwritten by the program. (The user is advised to save output elsewhere if one wishes to continue with these materials.) The routine creates the asymmetrical occurrence matrix (matrix.dbf which can be read in excel or spss), the symmetrical affiliations (co-occurrence) matrix (coocc.dbf, coocc.dat) and the cosine-normalized output (cosine.dbf, cosine.dat) based on the asymmetrical occurrence matrix. Words which occur only once in the input file are not included. If stopword.txt is made available in the same directory, these words are also excluded. A possible stopword list of 429 words in English is available <http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/animation/stopword.txt> here. (Originally from <http://www.lextek.com/manuals/onix/stopwords1.html> http://www.lextek.com/manuals/onix/stopwords1.html. This file has to be renamed stopword.txt.) The variable labels are also available in words.dbf; the order is; (1) title words; (2) author names; (3) journal names. The labels in the output files (cosine.dat and coocc.dat) can be edited (using an ASCII editor such as NotePad or WordPad) before feeding the files into Pajek. A series of these matrices can be used for animations (in <http://www.leydesdorff.net/visone/> the dynamic version of Visone, SVG2Pajek or SoNIA) after saving these in Pajek. The necessary steps in between are further explained in <http://www.leydesdorff.net/visone/lesson8.htm> this manual. See for examples: *<http://www.leydesdorff.net/mcallon/index.htm> "What Can Heterogeneity Add to the Scientometric Map? Steps towards algorithmic historiography" in: Festschrift for Michel Callons 65th birthday, Madeleine Akrich, Yannick Barthe, Fabian Muniesa, and Philip Mustar (Eds.). Paris: École Nationale Supérieure des Mines (forthcoming); http://www.leydesdorff.net/mcallon/mcallon.pdf> > * Eugene <http://www.leydesdorff.net/garfield_historiography/index.htm> Garfield and Algorithmic Historiography: Co-Words, Co-Authors, and Journal Names, Annals of Library and Informaiton Studies (forthcoming); http://www.leydesdorff.net/garfield_historiography/garfield_historiography. pdf> > Available at http://www.leydesdorff.net/software/animation ; apologies for cross-postings. _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Visiting Professor 2007-2010, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary Fellow 2007-2010, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] How fractional counting affects the Impact Factor?
How fractional <http://www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.pdf> counting affects the Impact Factor: Steps towards <http://www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.pdf> field-independent classifications of scholarly journals and literature Abstract The ISI-Impact Factors suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by counting citation weights fractionally instead of using integers? (i) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing papers and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (ii) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (iii) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. In addition to the Impact Factor, the Total Cites of the journals listed in the Science Citation Index (CD-Rom version) 2008 are analyzed in these terms. The between-group variances (among fields) are tested using a Poisson regression model. A list of fractionally counted Impact Factors and Total Cites for 2008 is available online at <http://www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls> http://www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls. Loet Leydesdorff University of Amsterdam Lutz Bornmann ETH Zurich ** apologies for cross-postings ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] The Triple Helix Perspective of Innovation Systems
The Triple Helix Perspective of Innovation Systems Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 22(7), in press; preprint version at http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4756 Authors: Loet Leydesdorff , Girma Zawdie (Submitted on 27 Jul 2010) Abstract: Alongside the neo-institutional model of networked relations among universities, industries, and governments, the Triple Helix can be provided with a neo-evolutionary interpretation as three selection environments operating upon one another: markets, organizations, and technological opportunities. How are technological innovation systems different from national ones? The three selection environments fulfill social functions: wealth creation, organization control, and organized knowledge production. The main carriers of this system--industry, government, and academia--provide the variation both recursively and by interacting among them under the pressure of competition. Empirical case studies enable us to understand how these evolutionary mechanisms can be expected to operate in historical instances. The model is needed for distinguishing, for example, between trajectories and regimes. ** apologies for cross postings Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 http://www.leydesdorff.net ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model
Dear Joe, Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are "its", that is, energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the material-energetic and non-material aspects of information. Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon's concept of information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, the Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality. One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with the biologically inspired concept of information as "a difference which makes a difference" (Bateson). This is observed information by a system which can provide meaning to the information. I would not call this "anti-realist", but "anti-positivist". The specification in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as different from res extensa). All of physics also has this epistemological status. All other science, too, but sometimes positivism is ideologically prevailing. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model
They simply are an "it-bit" like in Informational Structural Realism of Floridi who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an informational structure. The it-part is in the "structure" which assumes the specification of a system of reference. In evolutionary terms: structure is deterministic/selective; Shannon-type information measures only variation/uncertainty. Best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] citation indicators of scientific journals
** apologies for cross-postings
Local Citation Impact Environments of 9,162 Scientific Journals in 2009
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr09/index.htm>
One can click on any of the journal names below and obtain the Pajek file
corresponding to the citation impact environment ("cited") or the citation
activity environment ("citing") of the respective journal. See for further
explanation: <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04/index.htm> "Visualization of
the Citation Impact Environment of Scientific Journals: An online mapping
exercise," Journal of the Amererican Society for Information Science and
Technology 58(1), 25-38, 2007.
