Re: [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> To: "Søren Brier" <sbr@cbs.dk>; "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com>; "fis@listas.unizar.es" <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 wrote: 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 <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> <mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>På vegne af Krassimir Markov Sendt: 17. maj 2018 11:33 Til:fis@listas.unizar.es; Burgin, Mark <mbur...@math.ucla.edu> <mailto:mbur...@math.ucla.edu> 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
Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis
Perhaps, it is helpful to compare with the question whether the centimeter is physical. The meter is calibrated on a physical measure, but the centimeter is just a measure. We can provide it with a physical referent: "This is a centimeter". Information is perhaps even more complex: a distribution can be expected to contain information. Is an expectation physical? a distribution? I tend to disagree with Mark by cutting the world into physical / mental / structural, unless the structural includes our codified conventions such as what is "a centimeter"? We can entertain the concept mentally, but therefore it is not yet mental. It is codified at an above-individual level as a structure in language. Is language physical? I doubt it: language carriers (human beings) are. 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: "Jose Javier Blanco Rivero" <javierwe...@gmail.com> To: "Burgin, Mark" <mbur...@math.ucla.edu> Cc: "Fis," <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: 5/17/2018 12:47:04 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis Dear FISers, I recently came across an old interview to W. van Orman Quine and I got an idea -maybe not very original per se. Quine distinguishes two kind of philosophical problems: ontological (those referred to the existence of things) and predicative (what can we say and know about things). Against Quine materialism I came across the idea that ontological problems are undecidable -I think of Turing's Halting problem. The fact is that we cannot leave the predicative realm. All we have as scientists is scientifical statements (therefore I think of Science as a communicative social system differentiated from its environment by means of a code -I think Loet would agree with me in this point). As a system (I mean not the social system, but the set of statements taken as a unity) they all are incomplete. There are many ways to deal with it, as logicians have shown (in this point I confess I would need to examine carefully B. Marchal's ideas. I think I have many points of agreement with him but also of disagreement -but honestly I currently lack the knowledge to undertake a thorough discussion). Self-reference, I think, is one of the most coherent ways to deal with it. But this means we have to learn to deal with paradoxes. Accordingly, as information theorist we would need to identify the constitutive paradox of information and next unfold that paradox in a set of statements that represent what we know about information. The problem is that although we can have the intuition that information is real, physical as has been said, it cannot be proved. An external reference like "reality ", if we look carefully, acts as regulatory function within the system. I remember that in the "Science of the Society", Luhmann devised the concept of consistency proofs (Konsistenzprüfung).But reality as such, the Ding an sich, is inaccessible. In conclusion, Quine would say that we should not be asking us a question that cannot be answered. Best, JJ El may 16, 2018 11:24 PM, "Burgin, Mark" <mbur...@math.ucla.edu> escribió: 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 exis
Re: [Fis] Is information physical? OR Does the information exist without the carrier?
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) personal reality of unity — whereof nothing can be said. 6. We cannot sever philosophy and logic and reason from science, AND for science we must open to the largest possible access to precision and understanding. Best, Lou On Apr 27, 2018, at 4:38 AM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: Dear Bruno, You claim: "all computations exists independently of the existence of anything physical". I never heard, apart probably from Berkeley and Tegmark, a more untestable, metaphyisical, a-scientific, unquantifiable claim. Dear FISers, we NEED to deal with something testable and quantifiable, otherwise we are doing philosophy and logic, not science! Even if information is (as many FISers suggest) at least in part not physical, we NEED to focus just on the testable part, i.e., the physical one. And, even if physics does not exist, as Bruno states, at least it gives me something quantifiable and useful for my pragmatic purposes. Even if information is something subjective in my mind (totally untestable, but very popular claim) who cares, by a scientific standpoint? If I say that Julius Caesar was killed by an alien, the theory is fashinating, but useless, unless I provide proofs or testable clues. -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android venerdì, 27 aprile 2018, 10:10AM +02:00 da Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: Hi Lou, Colleagues, On 25 Apr 2018, at 16:55, Louis H Kauffmanwrote: Dear Krassimir and Mark, Let us not forget the intermediate question: How is information independent of the choice of carrier? This is the fruitful question in my opinion, and it avoids the problem of assigning existence to that which is relational. The same problem exists for numbers and other mathematical entities. Does the number 2 exist without any couples? The mathematical answer is to construct a standard couple (e.g. { { }, {{}} } in set theory or two marks || in formalism) and say that a collection has cardinality two if it can be placed in 1-1 correspondence with the standard couple. In this way of speaking we do not have to assign an existence to two as a noun. The Russelian alternative — to take two to be the collection of all couples — is a fascinating intellectual move, but I prefer to avoid it by not having to speak of the existence of two in such a way. Two is a concept and it is outside of formal systems and outside of the physical except in that we who have that concept are linked with formalism and linked with the apparent physical. And let us not forget the other question. What is "the physical”? What we take to be physical arises as a relation between our sensing (and generalized sensing) and our ability to form concepts. To imagine that the “physical” exists independent of that relation is an extra assumption that is not necessary for scientific work, however attractive or repelling it may seem. Indeed, the existence of a physical ontology is an hypothesis in metaphysics, and not in physics. It was brought mainly by Aristotle and even more by its followers. What can be shown, is
Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins
Dear Krassimir and colleagues, Our mental model can entertain discursive models reflexively. Thus, our models are (at least partly) discursively mediated and hence the result of communication. The development of discursive knowledge is thus liberated from biologically given constraints; it has a dynamic of its own. This is the source of progress in a knowledge-based economy. The models are evolving, whereas we are essentially the same. When Julius Caesar said "veni, vidi, vici" he entertained a mental model, but he could not understand gravity. The history of mankind is driven from the next-order level and not by its genesis. 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: "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com> To: "FIS" <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: 3/11/2018 11:34:12 PM Subject: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins Dear Colleagues, This letter contains more than one theme, so it is structured as follow: - next step in “mental model” explanation; - about “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins. 1. The next step in “mental model” explanation: Let remember shortly my letter from 05.03.2018. To avoid misunderstandings with concepts Subject, agent, animal, human, society, humanity, living creatures, etc., in [1] we use the abstract concept “INFOS” to denote every of them as well as all of artificial creatures which has features similar to the former ones. Infos has possibility to reflect the reality via receptors and to operate with received reflections in its memory. The opposite is possible - via effectors Infos has possibility to realize in reality some of its (self-) reflections from its consciousness. The commutative diagram on Figure 1 represents modeling relations. In the frame of diagram: - in reality: real models: s is a model of r, - in consciousness: mental models: si is a mental model of ri; - between reality and consciousness: perceiving data and creating mental models: triple (si, ei, ri) is a mental model of triple (s, e, r). It is easy to imagine the case when the Infos realizes its reflections using its effectors, i.e. relation between consciousness and reality: realizing mental models and creating data. In this case the receptors’ arrows should be replaces by opposite effectors’ arrows. In this case triple (s, e, r) is a realization of the mental model (si, ei, ri). Figure 1 After creating the mental model it may be reflected by other levels of consciousness. In literature several such levels are described. For instance, in [2], six levels are separated for humans (Figure 2). The complexity of Infos determines the levels. For instance, for societies the levels are much more, for animals with no neo-cortex the levels a less. Figure 2. [2] This means that the mental models are on different consciousness levels and different types (for instance - touch, audition, vision). In [2], Jeff Hawkins had remarked: “The transformation— from fast changing to slow changing and from spatially specific to spatially invariant— is well documented for vision. And although there is a smaller body of evidence to prove it, many neuroscientists believe you'd find the same thing happening in all the sensory areas of your cortex, not just in vision” [2]. As it is shown on Figure 2 mental models are in very large range from spatially specific to spatially invariant; from fast changing to slow changing; from “features” and “details” to objects”. To be continued... 2.Aabout “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins. The block-chain idea is not new. All forums and mailing lists have the possibility to organize incoming messages in internally connected sequences. The new is the Bit-coin, i.e. the price for including a message in the sequence received after successful solving a difficult task. What we have in FIS are letters’ sequences already created for many years. What is needed to start using them is to be strictly when we answer to any letter not to change the “Subject” of the letter. The list archive may help us to follow the sequences - only what is needed to ask sorting by [ Subject ] <http://www.ithea.org/pipe
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Mark, Can you, please, explain "transduction" in more detail? Perhaps, you can also provide examples? 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: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonm...@gmail.com> To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <l...@leydesdorff.net> Cc: y...@pku.edu.cn; "FIS Group" <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: 3/4/2018 1:03:17 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Loet, all, I agree with this. Our construction of reality is never that of a single system: there are always multiple systems and they interfere with each other in the way that you suggest. I would suggest that behind all the ins-and-outs of codification or information and meaning is a very simple principle of transduction. I often wonder if Luhmann’s theory isn’t really that different from Shannon’s (who talks about transduction endlessly). The fact that you've made this connection explicit and empirically justifiable is, I think, the most important aspect of your work. You may disagree, but if we kept transduction and jettisoned the rest of Luhmann's theory, I think we still maintain the essential point. There is some resonance (interesting word!) with McCulloch’s model of perception, where he considered “drome” (literally, “course-ing”, “running”) circuits each bearing on the other: http://vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_heterarchy.pdf (look at the pictures on pages 2 and 3) Perception, he argued was a syn-drome: a combination of inter-effects between different circuits. There is a logic to this, but it is not the logic of set theory. McCulloch wrote about it. I think it’s not a million miles away from Joseph’s/Lupasco’s logic. Best wishes, Mark On 4 March 2018 at 07:03, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> wrote: Dear Xueshan Yan, May I suggest moving from a set-theoretical model to a model of two (or more) helices. The one dimension may be the independent and the other the dependent variable at different moments of time. One can research this empirically; for example, in bodies of texts. In my own models, I declare a third level of codes of communication organizing the meanings in different directions. Meaning both codes the information and refers to horizons of meaning being specifically coded. Might this work as an answer to your paradox? 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 <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> -- Original Message -- From: "Xueshan Yan" <y...@pku.edu.cn> To: "FIS Group" <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: 3/4/2018 2:17:01 AM 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
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Xueshan Yan, May I suggest moving from a set-theoretical model to a model of two (or more) helices. The one dimension may be the independent and the other the dependent variable at different moments of time. One can research this empirically; for example, in bodies of texts. In my own models, I declare a third level of codes of communication organizing the meanings in different directions. Meaning both codes the information and refers to horizons of meaning being specifically coded. Might this work as an answer to your paradox? 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: "Xueshan Yan" <y...@pku.edu.cn> To: "FIS Group" <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: 3/4/2018 2:17:01 AM 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 dissol
Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
Dear Pedro, Koichiro, and colleagues, At the level of observers, indeed, a hierarchy may be involved for the change of focus (although this is empirical and not necessarily the case). The communication, however, as a system different from the communicators may contain mechanisms such as "translation" which make it possible to redirect. 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: "Koichiro Matsuno" <cxq02...@nifty.com> To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: 3/2/2018 6:41:12 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Meta-observer? On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote: A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command. Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of observers for our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the concrete participants such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing what would seem appropriate for them to do without minding what we are observing. At issue must be how something looking like a chain of command could happen to emerge without presuming such a chain in the beginning. Prerequisite to its emergence would be the well-being of each participant taken care of locally, as a replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of the origins of life. The impending agenda is on something general universal as an object, and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness resides within the concreteness down to the bottom. Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter. Computation upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now points is not available to the local participants because of the lack of the physical means for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among themselves. Koichiro Matsuno ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [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> To: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssal...@binghamton.edu>; "fis" <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] 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> 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 , 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 t
Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory
Dear Koichiro and colleagues, The ancient Greeks had several notions of time. The main point for our discussion seems to me the distinction between historical time and event time. Trajectories, for example, can be formed in historical time by series of relations; trajectories are observable. Among other things, they can be shaped by languaging. I agree that language uses another time. It is not a trajectory, but a regime. The difference is that a trajectory can be shaped, for example, along a life-cycle, whereas a regime is a next-order change like life or death. The next-order operation leaves a footprint in historical time; however, it is part of an evolutionary dynamics. This dynamics is not directly observable, but only available as an informed hypothesis which can be tested against the events/non-events in historical time. 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: "Koichiro Matsuno" <cxq02...@nifty.com> To: "Fis," <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: 2/15/2018 5:53:23 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory On 8 Feb 2018 at 4:05 PM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: From a biological perspective, not language itself, but “languaging” behavior is considered the system of reference. On 13 Feb 2018 at 7:01 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic wrote: As in biology thre are different kinds of organisms there are also different kinds of “languages”. Folks, Focusing upon languaging comes to shed light on the communication in time between whatever parties. The issue of time then reminds me of the oft-quoted Aristotelian aphorism on the vulgar nature of time. As calling attention to the nonexistence of both past and future at the present moment of now, Aristotle observed “the present now is not part of time at all, for a part measures the whole, and the whole must be made up of the parts, but we cannot say that time is made up of ‘nows’ (Physics Book 4, 218a)”. Thus, “there is a something pertaining to time which is indivisible, and this something is what we mean by the ‘present’ or ‘now’ (234a)”. One outcome from these observations is simply a metaphysical aporia as pointing to that time both does and does not exist. One common-sense strategy getting out of the metaphysical impasse, which Aristotle would also seem to ‘reluctantly’ share, might be to view time as a linear succession of the now-points thanks to the additional idea of the levelling-off of the now points. This limiting procedure may help us to forget about the underlying aporia for the time being. But the contrast between languaging and language may revive our concern on whether we could dismiss the vulgar nature of time in a sweeping manner in a positive sense. So far, language has seemed to be quite at home with time as the linear succession of the now points. That is so even in physics as we know it today. However, once the aspect of languaging is called up, the temporality of languaging may be found to differ from that of language. Languaging is not continuous, but distinctively discontinuous in distinguishing between the utterer and its potential respondent. Alternation of the role between utterer and respondent proceeds discretely temporally. (Bio)semiotician may seem to be sensitive to this issue of time. Koichiro Matsuno ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] FW: New Year Lecture. Logic of Recursive Transductions
At this point, I feel I need a ‘refresher’ on Loet Leydesdorff’s important distinction, with reference to information, between recursion and incursion. Loet? When one thinks outside the box, as Bob U. will have us do, the air may seem a little thin, for a while. However, one can soon get acclimatized, with some good will. Cheers, Joseph Dear Joseph, I am not sure, but I guess that the recursive transductions assume a forward arrow of time: the previous state (at t-1) is "transduced" into a next one (at t = t). An incursive system provides also a reference to its current state. For example, a new technology is shaped with reference to the previous one, but also with reference to a current market as the relevant selection environment. A hyperincursive system develops with reference to its next future state (t + 1) or even beyond that (t + n). For example, meaning -- in interpersonal communications -- is provided from the perspective of hindsight in the present, but with reference to horizons of meaning. This reference to possible future states provides the intentionality that is specific for interhuman communication. The logic thus is different from a biological system developing with the arrow of time (in history). Another terminology would be that of trajectories and regimes. Trajectories are shaped with time; for example, along life-cycles. Regimes (e.g., life vs. death) are next-order selection mechanisms which shape the conditions for trajectories. This is still at the level of general systems theory. In interhuman communication specifically, the order remains an order of expectations which feeds back onto the present state from future (possible) states. This inversion of time leads to the generation of redundancy as different from the (Shannon-type) information. It provides new options. Hopefully, I answered your question. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] some notes
Dear Terry and colleagues, I agree that one should not confuse communication with the substance of communication (e.g., life in bio-semiotics). It seems useful to me to distinguish between several concepts of "communication". 1. Shannon's (1948) definitions in "The Mathematical Theory of Communication". Information is communicated, but is yet meaningfree. These notions of information and communication are counter-intuitive (Weaver, 1949). However, they provide us with means for the measurement, such as bits of information. The meaning of the communication is provided by the system of reference (Theil, 1972); in other words, by the specification of "what is comunicated?" For example, if money is communicated (redistributed), the system of reference is a transaction system. If molecules are communicated, life can be generated (Maturana). 2. Information as "a difference which makes a difference" (Bateson, 1973; McKay, 1969). A difference can only make a difference for a receiving system that provides meaning to the system. In my opinion, one should in this case talk about "meaningful information" and "meaningful communication" as different from the Shannon-type information (based on probability distributions). In this case, we don't have a clear instrument for the measurement. For this reason, I have a preference for the definitions under 1. 3. Interhuman communication is of a different order because it involves intentionality and language. The discourses under 1. and 2. are interhuman communication systems. (One has to distinguish levels and should not impose our intuitive notion of communication on the processes under study.) In my opinion, interhuman communication involves both communication of information and possibilities of sharing meaning. The Shannon-type information shares with physics the notion of entropy. However, physical entropy is dimensioned (Joule/Kelvin; S = k(B) H), whereas probabilistic entropy is dimensionless (H). Classical physics, for example, is based on the communication of momenta and energy because these two quantities have to be conserved. In the 17th century, it was common to use the word "communication" in this context (Leibniz). Best, Loet -- Original Message -- From: "Terrence W. DEACON" <dea...@berkeley.edu> To: "fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es> Cc: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>; "Loet Leydesdorff" <l...@leydesdorff.net> Sent: 11/17/2017 6:34:18 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes On communication: "Communication" needs to be more carefully distinguished from mere transfer of physical differences from location to location and time to time. Indeed, any physical transfer of physical differences in this respect can be utilized to communicate, and all communication requires this physical foundation. But there is an important hierarchic distinction that we need to consider. Simply collapsing our concept of 'communication' to its physical substrate (and ignoring the process of interpretation) has the consequence of treating nearly all physical processes as communication and failing to distinguish those that additionally convey something we might call representational content. Thus while internet communication and signals transferred between computers do indeed play an essential role in human communication, we only have to imagine a science fiction story in which all human interpreters suddenly disappear but our computers nevertheless continue to exchange signals, to realize that those signals are not "communicating" anything. At that point they would only be physically modifying one another, not communicating, except in a sort of metaphoric sense. This sort of process would not be fundamentally different from solar radiation modifying atoms in the upper atmosphere or any other similar causal process. It would be odd to say that the sun is thereby communicating anything to the atmosphere. So, while I recognize that there are many methodological contexts in which it makes little difference whether or not we ignore this semiotic aspect, as many others have also hinted, this is merely to bracket from consideration what really distinguishes physical transfer of causal influence from communication. Remember that this was a methodological strategy that even Shannon was quick to acknowledge in the first lines of his classic paper. We should endeavor to always be as careful. — Terry___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] some notes
Dear Pedro and colleagues, 2. Eigenvectors of communication. Taking the motif from Loet, and continuing with the above, could we say that the life cycle itself establishes the eigenvectors of communication? It is intriguing that maintenance, persistence, self-propagation are the essential motives of communication for whatever life entities (from bacteria to ourselves). With the complexity increase there appear new, more sophisticated directions, but the basic ones probably remain intact. What could be these essential directions of communication? I am not so convinced that there is an a priori relation between life and communication. Communication is not alive. Non-living systems (e.g., computers, robots) also communicate. Perhaps, it matters for the communication whether the communicators are living systems; but this needs to be specified. Communication studies is not biology. Perhaps, there is a specific biological communication as Maturana claims: when molecules are exchanged, one can expect life. Can one have life without communication? It seems to me that one can have communication without life. Communication would then be the broader category and life a special case. Best, Loet 3. About logics in the pre-science, Joseph is quite right demanding that discussion to accompany principles or basic problems. Actually principles, rules, theories, etc. are interconnected or should be by a logic (or several logics?) in order to give validity and coherence to the different combinations of elements. For instance, in the biomolecular realm there is a fascinating interplay of activation and inhibition among the participating molecular partners (enzymes and proteins) as active elements. I am not aware that classical ideas from Jacob (La Logique du vivant) have been sufficiently continued; it is not about Crick's Central Dogma but about the logic of pathways, circuits, modules, etc. Probably both Torday and Ji have their own ideas about that-- I would be curious to hear from them. 4. I loved Michel's response to Arturo's challenge. I think that the two "zeros" I mentioned days ago (the unsolved themes around the cycle and around the observer) imply both multidisciplinary thinking and philosophical speculation... Best wishes--Pedro - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - ___ Fis mailing list 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] Idealism and Materialism
Dear Krassimir and colleagues, The Scientific Revolution of the 17th century was precisely about the differentiation between scholarly discourse and scholastic disputatio. A belief system is an attribute of agents and/or of a community. The sciences, however, develop also as systems of rationalized expectations. These are based on communications as units of analysis and not agents (communicators). This is Luhmann's point, isn't it? Of course, individual scientists can be religious and groups like Jesuits can do science. At the level of (institutional) agency or organizations, one has both options. However, the communication dynamics is very different. In religious communication, there is an original (e.g., the Bible) which is copied. Textbooks are updated; error is removed, while error was added by transcriptions by monks. The origins of the invention of the printing press are relevant here: Galilei could not publish the Discorsi in Italy, but it could be published by Louis Elsevier in Leiden! In science studies, we have learned to distinguish between social and intellectual organization. While at the level of social organization, scientific and religious structures are comparable, the intellectual organization is very different. For example, the notion of "truth" is preliminary in science, while it is sacrosanct in religious philosophy. Thus, we can elaborate the functional differentiation between these two codes of communication. Scientific discourse is validated using criteria that are coded in communication; religious disputatio is about a given truth. Best, Loet ---- Loet Leydesdorff Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net <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: "John Collier" <ag...@ncf.ca> To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: 11/5/2017 4:28:31 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism Krassimir, What, if like me, you see materialism and idealism as both incorrect, and adopt something like Russell's neutral monism. I mention this because I believe information to be neutral between material and ideal. It is a false dichotomy on my view I disagree that information cannot be given by concrete examples. There are examples in both physics and of course in cognition that are used in both consistent and I think compatible ways. I would go so far as to say that the division has been a sad one for sound philosophy, and that in some respects we should start over again from Aristotle (to whom the division did not seem to even occur, in line with general Greek thinking) and the later Scholasticism. Regards, John On 2017/11/05 3:07 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote: Dear Bruno and FIS Colleagues, Thank you very much for your useful remarks! This week I was ill and couldn’t work. Hope, the next week will be better for work. Now I want only to paraphrase my post about Idealism and Materialism: The first is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation exists. The second is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation does not exist. Both are kinds of religions because they could not prove their foundations by experiments and real examples. The scientific approach does not believe in anything in advance. The primary concepts have to be illustrated by series of real examples. After that the secondary concepts have to be defined and all propositions have to be proved. Are the mathematicians materialists or idealists? Of course neither the first nor the second! Mathematics is an example of the scientific approach. Informatics lacks of well established primary concepts. The concept of information couldn’t be primary because it couldn’t be illustrated directly by real examples. We need other primary concepts which will permit us to define information and to prove all consequences. Friendly greetings Krassimir -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 12:30 PM To: Foundation of Information Science Subject: Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles Dear Krassimir, On 31 Oct 2017, at 15:07, Krassimir Markov wrote: Dear FIS Colleagues, Many years ago, in 2011, I had written a special remark about scientific and non-scientific approaches to try to understand the world around. The letter of Logan Streondj returns this theme as actual today. The interrelations between scientific and non-scient
Re: [Fis] The two very important operations of Infos
Dear Terry and colleagues, (...) , there cannot be interminable regress of this displacement to establish these norms. At some point normativity requires ontological grounding where the grounded normative relation is the preservation of the systemic physical properties that produce the norm-preserving dynamic. I have problems with the words "ontological" and "physical" here, whereas I agree with the need of grounding the normative. Among human beings, this grounding of subjective normativity can be found in intersubjectivity. Whereas the subjective remains cogitans (in doubt), the intersubjective can be considered as cogitatum (the thing about which one remains in doubt). For Descartes this cogitatum is the Other of the Cogito. The Cogito knows itself to be incomplete, and to be distinguished from what transcends it, the Transcendental or, in Descartes' terminology, God. (This is the ontological proof of God's presence. Kant showed that this proof does not hold: God cannot be proven to exist.) Husserl (1929) steps in on this point in the Cartesian Meditations: the cogitatum which transcends us is intersubjectivity. It is not physical. The physical is res extensa, whereas this remains res cogitans. It cannot be retrieved, but one has reflexive access to it. Interestingly, this philosophy provides Luhmann's point of departure. The intersubjective can be operationalized as (interhuman) communication. The codes in the communication can relatively be stabilized. One can use the metaphor of eigenvectors of a communication matrix. They remain our constructs, but they guide the communication. (Luhmann uses "eigenvalues", but that is a misunderstanding.) Using Parsons' idea of symbolic generalization of the codes of communication, one can continue this metaphor and consider other than the first eigenvector as "functional differentiations" which enable the communication to process more complexity. The model is derived from the Trias Politica: problems can be solved in one of the branches or the other. The normativity of the judiciary is different from the normativity of the legislative branch, but they both ground the normativity that guides us. The sciences are then a way of communication; namely, scholarly communication about rationalized expectations. Scholarly communication is different from, for example, political communication. An agent ("consciousness" in Luhmann's terminology) recombines reflexively and has to integrate because of one's contingency. The transcendental grounding is in the communication; it remains uncertain. Fortunately, because this implies that it can be reconstructed (by us albeit not as individuals). A non-human does not know oneself to be contingent. Lots of things follow from this; for example, that the non-human does not have access to our intersubjectivity as systems of expectations. 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 ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] TR: What is ³Agent²?
