SV: [Fis] Re: info meaning

[Søren Brier]

Dear Stan

Really nice work. I strongly agree. But this discussion is paradigmatic and
your represent a Peircean  inspired semiotic ontology that we may be the
only two on the list that subscribe to, because we do not think that you can
solve the problem of meaning without chancing into this paradigmatic frame.
I have tried to outline the view in a way that is as compatible as possible
with both the natural sciences as well as the cybernetic informational
paradigm in my coming book.

Venlig hilsen/best wishes
Søren Brier,  http://uk.cbs.dk/content/view/full/9710
 
Cybersemiotics book forthcoming at UTP
http://www.utppublishing.com/pubstore/merchant.ihtml?pid=8894lastcatid=116;
step=4

 


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På
vegne af Stanley N. Salthe
Sendt: 2. oktober 2007 22:25
Til: fis@listas.unizar.es
Emne: Re: [Fis] Re: info  meaning

Here I react to Guy's

 Greetings All,

 In my view  meaning  exists (or not) exclusively within systems.  It 
exists to the extent that inputs (incoming information) resonate within 
the structure of the system.  The resonance can either reinforce the 
existing architecture (confirmation), destabilize it (e.g., cognitive 
disequilibrium), or construct new features of the architecture (e.g., 
learning).  Social communication often involves the goal of 
re-constructing architectural elements present in the mind of one agent 
by another agent.  I am using highly metaphorical language here, but a 
very straightforward example of this at the molecular level is the 
transfer of structural information between prions and similar proteins 
folded in ordinary  ways.  In this sense, meaning itself cannot be 
transferred between agents; although a new instance of meaning can be
constructed.
 This is essentially the idea behind the Dawkins model of populations 
of memes (concept analogs of genes).
 S:  This is placing meaning in the mode of formal causation.  I have
argued that if we are to generalize meaning into nature generally, we need
to locate it in causality.  So far we're in agreement.  But I have further
suggested that meaning inheres in final causation, and in particuar NOT in
formal causation.  The architecture of a system is its own form -- that
which acts.  These acts are directed at goals (finalities as projects) --
are meaningful to the system as separate from it own being.  Now, if
resonant inputs to a system are nonreinforcing, they contradict a system's
finalities, and will then elicit learning or avoidance.

 From this point of view, the  exactness  of a meaning doesn t seem 
 to
make sense.  A meaning defines itself without error.  It would make 
sense, however, to talk about the degree of similarity between meanings 
when the social goal was to replicate a particular instance of meaning.
  S: Here Guy approaches finality.

Perhaps this is what Jerry meant and I have over-analyzed the idea 
here, but if this is a novel or erroneous perspective I would like to 
see some discussion of it.  I guess my main point here is to separate 
the notion of meaningfulness from the social context that demands the 
sharing of meanings and constrains the construction of meanings to 
resonate at the level of the social network.
  S: Here Guy separates meaning from formality (the social context), and
this seems to implicitly place it , in agreement with me, in finality
(efficient causes and material causes would not be involved in meaning).

STAN


 Regards,

 Guy Hoelzer


 on 10/2/07 3:24 AM, Pedro Marijuan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Dear colleagues,

 Answering to a couple of Jerry's questions,




Under what circumstances can the speaker's meaning or the writer's 
meaning be _exact_?

 Is _meaning_ a momentary impulse with potential for settling into a 
local minimum in the biochemical dynamic?



 A previous point could be---what entities are capable of elaborating 
that obscure item we call meaning? Just anything (eg, some parties 
have stated that molecules or atoms may communicate), or only the 
living beings?

 My understanding of what Bob has proposed along the POE guideliness is 
that only the living cell would be capable --and of course, all the 
further more complex organisms.  This point is of some relevance.



After decoding and interpretation of the organic codes, the meaning of 
my message about meaning and information may have meaning to you.



 Maybe. But I suffer some information overload (perhaps overload is 
just the incapablity to elaborate meaning under the present channels or 
means of communication).

 best

 Pedro
 =
 Pedro C. Marijun
 Ctedra SAMCA
 Institute of Engineering Research of Aragon (I3A) Maria de Luna, 3. 
 CPS, Univ. of Zaragoza
 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
 TEL. (34) 976 762761 and 762707, FAX (34) 976 762043
 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal

[Søren Brier]

Dear Christophe

May I point out then that meaning of information is not information, but 
meaning and therefore not comprehensible in information theory or science?

Venlig hilsen/best wishes
Søren Brier
Professor of semiotics at Department of International Studies of Culture and 
Communication, CBS,
Dalgas Have 15, DK-2000 Frederiksberg. Tel. (+ 45) 38153132
Ed. Cybernetics  Human Knowing http://www.imprint.co.uk/CHK/ , Subscription $ 
104
New book: Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough, Toronto University 
Press. Now also a Google Book.

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of 
Christophe Menant [christophe.men...@hotmail.fr]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:30 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal

Dear all,
As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, 
let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion 
of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective.
Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity 
to care about information before the coming up of life on earth.
Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help 
the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage 
information.
A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon 
transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information 
being transmitted thru the channel.
The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, 
aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, …
As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of 
information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs 
this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or uses it in order to satisfy 
a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The 
constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are 
then organic (stay alive, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look 
for happiness, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an 
approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usable for 
animals and humans and robots (1), (2).
This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex 
subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in 
simple terms.
All the best
Christophe
(1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf
(2) 
http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf

 Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200
 To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es
 From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za
 Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal

 At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote:
 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?