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04/jcr2pajek.pdf> Please,
provide this reference if you use the information.
2009
SCI <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr09/cited> and Social SCI combined, cited
SCI <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr09/citing> and Social SCI combined,
citing
9162 journals
The (local) matrices are since 2006 based on taking the one-percent
threshold of "total citations" after correction for within-journal
citations. This main-diagonal value is sometimes so large that it
overshadows the environment and therefore it is no longer included in
setting the threshold for the delineation of the set.
(with Lutz Bornmann), How fractional counting of citations affects the
Impact Factor: <http://www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.pdf>
Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of
science <http://www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.pdf>
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
(JASIST; in press)
The ISI-Impact Factors suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the
statistics-why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the
incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in
citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by
counting citation weights fractionally instead of using whole numbers in the
numerators? (i) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the
citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation
behavior among fields of science. (ii) Differences in the resulting
distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at
different levels of aggregation. (iii) Fractional counting can be
generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals,
and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can
be tested. A list of fractionally counted Impact Factors for 2008 is
available online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls.
The in-between group variance among the thirteen fields of science
identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is not
statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation
behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these
differences in fractionally counted citation distributions could not be used
as a reliable instrument for the classification.
(with Ismael Rafols), Indicators of the Interdisciplinarity of Journals:
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/interdisc/interdisc.pdf>
Diversity, Centrality, and Citations
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/interdisc/interdisc.pdf>
Journal of Informetrics (2011, forthcoming)
A citation-based indicator for interdisciplinarity has been missing hitherto
among the set of available journal indicators. In this study, we investigate
network indicators (betweenness centrality), journal indicators (Shannon
entropy, the Gini coefficient), and more recently proposed Rao-Stirling
measures for "interdisciplinarity." The latter index combines the statistics
of both citation distributions of journals (vector-based) and distances in
citation networks among journals (matrix-based). The effects of various
normalizations are specified and measured using the matrix of 8,207 journals
contained in the Journal Citation Reports of the (Social) Science Citation
Index 2008. Betweenness centrality in symmetrical (1-mode) cosine-normalized
networks provides an indicator outperforming betweenness in the asymmetrical
(2-mode) citation network. Among the vector-based indicators, Shannon
entropy performs better than the Gini coefficient, but is sensitive to size.
Science and Nature, for example, are indicated at the top of the list. The
new diversity measure provides reasonable results when (1 - cosine) is
assumed as a measure for the distance, but results using Euclidean distances
were difficult to interpret.
_
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Visiting Professor 2007-2010, <http://www.istic.a
Re: [Fis] Modeling the concept of information
Question: how closely a theory of information must be wedded to physics. Answer: [.] So, to conclude the answer to yout question, yes indeed there exists a model that shows a comprehensive picture of Physics in its totality. Karl In my opinion, this does not answer the question. Shannon's H is defined mathematically and yet content-free. It can be wedded to physics because S = k(B) H. S is thermodynamic entropy; k(B) the Boltzmann constant which also provides the dimensionality (Joule/Kelvin). Shannon entropy can be expresses, for example, in bits and this measure is dimensionless. This relates to the other discussion about the passing of information among levels. The information obtains meaning by specifying the system(s) of reference. These latter are different when one passes among levels and thus the dimensionality of the measure can also be expected to change. Within this framework, physics is the special case when entropy can be measured in Joule/Kelvin. Probabilistic entropy can be measured in any system of reference because the notion is mathematical and content-free. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion?