Dear colleagues, In my opinion, a word like "agency" (or "action") is provided with meaning within a sentence/statement which is theoretically informed. Only in a context, a word can become a concept. The common ground that is assumed in this discussion is the claim that the generation of agency can be expressed in terms of a non-linear dynamics of entropy; for example, in computer simulations. The genesis, however, is not the validity. For the latter, one needs specific theorizing at each systems level. Specification of the differentia specifica of each theoretical perspective is important particularly in the case of the difference between biology and sociology. Otherwise, one risks a return to "general systems theory", "sociobiology", etc. I agree (with Stan and others) that "intentionality" is then a second dimension. Intentional action cannot be equated with a whirl. The concepts are not scale-free :-( In the case of information, for example, one can clearly distinguish between mathematical theory of communication or non-linear dynamics enabling is to carry metaphors from one systems level to another (as a heuristics) and substantive theories of communication such as when molecules are exchanged. The exchange of molecules, however, is very different from the exchange of ideas in scholarly communication. 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: "Christophe Menant" <christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> To: "gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se" <gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se> Cc: "Foundation of Information Science" <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: 10/22/2017 2:59:10 PM Subject: [Fis] TR: What is ³Agent²? Dear Gordana, Your proposal for elementary particles and social institutions as two limit cases for agency is interesting as it also positions limit cases for normative/teleological properties highlighted as implicit parts of agency by Terry. And it brings in perspectives on your subject. Social institutions clearly have final causes (a long and complex list..) but associating agency and teleology to elementary particles may be problematic as it introduces final causes in a material universe. This looks close to an "intelligent design" option that we prefer to avoid. Why not introduce a possible "trend to increasing complexity" (TIC) in our universe, with steps since the big bang: energy => elementary particles=> atoms=>molecules=> life=>humans=> (perhaps pan-computationalism has a say there?). Agency and normative/teleological properties can then be looked at as emerging during the TIC at the molecules=>life transition (Terry's morphodynamics). Rather than being a limit case for agency, elementary particles are then part of the thread leading to teleology/agency via the TIC. How would you feel about such wording? Best Christophe De : Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> de la part de Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se> Envoyé : vendredi 20 octobre 2017 11:02 À : Terrence W. DEACON; 'Bob Logan'; l...@leydesdorff.net; 'fis' Objet : Re: [Fis] What is ³Agent²? Dear Terry, Bob, Loet Thank you for sharing those important thoughts about possible choices for the definition of agency. I would like to add one more perspective that I find in Pedro’s article which makes a distinction between matter-energy aspects and informational aspects of the same physical reality. I believe that on the fundamental level of information physics we have a good ND simplest example how those two entangled aspects can be formally framed. As far as I can tell, Terrys definition covers chemical and biological agency. Do we want to include apart from fundamental physics also full cognitive and social agency which are very much dominated by informational aspects (symbols and language)? Obviously there is no information without physical implementation, but when we think about epistemology and the ways we know the world, for us and other biological agents there is no physical interaction without informational aspects. Can we somehow think in terms those two face
Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
Dear Bob and colleagues, I agree with the choice element. From a sociological perspective, agency is usually defined in relation to structure. For example, in terms of structure/actor contingencies. The structures provide the background that bind us. Remarkably, Mark, we no longer define these communalities philosophically, but sociologically (e.g., Merton, 1942, about the institutional norms of science). An interesting extension is that we nowadays not only perceive communality is our biological origins (as species), but also in terms of communicative layers that we construct and reproduce as inter-agency (interactions). The relation with the information issue is not obvious. I worked on this a bit in the first half of the 90s: *<http://www.leydesdorff.net/jtsb93/index.htm> "Structure"/"Action" Contingencies and the Model of Parallel Distributed Processing, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 23 (1993) 47-77. *<http://www.leydesdorff.net/jses95/jses95.pdf> The Production of Probabilistic Entropy in Structure/Action Contingency Relations, Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 18 (1995) 339-56. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Fellow, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 6:11 AM To: Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> Cc: fis <Fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”? Dear Terry and FIS friends - I agree with all that Terry has said about agency. I do wish to however to point out that an agent has choice and a non-agent has no choice. I would suggest that the defining characteristic of an agent is choice and therefore an agent must be a living organism and all living organisms are agents. Agents/living organisms have choice or are capable of choice or agency and they are the only things that have choice or can interpret information. Abiotic non-agents do not have information because they have no choice. We humans can have information about abiotic objects but those objects themselves do not have that information as they have no mind to be informed. That includes this email post, it is abiotic an has no agency. It has information by virtue of you reading it because you are able to interpret the visual signs with which I have recorded my thoughts. Marshall McLuhan would add to my comments that “the user is the content” as well as saying that Shannon’s work was not a theory of information but a "theory of transportation”. I think of Shannon’s work in a similar light. I also do not regard Shannon’s work as a theory of information but it is a theory of signals. Shannon himself said his theory was not about meaning and I say what is information without meaning and that therefore Shannon only had a theory of signals. Another insight of McLuhan’s that of figure and ground is useful to understand why we have so many different definitions of information. McLuhan maintained that one could not understand a figure unless one understood the ground in which it operates in. (McLuhan might have gotten this idea from his professor at Cambridge, I. A. Richards, who said that in order to communicate one needs to feedforward [he coined the term btw] the context of what one is communicating.) The different definitions of information we have considered are a result of the different contexts in which the term information is used. We should also keep in mind that all words are metaphors and metaphor literally means to carry across, derived from the Greek meta (literally ‘across') and phorein (literally 'to carry'). So the word information has been carried across from one domain or area of interest to another. It entered the English language as the noun associated with the verb 'to inform', i.e. to form the mind. Here is an excerpt from my book What Is Information? (available for free at demopublishing.com <http://demopublishing.com> ): "Origins of the Concept of Information - We begin our historic survey of the development of the concept of information with its etymology. The English word information according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) first appears in the written record in 1386 by Chaucer
Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information
Dear Mark: Do we want to defend a definition of meaning which is tied to scientific practice as we know it? Would that be too narrow? Ours may not be the only way of doing science... I meant my remarks analytically. You provide them with a normative turn as defensive against alternative ways of doing science. A non-discursive science might be possible - a science based around shared musical experience, or meditation, for example. Or even Hesse's "Glasperlenspiel"... Higher level coordination need not necessarily occur in language. Our communication technologies may one day give us new post-linguistic ways of coordinating ourselves. Why should one wish to consider this as science? One can make music together without doing science. Musicology, however, is discursive reasoning about these practices. Codification is important in our science as we know it. But it should also be said that our science is blind to many things. Its reductionism prevents effective interdisciplinary inquiry, it struggles to reconcile practices, bodies, and egos, and its recent obsession with journal publication has produced the conditions of Babel which has fed the pathology in our institutions. There's less meaning in the academy than there was 50 years ago. This is a question with a Monty Python flavor: what is the meaning of science? what is the meaning of life? The implication is that our distinguishing between information and meaning in science may be an epiphenomenon of something deeper. One can always ask for "something deeper". The answers, however, tend to become religious. I am interested in operationalization and design. Best, Loet Best wishes, Mark ---- From: Loet Leydesdorff <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> Sent: 14/10/2017 16:06 To: Terrence W. DEACON <mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>; Sungchul Ji <mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> Cc: foundationofinformationscience <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information Dear Terry and colleagues, "Language is rather the special case, the most unusual communicative adaptation to ever have evolved, and one that grows out of and depends on informationa/semiotic capacities shared with other species and with biology in general." Let me try to argue in favor of "meaning", "language", and "discursive knowledge", precisely because they provide the "differentia specifica" of mankind. "Meaning" can be provided by non-humans such as animals or networks, but distinguishing between the information content and the meaning of a message requires a discourse. The discourse enables us to codify the meaning of the information at the supra-individual level. Discursive knowledge is based on further codification of this intersubjective meaning. All categories used, for example, in this discussion are codified in scholarly discourses. The discourse(s) provide(s) the top of the hierarchy that controls given the cybernetic principle that construction is bottom up and control top-down. Husserl uses "intentionality" and "intersubjective intentionality" instead of "meaning". Perhaps, this has advantages; but I am not so sure that the difference is more than semantic. In Cartesian Meditations (1929) he argues that this intersubjective intentionality provides us with the basis of an empirical philosophy of science. The sciences do not begin with observations, but with the specification of expectations in discourses. A predator also observes his prey, but in scholarly discourses, systematic observations serve the update of codified (that is, theoretical) expectations. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information
Dear Terry and colleagues, "Language is rather the special case, the most unusual communicative adaptation to ever have evolved, and one that grows out of and depends on informationa/semiotic capacities shared with other species and with biology in general." Let me try to argue in favor of "meaning", "language", and "discursive knowledge", precisely because they provide the "differentia specifica" of mankind. "Meaning" can be provided by non-humans such as animals or networks, but distinguishing between the information content and the meaning of a message requires a discourse. The discourse enables us to codify the meaning of the information at the supra-individual level. Discursive knowledge is based on further codification of this intersubjective meaning. All categories used, for example, in this discussion are codified in scholarly discourses. The discourse(s) provide(s) the top of the hierarchy that controls given the cybernetic principle that construction is bottom up and control top-down. Husserl uses "intentionality" and "intersubjective intentionality" instead of "meaning". Perhaps, this has advantages; but I am not so sure that the difference is more than semantic. In Cartesian Meditations (1929) he argues that this intersubjective intentionality provides us with the basis of an empirical philosophy of science. The sciences do not begin with observations, but with the specification of expectations in discourses. A predator also observes his prey, but in scholarly discourses, systematic observations serve the update of codified (that is, theoretical) expectations. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?
Cher Michel, Loet thinks that "Nobody of us provide an operative framework and a single (just one!) empirical testable prevision able to assess "information" I did not say this, but reacted to one of our colleagues saying this. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Heretic
Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!) empirical testable prevision able to assess "information". Dear colleague, One should not confuse the confusion on the list with the clarity of the concept information in information theory. This definition is operational (e.g., in bits). Your computer would not work without this definition (1 byte = 8 bits). The problem is that this definition of information as uncertainty is counter-intuitive. The search for an intuitive definition of information has led to unclear definitions. In a recent book, Hidalgo (2015, at p. 165), for example, has defined “information” with reference “to the order embodied in codified sequences, such as those found in music or DNA, while knowledge and knowhow refer to the ability of a system to process information.” However, codified knowledge can be abstract and—like music—does not have to be “embodied” (e.g., Cowan, David, & Foray, 2000). Beyond Hidalgo’s position, Floridi (2010, p. 21) proposed “a general definition of information” according to which “the well-formed data are meaningful” (italics of the author). Luhmann (1995, p. 67) posits that “all information has meaning.” In his opinion, information should therefore be considered as a selection mechanism. Kauffman et al. (2008, at p. 28) added to the confusion by defining information as “natural selection.” Against these attempt to bring information and meaning under a single denominator--and to identify variation with selection--I argue for a dualistic perspective (as did Prof. Zhong in a previous email). Information and meaning should not be confounded. Meaning is generated from redundancies (Bateson, 1972, p. 420; Weaver, 1949; see Leydesdorff et al., 2017). Best, Loet References: Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine. Cowan, R., David, P., & Foray, D. (2000). The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 211-253. Floridi, L. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hidalgo, C. (2015). Why Information Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies. New York: Basic Books. Kauffman, S., Logan, R. K., Este, R., Goebel, R., Hobill, D., & Shmulevich, I. (2008). Propagating organization: an enquiry. Biology and Philosophy, 23(1), 27-45. Leydesdorff, L., Johnson, M., & Ivanova, I. (2017). Toward a Calculus of Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural Evolution. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525. Luhmann, N. ([1984] 1995). Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Weaver, W. (1949). Some Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication. In C. E. Shannon & W. Weaver (Eds.), The Mathematical Theory of Communication (pp. 93-117.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. -------- Loet Leydesdorff Professor, 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 ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?
Dear colleagues, Using the concept of "data", one loads the discussion with an ontology. "Data" is "given" or "revealed" by God. (In antiquity, the holy was hidden and guarded by priests, but Christianity brought the idea of Revelation.) In physics, one talks about "data" and "nature" as given. It seems to me that we don't need this in a discussion about information. Distributions contain information or, in other words, the expected information content of a distribution can be expressed in bits (dits, nits, etc.) of information. I assume that this is equivalent to Prof. Zhong's object information. The specification of the object ("what is distributed") provides the information with meaning. "In particular, information must not be confused with meaning." (Weaver, 1949, p. 8). Best, Loet PS. When, there is no "given," but only constructs, uncertainty (that is, Shannon-type information) prevails. Instead of a cosmology ("given"), one moves to a chaology of different constructs. The constructs differ in terms of "what is distributed", that is, the specification of "the object". L. Loet Leydesdorff Professor, 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: "Alex Hankey" <alexhan...@gmail.com> To: "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com>; "FIS Webinar" <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: 10/3/2017 8:08:18 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts? This is a titbit in support of Krassimir Markov. There was a very interesting paper by Freeman Dyson in about 1970, about which he gave a Colloquium at the MIT Department of Physics which I attended. Dyson had analyzed data taken from higher nuclear energy levels in particular bands far above the ground state - probably using the Mossbauer effect if I remember rightly, because it has a very high resolution. . Dyson's question was simple: Does the data contain any useful information? His analysis was that the eigenvalues represented by this selection of data were no different from those of matrix with Random Entries. The data were equivalent to a set of random numbers. Dyson therefore concluded that, 'The Data Contained No Useful Information' for the purpose of understanding the nuclear physics involved. On 3 October 2017 at 16:46, Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com> wrote: Dear John and FIS Colleagues, I am Computer Science specialist and I never take data to be information. For not specialists maybe it is normal "data to be often taken to be information" but this is not scientific reasoning. Simple question: if "data = information", why we need both concepts? Friendly greetings Krassimir Dear list, As Floridi points out in his Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. A volume for the Very Short Introduction series. data is often taken to be information. If so, then the below distinction is somewhat arbitrary. It may be useful or not. I think that for some circumstances it is useful, but for others it is misleading, especially if we are trying to come to grips with what meaning is. I am not sure there is ever data without interpretation (it seems to me that it is always assumed to be about something). There are, however, various degrees and depths of interpretation, and we may have data at a more abstract level that is interpreted as meaning something less abstract, such as pointer readings of a barometer and air pressure. The pointer readings are signs of air pressure. Following C.S. Peirce, all signs have an interpretant. We can ignore this (abstraction) and deal with just pointer readings of a particular design of gauge, and take this to be the data, but even the pointer readings have an important contextual element, being of a particular kind of gauge, and that also determines an interpretant. Just pointer readings alone are not data, they are merely numbers (which also, of course, have an interpretant that is even more abstract. So I think the data/information distinction needs to be made clear in each case, if it is to be used. Note that I believe that there is information that is independent of mind, but the above points still hold once we s
Re: [Fis] Toward a Calculus of Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural Evolution; preprint
Dear Jose Javier, Thank you so much for these rich comments. I have to think a bit before answering. Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Professor, 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: "Jose Javier Blanco Rivero" <javierwe...@gmail.com> To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <l...@leydesdorff.net> Cc: "Fis," <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: 9/4/2017 11:38:13 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Toward a Calculus of Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural Evolution; preprint Dear Loet, I want to thank you for sharing this insightful article. I myself have been experimenting with the difference between information and meaning, although from a different background -that of intellectual history. Your essay deserves a thoughtful a comment which I cannot attempt here. But I´d would like to make some remarks. 1. I´ve been working with Luhmann too and I strongly desagree with translating "Sinn" by "meaning" -although Luhmann himself might have agreed. In the Spanish traslation of Social Systems, for example, they make a more loyal translation from the German (they translate Sinn by "sentido" and not by "significado"). I think it is more than a idiomatic question, since distinguishing between sense-making (Sinn), information and meaning might give us insight into the obscure process of meaning and knowlegde processing that we are trying to clear out. Sense-making might not be a good candidate for an english speaker, but I think it works quite well when you need to distinguish between linguistic meanings (those produced directly by language and discourse) and the pragmatics of communication. When you make sense of something, that involves semantics and pragmatics,that involves linguistic meaning and information processing from the social environment. By the way, in that very page you cite Luhmann (1995, p.67) the German sociologist draws a distinction between "Sinn" and Information, arguing that is time what makes it important, because information only informs once, but maintains its "meaning" when repeated. 2. I´ve noticed that in previous papers you have argued that meaning is communicated, but here you say "Unlike information, meaning is not communicated" (p. 3). So, have you changed your mind? Why? 3. I agree with your thesis that the processing of meaning and the processing of information are two different but related things. But I have some doubts about the relationship between meaning, information and coding. You say when meaning is assigned to information, options arise and so does redundancy, but the proliferation of meanings is restrained by coding; and that codes structure the processing of meaning acting as a selection mechanism on redundancy. I might recognize that meaning be coded, for instance, by being coupled to a binary opposition (the concept of nature "physis" has oscillated around the poles of generation and degeneration). But cannot information be coded as well? For instance, incursive and hyper-incursive operations may be guided by selective mechanisms, or codes that contribute to the differentiation of the system and can account for its Eigenbehavior (I´m thinking of Luhmann´s functional systems). And redundancy might also be informative and semantic. I can think of semantic (or meaning) redundancy when examining intellectual traditions (Liberalism, Communism, etc.) Hence, self organization of meaning do not always coincide with the self organization of information that drives systems differentiation. 4. I wonder why to remain attached to the sender-receiver model of communication. It seems inadecuate to me in such a sofisticated theoretical arrengement you propose. 5. I think the question of time is not adequately dealt with. I wonder how can one measure (Hmax) and (Hsystem) in a social system. If we are dealing with complex systems (and social systems are indeed complex) the system itself cannot know (Hmax). And if an observer could, what kind of observer could that be? On another hand, the realized states of the system are not at the system`s disposition per se. The system needs some kind of memory function by means of which it reconstructs past states in a relevant manner to
Re: [Fis] Toward a Calculus of Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural Evolution; preprint
Thanks! Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Professor, 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: "Moisés André Nisenbaum" <moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br> To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <l...@leydesdorff.net> Cc: "Fis," <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: 9/4/2017 2:29:31 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Toward a Calculus of Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural Evolution; preprint Hi, Loet. Thank you for your message! Firstly because there was no FIS messages since IS4SI... I was wondering, what could be happening? I have read your article. It is amazing! I liked the way you've organized historically the relationship between the concept of information in a multidimensional perspective. Certainly I will use it for my research and will recommend to my colegues and students :-) Thank you, Um abraço Moisés 2017-09-03 11:06 GMT-03:00 Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net>: Toward a Calculus of Redundancy: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525> Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural Evolution <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525> Loet Leydesdorff, Mark W. Johnson, and Inga Ivanova Abstract Whereas the generation of Shannon-type information is coupled to the second law of thermodynamics, redundancy—that is, the complement of information to the maximum entropy—can be increased by making further distinctions. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution. Providing the information with meaning first proliferates the number of options. Meanings are provided with hindsight at positions in the vector space, as against relations in the network space. The main axes (eigenvectors) of the vector space map the codes of the communication spanning horizons of meaning; the codes structure the communications as selection mechanisms. Unlike hard-wired DNA, the codes of non-biological systems co-evolve with the variation. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication which enables us to entertain models of the processing of meaning and information. This reinforces the hindsight perspective and can turn codification reflexively into coding anticipation. The dynamics of information, meaning, and knowledge can be evaluated empirically using the sign of mutual information as an indicator. ** apologies for cross-postings https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525> Loet Leydesdorff Professor, 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 <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> -- Moisés André Nisenbaum Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ Campus Rio de Janeiro moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Toward a Calculus of Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural Evolution; preprint
Toward a Calculus of Redundancy: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525> Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural Evolution <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525> Loet Leydesdorff, Mark W. Johnson, and Inga Ivanova Abstract Whereas the generation of Shannon-type information is coupled to the second law of thermodynamics, redundancy—that is, the complement of information to the maximum entropy—can be increased by making further distinctions. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution. Providing the information with meaning first proliferates the number of options. Meanings are provided with hindsight at positions in the vector space, as against relations in the network space. The main axes (eigenvectors) of the vector space map the codes of the communication spanning horizons of meaning; the codes structure the communications as selection mechanisms. Unlike hard-wired DNA, the codes of non-biological systems co-evolve with the variation. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication which enables us to entertain models of the processing of meaning and information. This reinforces the hindsight perspective and can turn codification reflexively into coding anticipation. The dynamics of information, meaning, and knowledge can be evaluated empirically using the sign of mutual information as an indicator. ** apologies for cross-postings https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525 ---- Loet Leydesdorff Professor, 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 ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Information: a metaphysical word
Everybody defines information in the way he prefers: subjective, biotic, bit, and so on. Therefore, every study that talks about "information" is meaningless. Dear Arturo, The “Therefore” does not follow. It is a non-igitur. For example, Shannon’s information theory is not necessarily meaningless, although the measure (e.g., bits) is devoid of meaning. It provides, among other things, a statistics. On the other side, I suggested in a previous post how the information entropy (such as Shannon's, or Bekenstein's, or Hawking's) may change according to the relativistic speed of the hypothetical observer. Rather obscure, in my opinion. Therefore, I suggest to fully remove the term "information" from every scientific account. The term "information" refers, in Popper's terms, to a not falsifiable theory, to pseudoscience: it is a metaphysical claim, like the concepts of Essence, Being, God and so on. All mathematical theories are non-falsifiable. Shannon-type information is just a measure. Information can be provided with subjective meaning. Many of our colleagues confuse this subjective meaning of information with information itself. Information can also be provided with (inter-subjective) meaning in a discourse such as biology or physics. The discourse then functions as an “observer”. However, the meaningful information (the signal) is to be distinguished from the information as uncertainty (noise; variation) before this selection. Best, Loet Therefore, by now, the term "information" is definitely out of my scientific vocabulary. -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?; towards a calculus of redundancy
Toward a Calculus of Redundancy: <https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02455> The feedback arrow of expectations in knowledge-based systems Loet Leydesdorff, Mark W. Johnson, Inga Ivanova (Submitted on 10 Jan 2017; https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02455 ) Whereas the generation of Shannon-type information is coupled to the second law of thermodynamics, redundancy--that is, the complement of information to the maximum entropy--can be increased by further distinctions: new options can discursively be generated. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution based on expectations (as different from observations). We distinguish among (i) the communication of information, (ii) the sharing of meaning, and (iii) discursive knowledge. Meaning is provided from the perspective of hindsight as feedback on the entropy flow and thus generates redundancy. Specific meanings can selectively be codified as discursive knowledge; knowledge-based reconstructions enable us to specify expectations about future states which can be invoked in the present. The cycling among the dynamics of information, meaning, and knowledge in feedback and feedforward loops can be evaluated empirically: When mutual redundancy prevails over mutual information, the sign of the resulting information is negative indicating reduction of uncertainty because of new options available for realization; innovation can then be expected to flourish. When historical realizations prevail, innovation may be locked-in because of insufficient options for further development. * Comments are very welcome in this stage _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en From: Terrence W. DEACON [mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu] Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 8:15 PM To: John Collier Cc: l...@leydesdorff.net; Dai Griffiths; Foundations of Information Science Information Science Subject: Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life? Leot remarks: "... we need a kind of calculus of redundancy." I agree whole-heartedly. What for Shannon was the key to error-correction is thus implicitly normative. But of course assessment of normativity (accurate/inacurate, useful/unuseful, significant/insignificant) must necessarily involve an "outside" perspective, i.e. more than merely the statistics of sign medium chartacteristics. Redundancy is also implicit in concepts like communication, shared understanding, iconism, and Fano's "mutual information." But notice too that redundancy is precisely non-information in a strictly statistical understanding of that concept; a redundant message is not itself "news" — and yet it can reduce the uncertainty of what is "message" and what is "noise." It is my intuition that by developing a formalization (e.g. a "calculus") using the complemetary notions of redundancy and constraint that we will ultimately be able formulate a route from Shannon to the higher-order conceptions of information, in which referential and normative features can be precisely formulated. There is an open door, though it still seems pretty dark on the other side. So one must risk stumbling in order to explore that space. Happy 2017, Terry On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: Dear List, I agree with Terry that we should not be bound by our own partial theories. We need an integrated view of information that shows its relations in all of its various forms. There is a family resemblance in the ways it is used, and some sort of taxonomy can be constructed. I recommend that of Luciano Floridi. His approach is not unified (unlike my own, reported on this list), but compatible with it, and is a place to start, though it needs expansion and perhaps modification. There may be some unifying concept of information, but its application to all the various ways it has been used will not be obvious, and a sufficiently general formulation my well seem trivial, especially to those interested in the vital communicative and meaningful aspects of information. I also agree with Loet that pessimism, however justified, is not the real problem. To some extent it is a matter o
Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
We agree that such a theory is a ways off, though you some are far more pessimisitic about its possibility than me. I believe that we would do best to focus on the hole that needs filling in rather than assuming that it is an unfillable given. Dear Terrence and colleagues, It is not a matter of pessimism. We have the example of “General Systems Theory” of the 1930s (von Bertalanffy and others). Only gradually, one realized the biological metaphor driving it. In my opinion, we have become reflexively skeptical about claims of “generality” because we know the statements are framed within paradigms. Translations are needed in this fractional manifold. I agree that we are moving in a fruitful direction. Your book “Incomplete Nature” and “The Symbolic Species” have been important. The failing options cannot be observed, but have to be constructed culturally, that is, in discourse. It seems to me that we need a kind of calculus of redundancy. Perspectives which are reflexively aware of this need and do not assume an unproblematic “given” or “natural” are perhaps to be privileged nonetheless. The unobservbable options have first to be specified and we need theory (hypotheses) for this. Perhaps, this epistemological privilege can be used as a vantage point. There is an interesting relation to Husserl’s Critique of the European Sciences (1935): The failing (or forgotten) dimension is grounded in “intersubjective intentionality.” Nowadays, we would call this “discourse”. How are discourses structured and how can they be translated for the purpose of offering this “foundation”? Happy New Year, Loet My modest suggestion is only that in the absence of a unifying theory we should not privilege one partial theory over others and that in the absence of a global general theory we need to find terminology that clearly identifies the level at which the concept is being used. Lacking this, we end up debating incompatible definitions, and defending our favored one that either excludes or includes issues of reference and significance or else assumes or denies the relevance of human interpreters. With different participants interested in different levels and applications of the information concept—from physics, to computation, to neuroscience, to biosemiotics, to language, to art, etc.—failure to mark this diversity will inevitably lead us in circles. I urge humility with precision and an eye toward synthesis. Happy new year to all.\ — Terry On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Dai Griffiths <dai.griffith...@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Stan, Yes, it's a powerful and useful process. My problem is that in this list, and in other places were such matters are discussed, we don't seem to be able to agree on the big picture, and the higher up the generalisations we go, the less we agree. I'd like to keep open the possibility that we might be yoking ideas together which it may be more useful to keep apart. We are dealing with messy concepts in messy configurations, which may not always map neatly onto a generalisation model. Dai On 22/12/16 16:45, Stanley N Salthe wrote: Dai -- {phenomenon 1} {phenomenon 2} --> {Phenomena 1 & 2} ---> {phenomena 1.2,3} {phenomenon 3} The process from left to right is generalization. ‘Information’ IS a generalization. generalities form the substance of philosophy. Info happens to a case of generalization which can be mathematized, which in turn allows it to be generalized even more. So, what’s the problem? STAN On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Dai Griffiths <dai.griffith...@gmail.com> wrote: > Information is not “something out there” which “exists” otherwise than as > our construct. I agree with this. And I wonder to what extent our problems in discussing information come from our desire to shoe-horn many different phenomena into the same construct. It would be possible to disaggregate the construct. It be possible to discuss the topics which we address on this list without using the word 'information'. We could discuss redundancy, variety, constraint, meaning, structural coupling, coordination, expectation, language, etc. In what ways would our explanations be weakened? In what ways might we gain in clarity? If we were to go down this road, we would face the danger that our discussions might become (even more) remote from everyday human experience. But many scientific discussions are remote from everyday human experience. Dai On 20/12/16 08:26, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: Dear colleagues, A distribution contains uncertainty that can be measured in terms of bits of information. Alternatively: the expected information content H of a probability distribution is . H is further defined as probabilistic entropy using Gibb’s formulation of the entropy . This definition of information is an operational definition. In my opinion, we d
Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
In this respect Loet comments: "In my opinion, the status of Shannon’s mathematical theory of information is different from special theories of information (e.g., biological ones) since the formal theory enables us to translate between these latter theories." We are essentially in agreement, and yet I would invert any perspective that prioritizes the approach pioneered by Shannon. Dear Terrence and colleagues, The inversion is fine with me as an exploration. But I don’t think that this can be done on programmatic grounds because of the assumed possibility of “a general theory of information”. I don’t think that such a theory exists or is even possible without assumptions that beg the question. In other words, we have a “hole” in the center. Each perspective can claim its “generality” or fundamental character. For example, many of us entertain a biological a priori; others (including you?) reason on the basis of physics. The various (special) theories, however, are not juxtaposed; but can be considered as other (sometimes orthogonal) perspectives. Translations are possible at the bottom by unpacking in normal language or sometimes more formally (and advanced; productive?) using Shannon’s information theory and formalizations derived from it. I admit my own communication-theoretical a priori. I am interested in the communication of knowledge as different from the communication of information. Discursive knowledge specifies and codifies meaning. The communication/sharing of meaning provides an in-between layer, which has also to be distinguished from the communication of information. Meaning is not relational but positional; it cannot be communicated, but it can be shared. I am currently working (with coauthors) on a full paper on the subject. The following is the provisional abstract: As against a monadic reduction of knowledge and meaning to signal processing among neurons, we distinguish among information and meaning processing, and the possible codification of specific meanings as discursive knowledge. Whereas the Shannon-type information is coupled to the second law of thermodynamics, redundancy—that is, the complement of information to the maximum entropy—can be extended by further distinctions and the specification of expectations when new options are made feasible. With the opposite sign, the dynamics of knowledge production thus infuses the historical (e.g., institutional) dynamics with a cultural evolution. Meaning is provided from the perspective of hindsight as feedback on the entropy flow. The circling among dynamics in feedback and feedforward loops can be evaluated by the sign of mutual information. When mutual redundancy prevails, the resulting sign is negative indicating that more options are made available and innovation can be expected to flourish. The relation of this cultural evolution with the computation of anticipatory systems can be specified; but the resulting puzzles are a subject for future research. Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
Dear Terrence and colleagues, I agree that we should not be fundamentalistic about “information”. For example, one can also use “uncertainty” as an alternative word to Shannon-type “information”. One can also make distinctions other than semantic/syntactic/pragmatic, such as biological information, etc. Nevertheless, what makes this list to a common platform, in my opinion, is our interest in the differences and similarities in the background of these different notions of information. In my opinion, the status of Shannon’s mathematical theory of information is different from special theories of information (e.g., biological ones) since the formal theory enables us to translate between these latter theories. The translations are heuristically important: they enable us to import metaphors from other backgrounds (e.g., auto-catalysis). For example, one of us communicated with me why I was completely wrong, and made the argument with reference to Kullback-Leibler divergence between two probability distributions. Since we probably will not have “a general theory” of information, the apparatus in which information is formally and operationally defined—Bar-Hillel once called it “information calculus”—can carry this interdisciplinary function with precision and rigor. Otherwise, we can only be respectful of each other’s research traditions. J I wish you all a splendid 2017, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Terrence W. DEACON Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 5:33 AM To: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life? Against information fundamentalism Rather than fighting over THE definition of information, I suggest that we stand back from the polemics for a moment and recognize that the term is being used in often quite incompatible ways in different domains, and that there may be value in paying attention to the advantages and costs of each. To ignore these differences, to fail to explore the links and dependencies between them, and to be indifferent to the different use values gained or sacrificed by each, I believe that we end up undermining the very enterprise we claim to be promoting. We currently lack broadly accepted terms to unambiguously distinguish these divergent uses and, even worse, we lack a theoretical framework for understanding their relationships to one another. So provisionally I would argue that we at least need to distinguish three hierarchically related uses of the concept: 1. Physical information: Information as intrinsically measurable medium properties with respect to their capacity to support 2 or 3 irrespective of any specific instantiation of 2 or 3. 2. Referential information: information as a non-intrinsic relation to something other than medium properties (1) that a given medium can provide (i.e. reference or content) irrespective of any specific instantiation of 3. 3. Normative information: Information as the use value provided by a given referential relation (2) with respect to an end-directed dynamic that is susceptible to contextual factors that are not directly accessible (i.e. functional value or significance). Unfortunately, because of the history of using the same term in an unmodified way in each relevant domain irrespective of the others there are often pointless arguments of a purely definitional nature. In linguistic theory an analogous three-part hierarchic partitioning of theory IS widely accepted. 1. syntax 2. semantics 3. pragmatics Thus by analogy some have proposed the distinction between 1. syntactic information (aka Shannon) 2. semantic information (aka meaning) 3. pragmatic information (aka useful information) This has also often been applied to the philosophy of information (e.g. see The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy entry for ‘information’). Unfortunately, the language-centric framing of this distinction can be somewhat misleading. The metaphoric extension of the terms ‘syntax’ and ‘semantics’ to apply to iconic (e.g. pictorial) or indexical (e.g. correlational) forms of communication exerts a subtle procrustean influence that obscures their naturalistic and nondigital features. T
Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
Dear James and colleagues, Weaver (1949) made two major remarks about his coauthor (Shannon)'s contribution: 1. the definition of information as uncertainty is counter-intuitive ("bizarre"); (p. 27) 2. "In particular, information must not be confused with meaning." (p. 8) The definition of information as relevant for a system of reference confuses information with "meaningful information" and thus sacrifices the surplus value of Shannon's counter-intuitive definition. information observer that integrates interactive processes such as physical interactions such photons stimulating the retina of the eye, human-machine interactions (this is the level that Shannon lives on), biological interaction such body temperature relative to touch ice or heat source, social interaction such as this forum started by Pedro, economic interaction such as the stock market, ... [Lerner, page 1]. We are in need of a theory of meaning. Otherwise, one cannot measure meaningful information. In a previous series of communications we discussed redundancy from this perspective. Lerner introduces mathematical expectation E[Sap] (difference between of a priory entropy [sic] and a posteriori entropy), which is distinguished from the notion of relative information Iap (Learner, page 7). ) expresses in bits of information the information generated when the a priori distribution is turned into the a posteriori one . This follows within the Shannon framework without needing an observer. I use this equation, for example, in my 1995-book The Challenge of Scientometrics (Chapters 8 and 9), with a reference to Theil (1972). The relative information is defined as the H/H(max). I agree that the intuitive notion of information is derived from the Latin "in-formare" (Varela, 1979). But most of us do no longer use "force" and "mass" in the intuitive (Aristotelian) sense. J The proliferation of the meanings of information if confused with "meaningful information" is indicative for an "index sui et falsi", in my opinion. The repetitive discussion lames the progression at this list. It is "like asking whether a glass is half empty or half full" (Hayles, 1990, p. 59). This act of forming forming an information process results in the construction of an observer that is the owner [holder] of information. The system of reference is then no longer the message, but the observer who provides meaning to the information (uncertainty). I agree that this is a selection process, but the variation first has to be specified independently (before it can be selected. And Lerner introduces the threshold between objective and subjective observes (page 27). This leads to a consideration selection and cooperation that includes entanglement. I don't see a direct relation between information and entanglement. An observer can be entangled. Best, Loet PS. Pedro: Let me assume that this is my second posting in the week which ends tonight. L. ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fwd: What is life?
The problem is that information is not an absolute. The same code when measured against different references (English vs. Spanish in this case) will yield different measures. It's the obverse of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. See < <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/FISPAP.pdf> http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/FISPAP.pdf> Dear Bob, It seems to me that you confuse information with what information means for a system of reference. Different systems of reference, of course, can attribute different meanings to the same information. @Alex: this confusion is unfortunately pervasive. Unlike Shannon-type information, "information" is often defined (following Bateson and McKay) as "a difference which makes a difference", without articulation that the second difference presumes the specification of a system of reference. A series of differences of the first type can be considered as a probability distribution that contains uncertainty. "A difference which makes a difference", however, can be considered as "meaningful information". In my opinion, this "meaningful information" should not be equated with information because one then uses the same word for two different things and thus generates confusion. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 32, Issue 13
Dear Malcolm: To an animal about to be attacked and eaten, the meaning of an approaching predator is quite clear. Obviously, meaning is produced by, within, and among Observers, and not by language. “Quite clear” and “obviously” are no arguments. It is “as if” the animal attributes meaning, but this is metaphorical. You as an analyst characterize the behavior as based on providing meaning to the event by the animal. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
Dear Alex and colleagues, Thank you for the reference; but my argument was about “meaning”. “Meaning” can only be considered as constructed in language. Other uses of the word are metaphorical. For example, the citation to Maturana. Information, in my opinion, can be defined content-free (a la Shannon, etc.) and then be provided with meaning in (scholarly) discourses. I consider physics as one among other scholarly discourses. Specific about physics is perhaps the universalistic character of the knowledge claims. For example: “Frieden's points apply to quantum physics as well as classical physics.“ So what? This seems to me a debate within physics without much relevance for non-physicists (e.g., economists or linguists). Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en From: Alex Hankey [mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:07 PM To: Loet Leydesdorff; FIS Webinar Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime? Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues, Are you aware of Roy Frieden's 'Physics from Fisher Information'. His book was published in the 1990s. I consider it a very powerful statement. Ultimately everything we can detect at both macroscopic and microscopic levels depends on information production from a quantum level that forms Fisher Information. Frieden's points apply to quantum physics as well as classical physics. Best wishes, Alex Hankey On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> wrote: Dear Marcus, When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature. “Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires interhuman communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or the physical is metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider (with Maturana) as a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a semantic domain without being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50): “In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within a second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer as if its nervous system interacted with internal representations of the circumstances of its interactions, and as if the changes of state of the organism were determined by the semantic value of these representations. Yet all that takes place in the operation of the nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of changing relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal network.” Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located . . . Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to the phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with an explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly specialized language in which “mass” and “information” are provided with meanings different from classical physics. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
Dear Marcus, When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature. “Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires interhuman communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or the physical is metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider (with Maturana) as a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a semantic domain without being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50): “In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within a second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer as if its nervous system interacted with internal representations of the circumstances of its interactions, and as if the changes of state of the organism were determined by the semantic value of these representations. Yet all that takes place in the operation of the nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of changing relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal network.” Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located . . . Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to the phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with an explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly specialized language in which “mass” and “information” are provided with meanings different from classical physics. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] 11,359 journal maps in a hierarchical classification system; (my second penny for this week)
Clustered Journal Maps <https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03779> Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz Bornmann, and Caroline S. Wagner Journal maps for 11,359 journals listed in the combined Journal Citation Reports 2015 of the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes are provided at www.leydesdorff.net/jcr15 . A routine using VOSviewer for integrating the journal mapping and their hierarchical clustering is also made available. In this short communication, we provide background on the journal mapping/clustering and an explanation and instructions about the routine. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03779 ; maps at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr15 _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)
Dear Mark and colleagues, Loet, clearly the redundancy is apophatic, although one has to be cautious in saying this: the domain of the apophatic is bigger than the domain of Shannon redundancy. At some point in the future we may do better in developing measurement techniques for 'surprise' in communication (I wonder if Lou Kauffman's Recursive Distinguishing is a way forwards...). The extension of the redundancy is not primarily a matter of measurement techniques, but of theorizing. The redundancy depends on the specification of the system. The Shannon-type information is empirical, but only the specification of the system enables us to specify the H(max) and therefore the redundancy. As the system grows, it may develop new dimensions which are manifest as bifurcations. (Reaction-diffusion dynamics; Rashevsky, Turing.) When one goes from one dimension n to a two-dimensional system [n,m], the number of options [H(max)] goes from log(n) to log(n * m), and thus the redundancy increases rapidly. For example: as long as transport over the Alps is limited to passes like the Brenner, the capacity can become exhausted. Digging tunnels or flying over the Alps adds degrees of freedom to the transport system. The number of options (n * m * k * ..) can "explode" by cultural and technological developments. The transitions come as surprises (e.g., the demise of the Soviet-Union). Suddenly, the relevant systems definitions have to be revised. The systems definitions have the status of hypotheses. Hypotheses can be considered as theoretically informed expectations. The world of expectations proliferates with a dynamic different from the actualizations. The two realms are coupled since the actualizations can be considered as instantiations of the order of expectations; but only if the latter is specified as different from the empirical order of realizations. Best, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing
Dear Mark, The redundancy is apophatic. Redundancy is not "given", but generation by the specification of a model: what is specified as a system. Redundancy can also be considered as options other than the ones realized. As we argued in our Kybernetes paper, technological developments may enlarge the number of options by orders of magnitude. The redundancy and maximum entropy can then proliferate much faster than the realizations. This development of the economy is knowledge based. How can we study and operationalize redundancy or the apophatic? By studying and improving our models which generate them in the reflection. In operational terms, by the specification of informed hypotheses. Our imagination enables us to envisage options other than the ones realized and the communication (discourse) can entertain models that provide a phase space of options, other than realized or imagined. Hypotheses can be tested and modified. Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff, Inga Ivanova, and Mark Johnson, The Communication of Expectations and Individual Understanding: Redundancy as Reduction of Uncertainty, and the Processing of Meaning <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2358791> , Kybernetes 43(9/10) (2014) 1362-1371. Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en -Original Message- From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10:04 AM To: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing Dear Sergej, Rafeal, Loet, Dai and list, First of all, thank you very much for the references – Gieryn looks fascinating (thanks Loet), and I will check out the Hobart and Schiffman (thanks to Pedro). It always strikes me how powerful acts of intellectual generosity are, and how much difference there is between pointing to a reference as if to say “This is the gang of academics who either agree with me or I disagree with them!” and “As someone who’s travelled along a similar path to you, I believe you might find this enlightening”. When we write academic papers, we tend to (indeed, have to) do the former. The latter is far more empathic - which leads me to reflect on Rafael’s comment about pre-understanding (I say more about this further down) On a forum like FIS, we can do the latter. I ask myself which is more useful or constructive in scientific discourse, and which should be encouraged? Between the comments of Dai and Sergej I think there is what Pedro refers to as the ‘critical stance’ (as in critical theory etc, I guess). Here I would like to clarify my position. I do not believe that we “ought” to change the way we communicate about science because publishers and universities have too much power; that they have too much power is a systemic consequence of something else. Rather the argument is that the nature of the science we now practice (complex, uncertain, contingent) necessitates new forms of communication, and this science cannot effectively communicate itself through traditional media. It is not an argument about ‘oughts’, it is an argument about the ontology of complex science and communication; it is a complex science reflection on the communication of complex scientists. That we currently have complex science and highly attenuated channels of communication is a source of pathology: we are at a transitional stage in history and such periods are often accompanied by all manner of social and political problems (just think of the pathologies of the early 1600s!). One feature of this is that we slip from talking about ‘is’ to ‘ought’ without reflection. I’m unconvinced by the power of political arguments (however much our professors of sociology would like to persuade us otherwise!) for moving things on – it only encourages what Bacon criticized in the Cambridge academics of the 1600s: “They hunt more after words than matter” (I worry about words like ‘entanglement’ – what does it mean?); it is scientific arguments and practices which carry the greatest power and which (in the end) are ontologically inseparable from political change. I suspect the distinctions between different kind of arguments are the result of different kinds of constraint. Having said all this about science, I want to say something about theology(!) Rafael’s point about “pre-understanding” sent me to the work of Arthur Peacocke and to the relationship between ‘information’ and ‘logos’. To see information as constraint in both in the science we do, and in the way we communicate our scientific understanding,
Re: [Fis] Fwd: Scientific publication: Response
Dear Mark, Thank you for another so beautiful video! Your focus on constraints is reminiscent of Thomas Gieryn's (1983) "boundary objects" (cf. Star & Griesemer, 1989). You may find it interesting to make the connection. >From my perspective, the constraints are historical -- as different from evolutionary. One can consider them as the footprints of the development (retention mechanism). In the early stage, the constraints shield the new development; but the order of control can be inverted: the genesis is bottom-up, but control can be top-down in a next phase. For example, first one needs a university context for generating a new field, but the emerging paradigm thereafter may begin to shape the departments, the conferences, etc. The self-organization of the paradigmatic development can be distinguished from the historical development at the organizational level. Both are needed and thus one expects a trade-off. The historical development of constraints necessarily generates probabilistic entropy (Shannon-type information) because of the Second Law. The evolutionary development restructures and can be expected to reduce uncertainty. What is evolving? You say it nicely in the first paper: the coordination among expectations. (at p. 6: "How might scholarly expectations be coordinated in an uncertain world?") The (hypothesized!) coordination is also the selection mechanism. With hindsight some expectations have to changed to fit into the new paradigm; others perhaps discarded as noise or left behind as variation (outdated?). "A science that hesitates to forget its founders is lost." (Whitehead, 1916, p. 81): the paradigm forces to rewrite the history in the name of intellectual integrity and new opportunities. By focusing on the constraints, you may miss what is constrained. The system is socially constructed; but -- unlike social-constructivism -- not the construction itself, but the constructed is taking the lead. Of course, this has to be worked out empirically: is organization prevailing or self-organization? Is uncertainty generated or redundancy? I hope that this is understandable. If some colleagues feel lost, please, see also: Leydesdorff, Petersen & Ivanova (in press); Leydesdorff, Johnson & Ivanova (2014). Best, Loet References: Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781-795. Leydesdorff, L., Petersen, A., & Ivanova, I. (in press). The self-organization of meaning and the reflexive communication of information. Social Science Information (arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.05251). Leydesdorff, L., Johnson, M., & Ivanova, I. A. (2014). The Communication of Expectations and Individual Understanding: Redundancy as Reduction of Uncertainty, and the Processing of Meaning. Kybernetes, 43(9/10), 1362-1371. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology,Translations, and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. Whitehead, A. N. (1916). Address to the British Association at Newcastle. Nature, 98(14 September 1916), 80-81. doi: 10.1038/098033a0 Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en -Original Message- From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:46 PM To: fis; Pedro C. Marijuan Subject: [Fis] Fwd: Scientific publication: Response Dear FIS Colleagues, Thank you very much for your comments. I've made a video response which can be found here: https://youtu.be/r8T2ssGAius The video mostly concerns Loet's comment about selection and codification and references Sergej's point about "shared objects" (and its relation to activity theory). Shared objects are extremely important, but Francisco is right - Loet's point about codification goes the heart of the matter. In responding to Loet (and to some extent Sergej) I draw attention to the nature of teaching and its distinction with communication. This means standing back from Luhmann's binary model of communication, which he saw as a contingency-reduction process in the selection of meaning. Instead I suggest looking at communication as a process of the revealing and coordination of constraints. In Loet's work, I think this is probably the same as redundancy... Both Ashby and Von Foerster are powerful reference points for a deeper understanding - notably Von Foerster's paper "On self organising syst
Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing
Dear Mark, Moises, and colleagues, I agree that this is a very beautiful piece of work. The video is impressive. My comment would focus on what it is that constructs reality "by language" (p. 2). I agree with the remark about the risk of a linguistic fallacy; but how is the domain of counterfactual expectations constructed? The answer in the paper tends towards a sociological explanation: "status" for which one competes in a new political economy. However, it seems to me that the selection mechanism has to be specified. Can this be external to the communication? How is the paradigmatic/epistemic closure and quality control brought about by the communication? How is a symbolic layer shaped and coded? One cannot reverse the reasoning: the editorial boards follow standards that they perceive as relevant and can reproduce. The standards are not a convention of the board since one would not easily agree. Reversing the reasoning would bring us back to interests and thus to a kind of neo-marxism a la the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). In actor-network theory (ANT) the emergence of standards happens historically/evolutionarily, but is not explained. I don't have answers on my side. But perhaps, the strength of anticipation and the role of models needs to be explored. Models can be entertained and enable us to reconstruct a knowledge-based reality. Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en -Original Message- From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Moisés André Nisenbaum Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 1:45 AM To: Mark Johnson Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing Dear Mark. Thank you for the excelent video and article. It is very important to discuss this and, if you agree, I will use your video with my students (can you send me the transcription?). No doubt we are in a changing world and we have to fight against abusive processes, like publication industry. In Rafael's article, the question “what is a scientific journal in the digital age?” I understand that we must think outside the box. I think it would be great if some group invent a kind of "Uber" of scientific production. Something that connect directly authors and readers at feasible rates. arXiv does this connection in some way, but it is not universal. E-science is also a good initiative. Related to this discussion, UNESCO will do an event on Wednesday (sep/28th) at Museu do Amanhã (Rio de Janeiro) called International Day for Universal Access to Information (http://en.unesco.org/iduai2016). But the fact is: we are human and the worry about "reputation" is the real reason of today's organization of scientific communication (about this, this book chapter is very good: VAN RAAN, Anthony FJ. The interdisciplinary nature of science: theoretical framework and bibliometric-empirical approach. Practising interdisciplinarity, p. 66-78, 2000.) Kind regards, Moisés 2016-09-26 4:55 GMT-03:00 Mark Johnson <johnsonm...@gmail.com>: > > Dear FIS Colleagues, > > To kick-start the discussion on scientific publishing, I have prepared > a short (hopefully provocative) video. It can be found at: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U > > (if anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is > called 'Videoscribe') > > I have also produced a paper which is attached. > > I hope you find these interesting and stimulating! > > Best wishes, > > Mark > -- > Dr. Mark William Johnson > Institute of Learning and Teaching > Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > University of Liverpool > > Phone: 07786 064505 > Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com > Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > -- Moisés André Nisenbaum Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc. Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ Campus Rio de Janeiro moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br ___ Fis mailing list 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] Fis Digest, Vol 28, Issue 22
Dear Marcus and colleagues, But when it comes to drawing a hard line *within* behavioral adaptation – for example differences between instinctual behaviors and more cognitive behaviors – this (presently) is beyond my grasp. So the point you two now seem (to me) to circle around is effective differences between instinctual and cognitive behavior, between species. Entropy develops with the arrow of time, but meaning is provided from the perspective of hindsight, that is, against the arrow of time. Providing meaning can sometimes (!) reduce uncertainty. In the Shannon model, such a reversal of the time arrow (feedback and feedforward) is not possible. However, in a knowledge-based economy, the generation of redundancies (new options and expectations) is crucial for the competition. Obviously, this is not biological competition such as “between species”. The domain is not the one of biological realizations, but of cultural expectations that is exclusively (inter-)human. (This cultural evolution is constrained by the biological/physical conditions which can be considered as a retention mechanism.) The dynamics are shaped in terms of expectations (“cogitata” carried by “cogitantes”). Another way to study this is in terms of the theory and computation of anticipatory systems (Rosen, Dubois). The strongly anticipatory system that shapes its own future options is based on the exchange and codification of expectations at the supra-individual level. The future states can drive a knowledge-based development more than the historical ones. The duality between forward (historical) development and cultural evolution can be assessed in terms of mutual information and redundancy generation (Leydesdorff & Ivanova, 2014). The reduction to an a priori origin, in my opinion, is not a good idea. The formal a priori is contained in the notion of probability (which grounds also Shannon’s entropy). Best, Loet PS. Pedro: my last posting was on Sunday evening. L. _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Cultural Legacy Redux (Freewheeling Speculation)
Dear Michel and colleagues, I agree that adaptation is not specifically human and that "humanity's main adaptive role" is not to be defined as "information". The best candidate for a spefically human is probably, in my opinion, "double contingency": Ego expects Alter to entertain expectations as s/he does herself. These expectations can be exchanged (for example, in language), and also be codified at the interpersonal level (for example, in legislation or in scholarly discourse). How does this relate to information? In my opinion, the dynamics of meaning are driving cultural evolution. Information is needed at the bottom providing the variation. The codes of communication -- for example, in discourse among biologists (Pedro!) -- operate as next-order selection mechanisms. These selection mechanisms are not "objective" or observable, but can be expected to operate and be hypotesized; for example, in a sociology of communication. We have access to these discourses infra-reflexively. Best, Loet On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Michel Godron <migod...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > You wrote : > "First, humanity’s MAIN ADAPTIVE ROLE is “information,” if someone > questions that fact *I invite you to post your view *and I will happily > “reply. > > My reply is (in red) : > O K but I am not sure that the profound reason why it is true is clear for > every one : this constatation "humanity’s MAIN ADAPTIVE ROLE is > information,” (or "information is the main way to adapt") is true also for > *any > living being*, because the basic functioning of Life is a tranmission of > information. That information is necessary for any living being to adapt to > its environment in a cybernetic system (which was not well understood by > von Bertalanffy cf. Fritjof Capra p. 48). > > I could explain this with more details, if you want, for each of the six > main scales (molecules in a cell, genetics with DNA, epigenetics, vegetal > and animal communities, landscapes, humanity). > > M. Godron > > _______ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Loet Leydesdorff Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics? - Species specific?