 Dear Loet,

 It is usually defined as a bit, which is understood as a binary distinction,
 wherefore the it from bit formulation found in a number of places, but
 the term is due, I believe, to John Wheeler. More typically the term is
 related to entropy considerations (as in the black hole case). My
 derivation is by dimensional analysis. Entropy is the compliment
 of information. If we take the maximal entropy of a system by
 relaxing all constraints with no other change in macroscopic
 parametres (impossible in practice, but possible in the imagination),
 and subtract from this the statistical entropy using Boltzman's
 formulation based on the number of complexions of the system,
 we get negentropy, which can be identified with the information
 in the system. This will break up into two parts, configurational
 and statistical. The it from bit view is usually talking of configurational
 information. The difference between the two is largely a matter of relative
 time scale, butt the time scale differences are typically large, so
 there is a qualitative difference. So negentropy (physical information)
 should be in entropy units. Entropy, as you point out, can

Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal

[Søren Brier]

Dear Stan

In general I can accept the drift of most of your answers, but I think you 
overlook one important process in the living systems, they experience the 
universe and the more they develop the more refined their experience becomes. 
Then they start to talk about them, later to write tem down and then to make 
institution to discuss and develop them such as religion and science. 

Venlig hilsen/best wishes
Søren Brier
Professor of semiotics at Department of International Studies of Culture and 
Communication, CBS,
Dalgas Have 15, DK-2000 Frederiksberg. Tel. (+ 45) 38153132
Ed. Cybernetics  Human Knowing http://www.imprint.co.uk/CHK/ , Subscription $ 
104
New book: Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough, Toronto University 
Press. Now also a Google Book.

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of 
ssal...@binghamton.edu [ssal...@binghamton.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 3:53 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal

Commenting upon Christophe's:

C: Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity
to care about information before the coming up of life on earth.

-snip-: C: I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists
because there is a system that needs this meaning,

S:  As a materialist, I am unable to see that something completely new can
come into being without any precursor.  Thus, our 'meaning' had to have had a
precursor relationship.  We are aided in identifying this by using the 
Aristotelian
causal analysis, and we can find the general precursor of meaning in final 
cause.
The universe itself, being in a non-equilibrium condition since its inception 
has
the deepest finality of all -- the tendency toward thermodynamic equilibrium.
Thus everything that happens, at all scales, has the meaning of furthering
universal equilibration.  Our own human finalities are refinements added to 
this.

C: Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to
help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage
information.

   S:  All of the natural world as we name and model it is a 'human invention'.

Then Joseph says:  I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the
system is the meaning of the information. System and meaning are not totally
separable. One's perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be.

S: The universe fits this 'bill' nicely!

then Chritophe replies: Yes Joseph, you are right. As the satisfaction of the
constraint is mandatory for the system to maintain its nature, system and
constraint are indeed tightly linked.
The “stay alive” constraint came up on earth with the first organisms that had 
to
maintain a local far from equilibrium status. The existence of the constraint
goes with the being of the living entity.

 S: Once again, the universe fits this 'bill'.

then Søren replies: May I point out then that meaning of information is not
information, but meaning and therefore not comprehensible in information
theory or science?

S: Yes indeed.  In the Aristotelian causal analysis, the system embodies 
formal
causes.  Its aims are the finalities.

Søren adds:  Again, I would like to point out that a local far from equilibrium
status is not enough to define life. It only defines a chemical aspect of 
living
system as well as many other non-living systems. Our problem is that
something about life evades our present scientific attempts to find a scientific
model to describe it, because meaning is not a scientific concept and neither s
first person consciousness, even if we include the largest informational
paradigm as long as it is ontologically based on matter, energy and information
only..

S: What the living bring in is the preservation and multiplication of 
historical
accidental configurations, which, nodding to John, increases dramatically the
degrees of freedom in any system.  Their 'role' in the universe's project is to
ferret out energy gradients that do not dissipate rapidly by conduction alone.
Thus, the living, as dissipative structures, are basically convection centers.

STAN


fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

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



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

Re: [Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner

[Søren Brier]

Dear Loet and other friends

It is my guess that qualia is a co-production of the physical world, our 
perception apparatus biological development or  intentional awareness in a 
life world driven by psychological interests and a cultural linguistic 
conceptual shaping of our sense experiences, which by the way may also have had 
an evolutionary impact as our brains seem to have been under the selection 
pressure of being able to pride the biological prerequisites for language 
production.

Venlig hilsen/best wishes
Søren Brier

Professor in the Semiotics of Information, Cognition and Communication Science
Department of International Culture and Communication Studies, Copenhagen 
Business School
Dalgas Have 15, room 2V053, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark, +45 38153132
Ed. in Chief of Cybernetics  Human Knowing: http://www.chkjournal.org/



Fra: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På 
vegne af Loet Leydesdorff
Sendt: 4. november 2010 15:32
Til: 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Emne: Re: [Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner

Dear Joe, Stan, and colleagues,

It occurred to me that this is in a certain sense a repeat of the 
nominalism/realism discussion. With his heavy emphasis on being/not-being, Joe 
is on the realist side, while Stan's qualia are nominalistic. I assume that 
they don't dwell around like the Greek Gods, but are reflexive constructs 
shaped in scholarly discourse that clarifies them. This discussion makes also 
clear to me why Joe's approach is called Logic in Reality and not Reality in 
Logic. Eventually, the grounding has a direction.