Dear Bob, Perhaps, you can explain a bit and provide examples of apophatic considerations which can be relevant in explaining ecosystems. I find it not difficult at all to find sociological examples. For example, the communication of meaning (unlike the communication of information) cannot directly be observed, but entertaining this hypothesis enriches our understanding of the phenomena. In sociology, Giddens, for example, has called this a focus on "instantiations". Social structures remain latent, and accordingly operate in a virtual reality. In other words (Husserl) one can consider these orders of expectations res cogitans as different from res extensa. Is there something similar in biology? I assume that Maturana would deny it because the focus in the theory of autopoiesis is very much on the observables and observed information as different from expected information. I always thought that this was a biologistic a priori, but you seem to say that in biology there is also room for assuming that unobservables are important for the explanation. I can easily see that this may cross the borderline of becoming obscure. How does one prevent that? It would be most helpful if you can provide examples. Best wishes, Loet ____ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ -Original Message- From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Robert Ulanowicz Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 7:30 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Quoting "Pedro C. Marijuan" : > The ratio that Bob Ulanowicz has pointed out in the self-organization > processes of ecosystems looks very important. Is it an "informational > signature" that we can find in other fields (eg, competing companies, > financial flows, neurodynamic sel-organization) accompanying problem > solving operations performed in a populational way? Does a similar > ratio appears in microphysical realms? Maybe Bob will be willing to > expand on the emergence of that complexity indicator. I should also > point to the strong regularities and ratios, and power laws, that Dear Pedro, It's most gratifying to me that you feel the ratio between constraint and flexibility is an important topic. I, too, believe it is of extreme importance! Of course, I didn't think up this balance. I actually resisted for a long while what my data on ecosystem networks were telling me. But there was no denying that the ratio between constraint and flexibility hovered around the ratio 1/e (about 38%). First there are the philosophical implications. Science for the most part is an apodictic enterprise. Laws and mechanisms prevail everywhere. Information theory (at least the Shannon type) begins, however, with the apophatic - the very lack of constraint. Constraint is calculated indirectly by difference (the "entropy" minus the conditional entropy). What the data on ecosystem networks are saying is that the apophatic is more prevalent than the apodictic - flexibility is more important to persistent systems than their internal organizational constraints. This is a major departure from science-as-usual. It says we have been looking at nature (at least in its complex manifestations) with one eye closed. It is necessary to address the apophatic before we can gain a full picture of how they endure over time. Fortunately, information theory allows us to quantify the apophatic. (I realize that many dismiss the Shannon approach to information, but that's usually because they are dissatisfied with how it quantifies [or doesn't adequately quantify] the apodictic nature of information. Such may be the case. The strength of the Shannon approach, however, is that it quantifies *both* the apodictic and the apophatic in the same mathematical terminology. That is no small accomplishment, especially if more than half the story lies beyond the purview of apodictic science.) Being able to quantify that which is missing allows us, in almost oxymoronic fashion, to remediate some problems with systems. For example, in a ms to be published on network methods in marine systems I demonstrate how eutrophic estuarine systems are lacking in flexibility and how variational techniques can reveal ways to move the system back towards a more sustainable balance between constraint and flexibility. In fact, the entire effort to preserve biodiversity rests, not on apodictic premises, but rather on apophatic considerations (which is why, until now, theoretical justification for the effort has remained wanting). As for domains outside of ecology, Koichiro has already told us that the ratio of meaning to ambiguity in all natural languages th
[Fis] Problems of normalization for differences in citation behavior among fields of science
Remaining problems with the <http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2379> "New Crown Indicator" (MNCS) of the CWTS available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2379 In their article, entitled "Towards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations," Waltman et al. (2010; at arXiv:1003.2167 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2167> ) show that the "old crown indicator" of CWTS in Leiden was mathematically inconsistent and that one should move to the normalization as applied in the "new crown indicator." Although we now agree about the statistical normalization, the "new crown indicator" inherits the scientometric problems of the "old" one in treating subject categories of journals as a standard for normalizing differences in citation behavior among fields of science. We propose fractional counting of the citations in the citing documents as an alternative normalization for differences in citation behavior among fields of science. We further note that the "mean" is not a proper statistics for measuring differences among skewed distributions. Without changing the acronym of "MNCS," one could define the "Median Normalized Citation Score." The median is by definition equal to the 50th percentile. The indicator can thus easily be extended with the 1% (= 99th percentile) most highly-cited papers. The seeming disadvantage of having to use non-parametric statistics is more than compensated by possible gains in the precision. Authors: Loet Leydesdorff <http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Leydesdorff_L/0/1/0/all/0/1> , Tobias Opthof <http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Opthof_T/0/1/0/all/0/1> _ How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines <http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2465> available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2465 Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multi-disciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network. Authors: Loet Leydesdorff <http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Leydesdorff_L/0/1/0/all/0/1> , Jung C. Shin <http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Shin_J/0/1/0/all/0/1> ** apologies for cross-postings _ Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Visiting Professor 2007-2010, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> Beijing; Honorary Fellow 2007-2010, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> University of Sussex Now available: <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378> The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 18.95; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956> The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ; <http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816> The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