Dear Jerry, At the risk of being jailed by Pedro, let me point to the beauty of the example: >From a molecular biological perspective, the assertion of “same encoding” of >information is contrary to fact. OK: the coding of the information is species specific; both theoretically and empirically. I fully agree. But this argument cannot carry the inference that the information (to be coded) is species specific. If one wishes to define information as “a difference which makes a difference”, reference systems for both differences have to be specified. Differences(1) can make a difference(2) for a system of reference (receiver). The latter system can receive the information and code it, or the information can be discarded as noise. Noise or probabilistic entropy can be defined as differences(1) without difference(2). A set of differences(1) can be considered as a probability distribution which is yet meaningless; that is, Shannon-type information. Distinguishing between the coding (= diff2 operating on diff1) and the coded differences(1) is a condition for analytical clarity. Otherwise, one uses the same word for two different concepts and confusion is expected to prevail. The idea that one can reconcile two analytical different concept in a “universal” theory is mistaken. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics?
Dear Pedro and colleagues, The figure from Weaver in Loet's excellent posting leaves a few aspects outside. The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other aspects of the information phenomenon do not enter. By doing that we have streamlined the phenomenon... and have left it ready for applying a highly successful theory, in the technological and in many other realms (linguistics, artif. intelligence, neurodynamics, molec. networks, ecol. networks, applied soc. metrics, etc). Pretty big and impressive, but is it enough? Shouldn't we try to go beyond? In my opinion, The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other aspects are subject to substantive theorizing. The type of answers will be very different when studying biological or other systems of reference. But then the information is provided with meaning by these theories and we discuss meaningful information as different from Shannon-type information. There will in this case a dimension to the information. For example, when particles collide, there is exchange of momenta and energy. The dissipation is then dimensioned as Joule/Kelvin (S = k H). In chemistry one assumes a mass balance and thus a redistribution of atoms over molecules, etc. The dimensionality of interhuman communication is hitherto not specified. I wonder whether a far wider "phenomenology of information" is needed (reminding what Maxine argued months ago about the whole contemplation of our own movement, or Plamen about the "war on cancer"?). If that inquiry is successful we could find for instance that: This is not successful. It does not lead to a research program, but to philosophie spontanée des savant (Althusser) as your comprehensive question for The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other aspects illustrates. The hidden program is biologistic: 2. Those UNIVERSALS are SPECIES' SPECIFIC. ESSENTIAL CORES are discipline specific! 3. Those UNIVERSALS would be organized, wrapped, around an ESSENTIAL CORE. It would consist in the tight ingraining of self-production and communication (almost inseparable, and both information based!). In the human special case, it is the whole advancement of our own lives what propels us to engage in endless communication --about the universals of our own species-- but with the terrific advantage of an open-ended communication system, language. 4. Those UNIVERSALS would have been streamlined in very different ways and taken as "principles" or starting points for a number of disciplines--remembering the discussion about the four Great Domains of Science. A renewed Information Science should nucleate one of those domains. Should is an expression of uneasiness? In my opinion, the assumption of an origin is problematic: order is not given (ex ante) and then branching, but emerging (ex post) from disorder (entropy). Is disorder perhaps a universal? In which specific system? (I would have a provisional answer/ hypothesis; but this is my second penny for this week.) Best, Loet Best regards to all, (and particular greetings to the new parties joined for this discussion) --Pedro El 27/06/2016 a las 12:43, Marcus Abundis escribió: Dear Loet, I hoped to reply to your posts sooner as of all the voices on FIS I often sense a general kinship with your views. But I also confess I have difficulty in precisely grasping your views the reason for my delay. >[while Shannons] concept of information (uncertainty) < > is counter-intuitive. It enables us among other things < > to distinguish between "information" and "meaningful < > information". < Easily agreed; *how* to distinguish a presumed meaning (or meaningless-ness) then becomes the remaining issue. > Providing . . . meaning presumes the specification < > of a system of reference; for example, an observer.< It is telling for me (in viewing our differences and likenesses) that you suggest an observer. My system of relating accommodates but does not require an observer (okay observer, defined how?), as shown immediately below. >Different[ly] . . . expected information is dimensionless< > ("a priori"). < I suggest the act of expectation already infers minimal dimensions for example, who/what/how is doing the expecting? Thus, in my view, this is not truly a priori. A readiness or a compelling functional need innate to any system of relating has bearing. For example, a single Oxygen atom has a compelling/innate need to react with other elements, just as any agent is compelled to react to nutrients. Both imply dimensional expectations, no? (obviously of different orders/types). > In my opinion, a "real theory of meaning" should enable < > us to specify/measure meaning as redundancy / reduction < > of uncertainty given . . . I took this further in . . . < > The Self-Organization of Meaning and the Reflexive . . .< My weak grasp of the concepts in this paper leads me to
Re: [Fis] _comment to the "A Priori Modeling of Information"
As a first step in the specification of the relevance of Shannon's engineering model for developing a theory of meaning, Weaver (1949, at p. 26) proposed two minor additions to Shannon's diagram of a communication channel, as follows: "One can imagine, as an addition to the diagram, another box labeled "Semantic Receiver" interposed between the engineering receiver (which changes signals to messages) and the destination. This semantic receiver subjects the message to a second decoding, the demand on this one being that it must match the statistical semantic characteristics of the message to the statistical semantic capacities of the totality of receivers, or of that subset of receivers which constitute the audience one wishes to affect. Similarly one can imagine another box in the diagram which, inserted between the information source and the transmitter, would be labeled "semantic noise," the box previously labeled as simply "noise" now being labeled "engineering noise." From this source is imposed into the signal the perturbations or distortions of meaning which are not intended by the source but which inescapably affect the destination. And the problem of semantic decoding must take this semantic noise into account." cid:image003.png@01D1CF8B.1F207680 Figure 1: Weaver's (1949) "minor" additions penciled into Shannon's (1948) original diagram. Since the "semantic receiver" recodes the information in the messages (received from the "engineering receiver" who only changes signals into messages) while having to assume the possibility of "semantic noise," a semantic relationship between the two new boxes can also be envisaged. Given Shannon's framework, however, this relation cannot be considered as another information transfer-since semantics are defined as external to Shannon's engineering model. Semantics are not based on specific communications, but on relations among patterns of relations or, in other words, correlations. In the case of a single relation, the relational distance is not different from the correlational one; but in the case of relations involving three (or more) agents, the distances in the vector space are different from the Euclidean distances in the network space. In a triplet, the instantiation of one or the other relation can make a difference for the further development of the triadic system of relations. A system of relations can be considered as a semantic domain (Maturana, 1978). In other words, the sender and receiver are related in the graph of Figure 1, while they are correlated in terms of not necessarily instantiated relations in the background. The structure of correlations provides a latent background that provides meaning to the information exchanges in relations. The correlations are based on the same information, but the representation in the vector space is different from the graph in the network space of observable relations. In other words, meaning is not added to the information, but the same information is delineated differently and considered from a different perspective (including absent relations; i.e., zeros in the distribution). As against Shannon-type information which flows linearly from the sender to the receiver, one can expect meanings to loop, and thereby, to develop next-order dimensionalities. New meanings generate new options and thus redundancy. In my opinion, the task is to specify mechanisms which generate redundancy (cf. Leydesdorff & Ivanova, 2014). Source: Loet Leydesdorff, Alexander Petersen, and Inga A. Ivanova, The Self-Organization of Meaning and the Reflexive Communication of Information. <http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05251> Social Science Information (in press). Loet Leydesdorff and Inga A. Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaning <http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849> , Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65(2) (2014) 386-399. _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en _ ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] _ Reply to Annette (A Priori Modeling)
Dear Pedro and colleagues, "Agency" is missing. It is factually minimized under the form of constraints and uncertainty. Communication occurs because some kind of "emitter" agent operates as a "source" and sends "messages" via an appropriate "channel" to some "receiver". I have put quotations to the standard Shannonian terms. My central question: could there be any form of non-living agency? And then, What different forms of life could receive the "agent" label? How being alive biases the non-at-all-free communication game? For example: if one constructs a citation matrix with the cited papers in the rows and the citing papers in the columns, citing can be considered as action and cited as structure. There is a mutual information between cited and citing, but the effect of citing on cited is different from the effect of cited on citing. Thus, one can evaluate agency. See also: The Production of Probabilistic Entropy in Structure/Action Contingency Relations, <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jses95/jses95.pdf> Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 18 (1995) 339-56. <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jtsb93/index.htm> "Structure"/"Action" Contingencies and the Model of Parallel Distributed Processing, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 23 (1993) 47-77. A similar argument can be made for evidence (agency) in relation to theory (structure): Knowledge Representations, Bayesian Inferences, and Empirical Science Studies, <http://www.leydesdorff.net/ssi92/index.htm> Social Science Information 31 (1992, nr. 2), 213-37. If so wished, I can provide pdf. These questions will be refined next days... Best--Pedro Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fw: "Mechanical Information" in DNA
Dear colleagues, It seems to me that a definition of information should be compatible with the possibility to measure information in bits of information. Bits of information are dimensionless and “yet meaningless.” The meaning can be provided by the substantive system that is thus measured. For example, semantics can be measured using a semantic map; changes in the map can be measured as changes in the distributions, for example, of words. One can, for example, study whether change in one semantic domain is larger and/or faster than in another. The results (expressed in bits, dits or nits of information) can be provided with meaning by the substantive theorizing about the domain(s) under study. One may wish to call this “meaningful information”. I am aware that several authors have defined information as a difference that makes a difference (McKay, 1969; Bateson, 1973). It seems to me that this is “meaningful information”. Information is contained in just a series of differences or a distribution. Whether the differences make a difference seems to me a matter of statistical testing. Are the differences significant or not? If they are significant, they teach us about the (substantive!) systems under study, and can thus be provided with meaning in the terms of studying these systems. Kauffman et al. (2008, at p. 28) define information as “natural selection assembling the very constraints on the release of energy that then constitutes work and the propagation of organization.” How can one measure this information? Can the difference that the differences in it make, be tested for their significance? Varela (1979, p. 266) argued that since the word “information” is derived from “in-formare,” the semantics call for the specification of a system of reference to be informed. The system of reference provides the information with meaning, but the meaning is not in the information which is “yet meaningless”. Otherwise, there are as many “informations” as there are systems of reference and the use of the word itself becomes a source of confusion. In summary, it seems to me that the achievement of defining information more abstractly as measurement in bits (H = - Σ p log(p)) and the availability of statistics should not be ignored. From this perspective, information theory can be considered as another form of statistics (entropy statistics). A substantive definition of information itself is no longer meaningful (and perhaps even obscure): the expected information content of a distribution or the information contained in the message that an event has happened, can be expressed in bits or other measures of information. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of John Collier Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 12:04 PM To: Joseph Brenner; fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: "Mechanical Information" in DNA I am inclined to agree with Joseph. That is why I put “mechanical information” in shudder quotes in my Subject line. On the other hand, one of the benefits of an information approach is that one can add together information (taking care to subtract effects of common information – also describable as correlations). So I don’t think that the reductionist perspective follows immediately from describing the target information in the paper as “mechanical”. “Mechanical”, “mechanism” and similar terms can be used (and have been used) to refer to processes that are not reducible. “Mechanicism” and “mechanicist” can be used to capture reducible dynamics that we get from any conservative system (what I call Hamiltonian systems in my papers on the dynamics of emergence – such systems don’t show emergent properties except in a trivial sense of being unanticipated). I think it is doubtful at best that the mechanical information referred to is mechanicist. John Collier Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner Sent: Thursday, 09 June 2016 11:10 AM To: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: [Fis] Fw: "Mechanical Information" in DNA Dear Folks, In my humbl
Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ FIS discusion
Dear colleagues, In my opinion, one can distinguish between the order of generation and emerging control. While consciousness (perhaps) arises from matter in terms of its generation, and language perhaps from movements, once these next-order systems levels have arisen, they tend to take over control and to reorganize the order within and among underlying systems levels. Language, for example, can further be developed into specialist languages, computer languages, etc., which affect (discipline) our behavior from above. The reduction of the complexity of language—used among other things to give meaning to events—to linguistic behavior by language carriers becomes then one research program among other research programs (e.g., Stan’s program to organize the world in terms of hierarchies). One observes historical instantiations that may be organized along trajectories. Evolutionary, this generates variation and remains phenotypical/phenomenological. The selection mechanisms are not directly observable; they are specified by us in scholarly discourse and knowledge-based. Their specification sometimes provides more sophisticated (since theoretically informed) meaning to the same phenomena. The puzzle fascinating me is how this knowledge and information order transforms the underlying orders; first as feedback, but then increasingly as feedforward. Note that this does not de-legitimate the reductionists programs, but reduces their philosophical aspiration to one among possible research programs. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Alex Hankey Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 1:09 AM To: FIS Webinar Cc: Maxine Sheets-Johnstone Subject: [Fis] _ Re: _ FIS discusion In Answer to Maxine's comments While I understand Maxine's concern that we remain a phenomenological orientation in these discussions, and am gratified that in places we do seem to be achieving that, I also feel that many of us are here to bring our own particular perspectives, whether in Maths (Louis), Physics (myself), or Philosophy (albeit with Pragmatist leanings - Soren Brier), and to leave the phenomenologists themselves (such as Maxine) to take what is of use and translate it more precisely into terms that phenomenologists will accept more readily. For myself, I often have to listen to ideas (or students' questions) from those not familiar with strict scientific technicalities, and then to answer them in a language chosen for to try and avoid them being swamped (blinded?) by science. At the same time, I would like to thank Maxine for the depth and clarity of her thoughts - particularly her comment, "The bodies we are not", which I read through Vedanta-tinged spectacles (!!), her wonderful quotes from Aristotle, which were for me an eye opener. With regard to the referenced article on 'How Consciousness arises in Matter" in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, it is clear that the current discussion is less concerned with description and more with how biological systems can support the sense of agency that leads to organism movement(s) in response to various stimuli. Here at the 2016 Science of Consciousness Conference in Tucson, there have been marvellous presentations on behaviour of babies, and how to appreciate various levels (or strengths) of self-awareness of agency, and of what kinds of behaviour may be expected in the first year, or two or three years of life as the brain grows and synaptic connections develop different levels of complexity in different brain regions like the (pre) frontal, auditory and visual cortices. The more synaptic connections the more complex behaviours and the more refined movements become possible. But with babies, we are limited to descriptions from the outside, rather than narratives by the 'person' him/her-self. On 30 April 2016 at 10:37, Maxine Sheets-Johnstone <m...@uoregon.edu> wrote: To FIS colleagues, First, an open-to-all response to Lou Kaufmann: Thank you for your lengthy tutorial—some time back--but I wonder and am genuinely puzzled given the “phenomenology-life sciences theme” why none of the articles that I referenced were read and a r
Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ Discussion
Dear Lou and colleagues, The reasoning is very clear. Thank you. (…) At this point the being has attained linguistic self-reference. The being can say “I am the meta-name of my own naming process.” This nexus or fixed point of self-reference can occur naturally in a being that has sufficient ability to distinguish, name and create. It seems to me that as language arises from interhuman interactions, it takes over as the agent of change. One is called by a name which is then codified by that name. This distinction is important because languages can be further differentiated and codified. Thomas Kuhn, for example, gives the example of “atom” having a meaning codified in some area of physics differently from physical chemistry. While we tend to call you “Lou”, the bureaucracy will call you “Louis”, and your wife may call you with yet another variant. These different names may enable you to enrich your “I”, without loosing a self-reference. I would call this self-reference with the additional degree of freedom for calling itself consciousness. Without consciousness, the name is only a semiotic “actant”. (Perhaps, a dog is a good example.) The issue is important because once constructed, the codes guide the meaning (e.g., “atom”) at the supra-individual level. The control at individual level is only consciousness, including one’s own (idiosyncratic) degree of meta-reflexive freedom. From the perspective of communication, the latter provides the variation; in scholarly discourse, for example, knowledge claims are submitted. In other words, the epistemological grounding is to be found in the “inter” of inter-subjectivity. This goes against our (neo-liberal and enlightenment) intuition that agency grounds existence. The priority of understanding the communication tends to move the order among the sciences to a post-enlightenment one: a sociological epistemology becomes the center with the option to be operationalized in a sociology of scientific communication. The additional degree of freedom in consciousness moreover enables us to participate selectively in the different domains. Latour called this “infra-reflexivity”. The selections shape our identity. The sciences are infra-reflexive to the extent that one can intervene across disciplinary language games; i.e., in other jargon. Best. #Loet In this way, I convince myself that there is nothing special about self-reference. It arises naturally in observing systems. And I convince myself that self-reference is central to an organized and reflective cognition. Even though it is empty to say that “I am the one who says I.” this emptiness becomes though language an organizing center for our explorations of our own world and the worlds of others. The beauty of “I am the one who says I.” is that it is indeed a vacuous reference. Anyone can take it on. The “I” can refer to any observing system sophisticated enough to give it meaning. My example should be expanded into a discussion of the role and creation of meaning in observing systems, but I shall stop here. I am interested in how Soren Brier will react to these, perhaps seen as indirect, remarks on mind and meaning. I take thought and the realm of discrimination as the start of epistemology and I do not regard the immediate apparent objects of our worlds as anything but incredibly decorated entities appearing after a long history of indicative shift. What is their original nature? It is empty. Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. The form we take to exist arises from framing nothing. Now, I caution you in replying to please read carefully what I have written here. I will not reply directly to the discussion for another week or so. Best, Lou Kauffman P.S. The indicative shift is precisely the formalism in back of the workings of Goedel’s Theorem. See “Categorical Pairs and the Indicative Shift”, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.2048.pdf On Apr 11, 2016, at 11:41 PM, Maxine Sheets-Johnstonewrote: To all colleagues, I hope I may voice a number of concerns that have arisen in the course of the ongoing discussions that are ostensibly about phenomenology and the life sciences. The concerns begin with a non-recognition of what is surely the ground floor of real-life, real-time realities, namely, animation, not in the sense of being alive or in opposition to the inanimate, but in the sense of motion, movement, kinetics. As Aristotle cogently remarked, “Nature is a principle of motion and change. . . . We must therefore see that we understand what motion is; for if it were unknown, nature too would be unknown” (Physics 200b12-14). Through and through--from animate organisms to an ever-changing world-- movement is foundational to understandings of subject and world, and of subject/world relationships, and this whether subject and world are examined phenomenologically or scientifically. In
Re: [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS
Dear Soren, It is very strange for me to read yours as usual very learned text, because your understanding of what it is I am trying to do is so different from my own understanding. Though I have had great pleasure of reading you works over the years I am not sure that you have read much of mine. I read quite a bit of your texts, but I may have misunderstood. In that case, I apologize. Non-biologist usually underestimate the complexity of biological processes. I agree. I do not know what you mean when you write about semiotics that its: status is not different from a methodology or a mathematical theory of communication? You seem to assume some postulate from me that is not explicit in the text. I formulated (quote): A mathematical theory of information (e.g., Shannon) enables us to entertain models that one can use from one level to another, for testing hypothesis. These models may come from biology (e.g. Lotka-Volterra), engineering (anticipatory systems; Dubois), complex systems theory (Simon, Ashby), etc. For example: can interactions among codes be modeled using Lotka-Volterra? (Ivanova , 2014; in Scientometrics). The math is not meta, but epi because the other domains can also be considered as specific domains of communication. Maturana, for example, argues that a biology is generated whenever molecules can be communicated (as more complex than atoms exchanged in a chemistry). 3. But of cause if you deny the central idea in systems theory and especially Luhmanns triple autopoietic theory of closed communication systems, which I have accepted but want to put into a semiotic, pragmaticist methodology and metaphysical framework, then of cause we do not speak the same language at all and may be in a situation of incommensurability. I am not so sure that inter-human communications are closed in terms of codes being unambiguous. It seems to me that differently coded communications can always be translated more or less. Luhmann is often too apodictic. For example, his notion of truth as the code for scholarly communication seems not to hold empirically. Lets enjoy the communication. I am sorry if I offended you. Best, Loet It is my feeling that you do not see what I see and attempts to communicate and that you project postulates from scientistic researcher onto my theory blocking you from seeing what it is I want to communicate. So I do not know if we disagree because that demands some mutual level of understanding. Best Søren ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS
serving "systems"; but it is problematic to consider evolving discourse as a "system" (see above). The codes in the communication of expectations enable us also to be surprised by observations. (In the Shannon formulas, the denominator than goes to zero and the expected information value therefore to infinity.) Let me add that I don't wish to deny the fruitfulness of the Piercean system of analyzing signs can have fruitful applications in the information sciences. However, its status is not different from a methodology or a mathematical theory of communication. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Una Teoría Sociológica de la Comunicación: La Autoorganización de la Sociedad Basada en el Conocimiento
Una Teoría Sociológica de la Comunicación: <http://enlinea.uia.mx/libreriavirtual/detalle.cfm?clave=CSP0232 cion=LIBRO> La Autoorganización de la Sociedad Basada en el Conocimiento edited and translated by Gabriel Vélez Cuartas, Liliana Ramirez Ruiz, Javier Torres Nafarrate, et al. México: Universidad Iberoamerica (ISBN 978-607-417-343-7). Now available at http://enlinea.uia.mx/libreriavirtual//detalle.cfm?clave=CSP0232 <http://enlinea.uia.mx/libreriavirtual/detalle.cfm?clave=CSP0232 cion=LIBRO> =LIBRO En esta obra, Leydesdorff retoma la teoría de la estructuración de Gidden, la teoría de la acción comunicativa de Habermas y la propuesta de Luhmann de la auto-organización de los sistemas sociales, y así, busca analizar si las sociedades pueden, como propondría Luhmann, ser consideradas como organizaciones autopoiéticas, es decir, si las sociedades son organizaciones con la capacidad de crear sistemas auto-regulatorios para sí mismas. La importancia de un análisis de esta naturaleza reside en que su aceptación sería la contradicción directa a la tradición sociológica moderna, que considera que la regulación social depende de la capacidad individual que tiene cada sujeto de actuar en su mundo. Loet Leydesdorff, Doctor en Sociología y profesor en el departamento de estudios de la comunicación en la Universidad de Amsterdam, ha publicado textos de redes sociales, filosofía de la ciencia, sociología de la innovación y cienciometría. ** apologies for cross-postings _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] _ Re: Response to Mark Johnson