I would consider the vagueness as tangential to the scholarly discourse; the 
external referent. The further specification - the updating of hypotheses - 
enables us to define new puzzles and thus perhaps to improve the specification. 
This reality (as cogitatum part of res cogitans) cannot be captured with 
derivatives from esse. One would need derivatives from frangere - fractals, 
fragments, fragile - for the understanding. The models remain volatile albeit 
more symbolically generalized than common language.

With best wishes,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:05 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Fwd: [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner


-- Forwarded message --
From: Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edumailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu
Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Discussion Colophon] From J.Brenner
To: Pedro C. Marijuan 
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es


A comment on Joseph's concluding statement:  It seems clear to me that there is 
a world of qualia (spiritual realm, sentience, Peirce's 'universal mind', 
whatever).  I believe that the connection between this and the 
physical/material world has increased in sharpness/definiteness at certain 
locales (like the earth) during the development of the universe.  It does not, 
however, seem plausible that this connection is made 'from the bottom up' via 
the QM realm, as in Conrad's 'fluctuons'.  The glut of levels in the material 
world just presents too many barriers for that to be the case.  Development 
generally goes from vaguer to increasingly more definite, and our awareness of 
qualia likely has had that kind of development, individually during our 
ontogeny.

STAN
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:
(For unknown reasons this message didn't went through last Tuesday---P.)

 Mensaje original 
Asunto:

The Fluctuon Model; Colophon

Fecha:

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:44:48 +0100

De:

Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch

Responder a:

Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch

Para:

Pedro C. Marijuan 
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis 
fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es


Dear All,

Pedro has asked me to renew with an earlier FIS Group practice and write a 
colophon for our discussion of the fluctuon model of Michael Conrad. Actually, 
not much has happened with regard to evidence for or against. There is a lot of 
information in the latest StanLoet exchange, however, that has made the 
exercise worthwhile. There has also been a discussion of fluctuations, but 
essentially of fluctuations in our thermodynamic world. Most interesting, but 
of no direct help with the original task.

I therefore now exercise my editorial authority by offering, by way of 
colophon

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong) on phenomenology and Cybersemiotics

[Søren Brier]

Dear Joseph

I am sorry not to have had time this semester to participate in the discussion 
this semester, but I want to support your approach of taking a phenomenological 
aspect seriously. I cannot see how we can avoid taken the human experience 
serious as an important part of reality, which is radically different from both 
the material and the informational aspect of reality.

This is a major point in my Cybersemiotics and why the other half of the title 
says Why information is not enough. Take a look in Google book version. See 
address in signature.  For those interested I add ULRs for summarizing articles 
on the subject: from the book : INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION
http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/1-Brier.pdf and my 
article from the special issue of Entropy on Cybersemiotics  
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/8/1902/pdf   (whole issue of Entropy with 
other relevant article: 
http://www.mdpi.com/search/?s_journal=entropys_special_issue=317 ).

It is true that a phenomenological  approach destroys a pure physicalistic 
vision of science, which - even in its information theoretical versions - is 
identified with the scientific approach. This is the idea that we can explain 
our own experience and behavior from a deep analytical investigation of the 
part of reality that is outside our personal consciousness. Often it is 
expressed in the belief that physical or informational deep laws of nature can 
explain our consciousness and its content without taking qualia of sense 
experiences, subjectivity, will and desires into considerations. This is often 
called eliminative materialism. But are matter and information more real than 
experiences? All our knowledge is based on experience. This is why computers 
and robots do not know anything but only can react adequately to situations.


Venlig hilsen/best wishes
Søren Brier

Professor in the Semiotics of Information, Cognition and Communication Science
Department of International Culture and Communication Studies, Copenhagen 
Business School
Cybersemiotics: Why Information is not enough, Toronto University Press, 2008: 
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ueiv9cRR9OQCprintsec=frontcoverdq=Cybersemioticshl=dacd=1#v=onepageq=f=false
 .


Fra: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På 
vegne af Joseph Brenner
Sendt: 11. december 2010 18:59
Til: fis
Emne: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE  INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

Dear All,

I return to the original definition of this project because I am not satisfied 
with its evolution. There are points in Professor Zhong's perspective on 
(natural) intelligence that I still would like to call attention to, apart from 
the connection between intelligence and information.

1. intelligence as wealth implies something acquired, a posteriori, from 
experience, as well as some innate capacity for processing that experience. 
There are thus two aspects and their interaction to be taken into account.

2. the secrets of intelligence, human thinking in particular could be sought 
in the above.

3. how intelligence is produced by brains. Neurology and cognitive science 
have provided fantastic new insights, and even possible semi-quantitative 
measures of intelligence as capacity for processing some simple stimuli, but 
something is still being missed.

I therefore make this plea for a phenomenological approach, recognizing that 
since Petitot and Varela, responsible phenomenology, like responsible dualism, 
can be naturalized, that is, made part of science.

A coherent phenomenological approach might for example distinguish between the 
operation of intelligence leading to a variety of options vs. a simple 
cognitive process ending in a more or less clear-cut thought.

In any case, I have taken to heart comments that suggest that I am trying 
somehow to overturn the results, and subvert the use, of the scientific method. 
As a physical scientist, I can only conclude that I have badly expressed my 
intention, which is to support physical science by pointing out aspects and 
implications that may have been missed, due to a reliance on classical logic.

Thus I have a positive reaction to Pedro's concept of trialism, since my 
logical approach is ternary, but the connection should be explored in another 
thread.