Dear Mark, Let me just for academic purposes, note that the “we-relationship” is part of Schutz’ (1975 [1952]) critique of Husserl when he formulates as follows: “As long as man is born from woman, intersubjectivity and the we-relationship will be the foundation for all other categories of human existence.” (p. 82; boldface added). Schutz wishes to bring the body back into the reflection, whereas Husserl’s position is more abstract: “All communication, whether by so-called expressive movements, deictic gestures, or the use of visual or acoustic signs, already presupposes an external event in that common surrounding world which, according to Husserl, is not constituted except by communication.” (Schutz, 1975, at p. 72). The bracketing abstracts from the body and immediacy (e.g., a supposed “feeling” or primary movement such as dance or music). These seeming immediacies can be reconstructed as symbolic media of communication (Luhmann, Parsons) using specific codes. Music, for example, is different from noise; dance different from spasm. The cultural intersubjectivity is primordial (from this perspective). It seems to me that this first abstraction is needed for defining information (H) first abstracted from a system of reference (such as biological processes or physical collisions). Systems of reference are needed for the measurement. Analogously, the body is needed for “making music together” (Schutz, 1951). However, the two steps have first to be distinguished, since “making music” is action that reorganizes possible structures. The window on the latter should not be obscured by focusing on the former. Best, Loet References: · Schutz, A. (1951). Making music together, Social Research, 18(1), 76-97. · Schutz, A. (1975). The Problem of Transcendental Intersubjectivity. In I. Schutz (Ed.), Collected Papers III. Studies in Phenomenological Philosophy (pp. 51-91). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:43 PM To: FIS Webinar Subject: [Fis] _ Re: Response to Mark Johnson Dear Maxine, Thank you for your response. I’m grateful for the reference you gave to your work on music, which I will read. I found it interesting that in responding to my question about “what do we do when we describe something”, you pointed to the phenomenological method. I think this amplifies my question rather than addresses it. It also raises further questions about ‘coherent scientific discourse’ (the really important thing here is ‘coherence’). The attraction of ‘pointing at the method’ is that we can get coherence by indexing the stages of the method: first we do ‘bracketing’, etc. Everyone who’s studied Husserl, even (or particularly) at a basic level, can agree. As simple steps to go through it perhaps isn’t controversial – until we ask about what bracketing is, or the nature and locus of the structures of consciousness which are revealed, or whether bracketing is possible at all... Husserl accepted that consciousness was intersubjective, but his understanding of the Other in intersubjectivity was restricted to what Eugene Fink describes as “Others as are present to me in person (gegenwärtig anwesenden Anderen), that is to Others who stand in my near-field, in my perceptual field” (Fink's commentary on Schutz's paper 'The problems of Transcendental intersubjectivity in Husserl') Fink goes on to say “his analysis limits itself to explicating this Other as being present in a body, as having a body and, to this extent, not differing much from cats and dogs. And if having a body should serve as a sufficient indication of a transcendental fellow-subject, then one must consequently conclude that cats and dogs are also transcendental subjects.” That then leads on to a lot of problems in comparing cats and dogs to humans, amongst which are the ways that descriptions are made. Acts of description, and acts of phenomenological reduction, occur in a world of Others. The question is, What conception of this world-of-others do we have, and how do different conceptions affect our description? I think the quest
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24
All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions. I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and can, minimize the miracle. Why would one need a worldview? The whole assumption of an order as a Given (in a Revelation) is religious. Order is always constructed (by us) and can/needs to be explained. No "harmonia praestabilita", but ex post. No endpoint omega. No cosmology, but chaology. With due respect for those of you who wish to hold on to religion or nature as a given; however, vaguely defined. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] _ Re: Maxine’s presentation
Dear Maxine and colleagues, It seems to me that the assumption of an origin takes a heavy load on this theory. We know that order can emerge from chaos. Any order will also disappear in the longer run. Why would one wish to make such assumptions? Meta-physical? Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:13 PM To: 'fis' Subject: [Fis] _ Re: Maxine’s presentation Dear Maxine and Colleagues, Concerning your presentation I have a couple of questions. About dance, first, let me inquire about another important aspect it may have, perhaps a "vital" one . In a number of species, dance is related to the mutual pre-exploration between potential reproductive partners. The individual fitness of the candidate(s) are evaluated quite strategically along the movements of dance, at least in the essential adaptive traits. Cultural layers of human societies may have created further "meanings" to dance (artistic, gimnastic, educative, therapeutic, etc.) but at the very roots of this human phenomenon the exploration between genders continues to be of the essence, I think. Those qualities you mention of tensional, linear, aerial, and projectional are in themselves excellent ways to observe the whole person: not only in the motoric dimension, but also concerning some related intellectual-emotional capabilities. The "gestalts" Alex mentions are colored very differently depending on the social/cultural contexts in which the same dance may take place. It is quite interesting that the folk inter-gender dance is performed in "safe" public spaces, and that it often conveys a feminine advantage (better synchronization of movements, more interest for fashionable pieces), etc. etc. Although perhaps it does not apply to most of present day "disco dance". Along your points, I was reminded that many years ago, someone in fis list wrote about the informational implications of "Tango" (originally a dance between castaway males in Argentina's immigrant squalors) ... it is a pity I can remember very little about that. And the second comment concerns the paleoanthropological tools. The analogy between the two major forms of tools and the two major tooth forms is very well developed.I quite agree, and also would like to ad a relationship with human gut-microbiome. We needed "artificial" teeth because with our terrific brain growth, the overall metabolic needs escalated almost 20%. However, at the same time the gut size (& contained microbiome) was reduced 50% in comparison with any Anthropoidea of our size. This is an impossible budget to maintain, unless the development of collective intelligence applied to our feeding and created completely original ways. These new ways were made possible by language, group identities, tools and artifact creation... but it was the new feeding style what pushed along this adaptive loop. We have called the new ways as "cooking", but actually it was a pre- or external digestion, achieved with those artifactual "molars and incisives", plus boiling, roasting, etc. And also by incorporating "external microbiomes"--fermentation-- for our service: bread, wine, beer, cheese, etc. The essential new foods of civilization. Cooking made us humans... how a "social brain" was created, and how our phenomenology became captive of group collective thinking might be a topic deserving further analysis. Thanking in advance for the tolerance! Best--Pedro - Phenomenology and Evolutionary Biology (1): Phenomenology As written in the Preface to the 2nd edition (1979) of The Phenomenology of Dance, “Certainly words carry no patented meanings, but the term ‘phenomenology’ does seem stretched beyond its limits when it is used to denote either mere reportorial renderings of perceptive behaviors or actions, or any descriptive rendering at all of perceptible behaviors or actions. At the least, ‘phenomenology’ should be recognized as a very specific mode of epistemological inquiry, a method of eidetic analysis invariably associated with the name Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology; and at the most ‘phenomenology’ should be recognized as a philosophically-spawned terms, that is, a term having a
Re: [Fis] Fw: Five Momenta. Five Itineraries
Dear Bruno: These distinctions are not to be identified into a single "self" of the self-reference, but to be dissolved (differentiated) in discourse. They are carried by the communication in science & technology studies or more broadly (since including the science/society interface) in the information sciences. The "self" is not transcendental to these discourses, but reflexive insofar as one has the communicative competencies to listen and - if so wished -- to participate. I think that I might agree with Pedro and Joseph. The unity of science should be preserved, despite this is hard to do when specialities lost themselves in gigantic territories. (.) The unity here is given by a belief in Truth, the original main God of Plato/Parmenides/Plotinus. (.) I respectfully decline your offer of religious conversion. I like to say that only bad faith fear reason, and only bad reasons fear faith. I acknowledge the respect is not mutual. The word "bad" sounds very normative to me. Faith is always faith in some form of unity or unification of knowledge. This was precisely my point. This assumption has turned into faith and thus became outdated. See also: The Sciences are Discursive Constructs: The Communication Perspective as an Empirical Philosophy of Science. <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2499221> Pp. 553-562 in: Lorenzo Cantoni and James A. Danowski (Eds.), <http://www.degruyter.com/view/product/179986> Communication and Technology, De Gruyter Mouton, 2015; doi:10.1515/9783110271355-032 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110271355-032> . Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks
There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the self-production/self-propagation of the entity. "Real communication" among cells? It depends on how one defines communication. Cells, for example, are not able to apologize for the misunderstanding. But there is, indeed, adaptation based on exchange relations among cells. This can also be considered as Shannon-type of communication + feedback loops. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Five Momenta. Five Itineraries
To Loet and Marcus: let us agree that disciplines are based on "communities of inquiry" that follow strict laws of "intellectual economy". Our limited capabilities force us to establish disciplinary specialization, and that's good, but a healthy knowledge system would also establish quite many "vertical" multidisciplines integrating the "horizontal" disciplines that apply simultaneously into concrete subjects (as happens in eg, medicine, engineering, anthrolpology, etc.). Dear Pedro and colleagues, Empirically, we witness the rise of a new business model of publishing scholarly journals that are cross-disciplinary, such as PLoS One. See for more details my recent paper: Loet Leydesdorff & Wouter de Nooy, Can <http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00229> "Hot Spots" in the Sciences Be Mapped Using the Dynamics of Aggregated Journal-Journal Citation Relations?, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (in press); http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00229 This is a major development in the communication dynamics since 2007. Furthermore, I don’t think that the metaphor of “communities of inquiry” is the right one. The communication is not limited by individual capacities, but supra-individual (at the relatively global level). The dynamics is not to be reduced to the interactions among communicators, but is due to the interaction among communications and in this sense second-order. Behavioral (including biological) aspects are not so relevant. Offline, Soren suggested that this can all be modeled using bio-semiosis. I somewhat agree with the semiosis; but I don’t understand what the “bio” adds. This usually goes with references to Charles Pierce, but that does not really help. It seems to me that one has to add to semiosis a dose of structuralism (Parsons, Luhmann). The selection mechanisms are to be specified; these are not “natural”, but culturally constructed, fallible and probabilistic. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fw: Five Momenta. Five Itineraries
Self-reference is a key principle in art and humor and it may also be a key component of the structured coherence in science Pedro and we are seeking. Dear Joseph: Do not count me in to the "we", please. In my opinion, these "unity of science" principles are outdated. At issue is to specify how the sciences and specialties are different; in which respects and why? Obviously, the boundaries are fuzzy, since what may seem far distanced from one perspective can be nearby from another (e.g. in terms of the metrics used for the measurement such as in the case of biometrics and econometrics). These distinctions are not to be identified into a single "self" of the self-reference, but to be dissolved (differentiated) in discourse. They are carried by the communication in science & technology studies or more broadly (since including the science/society interface) in the information sciences. The "self" is not transcendental to these discourses, but reflexive insofar as one has the communicative competencies to listen and - if so wished -- to participate. The distinctions (such as the ones between your five schemes) may be useful heuristics. The puzzles have then to be specified. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Shannon-Weavers' Levels A, B, C.
Dear Marcus, Mark, Bob, and colleagues, My ambition was a bit more modest: the paper does not contain a theory of meaning or a theory of everything. It is an attempt to solve a problem in the relation between sociology (i.c. Luhmann) focusing on meaning processing (and autopoiesis) and (Shannon-type) information theory. Luhmann left this problem behind by defining information as a selection, while in my opinion entropy is a measure of diversity and therefore variation. I was very happy to find the clues in Weaver’s contributions; Katherine Hayles has signaled this previously. Another author important in the background is Herbert Simon who specified the model of vertical differentiation (1973), but without having Maturana & Varela’s theory of autopoiesis for specification of the dynamics. I agree with Luhmann that one has to incorporate ideas from Husserl about horizons of meaning and Parsons’ symbolically generalize media as structuring these horizons for understanding the differentia specifica of the social as non-biological. Mark more or less answers his own questions, don’t you? The constraints of the body provide the contingency. The options are not given, but constructed and need thus to be perceived, either by individuals or at the organizational (that is, social) level. The contingency also positions (as different from others) with whom we can then entertain “double contingencies” as the basis for generating variation in the communication. How this works and feeds back on the persons involved seems to me the subject of other disciplines like psychology and neurology. The subject of study is then no longer (or no longer exclusively) res cogitans. For example, if a deaf person is provided with a cochlear implant, s/he may enter other domains of perception and be able to provide other contributions to the communication. The double contingencies between him/her and others can be expected to change. Bob and his colleagues define information (2008; p. 28) as “natural selection assembling the very constraints on the release of energy that then constitutes work and the propagation of organization.” This may have meaning in a biological framework, in which selection is considered “natural” resulting in organization(s). In the cultural domain, organization (of meaning) remains constructed and contingent; selection is never “natural”, but based on codified expectations. The codes steer the system from above. Differently from biological and engineered systems, this next-order level does not have to be slower than the systems level (Simon). Expectations can proliferate intersubjectively at higher speeds than we can follow. For example, we have to catch up with the literature. Stock exchanges operate faster than local markets because of the more sophisticated codes that mediate the financial exchanges. Maturana (1978, at p. 56) introduced the biologist as super-observer who does not participate in the biological phenomena under study, but constructs them: “Thus, talking human beings dwell in two non-intersecting phenomenal domains.” (italic added). Systems which operate exclusively in terms of expectations and anticipations of future states cannot be found in nature; they can only be considered reflexively. They allow us to de- and reconstruct in terms of improving the models, and thus sometimes find new options for technological intervention. Paradoxically, biology as a science is itself part of this cultural domain. For example, we have access to our body only in terms of perceptions (that are steered by expectations) and at the other end by knowledge-based interventions. This is my second posting for this week. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Marcus Abundis Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 7:11 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] Shannon-Weavers' Levels A, B, C. Hey Mark, Sorry if I confused things by commenting on Bateson AND THEN Shannon-Weaver. In my mind those were two different matters, and did not merit my calling them out as such. In general . . . I too never saw Shanon-Weaver's Levels A, B, C as complete. In fact, I thought
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Information is a linguistic description of structures]--T...
-Original Message- From: Robert E. Ulanowicz [mailto:u...@umces.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 7:11 PM To: Mark Johnson; Loet Leydesdorff Cc: Robert Ulanowicz Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Information is a linguistic description of structures]--T... Dear Mark & Loet, What Bateson described is a special example of a more general agonism that traces back to Heraclitus, who saw reality as the outcome between two opposing tendencies -- "one that builds up and another that tears down". Of course, the tension is fundamental to Eastern thought as well (e.g., Yin - Yan). Dear Bob, Mark, and colleagues, It seems to me that these general denominators are nowadays not specific enough; the system(s) of reference have to be specified and we also are able to specify what is integrating and what is differentiating. In general, one can expect a trade-off between organization and self-organization of the information flows. In the case of interhuman communication, I suggest that the codes of communication are self-organizing and differentiating; whereas they have to be organized by individuals reflexively in instantiations (action). The self-organizing codes are second-order attributes to the communications (and not the communicators), structural, and therefore selection mechanisms; the differentiation drives the communication so that it can increasingly process complexity. The trade-offs generate tensions. I read Mark's comments as a reference to the tradition of the "Dialectics of Enlightenment": when communication tends to take over control, this generates also alienation at the level of the individual because the communication differentiates, while the individual wishes to integrate. Marx expressed this as the relation between exchange and use value: exchange value is the reflection on the abstract market of "human" use value. The market can be considered as an interhuman communication (exchange) system guided by a symbolically generalized code of communication (e.g., price). Capitalism is based on the inversion of the cycle Commodity-Money-Commodity into Money-Commodity-Money (Geld-Ware-Geld). Bateson is interested in personal development ("mind") and (organizational) action. From the perspective of the communication, individual minds provide the sources of variation. Variation is needed for further developing the communication. Reflexively, action also reproduces structure and retains organization. All these relations are to be further specified, in my opinion. Finally, I would like to say that this is not a dialectics. It is increasingly obvious that at least three mechanisms are needed for complex systems formation; for example: triadic closure and the generation of mutual information/redundancy among three or more dynamics. The vertical differentiation in levels A., B, and C is also not incidental. In the case of two, we obtain co-evolution models that explain mutual shaping, but not yet complex systems that may go into crises, globalize, etc. Trialectics, Triple Helix, .., etc. Best, Loet PS. This was my second email for this week. L. _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Information is a linguistic description of structures]--T...
in other words, it's time we confess in science just how little we know about language, that we explore language's mysteries, and that we use our discoveries as a crowbar to pry open the secrets of this highly contextual, deeply relational, profoundly communicational cosmos. Dear colleagues, The vernacular is not sufficiently codified to contain the complexity of the sciences. One needs specialized languages (jargons) that are based on symbolic codification. The codes can be unpacked in elaborate language; but they remain under re-construction. The further differentiation of codes of communication drives the complexity and therefore the advancement of the sciences as discursive constructs. This cultural evolution remains rooted in and generated by the underlying levels. For example, individuals provide variety by making new knowledge claims. Since the selection is at the level of communication, however, this level tends to take over control. But not as an agent; it further differentiates into different forms of communication such as scientific discourse, political discourse, etc. Sociologists (Parsons, Luhmann) have proposed "symbolically generalized media of communication" which span horizons of meaning. "Energy", for example, has a meaning in science very different from its meaning in political discourse. Translations remain of course possible; local organizations and agents have to integrate different meanings in action (variation; reproduction). In my recent paper on the Self-organization of meaning (at http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05251 ), I suggest to distinguish between three levels (following Weaver): A. (Shannon-type) information processing ; B. meaning sharing using languages; C. translations among coded communications. The horizontal and vertical feedback and feedforward mechanisms (entropy generation vs. redundancy generation in terms of increasing the number of options) are further to be specified. Hopefully, this contributes to our discussion. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Answer to Mark. Phenomenology and Speculative Realism
Dear colleagues, Without wishing to defend Husserl, let me try to formulate what is according to my knowledge core to his contribution. The message is that the transcendental intersubjectivity is phenomenologically present in our reality. He therefore returns to Descartes' (much rejected) distinction between res extensa and res cogitans. Intersubjectivity is res cogitans. It is not being like in the Latin esse, but it remains reflexively available. Thus, we cannot test it. The philosophy of science which follows (in The Crisis) is anti-positivistic. The intersubjectivity is constructed and we live in these constructions. Descartes focused on the subjective Cogito. According to him, we meet in the doubting, the Other as not limited and biologically constrained, that is, God or the Transcendency. Husserl shifts the attention to the cogitatum: that about what we are in doubt. We no longer find a hold in Transcendency, but we find the other as other persons. Persons relate to one another not only in being, but also in terms of expectations. This was elaborated as dual contingency (among others, by Parsons). The dynamics of inter-personal expectations, for example, drive scholarly discourses, but also stock exchanges. Alfred Schutz was a student and admirer of Husserl, but he did not accept the Cartesian duality implied. He writes: As long as we are born from mothers ... He then developed sociological phenomenology (Luckmann and others), which begins with the meta-individual phenomena. This is close to Mannheim's position: one cannot analyze the content of the sciences sociologically, but only the manifestations. The strong program in the sociology of science (SSK: sociology of scientific knowledge) positioned that socio-cognitive interests can explain the substantive development of the sciences (Bloor, Barnes, and others) in the 1970s. It returns to a kind of materialism. Luhmann criticized Husserl for not taking the next step and to consider meaning (Sinn) as constructed in and by communication. In my opinion, this is an important step because it opens the realm of a communication theory based on interhuman interactions as different from basing theories (micro-foundationally) on human agency (e.g., the homo economicus or agent-based modelling). The communications can be considered as first-order attributes to agents; the analysis of communications is in terms of second-order attributes; for example, codes of communication. This is very much the domain of the information sciences (although Luhmann did not see this connection). In sum, phenomenological is sometimes used as an appeal to return to the phenomena without invoking explaining principles a priori. The question, however, remains whether our intuitions, imaginations, etc. are also part of this reality. Are they limited (constrained; enabled?) by material conditions or epi-phenomenological consequences of them? Husserl's critique of the modern sciences was the reduction of the very concept of reality to res extensa (that what is). Derivatives of esse such as ontology dominate the scene. Shannon-type information, however, is the expected uncertainty in a distribution. Thus, we stand on common ground that does not exist. J Note that this discussion is different from the one about being versus becoming (Prigogine), but also shares some aspects with it. Is life/biology considered as a monad different from physics that studies nature as a given? How can one perhaps distinguish scientific domains in these terms? Best, Loet -Original Message- From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Robert E. Ulanowicz Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 1:04 AM To: Joseph Brenner Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Answer to Mark. Phenomenology and Speculative Realism Dear Joseph et al., I'm afraid I can't comment on the adequacy Husserlian phenomenology, as I never could get very far into Hursserl. I would just add that there is also a variety of phenomenology associated with thermodynamics and engineering. The generic meaning of phenomenology is the study of phenomena in abstraction of their eliciting causes. This applies to almost all of classical thermodynamics and much of engineering. The idea is to describe the behavior of systems in quantitative fashion. If the resulting mathematical description proves reliable, it becomes a phenomenological description. PV=nRT is such a description. Too often physicists try to identify thermodynamics with statistical mechanics, an action that is vigorously eschewed by engineers, who claim the field as their own. I have spent most of my career with the phenomenology of quantified networks, where phenomena such as intersubjectivity (if I correctly understand what is meant by the term) thoroughly pervades events. Of course, I'm feathering my own nest when I say that I believe that the only *current* fruitful way to approach systems biology is via such phenomenology!