Thanks and best wishes,

Joseph
- Original Message -
From: Pedro C. Marijuanmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
To: fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 1:55 PM
Subject: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE  INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)


Intelligence and Information
Yi-Xin-Zhong
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing100876, China
yxzh...@ieee.orgmailto:yxzh...@ieee.org


1. The Study of Intelligence Science

Intelligence has been very well regarded as the most valuable wealth for 
mankind, compared with other attributions like constitution and strength, and 
the study of intelligence science should therefore be the greatest issue

Re: [Fis] “The information is “Real” or “Mental” depending of point of view!”.

[Søren Brier]

Dear Krassimir

When I cut up brains in my young days I never found any mental contend in 
brains.  This inside outside metaphor is very interesting, but I am not sure it 
is productive for the advancement of knowledge. “The brain “ is  our 
physiological model of  the central nervous system and there is nothing in our 
knowledge from that level of reality that help us making a model of how mental 
qualia is produced. That does not change when we go to the quantum level. We 
lack a transdisciplinary model encompassing the quantitative, the qualitative 
and the formal to get to a more fruitful formulation of the problem.
Best
Søren Brier

From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> On Behalf Of Krassimir Markov
Sent: 28. april 2018 13:23
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] “The information is “Real” or “Mental” depending of point of 
view!”.

Dear Mark and Colleagues,

The question “Is information physical?” is very important as well as so 
important are the questions “Is information chemical?”, “Is information 
mechanical?”, “Is information electronic?”, and etc. .
All questions above may be summarized to “Is information real?” and, of course, 
the question “Is information mental?” immediately rises!
My answer to all these question is “YES!”.
At the first place, let me remember what is “Real” and what is “Mental”.
I have written, that our brains are prisoners in the Plato sense (remember the 
Plato “Prisoners in the cave”).
All what is outside the brain is reflected true the receptors (sensors).
So, the “Real” is what exists outside my brain and “Mental” is what is inside 
of my brain.
Taking in account current knowledge about brain, we may say that the same 
classification may be applied for the brain subsystems.
The Right brain hemisphere is outside of the Left one.
So the first is “Real” for the second and vice versa, and corresponded 
“internal brain receptors” exist.
Going further, we may see the same for the different zones of the Right and 
Left hemispheres.
My brain is outside of yours as well as your brains are outside of mine.
And what is “Mental” for you is “Real” for me.
The conclusion is: “The information is “Real” or “Mental” depending of point of 
view!”.

To be continued...

Friendly greetings
Krassimir



From: John Collier<mailto:ag...@ncf.ca>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 1:00 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical? OR Does the information exist 
without the carrier?

Dear group,

I think that linguistic philosophy is largely thought now to be a dead end. I 
agree with the second point, though.

I especially agree with Loet's point in response to Lou Kauffman. Scientific 
measurement, not to even mention testing of hypotheses.

My preference rather than for communications studies is general systems theory, 
which applies to all levels. I don't think a full reduction to physics, even in 
some physical sciences like mineralogy, is possible.

Best,
John
On 2018/04/28 8:28 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
Dear colleagues,

Not only logic, but also language is not directly and one-to-one coupled to 
physics. The hidden positivism of claiming priority for physics by some of us, 
is at odds with the linguistic turn in the philosophy of science. Furthermore, 
the issue is not directly related to the definition of information as 
probablistic entropy or otherwise.

I agree with most of what Lou Kauffman said, but:

We come to investigate both reason and physicality through each other and our 
ability to sense and feel.
Sensing and feeling and measurement are our terms for those places where 
concept and the physical arise together in our perception.
The emphasis in the above remains on the individual sensing and feeling, 
mediated by measurement. However, scientific observation is not such immediate 
feeling, but careful and discursively constructed articulations of expectations 
which are tested against observations. The cocon of language (a la Maturana) is 
opened at specific places which are carefully reasoned. The feelings do enter 
only after having been articulated into observational reports. The latter 
contain knowledge claims which are validated discursively. No escape! The 
observations enable us to improve the codification in the specialist language 
(jargon).

Physics is part of this edifice of science. It has no privileged access to 
reality, but constructs its own reality. Nobody senses the particles at CERN. 
The observational reports are readings from an instrument which have to be 
discussed before one can interpret.

If any science can claim priority, it is communication studies. The specialist 
languages are shaped in processes of communication. How does this work? Can it 
be improved?

Best,
Loet




5. Beyond those places where significant related pairs of opposites that cannot 
be separated (complementarities) occur there is our (in at least my tradition)
persona

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION IS PROCESSING. Information as process

[Søren Brier]

Joseph

I did not get the file.

 Søren

From: Fis  On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
Sent: 11. maj 2018 19:08
To: 'Krassimir Markov' ; karl.javors...@gmail.com; 'Arturo 
Tozzi' 
Cc: 'fis' 
Subject: Re: [Fis] INFORMATION IS PROCESSING. Information as process

Perhaps you will also be interested in my brief comments on 
information-as-process in my 2011 paper in Information 2(3), 560-578. It seems 
a bit too simple to say that a computer, machine, whatever can process all 
reflections if these include high-level complex exchanges of energy in and 
between human brains Does not something get lost in that process?

Best,

Joseph



From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Krassimir Markov
Sent: vendredi, 11 mai 2018 16:13
To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Arturo Tozzi
Cc: fis
Subject: [Fis] INFORMATION IS PROCESSING the reflections


Dear Colleagues,

During activity of Infos' consciousness, reflections are combined and as a 
result the new ones may be created and stored in the Infos memory.
Processing of some reflections may cause some activity, too.

In other words, it doesn't matter what kind of Infos is active - the result is 
the same!

INFORMATION IS PROCESSING the reflections that has as final result an activity 
or new reflections.

Usually, the results of such processing are called "Information".

Of course, to be active means to be real (material, physical) and to have 
energy for processing.
To store reflections, material objects are needed, i.e. "carriers".

This is the main interconnection between mater, energy, and information.

No Information exist anywhere - only reflections - REAL, PHYSICAL REFLECTIONS!
Reflections in real, physical objects, including living creatures.
Including Brain!

Main difference between living and not living mater is possibility for 
processing of reflections.

Of course, many levels of such processing exist.
Maybe, the most complex is the social one.
Maybe, the simplest one is in the cells...

Could the Machine process reflections? Still no answer ...
But the Computer can!

"That's All Folks!"

Friendly greetings
Krassimir





From: Karl Javorszky
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 1:20 PM
To: Arturo Tozzi
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] [FIS] Is information physical?

Dear Arturo,


There were some reports in clinical psychology, about 30 years ago, that relate 
to the question whether a machine can pretend to be a therapist. That was the 
time as computers could newly be used in an interactive fashion, and the Rogers 
techniques were a current discovery.
(Rogers developed a dialogue method where one does not address the contents of 
what the patient says, but rather the emotional aspects of the message, assumed 
to be at work in the patient.)

They then said, that in some cases it was indistinguishable, whether a human or 
a machine provides the answer to a patient's elucidations.

Progress since then has surely made possible to create machines that are 
indistinguishable in interaction to humans. Indeed, what is called "expert 
systems ", are widely used in many fields. If the interaction is rational,  
that is: formally equivalent to a logical discussion modi Wittgenstein, the 
difference in: "who arrived at this answer, machinery or a human", becomes 
irrelevant.

Artistry, intuition, creativity are presently seen as not possible to translate 
into Wittgenstein sentences. Maybe the inner instincts are not yet well 
understood. But!: there are some who are busily undermining the current 
fundamentals of rational thinking. So there is hope that we shall live to 
experience the ultimate disillusionment,  namely that humans are a 
combinatorial tautology.

Accordingly, may I respectfully express opposing views to what you state: that 
machines and humans are of incompatible builds. There are hints that as far as 
rational capabilities go, the same principles apply. There is a rest, you say, 
which is not of this kind. The counter argument says that irrational processes 
do not take place in organisms, therefore what you refer to belongs to the main 
process, maybe like waste belongs to the organism's principle. This view draws 
a picture of a functional biotope, in which the waste of one kind of organism 
is raw material for a different kind.

Karl

> schrieb am Do., 10. Mai 
2018 15:24:

Dear Bruno,
You state:
"IF indexical digital mechanism is correct in the cognitive science,
THEN "physical" has to be defined entirely in arithmetical term, i.e. 
"physical" becomes a mathematical notion.
...Indexical digital mechanism is the hypothesis that there is a level of 
description of the brain/body such that I would survive, or "not feel any 
change" if my 

Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

[Søren Brier]

Dear Mark

Using 'physical' this way it just tends to mean 'real', but that raises the 
problem of how to define real. Is chance real? I Gödel's theorem or mathematics 
and logic in general (the world of form)? Is subjectivity and self-awareness, 
qualia? I do believe you are a conscious subject with feelings, but I cannot 
feel it, see it, measure it. Is it physical then?? I only see what you write 
and your behavior. And are the meaning of your sentences physical? So here we 
touch phenomenology (the experiential) and hermeneutics (meaning and 
interpretation) and more generally semiotics (the meaning of signs in cognition 
and communication). We have problems encompassing these aspects in the natural, 
the quantitative and the technical sciences that makes up the foundation of 
most conceptions of information science.

  Best
  Søren

Fra: Fis  På vegne af Krassimir Markov
Sendt: 17. maj 2018 11:33
Til: fis@listas.unizar.es; Burgin, Mark 
Emne: Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

Dear Mark and FIS Colleagues,

First of all. I support the idea of Mark to write a paper and to publish it in 
IJ ITA.
It will be nice to continue our common work this way.

At the second place, I want to point that till now the discussion on
Is information physical?
was more-less chaotic - we had no thesis and antithesis to discuss and to come 
to some conclusions.

I think now, the Mark's letter may be used as the needed thesis.

What about the ant-thesis? Well, I will try to write something below.


For me, physical, structural and mental  are one and the same.

Mental means physical reflections and physical processes in the Infos 
consciousness. I.e. "physical" include "mental".

Structure (as I understand this concept) is mental reflection of the 
relationships "between" and/or "in" real (physical) entities as well as 
"between" and/or "in" mental (physical) entities.

I.e. "physical" include "mental" include "structural".

Finally, IF  "information is physical, structural and mental" THEN simply the  
"information is physical"!

Friendly greetings
Krassimir





From: Burgin, Mark
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 5:20 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

   Dear FISers,
   It was an interesting discussion, in which many highly intelligent and 
creative individuals participated expressing different points of view. Many 
interesting ideas were suggested. As a conclusion to this discussion, I would 
like to suggest a logical analysis of the problem based on our intrinsic and 
often tacit assumptions.

   To great extent, our possibility to answer the question "Is information 
physical? " depends on our model of the world. Note that here physical means 
the nature of information and not its substance, or more exactly, the substance 
of its carrier, which can be physical, chemical biological or quantum. By the 
way, expression "quantum information" is only the way of expressing that the 
carrier of information belongs to the quantum level of nature. This is similar 
to the expressions "mixed numbers" or "decimal numbers", which are only forms 
or number representations and not numbers themselves.