Re: [Fis] Information Foundation of the Act--F.Flores L.deMarcos
Dear colleagues, I read your paper with interest. Since my interest is “information”, I focused on this concept. 1. If I correctly understand, you define information as the 2-log of the number of options. I would be inclined to call this the maximum information content of an act, using H(max) = 2log(N); in which N is the number of options. You do so too at the top of p. 29 (line 1). You organize this under the subtitle “Obervation of information”, whereas I would be inclined to consider this as the specification. An observation of the number of options used in an act would lead to a number lower than the “pure information value”, since not all options are always used. 2. If the information value is equal to the logarithm of the number of options, the concept of information only serves analytically as a transformation rule for expressing the number of options in bits. The two (N of options and n of bits) are coupled to each other in terms of the logarithmic transformation. 3. At several places, one parameter is not logarithmically transformed while others are. For example, at the bottom of p. 25, the 106 people are whole-number counted in the multiplication under Presentation 19. One could argue that who of the one million people acts, adds another dimension to the possible combinations, and should therefore also be brought under the logarithm. Are options exclusively individual, and never social? 4. Is the computational rule in this formula correct given that log(a*b) = log(a) + log(b). You compute 16 bits * log(10); but 16 bits is also the result of taking a logarithm. (The 16 bits represent the number of options of a human body.) Should not you compute the 2log([2^16] * 10)? Or alternatively (16 + log(10))? 5. On p. 28, you move from the conversation of information in isolated systems (line 11) to “the rule of the conversation of information for multiple acts”. But human agency is not an isolated system, in my opinion. We are coupled through our communications which generate non-linear loops. For example, one can expect the other to entertain expectations about oneself like one entertains expectations about the other (Parsons; Luhmann). In sum, the argument that action is only bodily and in relation to artifacts (as isolated systems) seems questionable to me. Or is this your “materialistic” assumption (p. 1: “Matter is potentiality;” …). Why would not the potentiality of matter contain a plurality (multiplication?) of options? It may be difficult to communicate given different starting points. Please, correct me if I misunderstood you. Best, Loet On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: The informational foundation of the act Fernando Flores Lund University fernando.flo...@kultur.lu.se Luis de-Marcos University of Alcalá luis.demar...@uah.es See the whole text at: http://fis.sciforum.net/resources/ Our introducing paper (35 pages) presents a theory that quantifies the informational value of human acts. We argue that living is functioning against entropy and following Erwin Schrödinger we call this tendency “negentropy”. Negentropy is for us the reason behind “order” in social and cultural life. Further, we understand “order” as the condition that the world reaches when the informational value of a series of acts is low. Acting is presented as a set of decisions and choices that create order and this is the key concept of our understanding of the variation from simplicity to complexity in human acts. The most important aim of our theory is to measure non-economic acts trying to understand and explain their importance for society and culture. In their turn such a theory will be also important to understand the similarities and differences between non-economic and economic acts. We follow the classical concept according to which informational value is proportional to the unlikelihood of an act. To capture the richness of the unlikelihood of human acts we use the frequency theory of probability developed by Ludwig von Mises and Karl Popper. Frequency theory of probability allows us to describe a variety of acts from the must most “free” to the least “free” with respect to precedent acts. In short, we characterize human acts in terms of their degree of freedom trying to set up a scale of the information and predictability carried out in human decisions. A taxonomy of acts is also presented, categorizing acts as destructive, mechanical, ludic or vital, according to their degree of freedom (complexity). A formulation to estimate the informational value in individual and collective acts follows. The final part of the paper presents and discuss the consequences of our theory. We argue that artifacts embed information and that modernization can be understood as a one-way process to embed acts of high levels of complexity in simple devices.
Re: [Fis] The Same and Not the Same
Dear Joe, The semantic aspects are external to the Shannon perspective (by definition). However, Weaver (1949) gives openings. (I discuss this extensively in the paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05251.) Mutual redundancy can be defined as a measure of the imprint of meaning processing on the communication of information. Meaning itself cannot be measured, but hypothesizing meaning processing enables one to specify expectations about higher order loops. The dimensionality remains in bits of information. The probability distribution, however, becomes multi-variate when next-order loops are added: instead of p(i), for example, p(ijk) Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en -Original Message- From: Joseph Brenner [mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 9:07 AM To: u...@umces.edu; John Collier Cc: l...@leydesdorff.net; 'Fernando Flores'; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: The Same and Not the Same Dear Bob and All, I have found many useful things in the recent postings, especially Bob U.'s point about the parsing of entropy into two components, mutual information and residual entropy; /qualitatively/, information and entropy are (epistemologically) antithetical, and, I might add, ontologically contradictorial. Also John's point about loops not being computable, as one might expect if they reflect the evolution of real processes. But what about mutual information itself? Mutual information is defined, I believe, as a measure of the mutual dependence of random variables. But suppose the variables or process elements are not random, but there is still mutual dependence. What about the information content here? Perhaps in this context, I can ask again the question of whether it makes sense to 'parse' /information/ itself into two interactive components that differ in their dimensionality, with meaning associated with the emergent component with the higher dimensionality. Curious, Joseph - Original Message - From: Robert E. Ulanowicz u...@umces.edu To: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Cc: l...@leydesdorff.net; 'Joseph Brenner' joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; 'Fernando Flores' fernando.flo...@kultur.lu.se; fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph Folks I know there is a long legacy of equating information with entropy, and dimensionally, they are the same. Qualitatively, however, they are antithetical. From the point of view of statistical mechanics, information is a *decrease* in entropy, i.e., they are negatives of each other. This all devolves back upon the requirement that *both* entropy and information require a reference state. (The third law of thermodynamics.) Once a reference distribution has been identified, one can then quantify both entropy and information. It actually turns out that against any reference state, entropy can be parsed into two components, mutual information and conditional (or residual) entropy. Change the reference state and the decomposition changes. http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/FISPAP.pdf (See also Chapter 5 in http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/publications/ecosystems/gand/.) Cheers to all, Bob Folks, Doing dimensional analysis entropy is heat difference divided by temperature. Heat is energy, and temperature is energy per degree of freedom. Dividing, we get units of inverse degrees of freedom. I submit that information has the same fundamental measure (this is a consequence of Scott Muller¡¯s asymmetry principle of information. So fundamentally we are talking about the same basic thing with information and entropy. I agree, though, that it is viewed from different perspectives and they have differing conventions for measurement. I agree with Loet¡¯s other points. John ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph
Dear John and colleagues, So fundamentally we are talking about the same basic thing with information and entropy. The problem is fundamentally: the two are the same except for a constant. Most authors attribute the dimensionality to this constant (kB). From the perspective of probability calculus, they are the same. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph
Dear Joe, a) information is more than order; there is information in absence (Deacon), in disorder, in incoherence as well as coherence; The absent options provide the redundancy; that is, the complement of the information to the maximal information [H(max)]. See also my recent communication (in Vienna) or at http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05251 b) information is not the same as matter-energy, but it is inseparable from it and reflects its dualistic properties; Information is dimensionless. It is coupled to the physics of matter-energy because S = k(B) * H. k(B) provides the dimensionality (Joule/Kelvin) and thus the physics. In other domains of application (e.g., economics), this coupling [via k(B)] is not meaningful. c) information is both energy and a carrier of meaning, which is not, in my humble opinion, a hard physicalist approach; Meaning provides more options to the information and thus increases the redundancy. In the case of reflexivity and further codification of meanings, the generation of redundancy can auto-catalytically be reinforced (Ulanowicz). Best, Loet d) it remains to be shown that digitalism or computationalism is or could be the natural language for the description of the non-digital world, that is, of the complexity of the world that is of interest. Rafael Capurro has talked about the 'digital casting' of the world that we (or most of us) use in our daily lives, but this philosophical concept, with which I agree, is not a scientific description of the physics of informational processes as such. The best synthesis here of which I am aware is the Informational-Computationalism of Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic and even that is a framework, not an ontology. e) it is possible to use probabilities to describe the evolution of real processes, as well as as a mathematical language for describing acts; f) your presentation of a parameter designated as 'freedom' is indeed original, but it is a classificatory system, based on bits. It will miss the non-algorithmic aspects of values. I am suspicious of things that have infinite levels and represent 'pure' anything; g) I do not feel you have added value to human acts by designating them as ∞-free This may not be intended as doctrine but it looks like it. h) your conclusions about informational value are correct from what I will call a hard neo-capitalist ;-) standpoint, but I am sure you agree there are other ones. In trying to learn through association with this FIS group, I have come to believe that Informational Science is unique in that it can capture some of the complexity of nature, culture and society. It is not a 'hard simplification' as you suggest some sciences are. The concept of (its) foundations is very broad, and it can and should include careful binary analyses such as the one you have made. However, I am pleading for a more directed positioning of your approach with respect to others. Is this an acceptable basis for you for continuing the debate? Thank you again, Joseph - Original Message - From: Fernando Flores mailto:fernando.flo...@kultur.lu.se To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 3:58 PM Subject: [Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph Hello everybody: I will answer to the comments made by Joseph and Luis will answer to the comments made by Moisés. Dear Joseph: Thank you for your comments. We are not sure about the usefulness of identifying “information” (order) with “mater”. In this sense we are very carefully to avoid any hard physicalist approach. In this sense we believe with Norbert Wiener: The mechanical brain does not secrete thought “as the liver does bile”, as the earlier materialist claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter nor energy. No materialism, which does not admit this, can survive at the present day. An informational description of the world must stand as a new branch of science in which “digitalism” will be the natural language. Of course as any other science, it is a simplification of the complexity of nature/society/culture. I believe that we are shown that we are very conscious about the risks of a hard simplification, and that is why we introduced that idea of freedom in a chain of acts and use probability as mathematical language. We considered the vital acts as ∞-free. Fernando Flores PhD Associate Professor History of Ideas and Sciences Lund University _ ___ Fis mailing list 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] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM
Koichiro: “In order to make them decidable or meaningful, some qualifier must definitely be needed. A popular example of such a qualifier is a subjective observer.” “A difference that makes a difference” for a qualifier, thus requires specification of: 1. The first difference; 2. The second difference; 3. The qualifier (e.g., the observer). The first difference can be measured using Shannon-type information, since a probability distribution can be considered as a set of (first-order) differences. Brillouin tried to specify the second difference as a ΔH. ΔH can also be negative (“negentropy”). But how does one proceed to the measurement? Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Koichiro Matsuno Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 9:04 AM To: 'John Collier'; 'fis' Subject: Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM At 4:00 AM 06/27/2015, John Collier wrote: I also see no reason that Bateson’s difference that makes a difference needs to involve meaning at either end. [KM] Right. The phrase saying “a difference that makes a difference” must be a prototypical example of second-order logic in that the difference appearing both in the subject and predicate can accept quantification. Most statements framed in second-order logic are not decidable. In order to make them decidable or meaningful, some qualifier must definitely be needed. A popular example of such a qualifier is a subjective observer. However, the point is that the subjective observer is not limited to Alice or Bob in the QBist parlance. Koichiro ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] FW: Your submission has been published in Sciforum [sciforum-004690]
Fyi. Best, Loet From: conferen...@mdpi.com [mailto:conferen...@mdpi.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 10:34 AM To: l...@leydesdorff.net Cc: conferen...@sciforum.net Subject: Your submission has been published in Sciforum [sciforum-004690] http://sciforum.net/ Sciforum Dear Professor Leydesdorff, Your submission has been published in Sciforum. Submission ID: sciforum-004690 Title: Mutual Redundancies and Triple Contingencies among Perspectives on Horizons of Meaning Author: Loet Leydesdorff Conference: ISIS Summit Vienna 2015—The Information Society at the Crossroads Section: Conference Stream ICPI 2015 Public version: http://sciforum.net/user/submission/bc7cdde3d766a41a52123baf579a580a Your manuscript submission: http://sciforum.net/conference/70/paper/2843 Kind Regards, Your ISIS 2015 Organizing Team Sciforum.net is a platform published and maintained by MDPI AG. For support, e-mail i...@sciforum.net or call +41 61 683 77 34. MDPI AG Klybeckstrasse 64 CH-4057 Basel Switzerland ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Mutual Redundancies and Triple Contingencies among Perspectives on Horizons of Meaning
Dear colleagues, I uploaded my presentation entitled Mutual Redundancies and Triple Contingencies among Perspectives on Horizons of Meaning at the conference of International Society for Information Studies, Vienna, 3-7 June 2014; Session: Integration of the Philosophy of Information and Information Science, to: http://figshare.com/articles/Mutual_Redundancies_and_Triple_Contingencies_am ong_Perspectives_on_Horizons_of_Meaning/1439441 Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What are information and science?
Dear colleagues, I see informational processes as essentially being proto-scientific – how is any science not an informational process? The sciences, in my opinion, are different in terms of what is communicated. As Maturana noted, the communication of molecules generates a biology. Similarly, the communication of atoms generates a chemistry, etc. The communication of words and sentences generates the interhuman domain of communication. One can also communicate in terms of symbolic media such as money. This can be reflected by economics. Thus, the sciences are different. The formal perspective (of the mathematical theory of communication) provides us with tools to move metaphors heuristically from one domain to another. The assumption that the mathematics is general is over-stated, in my opinion. One has to carefully check and elaborate after each translation from one domain to another. In this sense, I agree with “proto-scientific”. Best, Loet First, I think this places me in the camp of Peirce's view. Second, I am unsure of how to regard the focus on higher-order interdisciplinary discussions when a much more essential view of lower-order roles (i.e., What are science and information?) has not been first established. From my naive view I find myself wondering how informational process is not the ONE overarching discipline from which all other disciplines are born (is this too psychological of a framework?). As such, I argue for one great discipline . . . and thus wouldn't try to frame my view in terms of science, mostly because I am unclear on how the term science is being formally used here. Thoughts? Marcus Abundis about.me/marcus.abundis http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro)
Dear colleagues, For the measurement of interdisciplinarity, one can use, for example, Rao-Stirling diversity which is defined as follows (Rao, 1982; Stirling, 2007): Δ = Σij pi pj dij (1) where dij is a disparity measure between two classes i and j-the categories are in the case below journals-and pi is the proportion of elements assigned to each class i. As the disparity measure, we use the distances on an aggregated journal-journal citation map (Leydesdorff, Heimeriks, Rotolo, in press; Leydesdorff, Rafols, Chen, 2013). For example, 23 publications can be retrieved as of today with the search string au=Marijuan P* at WoS. The journal map is as follows: cid:image001.gif@01D09216.E78CE210 and the Rao-Stirling diversity (interdisciplinarity) of this set is 01282. If I repeat the analysis with the search string au=leydesdorff l*, I retrieve 270 documents; Rao-Stirling diversity is 0.0805. cid:image002.gif@01D09216.E78CE210 In other words, Leydesdorff is more prolific than Marijuan in terms of WoS publications, but Marijuan's portfolio is more interdisciplinary than Leydesdorff's. One finds the relevant software at http://www.leydesdorff.net/portfolio/index.htm Reference: Leydesdorff, L., Heimeriks, G., Rotolo, D. (2015 (in press)). Journal Portfolio Analysis for Countries, Cities, and Organizations: Maps and Comparisons http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05676 . Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. oledata.mso Description: Binary data ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fwd: Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE: Information Implementation Operator
PS. You can see the table in html. L. Dear Joe, As tragic events repeatedly show, their origin is often not the lack of information in the simple sense, but the lack of structures (or structurations) in people capable of implementing it. These structures or capacities are also information in the complex sense, of course, but they also can be considered as a form of intelligence. One can consider the network of relations among intelligent agents from this perspective. The network can be written as a matrix or a two-dimensional probability distribution that contains uncertainty (expressable, for example, in bits of information). In order to retain information, the networks have to endure over time and thus one obtains a three-dimensional array of information of networks stacked (with time subscripts). In order to act “intelligently”, the networks have to be able to restructure themselves in the present using one more degree of freedom à four-dimensional probability distribution. Within this array in four dimensions, one can distinguish between trajectories, regimes, Markov chains, evolutionary changes, etc. first dimension second dimension third dimension fourth dimension Operation variation selection stabilization, retention globalization and self-organization Nature entropy; disturbance extension; network localized trajectory identity or regime Character of operation probabilistic; uncertain deterministic; structural reflexive; reconstructive globally organized; resilient Appearance instantaneous and volatile spatial; multi-variate historically contingent emerging hyper-cycle Unit of analysis change in terms of relations latent positions stabilities during history virtual expectations Type of analysis descriptive registration multi-variate analysis time-series analysis non-linear dynamics Source: Leydesdorff, L. (2001). A Sociological Theory of Communication: The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers; at http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBNbook=1581126956 book=1581126956; p. 99. Best, Loet I believe more attention should be paid explicitly to such structures to enable people to recognize and use them against the inevitable forces opposing that (keeping to a schedule, not 'frightening' people, etc.) Calling responsible behavior intelligent might facilitate the exercise of it. Best regards, Joseph ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?