  If we assume that there is only the physical world, we have, at first, to 
answer the question "Does information exist? " All FISers assume that 
information exists. Otherwise, they would not participate in our discussions. 
However, some people think differently (cf., for example, Furner, J. (2004) 
Information studies without information).

   Now assuming that information exists, we have only one option, namely, to 
admit that information is physical because only physical things exist.
   If we assume that there are two worlds - information is physical, we have 
three options assuming that information exists:
- information is physical
- information is mental
- information is both physical and mental

Finally, coming to the Existential Triad of the World, which comprises three 
worlds - the physical world, the mental world and the world of structures, we 
have seven options assuming that information exists:
- information is physical
- information is mental
- information is structural
- information is both physical and mental
- information is both physical and structural
- information is both structural and mental
- information is physical, structural and mental

The solution suggested by the general theory of information tries to avoid 
unnecessary multiplication of essences suggesting that information (in a 
general sense) exists in all three worlds but ... in the physical world, it is 
called energy, in the mental world, it is called mental energy, and in the 
world of structures, it is called information (in the strict sense). This 
conclusion well correlates with the suggestion of Mark Johnson that information 
is both 

Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

[Søren Brier]

Dear Christoph

I am not sure what you mean. In my understanding the important dynamics in 
Peirce's pragmaticist semiotics is that symbols grow and create habits in a web 
of signs in nature as well as in culture viewing the central dynamic process in 
the cosmos as well as man  to be of symbolic nature that through evolution and 
history develops reasoning in many interlocking dimension.

Best
   Søren

From: Christophe Menant <christophe.men...@hotmail.fr>
Sent: 25. maj 2018 09:08
To: Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk>; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: RE: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis


Dear Soren,
You are right to recall that a transdisciplinary theory of cognition and 
communication has to include meaning. But I'm not sure that the Peircean 
approach is enough for that.
The triad (Object, Sign, Interpretant) positions the Interpretant as being the 
meaning of the Sign created by the Interpreter. But Peirce does not tell much 
about a possible content of the Interpreter. He does not tell what is for him a 
process of meaning generation. And this, I feel,  should bring us to be 
cautious about using Peirce in subjects dealing with meaning generation.
Best
Christophe


De : Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> de 
la part de Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>>
Envoyé : jeudi 24 mai 2018 17:44
À : Loet Leydesdorff; Burgin, Mark; Krassimir Markov; 
fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Objet : Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis


Dear Mark, Loet and others



My point was that all the aspects I mention are part of a reality that is 
bigger than what we can grasp under the realm of physical science. Reality is 
bigger than physicalism. Quantitative forms of information measurements can be 
useful in many ways, but they are not sufficient for at transdisciplinary 
theory of cognition and communication. As Loet write then we have to include 
meaning. In what framework can we do that? The natural science do not have 
experience and meaning in their conceptual foundations. We can try to develop a 
logical approach like Mark and Peirce do. Where Mark stays in the structural 
dimension and Loet wants to  enter res cogitans by probability measures, , 
maybe because a  philosophical framework that does not allow meaning to be 
real. But Peirce keeps working with the metaphysical stipulations until he 
reaches a framework that can integrate experience, meaning and logic in one 
theory, namely his triadic pragmaticist semiotics. I am fascinated by it 
because I think it is unique, but many researcher do not want to use it, 
because its change in metaphysics in developing out of Descartes dualism, all 
though most of us agrees that it is too limited to work in the modern 
scientific ontology of irreversible time, that Prigogine developed. Who other 
than Peirce has developed on non-dualist non-foundationalist transdisciplinary 
semiotic process philosophy integrating animal (biosemiotics), human evolution, 
history and language development in a consistent theory of the development of 
human consciousness?



Best

   Søren





From: l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> 
<leydesdo...@gmail.com<mailto:leydesdo...@gmail.com>> On Behalf Of Loet 
Leydesdorff
Sent: 24. maj 2018 07:45
To: Burgin, Mark <mbur...@math.ucla.edu<mailto:mbur...@math.ucla.edu>>; Søren 
Brier <sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>>; Krassimir Markov 
<mar...@foibg.com<mailto:mar...@foibg.com>>; 
fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis



Dear Mark, Soren, and colleagues,



The easiest distinction is perhaps Descartes' one between res cogitans and res 
extensa as two different realities. Our knowledge in each case that things 
could have been different is not out there in the world as something seizable 
such as piece of wood.



Similarly, uncertainty in the case of a distribution is not seizable, but it 
can be expressed in bits of information (as one measure among others). The 
grandiose step of Shannon was, in my opinion, to enable us to operationalize 
Descartes' cogitans and make it amenable to the measurement as information.



Shannon-type information is dimensionless. It is provided with meaning by a 
system of reference (e.g., an observer or a discourse). Some of us prefer to 
call only thus-meaningful information real information because it is embedded. 
One can also distinguish it from Shannon-type information as Bateson-type 
information. The latter can be debated as physical.