Dear Bob (and colleagues), It seems to me that you drive the problem home by signaling that the use of the word information is very loose in many of our debates. Actually, you argue if I correctly understand that this is rich: words only obtain meaning within a sentence, and one can import information in differently phrased sentences. :) The concept that is missing in this context is codification. The word information cannot only be used loosely, but also as a reference to a concept with meaning from theoretical perspectives. I understood that in Chinese, one has two words for information: sjin sji and tsjin bao; the former being Shannon-type information, and the latter also meaning intelligence. It seems to that Terrys information concept in these discussions is rather Shannon-type. He adds the point that information is relative to maximum information (which can also be precisely defined using Shannon). The difference between maximum information and maximum information is redundancy. Weaver (1949) already noted that in addition to engineering noise, one may have semantic noise or equivalently semantic redundancy if, for example, the sources of noise are correlated; for example, in language. This refinement can go further in scholarly discourse where the use of language is restricted. Thus, I dont agree that the journey is the purpose in itself; the objective is to move information theory forward as a scientific enterprise. Wo Begriffe fehlen, fuegt zur rechten Zeit ein Wort sich ein. :) Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:07 PM To: Pedro C. Marijuan Cc: 'fis' Subject: Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? Thanks Pedro for your remarks. We have not reached our destination as you point out but the important thing is to enjoy the journey which I certainly have. It is inevitable that with such a slippery concept as information that there will be different destinations depending on the travellers but what I like about FIS in general and the dialogue that Terry prompted in particular is the interesting ideas and good company I encountered along the way. As for your remark about searching where there is light I suggest that we pack a flashlight for the next journey to be led by our tour guide Zhao Chuan. One common theme for understanding the importance of both information and intelligence for me is interpretation and context (figure/ground or pragmatics). Thanks to all especially Terry for a very pleasant journey. - Bob __ Robert K. Logan Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications On 2015-01-30, at 8:25 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be appreciated. Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob and Terry, It is about the point which follows: ...there was no thesis other than the word information is a descriptor for so many different situations and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a jaunt through the countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble. In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case) which together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations of the whole field, or even of the whole great domain of information. But could it be so? Is there such thing as a unitary foundation? My impression is that we are instinctively working where the light is, reminding the trite story of the physicists who has lost the car keys and is looking closest to the street lamp. The point I suggest is that the different informational realms are emergent in the strongest sense: almost no trace of the underlying
Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
Dear Steven and colleagues, I did not (yet) study your approach. Is there a paper that can be read as an introduction? It seems to me that one can distinguish between formal and substantial theories of information. Shannon’s mathematical theory is a formal apparatus: the design and the results do not yet have meaning without an interpretation in a substantial context. On the other side, a theory about, for example, neuro-information is a special theory. One can in this context use information theory as a statistical tool (among other tools). Sometimes, one can move beyond description. :) The advantage of information theory, from this perspective of special theories, is that the formal apparatus allows us sometimes to move between domains heuristically. For example, a model of the brain can perhaps be used metaphorically for culture or the economy (or vice versa). The advantages have to be shown in empirical research: which questions can be addressed and which puzzles be solved? Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:13 PM To: l...@leydesdorff.net Cc: Joseph Brenner; fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process The problem with this approach (and approaches like it) is that it is descriptive and not explanatory. The distribution of the shape, in my model, can be described, perhaps, but the process or action decision point and response covariance is impossible to consider. It is for this reason that I use holomorphic functors and hyper-functors in which I can express the explicit role of a base universal (per gravitation). Nor is it clear to me that this is what Joe referred to as information as process. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear colleagues, Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis (North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures. In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write: in which can be considered as the a posteriori and the a priori distribution. This dynamic information measure can be decomposed and aggregated. One can also develop measures for systemic developments and critical transitions. In other words, information as a process can also be measured in bits of information. Of course, one can extend the dimensionality (i) for the multivariate case (ijk…), and thus use information theory for network analysis (including time). Best, Loet References: *Leydesdorff, L. (1991). The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Network Data Using Information Theory. Social Networks, 13(4), 301-345. *Theil, H. (1972). Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es ] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:22 PM To: Joseph Brenner Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process I am a little mystified by your assertion of information as process. What, exactly, is this and how does it differ fro information in general (Shannon). Is it related to Whitehead's process notions? In terms of neuroscience it is important to move away from connectionism and modern computational ideas I believe. It is not clear to me how information theory can be applied to the operation of the brain at the synaptic level because
Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
Dear colleagues, Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis (North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures. In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write: in which can be considered as the a posteriori and the a priori distribution. This dynamic information measure can be decomposed and aggregated. One can also develop measures for systemic developments and critical transitions. In other words, information as a process can also be measured in bits of information. Of course, one can extend the dimensionality (i) for the multivariate case (ijk…), and thus use information theory for network analysis (including time). Best, Loet References: *Leydesdorff, L. (1991). The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Network Data Using Information Theory. Social Networks, 13(4), 301-345. *Theil, H. (1972). Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:22 PM To: Joseph Brenner Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process I am a little mystified by your assertion of information as process. What, exactly, is this and how does it differ fro information in general (Shannon). Is it related to Whitehead's process notions? In terms of neuroscience it is important to move away from connectionism and modern computational ideas I believe. It is not clear to me how information theory can be applied to the operation of the brain at the synaptic level because the actions and the decisions made are made across the structure and not at a single location. Recognition, for example, is not a point event but occurs rather when a particular shape is formed in the structure (of the CNS, for example) and is immediately covariant with the appropriate response (another shape) which may be characterized as a hyper-functor (which may or may not include neurons and astrocytes in the brain). Regards, Steven On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote: Dear Carolina, Bob L., Bob U., Sören and Krassimir, First of all thanks to Carolina for having launched a most interesting thread, of which I have changed the title since the issues are broader than that of Neuroinformation alone, as Francesco has noted. My first point is a response to Sören since I feel his book does not address Information-as-Process as 'physically' as I think necessary. His reference to the use of this term by Buckland (on p. 77 not 87), (which I had missed when first reading /Cybersemiotics/), however, is followed by a reference to information processing. (He later states that a new metatheory is required to replace the information processing paradigm, and he proposes Peircean semiotics, whereas I have proposed Logic in Reality.) I also note that Buckland places Information-as-Process in the 'Intangible' column of his matrix and one can question the ontological meaning of this. In the compendium /Philosophers of Process/. 1998. Browning and Myers (eds.). New York: Fordham University Press, Peirce is represented by four papers: The Architecture of Theories, The Doctrine of Necessity Examined, The Law of Mind and Man's Glassy Essence. Unfortunately, in none of these is the word 'process' used, let alone described as a concept. 'Process' is not an entry in the COMMENS Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce, edited by Bergman and Paavola, so the most one can say is that process was not a common concept in Peirce. If Information-as-Process is to be developed as a concept, I doubt that Peirce's semiotics will help. In the notes of both Bob. L and Bob U., however, one finds workable properties than can be assigned to Information-as-Process, the verb-noun dialectic and the concept of real trophic exchange. Krassimir's concept of information being dynamic (a process) or static depending on what it reflects does not give as complete a notion as I would like that information is /in-itself/ a process, even it reflects (refers to) static or abstract objects
Re: [Fis] MAXENT applied to ecology
Dear Bob, I read your paper (Information, 2011) with much interest. I agree that meaning is not directly observable in terms of probability distributions, but remains as you so nicely express apophatic. In the social sciences, we not only have different meanings, but also different horizons of meaning (Husserl). Formulas 2a (Shannon) and 2b (Kullback-Leibler) are traditional. Could you, please, provide me with a reference for the derivation of Eq. 2c at p. 627? Many thanks in advance. Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en -Original Message- From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Robert E. Ulanowicz Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 6:25 PM To: John Collier Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] MAXENT applied to ecology Dear John, I came across the article and wrote to John Harte. My email to him and his kind response are appended below. I brief, I believe John is on the correct pathway, and it is one that I have been treading for some 35 years now. I think, however, that one cannot simply apply statistical entropy in an unconditional way. Like physical entropy, statistical entropy has meaning only in a relative sense. That is, it can only be measured with respect to some reference situation (cf., the third law of thermodynamics). (We've been over this together in connection with the Brooks and Wiley hypothesis.) By invoking a reference state (even if that state should be reflexive, as is done with weighted networks), one discovers that statistical entropy alone does not parse out order from disorder. Once such parsing has been made, one may then follow the course of order and disorder, in the context of the chosen reference state. http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/FISPAP.pdf http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/FISPAP.pdf John did not suggest a solution to my ignorance about the almost constant proportion between constraint and indeterminism in ecosystem trophic networks. Maybe someone on FIS can suggest one? Peace, Bob Subject: Re: Ecological thermodynamics From: John HARTE mailto:jha...@berkeley.edu jha...@berkeley.edu Date: Fri, September 26, 2014 9:03 am To: Robert Ulanowicz mailto:u...@umces.edu u...@umces.edu Dear Bob, I am in South Africa, Cape Town region, on sabbatical and enjoying immensely the wildlife and botanical preserves, and especially traipsing through the fynbos. Off to Chile next week for a month. I have thought about trophic networks and maxent only to the extent that I realized that the linkage distribution across nodes in most real networks does indeed follow (with some scatter of course)) a Boltzmann distribution. But I have shied away from looking at what theory has to say about flow rates between nodes because the data are so spotty. Recently I have been working with a graduate student on a state-counting approach, a la Boltzmann,to understanding competitive coexistence. It turns out the method actually predicts the dependence of demographic rates on population sizes. The outcome differs somewhat from the variety of dependences found in the usual Lotka-Volterra type models.What's interesting to me is that, as in your work, a quantitative and testable tradeoff arises for populations, in this case between the capacity to adapt under evolution and capacity to survive under competition. I enjoy reading your papers! Cheers, John John Harte Professor of Ecosystem Sciences ERG/ESPM 310 Barrows Hall University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 USA On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Robert E. Ulanowicz mailto:u...@umces.edu u...@umces.edu wrote: Dear John, I notice that you have made considerable headway with applying MAXENT to ecological theory. I was thinking you might find interesting some results we have observed that might be of help in your search for global metrics. In particular, we have discovered that weighted networks of trophic exchanges fall within a very narrow range as regards the ratio of mutual information and conditional entropy. (See Figure 7 on p1089 of http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Dual.pdf http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Dual.pdf.) Admittedly, this observation is based on sketchy data, but if it does hold up, then Equations (5) below the figure might suggest a method superior to MAXENT (for ecosystems only, of course) for estimating missing data? On the other hand, notice that the variable F as defined in Equation (4) bears strong resemblance to the entropy formalism, except
[Fis] Information, Meaning, and Intellectual Organization ; preprint available
Information, Meaning, and Intellectual Organization http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5688 in Networks of Inter-Human Communication The Shannon-Weaver model of linear information transmission is extended with two loops potentially generating redundancies: (i) meaning is provided locally to the information from the perspective of hindsight, and (ii) meanings can be codified differently and then refer to other horizons of meaning. Thus, three layers are distinguished: variations in the communications, historical organization at each moment of time, and evolutionary self-organization of the codes of communication over time. Furthermore, the codes of communication can functionally be different and then the system is both horizontally and vertically differentiated. All these subdynamics operate in parallel and necessarily generate uncertainty. However, meaningful information can be considered as the specific selection of a signal from the noise; the codes of communication are social constructs that can generate redundancy by giving different meanings to the same information. Reflexively, one can translate among codes in more elaborate discourses. The second (instantiating) layer can be operationalized in terms of semantic maps using the vector space model; the third in terms of mutual redundancy among the latent dimensions of the vector space. Using Blaise Cronin's oeuvre, the different operations of the three layers are demonstrated empirically. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5688 ** apologies for cross-postings _ Loet Leydesdorff University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, 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 Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ , University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en hl=en ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner
Dear John and Joseph, Let me use my second option this week to side with you against those who wish to replace substantive theorizing with modelling. The issue is, in my opinion, *which* hypotheses one needs and can elaborate when developing discursive knowledge (e.g., in physics or sociology). The hypotheses are entertained in disccourses and can be reflected by agency. I wished to deny the fruitfulness of the ontological assumptions made in the Logic of Reality--disguised as energetic dynamics--because this hypothesis can only be stated as an act of believe. Instead of believes, one can participate in discourses developing systems of rationalized expectations. (I'll be silent fo the remainder of this week. :-) But I thought that I had to prevent a misunderstanding.) Best, Loet On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:43 PM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote: I would concur completely with what Joseph says here. I have never understood the tendency to replace the world with models of it when we can interact directly with the world in a brute, unmediated way: it can really surprise us sometimes, no matter how sophisticated our models. Those familiar with the work of C.S. Peirce will see that I am just invoking his most basic reason underlying his realism. This is also the message of our book: *Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized*, though I don't agree with everything in it. There are several problems with the models view, I think: 1) what Joseph raised, 2) our models can contain information about the world even if they are not fully accurate, allowing for correction rather than replacement (sequential idealism, as one of my colleagues has called it), and 3) our models are seldom complete, and often not even fully consistent, so they are always open-ended and subject to revision and greater clarity; this is another major point that Peirce pressed (his article, How to make our ideas clear is a good source). If we just add clarity without external motivation, then we are playing word (or symbol) games, which can be fun, no doubt. John At 12:27 PM 2014-02-18, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Loet and Colleagues, In this most interesting comment by Loet, there is a fascinating inversion of roles! Laplace told Louis XV that I don't need the hypothesis of God, something, let us say, rather abstract compared to the solar system. Loet is telling us, however, that what he does not need is the hypothesis of an external reality of energy, since he can explain 'everything' with a set of discursive perspectives, which I consider far too abstract. My position is that I do not need the hypothesis of abstract, epistemological perspectives that are not grounded in reality. I do not know exactly what this is, nor everything about it, but I know some things and understand some real dynamics of their evolution. If a system (such as Loet's) excludes all of these as ungrounded beliefs, something may be missed in the understanding of complex processes, e.g., information. Loet is, perhaps, closer to Newton in his attitude to his own (Loet's) system: Hypotheses non fingo. I'll go with Laplace. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - *From:* Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net *To:* Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch *Cc:* fis fis@listas.unizar.es *Sent:* Monday, February 17, 2014 9:32 PM *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Fw: [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner Dear Joseph, The energetic terms are external referents to the communication (scholarly discourse). These external referents can differently be codified; for example, in terms of thermodynamics or various forms of physics (e.g., in terms of classical physics). The dynamic properties can only be studied from one discursive perspective.or another. The ontological status that these dynamics are nevertheless attributed in your logic in reality requires an act of belief in an external reality that is assumed to be given (so that can enter into the dialectics of logic in reality.) Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothese-la. Best wishes, Loet On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote: Dear Loet, I am still hoping that there will be more comments on both my original note and your significant emendation of it, for which many thanks. Here is my response to you now. I have, more than before, the feeling that you have agreed that LIR can add something to the sufficiency of the overall picture. Three things might make this even clearer: 1. You wrote: From this perspective, the reality in Logic in Reality (LIR) is res cogitans: an inter-human construct about which we remain uncertain. JEB: But LIR applies also INTRA-human constructs, that is how human agents change one another, including their expectations. Thus, 2. The codes in the reflexive communications can be considered as the (hypothesized!) eigenvectors of the networks
Re: [Fis] Fw: [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner
Dear Joseph, The energetic terms are external referents to the communication (scholarly discourse). These external referents can differently be codified; for example, in terms of thermodynamics or various forms of physics (e.g., in terms of classical physics). The dynamic properties can only be studied from one discursive perspective.or another. The ontological status that these dynamics are nevertheless attributed in your logic in reality requires an act of belief in an external reality that is assumed to be given (so that can enter into the dialectics of logic in reality.) Je n'ai pas de cette hypothese-la. Best wishes, Loet On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.chwrote: Dear Loet, I am still hoping that there will be more comments on both my original note and your significant emendation of it, for which many thanks. Here is my response to you now. I have, more than before, the feeling that you have agreed that LIR can add something to the sufficiency of the overall picture. Three things might make this even clearer: 1. You wrote: From this perspective, the reality in Logic in Reality (LIR) is res cogitans: an inter-human construct about which we remain uncertain. JEB: But LIR applies also INTRA-human constructs, that is how human agents change one another, including their expectations. Thus, 2. The codes in the reflexive communications can be considered as the (hypothesized!) eigenvectors of the networks of relations among expectations (carried by human minds). JEB: Same comment as above. The logical values of actuality and potentiality of real process elements, which include communications, have the dimensions of vectors. 3. However, this reality has the epistemological status of a hypothesis, whereas you seem to reify it and identify it with nature (energy?) as a given. From my perspective, this presumes a reduction of the complexity using the communicative codes of physics and biology. There is nothing against this coding, but it can be considered as one among an alphabet of possible ones. JEB: This is an interesting expression of our different points of view. You see my approach as reducing complexity and reifying 'this reality' and I think it is your approach that reduces and reifies it!! Perhaps we are both right!! Logic in Reality does not deal with a /certain/ complexity, which can be associated with complicated epistemological entities or states. Your theory seems to me to abstract away qualitative, energetic highly complex relational/cognitive states that are outside the hypothesis. The specific reduction to the perspective of a sociology of expectations enables us to study the dynamics among differently coded expectations in other domains. JEB: If one includes, in the zoo of expectations, their dynamics in energetic terms, one does not have to see the 'zoology' of expectations as a reduction. It is already and remains open since the dynamics is not only between the coded expectations or other cognitive features but their critical, non-coded dynamic properties. Application to all domains in which there are significant dynamic interactions follows naturally. The dynamics of LIR, however, is not a standard non-linear dynamics but rather an extension of the concept of recursion as you and Dubois use it. As I have remarked previously, but rephrasing it now the interpretation of reality as involving a process of coding is something that I see necessary for epistemology but not necessary for ontology. The entire Peircean structure can be seen as a 'coding', and this makes it attractive to many people because it seems manageable, but I much prefer yours. I look forward very much to your comments on the above. Best, Joseph - Original Message - From: Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net To: fis@listas.unizar.es Cc: 'Joseph Brenner' joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:53 AM Subject: RE: [Fis] [Feedforward II and Anticipation] Joseph Brenner Dear Joseph and colleagues, I owe you a reply on the last mail in which you counter-positioned our two approaches. I agree with some of what you say; for example, replacing the concept of circularity by saw-tooth or spiral evolution. In my opinion, the two arrows have to be specified instead of being attributed to all living and cognitive systems (as you state a few sentences later). What is evolving? My interest is in the evolution of expectations. Expectations can be entertained by discourses (or other inter-human communication systems) and be reflected (and reconstructed) specifically by human agency. Different from other species, the expectations can be codified and therefore operate at the supra-individual level. For example, many of your statements can be considered as the specification of theoretically
Re: [Fis] Fw: Responses
Dear colleagues, This discussion and reading the beautiful book of Bob Logan entitled What is information? (shortly forthcoming) made me go back to reading MacKay (1969) once more. I cannot find the distinction that makes a difference as it is quoted by Floridi (2005) -- and thereafter repeated by many -- so that I think that the honour goes to Bateson (1973) for a difference which makes a difference. MacKay, however, makes the point, for example, on p. 136 that the sentence S is a source of information is incomplete. It must always be completed (even if sometimes implicitly) in the form 'S is a source of information to receiver R'. Two sentences later he calls this significant information that must be capable of embodying and abiding by an agreed code or symbolic calculus. Elsewhere, he distinguishes this substantive concept of information from amounts of information that can be measured using (Shannon's) information theory. It seems to me that any discourse (physics, biology, psychology, sociology, etc.) can be further informed specifically in terms that are defined within and relevant to the specific discourse. This accords with the intuitive sense of information as meaningful information: meaningful for a discourse. Shannon's definition of information is counter-intuitive, but it provides us with a calculus that has major advantages. Katherine Hayles suggested that the two concepts can be compared with the discussion of whether a glass is half-full or half-empty. A Chinese colleague (Wu Yishan) once told me that in Chinese one has two words: sjin sji and tsin bao which correspond respectively to Shannon's and Bateson's definitions of information. A substantive definition of information (e.g., as a distinction that makes a difference for a receiver) requires the specification of the concept in a theory about the receiving system. This definition is therefore a priori system-specific; for example, for some of us this system is physics; for others it is biological discourse. At this level, one can again abstract from the substance and use Shannon's IT as entropy statistics. Sometimes, this allows us to explore the use of algorithms developed in one field (e.g., biology) in another (e.g., sociology). Concepts such as autopoiesis or auto-catalysis have carried these functions. For example, in the context of Ascendency Theory, Bob Ulanowicz showed how one can use the mutual information in three dimensions as an indicator of systemness. I use that as a systems indicator when operationalizing the triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Such translations of metaphors are always in need of further elaboration because the theoretical context changes and thus the specification of what the information means. However, the advantage to be able to measure in bits (nats or dits) frees us from the philosophical confusion about what information is. In my opinion, information can only be defined within a discourse. The mathematical definition of Shannon has specific functions which enable us to combine with different discourses (among which, specifically physics since S = k(B)*H). H, however, is dimensionless and defined as the expected information content of a message *before* it is received. It is yet to be provided with meaning. One could consider this meaninglesness as the specific difference of a mathematical concept of information. (Perhaps, it is easier to use uncertainty for this mathematical concept.) Best wishes, Loet -Original Message- From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Robert E. Ulanowicz Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:45 PM To: Christophe Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Responses The reason of being of information, whatever its content or quantity, is to be used by an agent (biological or artificial). Dear Christophe, In making this restriction you are limiting the domain of information to communication and excluding all information that inheres in structure per-se. John Collier has called the latter manifestation enformation, and the calculus of IT is quite effective in quantifying its extent. Perhaps John would like to comment? Cheers, Bob U. ___ 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] Fw: Isms Healing the Subject-Object split
Dear Hans, Joe, and colleagues, Healing the subject-object divide from the perspective of personal experiences as advocated here, seems let's say meta-scientific to me. I don't think that there is a logic in reality. Analytical distinctions and arguments (instead of personal experiences) are needed. Because it is Monday morning, I cc to the list. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ , University of London. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en hl=en From: Hans von Baeyer [mailto:henrikrit...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 11:30 PM To: Loet Leydesdorff Cc: Joseph Brenner; Pedro C. Marijuan Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Isms Healing the Subject-Object split Loet, the verb heal is used on all kinds of fissures -- not only in medicine. Biologist, geologists, and metallurgist describe the closing of a crack as healing. The word can be used transitively or intransitively: The doctor healed her leg. The crack in the fuselage seems to have healed. It means made whole The subject-object split is a fundamental divide, at least for physicists. It may also be a mistake. Hans On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear Joseph, (offline) IMHO, experiences are not so important since easily mistaken. More important are arguments (which of course have to be theoretically informed). One tests hypotheses (expectations) against carefully designed observations in experimental settings. I don't believe in such healing: it is a metaphor from medicine. What or who is healed? Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ , University of London. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en hl=en From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 7:05 PM To: fis; Hans von Baeyer; Pedro C. Marijuan Subject: [Fis] Fw: Isms Healing the Subject-Object split Dear All, I think I have discovered what it was that was bothering me about QBism: it was only the particular 'detour' through atomic physics that Hans made, that is, one that requires Bayesian probability to describe its terms (see New Year Lecture). Here are two key tenets of QBism, however, with which I completely agree: 1) personal experience is put front and center in any description of the world, we now see, solving the problem of the apparent simultaneity of the perception of the Now by two individuals. 2) it goes a long way toward healing the subject/object split, which has been effective for physical science, but has also impeded progress toward a more inclusive, holistic understanding of the world. I think it is wonderful that Hans von Baeyer puts these forth as desirable and necessary objectives for scientists. This is indeed a long way. In my view, we can look at the physics itself again and make further progress towards a holistic understanding of the world. This is what Logic in Reality tries to do, and the tools are a non-standard, non-Bayesian probability that excludes the classical limits of 0 and 1; 2) a generalization of the dualities of physics to higher levels of reality; 3) the removal of other classical 'splits' that have been just as toxic for progress: between time and space, simultaneity and succession, cause and effect, energy and information; and 4) the introduction of a third term that is emergent from the original two. We thus have, for example, subject, object and subject-object. The latter is not static, but can behave as a new subject or object in this evolutionary picture. Unlike all other logics, Logic in Reality is not topic-neutral, but defines experiential notions of quality and value, providing a (more) scientific foundation for individual and collective moral responsibility. As you know, there is no 'literature' on the above other than my recent book and articles and the original books and papers by Lupasco and Nicolescu. But I am encouraged by Hans' work to think that the key points of LIR
Re: [Fis] Fw: Responses
Having a proper view of physics among the many possible is critical to placing information theory on a sound basis. I have proposed Logic in Reality as one way of giving meaning to the statement that energy and information processes are non-separably related and how they are related. Are there others? Dear Joseph, It seems to me that there is at least one alternative: Shannon's mathematical theory of information. Information is then defined as content-free. Thermodynamic entropy (physics) is the special case that H is multiplied by the Boltzmann constant and thus one obtains the dimensionality of S. (S = kB * H). Information theory, however, can also be used in other contexts such as economics (Theil, 1972). It does not have a realistic interpretation such as in your argument. From such a more differentiated perspective, concepts (e.g., electrons) do not exist, but are meaningful and codified within theories. There can be sufficient evidence (in physical theorizing) to assume (for the time being) that the external referents (electrons) exist. The logic is not in reality, but in the argument, and one cannot jump to the (ontic) conclusion of existence. Thus, perhaps the sentence we all agree . (with you?) is a bit premature. Best, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Social constructivism