In the ideal case of an elastic collision of "billard balls", the physical 
entropy (S= kB * H) goes to zero. However, if two particles have a distribution 
of momenta of 3:7 before a head-on collision, th

Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

[Søren Brier]

Dear Mark, Loet and others

My point was that all the aspects I mention are part of a reality that is 
bigger than what we can grasp under the realm of physical science. Reality is 
bigger than physicalism. Quantitative forms of information measurements can be 
useful in many ways, but they are not sufficient for at transdisciplinary 
theory of cognition and communication. As Loet write then we have to include 
meaning. In what framework can we do that? The natural science do not have 
experience and meaning in their conceptual foundations. We can try to develop a 
logical approach like Mark and Peirce do. Where Mark stays in the structural 
dimension and Loet wants to  enter res cogitans by probability measures, , 
maybe because a  philosophical framework that does not allow meaning to be 
real. But Peirce keeps working with the metaphysical stipulations until he 
reaches a framework that can integrate experience, meaning and logic in one 
theory, namely his triadic pragmaticist semiotics. I am fascinated by it 
because I think it is unique, but many researcher do not want to use it, 
because its change in metaphysics in developing out of Descartes dualism, all 
though most of us agrees that it is too limited to work in the modern 
scientific ontology of irreversible time, that Prigogine developed. Who other 
than Peirce has developed on non-dualist non-foundationalist transdisciplinary 
semiotic process philosophy integrating animal (biosemiotics), human evolution, 
history and language development in a consistent theory of the development of 
human consciousness?

Best
   Søren


From: l...@leydesdorff.net <leydesdo...@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: 24. maj 2018 07:45
To: Burgin, Mark <mbur...@math.ucla.edu>; Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk>; 
Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com>; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

Dear Mark, Soren, and colleagues,

The easiest distinction is perhaps Descartes' one between res cogitans and res 
extensa as two different realities. Our knowledge in each case that things 
could have been different is not out there in the world as something seizable 
such as piece of wood.

Similarly, uncertainty in the case of a distribution is not seizable, but it 
can be expressed in bits of information (as one measure among others). The 
grandiose step of Shannon was, in my opinion, to enable us to operationalize 
Descartes' cogitans and make it amenable to the measurement as information.

Shannon-type information is dimensionless. It is provided with meaning by a 
system of reference (e.g., an observer or a discourse). Some of us prefer to 
call only thus-meaningful information real information because it is embedded. 
One can also distinguish it from Shannon-type information as Bateson-type 
information. The latter can be debated as physical.

In the ideal case of an elastic collision of "billard balls", the physical 
entropy (S= kB * H) goes to zero. However, if two particles have a distribution 
of momenta of 3:7 before a head-on collision, this distribution will change in 
the ideal case into 7:3. Consequently, the probabilistic entropy is .7 log2 
(.7/.3) + .3 log2 (.3/.7) =  .86 – .37 = .49 bits of information. One thus can 
prove that this information is not physical.

Best,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ.<http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> Beijing;
Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en



-- Original Message --
From: "Burgin, Mark" <mbur...@math.ucla.edu<mailto:mbur...@math.ucla.edu>>
To: "Søren Brier" <sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>>; "Krassimir Markov" 
<mar...@foibg.com<mailto:mar...@foibg.com>>; 
"fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
<fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Sent: 5/24/2018 4:23:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

Dear Søren,
You response perfectly supports my analysis. Indeed, for you only the Physical 
World is real. So, information has to by physical if it is real, or it cannot 
be real if it is not physical.
Acceptance of a more advanced model of the World, which includes other 
realities, as it was demonstrated in my book “Structural Reality,” allows 
understand information as real but not physical.

   Sincerely,
   Mark
On 5/17/2018 3:29 AM, Søren Brier w

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Søren Brier]

Dear Loet

I know that we have very divergent understandings of biosemiotics. The 
biosemiotic understanding of living systems is not based on a mechanistic 
either monistic or dualistic ontology but on a semiotic process philosophy 
based on an non-dual emptiness ontology that has some similarities to 
Bertallanffy’s General systems theory’s organicism or Aristotle’s hylozoism. I 
have tried to explain these differences in ontology in the papers from JPBMB 
below. I have summed up the cybersemiotic view as it looked some years ago here 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf


Best wishes

Søren Brier

New articles in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology
How Peircean semiotic philosophy connects Western science with Eastern 
emptiness ontology https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7KI6VGXcejand
Peircean cosmogony's symbolic agapistic self-organization as an example of the 
influence of eastern philosophy on western thinking 
https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7KI6VGXceX
2017 JPBMB Focused Issue on Integral Biomathics: The Necessary Conjunction of 
Western and Eastern Thought Traditions for Exploring the Nature of Mind and 
Life<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/131>  *
* free promotional access to all focused issue articles until June 20th 2018
Brier, S. (2017). C.S. Peirce’s Phenomenological, Evolutionary and 
Trans-disciplinary Semiotic Conception of Science and Religion. Research as 
Realization: Science, Spirituality and Harmony. Editor / Ananta Kumar Giri. 
Delhi : Primus Books, 2017. pp. 53-96






From: l...@leydesdorff.net [mailto:leydesdo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Loet 
Leydesdorff
Sent: 26. februar 2018 19:03
To: Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk>; Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>; 
fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] A Paradox

Dear Soren,

I agree with Stan's wording, but your wording is ambiguous. The meaning is not 
biologically given, but constructed in a discourse among biologists. The 
discourse can also be theological and then one obtains "theological" meaning.

Best,
Loet



Loet Leydesdorff
Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ.<http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> Beijing;
Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en



-- Original Message --
From: "Søren Brier" <sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>>
To: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssal...@binghamton.edu<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>; 
"fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Sent: 2/26/2018 6:41:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Thanks Stan. I agree: Behind production and  interpretation of all quantitative 
data, there is  either an biological or an existential or a religious or a 
philosophical framework of meaning.

   Best
    Søren

From: Stanley N Salthe 
[mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>]
Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19
To: Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>>; fis 
<fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Following upon Søren:  Meaning is derived for a system by way of 
Interpretation.  The transmitted information has no meaning without 
interpretation.

STAN

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier 
<sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>> wrote:
Dear  Xueshan

The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass 
information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such a 
paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory  with 
it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf

Cordially yours

 Søren Brier

Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 
2000 Frederiksberg
Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , 
cybersemiotics.com<http://cybersemiotics.com>.



Fra: Fis 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] På 
vegne af Xueshan Yan
Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47
Til: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Emne: [Fis] A Paradox

Dear colleagues,
In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the 
following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Ar

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Søren Brier]

Thanks Stan. I agree: Behind production and  interpretation of all quantitative 
data, there is  either an biological or an existential or a religious or a 
philosophical framework of meaning.

   Best
Søren

From: Stanley N Salthe [mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu]
Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19
To: Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk>; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Following upon Søren:  Meaning is derived for a system by way of 
Interpretation.  The transmitted information has no meaning without 
interpretation.

STAN

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier 
<sbr@cbs.dk<mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>> wrote:
Dear  Xueshan

The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass 
information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such a 
paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory  with 
it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf

Cordially yours

 Søren Brier

Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 
2000 Frederiksberg
Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , 
cybersemiotics.com<http://cybersemiotics.com>.



Fra: Fis 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] På 
vegne af Xueshan Yan
Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47
Til: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Emne: [Fis] A Paradox

Dear colleagues,
In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the 
following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia 
Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and 
strictly limit our discussion within the human context.

Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media 
of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A 
and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline “Earthquake 
Occurred in Armenia Last Night”:
Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence?
A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.
Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence?
A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.
Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or 
strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, 
the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, 
the study of human information is called Human Informatics.
Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of 
human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic 
Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without 
loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard 
Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same.
Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main 
task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the 
disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human 
information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have 
the following corollary:
A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics.
According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for 
transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human 
Informatics, so we have another corollary:
B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics.
Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a 
paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement 
about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a 
subject, but how should we understand this paradox?

Best wishes,
Xueshan

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

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

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Søren Brier]

Dear Sung

May I suggest that you take a look at this paper that sums up the book 
http://www.integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
  and the point  relevant to your objection is that you have to integrate 
cybernetics, systems and semiotics to create this transdisciplinary framework, 
It will therefore integrate a concept of information within a communicative 
concept of meaning developed from Peirce’s phenomenologically based triadic 
pragmaticist and fallibilist philosophy of science created long before Popper’s.
 Best
Søren

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Xueshan Yan
Sent: 4. marts 2018 02:17
To: FIS Group 
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet,
I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about the 
paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I offer my 
responses as follows:
Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals the 
relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and source 
based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed given the 
answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I understand it right, we 
may have this conclusion from it: Information is the carrier of meaning. Since 
we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier of information, the task of our 
Information Science will immediately become something like an intermediator 
between Semiotics (study of sign) and Semantics (study of meaning), this is 
what we absolutely want not to see. For a long time, we have been hoping that 
the goal of Information Science is so basic that it can explain all information 
phenomenon in the information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was 
consisted of axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates 
on information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very 
difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically 
correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS 
information."
Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new 
discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science as 
well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to review your 
opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I don't know its 
content, same as I don't know what the content of Biosemiotics is, but my view 
is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this paradox.
Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." which 
are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will lose its 
value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't know how to 
answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an information for B, 
while it has no information value for A. The difference between the 
subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these claims are the 
classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is given by Mark 
Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a lot of information 
for a mathematics student but no information for a professional mathematician." 
For this view, Terry given his good answer: One should firstly label what 
context and paradigm they are using to define their use of the term 
"information." I think this is effective and first step toward to construct a 
general theory about information, if possible.
For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted 
information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree with it 
kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell accepts a sperm 
cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic information from 
paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission has taken place, but 
is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be aware that meaning only 
is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be used in any other context 
like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the key we dissolve the paradox.
In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so far.

Best wishes,
Xueshan

From: Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM
To: Sungchul Ji >
Cc: Terrence W. DEACON >; 
Xueshan Yan >; FIS Group 
>
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Dear All:
If a non English speaking individual saw the  newspaper headline “Earthquake 
Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: would that be "information?"
My belief is - Yes. But he or she would have no idea what it was about- the 
meaning would be : Possibly 

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Søren Brier]

Dear  Xueshan

The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass 
information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce's semiotics is such a 
paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory  with 
it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf

Cordially yours

 Søren Brier

Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 
2000 Frederiksberg
Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , 
cybersemiotics.com.



Fra: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På vegne af Xueshan Yan
Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47
Til: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Emne: [Fis] A Paradox

Dear colleagues,
In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the 
following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia 
Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and 
strictly limit our discussion within the human context.

Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media 
of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A 
and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline "Earthquake 
Occurred in Armenia Last Night":
Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence?
A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.
Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence?
A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.
Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or 
strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, 
the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, 
the study of human information is called Human Informatics.
Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of 
human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic 
Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without 
loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard 
Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same.
Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main 
task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the 
disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human 
information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have 
the following corollary:
A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics.
According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for 
transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human 
Informatics, so we have another corollary:
B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics.
Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a 
paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement 
about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a 
subject, but how should we understand this paradox?

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