Dear colleagues, Perhaps, the rainbow argument is opening a window to constructivism. The definitions of poverty or IQ, for example, guide us in our perceptions of reality and the possibilities of measurement. One can measure IQ because the concept is discursively constructed and codified. The nature of the codification process may be different among the sciences (e.g., between social and natural sciences), but not the need to construct discursively and to codify scholarly communication in processes of validation. Best wishes, Loet From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Hans von Baeyer Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 12:52 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] Social constructivism Stan asks: Would we be justified in viewing QBism the latest venture of [social] constructivism? WOW, I sure hope not! While it is true that there are fads in science, and that the direction of research is influenced to some degree by the society that funds it and consumes its fruits, I think that the underlying methodology distinguishes socially constructed models of reality from scientific ones. Social constructions use arguments that play no role in any account of the scientific method as it applies to the Natural Sciences (as opposed to the Social Sciences). Some examples: Deutsche Physik referred to the ethnicity of scientists, Lysenkoism adduced ideological goals; Creationism appeals to scripture; Feminist Science Studies consider the gender of scientists. QBism does not change any of the impressive successes of quantum mechanics. It simply says that quantum mechanics is a very complex, abstract encoding of the experiences of generations of scientists interacting with atomic systems. It disenfranchises a physicist from knowing what an electron spin, for example, REALLY is, while celebrating her ability to predict correctly, albeit probabilistically, what to expect in the next experiment. She and her predecessors have created an abstract model, and validated it by appeal to experiments, without appeal to any of the other considerations listed above. In conversation with Joseph Brenner and others I have used the rainbow as a metaphor. The rainbow is a phenomenon that everyone experiences slightly differently, but that we all agree on. The scientific model that explains it is very complicated and highly abstract. Is the rainbow real? It certainly does not exist when nobody is looking. It is, in the end, a personal experience. For me the experience is enhanced considerably by my understanding of the scientific model of it, because it allows me to look for and discover details I had never noticed, but I would not presume to say I know what YOUR experience of it is. Maybe you are thinking of Iris or Noah, and feeling awe or curiosity, and remarking on its (apparently) immense size and variable brightness. QBism suggests that we look at the world as consisting of rainbows -- an ensemble of complex phenomena about which we know some things, but whose essences we cannot capture. The QBist says: I don't know what the world is. All I know is what I experience in my interactions with the world, as they are illuminated and modified by what I have learned from other people, past and present, who have had similar experiences and encoded them in the succinct language of mathematics. Hans ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Article on panpsychism
Dear colleagues, Ulanowicz' measure can be considered as a measure of redundancy. We work with it to study synergy (or lack of it) in university-industry-government relations (since meeting with Ulanowicz at a meeting in Toronto in 2001). See also: Loet Leydesdorff and Inga Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaning http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849 , Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (in press); http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849 . Best, Loet -- Forwarded message -- From: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Date: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:46 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Article on panpsychism To: Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch, fis fis@listas.unizar.es Joseph, I take your points.In particular a more refined study of brain function is required to refine understanding of the functionality of consciousness. However, Bob Ulanowicz has used a similar measure for studying ecosystems, and it has proven to be of considerable value there. I realize that what is useful in one discipline might not be in another even if the mathematics apply, but establishing some basic measures, though it does not tell us everything we might want to know (and people do have different questions they want to answer, to complicate things), one has to start somewhere in any rigorous approach, and usually it is at a pretty general point like phi. In any case, I have found Ulanowicz' measure to be a good starting point for understanding functionality in ecosystems, and phi might also be a starting point for more refined measures in consciousness studies. Incidentally, the work referred to in the blog entry (which is original, published Jan. 1 2014) is from 2009, and that is probably based on work that was originally published earlier. I have subscribed to Scientific American since 1965 or so, and I don't recall it ever containing original work in articles on areas with which I was familiar. As I pointed out in my comment, Leibniz came up with pretty much the same idea a long time ago, distinguishing between confused and clear perceptions, with the latter only involved in what might be called self-consciousness. There isn't much genuinely new under the sun. I agree that the phi measure is flat, but I see one of the advantages of information theory is that it can linearize the nonlinear once we understand what information is and how it flows. Just as more refinement of levels is required to understand consciousness, the same can be said of Ulanowicz' measure and levels in ecology, but that doesn't mean the gross measure is useless by any means. I am looking at ways to articulate his measures in ecological hierarchies along the lines of my work on natural instance (as opposed to general) hierarchies, hoping to get more local measures of functionality and competing functionalities at different levels in hierarchies. I have argued that we need to look at this in mental hierarchies, and I would guess that there are hierarchies within consciousness as well that have sometimes competing functionalities. I am a big fan of Damazio. John At 03:23 AM 2014/01/04, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear John, The Koch article is worth reading as a kind of statement within the current reductionist paradigm I believe it is necessary to get beyond. It is all the more insidious because of Koch's research credentials, but it contains all the 'push-button' words that I have seen in his previous work, as well as that of others. Two of these are, in this connection, 'measure' and 'integration'. That 'the mental is too radically different to arise gradually from the physical' is a hypothesis, and begs the questions 'does it?' and 'why shouldn't it?' Despite your comment on the utility of his measure, it seems much too scalar to represent anything fundamental. There is no indication of the essentiality of properties of process and interaction in the concept of information used by Koch. It also opens the door, as I said in my previous note, to misinterpretations supporting anti-realist positions. I conclude that the lessons the article offers about how to think about subjective experience are (ideologically) biased and miss the necessary connection between subjective and objective. In his 2010 book, Self Comes to Mind, Anthony Damasio discusses how the consciousness is constructed as a result of what he calls master interoceptive processes that occur between the multiple structures at the level of the brain stem and the cerebral cortex. He first defines a protoself as an integrated collection of separate neural patterns that map, moment by moment, the most stable aspects of the organism's physical structure. The nuclei of the homeostatic processes involved generate one of the two key components of the self - the feelings of knowing. The other component, derived from non-homeostatic processes in the brain stem, generate object saliency
Re: [Fis] The Communication Man
However, most of Loet's text is discursive, with ample freedom of construction, and the parts associated to scientific conceptualizations do not become very relevant --in my opinion they provide a loan of apparent rigor. Besides the topic of discussion in his message is slightly twisted: the initial communication and life becomes scientific communication and biology... I do not want to be negative, rather pointing that there is a different communication strategy at work. Well, finally the respective rigor is in the eye of the beholder. Dear Pedro, I take the liberty to react shortly to your message: I agree that we use different paradigms, but for those of you who are interested in the rigorous math I gave a reference to The Communication of Expectations and Individual Understanding: Redundancy as Reduction of Uncertainty, and the Processing of Meaning http://ssrn.com/abstract=2358791 where the derivation is both in terms of the entropy statistics and in terms of the computation of anticipatory systems. (I consider email exchanges as less codified, but more explanatory.) Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The Communication Man
The purport of metabolism is change, not only burning carbon-hydrogen bonds. But perhaps we might all prefer communicating is life; life is communicating. Dear Joseph, In my opinion, communicating exhibits a dynamics very different from living. For example, you have the freedom to write communicating is life and I can counter that this is not true (communicating is not life). We may then be able to communicate or not. We can also stop communicating, without stopping life. Similarly the statement information is constraints and constraints are information is too grandiose. We can model a constraint on the information exchange as a conditional probability distribution. It follows that H(x|y) H(x) or more precisely: H(x|y) = H(x) - T(xy). Transmission between two dynamics is a crucial (and quantifiable) concept. Best, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] social flow. Finding correspondences
Joseph writes: I think that the pessimism of Loet and Christophe could be helped by looking for dynamic relations at the different levels that are grounded in basic physics and chemistry, namely ones of changing actuality and potentiality. The dynamics are not /the same/, but if they have some common principle, we have something at least to work with. We do take over the biological model in its totality, but that portion of it which applies throughout nature. The couplings (Loet) are probably not simple dependency relations, but interactive relations involving presence and absence, along the lines of Deacon. Christophe is right that we do not understand completely the human entities within which information flow occurs, but the rules (Luhn) they follow are not necessarily totally different or mysterious. Someone with an oversized ego, A, is going to behave accordingly until he runs, inevitably, into some resistance (someone with a bigger ego, B). The subsequent dynamics will follow the same pattern as at lower levels, A's usual behavior will be potentialized at the expense of B's. Under good conditions, the A and B interaction will produce an emergent behavior, AB, in which, however, the original 'egos' have not totally disappeared. If this line is followed, there is not a total, but a minimum continuity in the form of the interactions between non-life and life. Information is in this form. I doubt that this is a fruitful assumption: anticipations of future states invert the time axis against recursions to previous states in historical (biological) developments. Communication of models enables discourses to entertain expectations of future states that can be used by reflexive agents to reconstruct current ones. We elaborate this in: Loet Leydesdorff, Inga Ivanova, and Mark Johnson, The Communication of Expectations and Individual Understanding: Redundancy as Reduction of Uncertainty, and the Processing of Meaning (in preparation, but available as preprint at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2358791 ). The generation of more possible states (increasing redundancy) operates very different in cultural systems because of the possibility to refer to horizons of meaning. I am afraid that this is my second posting for this week. -L Best, Loet Best, Joseph - Original Message - From: Loet Leydesdorff mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow Dear colleagues, It seems to me that one can use models from biology to study inter-human communication; but inter-human communication is not alive. The dynamics are non-linear, but probably very different from the dynamics among molecules. For example, counterfactual orders can be shaped culturally among us such as the rule of law. This cannot be reduced to biological principles (such as survival of the fittest). The dynamics of expectations are very different from that of historical events. The psychological may be mediating reflexively between the cultural and the biological, with a dynamics of itself. Without the individual reflections on perceptions, the social distribution of expectations would not be reproduced. However, one cannot reduce these structural couplings to dependency relations, in my opinion. Best, Loet Reference: Niklas Luhmann http://ssrn.com/abstract=2355880 s Magnificent Contribution to the Sociological Tradition: The Emergence of the Knowledge-Based Economy as an Order of Expectations, in: Nachtflug der Eule: 150 Stimmen zum Werk von Niklas Luhmann. Gedenkbuch zum 15. Todestag von Niklas Luhmann (8. Dezember 1927 Lüneburg - 6. November 1998 Oerlinghausen), Magdalena Tzaneva (Ed.). Berlin: LiDi Europe Verlagshaus, 2013; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355880 . From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:53 PM To: Joseph Brenner; Roly Belfer Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow Dear FIS colleagues, Many thanks for the comments exchanged. Welcome to Roly, the first party of the Xian's conference publishing in the list (I mean concerning the invited speakers, as Bi-Lin who also posted recently was a Xian participant too). I agree with Roli's interpretation and Joseph's points, and also with the direction started by John. It is one of the few times we are producing interesting ideas on social information infrastructures. Perhaps at the time being the received wisdom on communication social information is not working terribly well. For instance, Jakobson six communication functions could be perfectly collapsed into three, or expanded into nine... I have found a similar relativity in the not so many approaches to cellular / biological communication. One of the essential points to reconsider is, in my opinion
Re: [Fis] social flow
Dear colleagues, It seems to me that one can use models from biology to study inter-human communication; but inter-human communication is not alive. The dynamics are non-linear, but probably very different from the dynamics among molecules. For example, counterfactual orders can be shaped culturally among us such as the rule of law. This cannot be reduced to biological principles (such as survival of the fittest). The dynamics of expectations are very different from that of historical events. The psychological may be mediating reflexively between the cultural and the biological, with a dynamics of itself. Without the individual reflections on perceptions, the social distribution of expectations would not be reproduced. However, one cannot reduce these structural couplings to dependency relations, in my opinion. Best, Loet Reference: Niklas Luhmann http://ssrn.com/abstract=2355880 s Magnificent Contribution to the Sociological Tradition: The Emergence of the Knowledge-Based Economy as an Order of Expectations, in: Nachtflug der Eule: 150 Stimmen zum Werk von Niklas Luhmann. Gedenkbuch zum 15. Todestag von Niklas Luhmann (8. Dezember 1927 Lüneburg - 6. November 1998 Oerlinghausen), Magdalena Tzaneva (Ed.). Berlin: LiDi Europe Verlagshaus, 2013; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355880 . From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:53 PM To: Joseph Brenner; Roly Belfer Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow Dear FIS colleagues, Many thanks for the comments exchanged. Welcome to Roly, the first party of the Xian's conference publishing in the list (I mean concerning the invited speakers, as Bi-Lin who also posted recently was a Xian participant too). I agree with Roli's interpretation and Joseph's points, and also with the direction started by John. It is one of the few times we are producing interesting ideas on social information infrastructures. Perhaps at the time being the received wisdom on communication social information is not working terribly well. For instance, Jakobson six communication functions could be perfectly collapsed into three, or expanded into nine... I have found a similar relativity in the not so many approaches to cellular / biological communication. One of the essential points to reconsider is, in my opinion, the lack of connection between communication and life itself. Without entering self-production of the living there can be no sense, no meaning. The notion of information flow (rather than the signal) has helped me to cohere the cellular intertwining scheme. But, little problem, how can the gap to the human dimension be crossed? Essentially human communication is not logical, but bio-logical... amorphously structured around the advancement of one's life, and that includes masterminding well organized motor apparatuses, as those involved in language production and language interpretation (cerebellar computation). Logics is a byproduct of this motor/perceptual system underlying our concepts and the interlinking of our exchnges, which becomes mastermined by the fitness demands within social groups --responding to Bi-Lin's off line comments too. Actually most of our social exchanges are supradetermined by status, self-image, ambitions, affinity, collective identities, deception, self-deception, attraction, etc. Rather than noise, it is life itself! Haven't we a lot of work to be done in these essential matters? best ---Pedro _ De: Joseph Brenner [joe.bren...@bluewin.ch] Enviado el: jueves, 21 de noviembre de 2013 20:22 Para: Roly Belfer; PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Asunto: Re: [Fis] social flow Dear Roly, Dear Pedro, Thank you for taking this thread in a for me very interesting direction. As you know, interesting means what I find my logical system can confirm, improve, validate, etc. The two notes share one feature that one might criticize, namely, that they deal essentially with present, conscious material, whereas information flow almost by defintion seems to involve components that are absent, potential, unconscious, etc. Similarly, the application of the Square of Opposition in Roly's reference would at first sight appear to be explanatory, but on closer inspection, I find everything reduced back to binary logic, arrows in a box. What has to be added, pace Jakobson, is some notion of the actual dynamics of what Roly calls a mutual relateable framework. And let's not be too greedy: let's get the pairwise interactions right and then see where we can go with more complex ones. Cheers, Joseph - Original Message - From: Roly Belfer mailto:avi...@gmail.com To: Pedro C. Marijuan mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow
Re: [Fis] social flow
Dear colleagues, It seems to me that one can use models from biology to study inter-human communication; but inter-human communication is not alive. The dynamics are non-linear, but probably very different from the dynamics among molecules. For example, counterfactual orders can be shaped culturally among us such as the rule of law. This cannot be reduced to biological principles (such as survival of the fittest). The dynamics of expectations are very different from that of historical events. The psychological may be mediating reflexively between the cultural and the biological, with a dynamics of itself. Without the individual reflections on perceptions, the social distribution of expectations would not be reproduced. However, one cannot reduce these structural couplings to dependency relations, in my opinion. Best, Loet Reference: Niklas Luhmann http://ssrn.com/abstract=2355880 s Magnificent Contribution to the Sociological Tradition: The Emergence of the Knowledge-Based Economy as an Order of Expectations, in: Nachtflug der Eule: 150 Stimmen zum Werk von Niklas Luhmann. Gedenkbuch zum 15. Todestag von Niklas Luhmann (8. Dezember 1927 Lüneburg - 6. November 1998 Oerlinghausen), Magdalena Tzaneva (Ed.). Berlin: LiDi Europe Verlagshaus, 2013; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355880 . From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:53 PM To: Joseph Brenner; Roly Belfer Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow Dear FIS colleagues, Many thanks for the comments exchanged. Welcome to Roly, the first party of the Xian's conference publishing in the list (I mean concerning the invited speakers, as Bi-Lin who also posted recently was a Xian participant too). I agree with Roli's interpretation and Joseph's points, and also with the direction started by John. It is one of the few times we are producing interesting ideas on social information infrastructures. Perhaps at the time being the received wisdom on communication social information is not working terribly well. For instance, Jakobson six communication functions could be perfectly collapsed into three, or expanded into nine... I have found a similar relativity in the not so many approaches to cellular / biological communication. One of the essential points to reconsider is, in my opinion, the lack of connection between communication and life itself. Without entering self-production of the living there can be no sense, no meaning. The notion of information flow (rather than the signal) has helped me to cohere the cellular intertwining scheme. But, little problem, how can the gap to the human dimension be crossed? Essentially human communication is not logical, but bio-logical... amorphously structured around the advancement of one's life, and that includes masterminding well organized motor apparatuses, as those involved in language production and language interpretation (cerebellar computation). Logics is a byproduct of this motor/perceptual system underlying our concepts and the interlinking of our exchnges, which becomes mastermined by the fitness demands within social groups --responding to Bi-Lin's off line comments too. Actually most of our social exchanges are supradetermined by status, self-image, ambitions, affinity, collective identities, deception, self-deception, attraction, etc. Rather than noise, it is life itself! Haven't we a lot of work to be done in these essential matters? best ---Pedro _ De: Joseph Brenner [joe.bren...@bluewin.ch] Enviado el: jueves, 21 de noviembre de 2013 20:22 Para: Roly Belfer; PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Asunto: Re: [Fis] social flow Dear Roly, Dear Pedro, Thank you for taking this thread in a for me very interesting direction. As you know, interesting means what I find my logical system can confirm, improve, validate, etc. The two notes share one feature that one might criticize, namely, that they deal essentially with present, conscious material, whereas information flow almost by defintion seems to involve components that are absent, potential, unconscious, etc. Similarly, the application of the Square of Opposition in Roly's reference would at first sight appear to be explanatory, but on closer inspection, I find everything reduced back to binary logic, arrows in a box. What has to be added, pace Jakobson, is some notion of the actual dynamics of what Roly calls a mutual relateable framework. And let's not be too greedy: let's get the pairwise interactions right and then see where we can go with more complex ones. Cheers, Joseph - Original Message - From: Roly Belfer mailto:avi...@gmail.com To: Pedro C. Marijuan mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow
Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
S: Yes. These 'windows' are the channels for constraint imposition from level to level -- transactions, not direct interactions -- between them. The lower, faster acting, level provides 'data' constructed as ensemble data by the higher level, while the higher level imposes relatively continuous constraints upon the lower level. In short, there IS need for hierarchy, properly understood. Dear Stan, This is the case for natural systems and engineered systems (Herbert Simon). However, above the individual the hierarchy is inverted because collectively the communication is faster than the individual can reflexively follow. The complexity and speed of communication can be enhanced by codification. The cultural system operates in terms of expectations (from the perspective of hindsight) and therefore against the entropy law. Thanks otherwise! Best, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Discussion Recap.
Ok, but in order to understand the emerging macro-variables of the social structure, one must always take into account the whole cognitive capabilities of the individual. Dear Raquel and colleagues, It seems to me that this misses the point that the non-linear dynamics of the macro-system do not require that specific individuals participate at all levels, in all dimensions, and at all times concurrently. One can only access this system of expectations (horizons of meaning) insofar as has developed cognitive competencies in relevant dimensions. For example, one cannot be an expert in all sciences at the same time because of the different literatures. Thus, the social has a dimension of its own (as cogitatum) which is reflexively accessible to cogitantes (us). There is no need for reductionism. Luhmann, for example, used the concept of interpenetration for this interfacing between meanings available at the supra-individual and individual levels. I would take from him that the interface can be considered as an operational coupling (in language and symbols) that adds to the structural coupling between the social and psychological. No need for reductionism or hierarchy! The dynamics operate in parallel with windows on each other. One can try to specify the mechanisms of these windows. Best, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] THE SOCIOTYPE: SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BEYOND
Loet, your criticism is very accurate, thanks. But I really think, as said Jorge, that our sociality has to have a fairly stable structure, that is to say, lower and upper limits that feed our mental wellbeing. It's not fixed, of course, but individuals become integral embodiments of emotions, and most of the active components of these emotions reside in our social environment. Evolutionarily we have developed this social dependence, and therefore the absence of such bonds, or the feeling of not having them, is devastating to our health --both physical and mental, as emphasized by numerous studies. Dear Raquel: Expectations of social structure are extremely stable without materialization. For example, the expectation of the rule of law. These are anchored/reflected in codes of communications. One does not have to appeal to a global brain. It seems a mystification to me. Of course, the social expectations when codified leave footprints behind in the form of institutions. For example, courts and parliaments as places where one enacts the rule of law. Best, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] THE SOCIOTYPE: SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BEYOND
Dear Raquel, I agree with the distinction genotype-phenotype-sociotype, but the metaphor of a global brain is in my opinion not so fortunate. Different from an individuum, the social can be considered as a dividuum or, in other words, a distribution of agents that contains uncertainty. The brain is an integration mechanism, whereas the social can also differentiate using, for example, a division of labor. The differentiation of the social in terms of codes of communication has become prevailing in modern pluriform societies. We have means to map these differences in the semantics. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html Beijing; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en hl=en From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Raquel del Moral Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 1:32 PM To: fis Subject: [Fis] THE SOCIOTYPE: SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BEYOND THE SOCIOTYPE: SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BEYOND Raquel del Moral (Bioinformation Group, IACS) Some years ago in one of the FIS sessions (https://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/2006-March/001309.html), Pedro pointed at the triad genotype-phenotype-sociotype and emphasized the importance of a structure of social bonds around the individual. Precisely by developing further the Sociotype concept, as a new construct that describes both the structural dynamic aspects of the individual's relationships, I am advancing a PhD Thesis. Also supported by a Ministry of Science and Innovation's biomedical project, our group is carrying out an empirical research work in order to develop a questionnaire able to measure the sociotype, the network of relationships of the person, in order to correlate it with mental health and risk (loneliness) situations. THE SOCIOTYPE: OVERALL PANORAMA Our work discusses the pertinence of a sociotype construct, both theoretically and empirically oriented. The term, based on the conceptual chain genotype-phenotype-sociotype, suggests the existence of an evolutionary preference in the human species for some determined averages of social organization and communication relationships. Although human individuals become highly adaptive and resilient concerning the implementation of their sociality, a core pattern, or sociotype might be established for their networking relationships. The sociotype appears as a structural/relational pattern which is actively looked for, and the absence of which provokes predisposition towards feelings of loneliness and unhappiness. The prospect of establishing numerical characteristics for that pattern, both structural and dynamic, does not look too farfetched. Hypothesis such as the social brain have already advanced robust structural data. From the biomedical point of view, properly framing the sociotype hypothesis and putting it into empirical test could be a timely enterprise. As a number of contemporary studies on social networks have reported, perceived isolation and loneliness feelings turn out to be an unrewarding condition for individuals, an unwanted state, and also a risk factor for their health. In our times, the social changes derived from the economic globalization, the new communication technologies, and the demographic transition towards elderly populations have implied dramatic changes in the social relationships of entire communities. Given the absence of efficient psychosocial indicators, an empirical search on the relational phenomenon throughout the sociotype lens might provide useful orientations for mental health and quality of life policies. OUR SOCIALITY Sociality is an obvious trait of the human species. Most of the evolutionary and cultural novelties of our past refer to essential aspects of sociality --e.g. origins of language, emotional communication, group behavior, morals and ethics, religious and legal codes, political institutions, and so on. Hypothesis such as the social brain have contributed to advance a new bond-centered approach on the evolutionary emergence of human sociality. The presence of a series of significant regularities in the size and structures of social groups, notwithstanding their remarkable variability, suggests the plausibility of a deep structure of social bonding for the human species. There seems to be an average of social networking, with very ample upper and lower limits, concerning the number and classes of bonding relationships that an individual is able to maintain meaningfully. The finding of networking regularities
[Fis] Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government Relations; preprint version
With many thanks to Bob Ulanowicz! Best, Loet _ Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government Relations: http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3836 The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, and Simulated A Triple Helix (TH) of bi- and trilateral relations among universities, industries, and governments can be considered as an ecosystem in which uncertainty can be reduced auto-catalytically. The correlations among the distributions of relations span a vector space in which two vectors (P and Q) represent sending and receiving, respectively. These vectors can also be understood in terms of the generation versus reduction of uncertainty in the communication field that results from interactions among the three (bi-lateral) communication channels. We specify a set of Lotka-Volterra equations between the vectors that can be solved. Redundancy generation can then be simulated and the results can be decomposed in terms of the TH components. Among other things, we show that the strength and frequency of the relations are independent parameters. Different components in terms of frequencies in triple-helix systems can also be distinguished and interpreted using Fourier analysis of the empirical time-series. The case of co-authorship relations in Japan is analyzed as an empirical example; but triple contingencies in an ecosystem of relations can also be considered more generally as a model for redundancy generation by providing meaning to the (Shannon-type) information in inter-human communications. Inga Ivanova (a) and Loet Leydesdorff (b) (a) Far Eastern Federal University, Department of International Education Department of Economics and production management, Office 514, 56 Aleutskaya st., Vladivostok 690950, Russia; inga@mail.ru . (b) University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands; l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net ** apologies for cross-postings http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3836 ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] About FIS 2005
Dear colleagues, It seems to me that a difference that makes a difference (or a distinction) generates another option in the system of reference and thus adds to the redundancy instead of the Shannon-type information. The information is not in the DNA strings, but in the distribution of the bases in the DNA strings. The confusion is generated because informing us introduces us implicitly as a system of reference. However, we provide meaning to the information and thus generate redundancies (other and possibly new options). The channels are then changed, but not the information. The information is contained in a series of differences or, in other words, a probability distribution. If one considers a difference which makes a difference directly as information instead of a redundancy, one can no longer measure in terms of bits of information and thus one loses the operationalization and the possibility of measurement in information theory. In other words, information theory then becomes only philosophy. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html Beijing; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en hl=en From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of John Collier Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:37 PM To: Bob Logan; y...@pku.edu.cn Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] About FIS 2005 Bob, Xueshan, others, This is an issue that I think more terminological than anything else, and I think that there is no correct answer. The problem is more to find the relations between different uses of information that are current in science ( Kinds of Information in Scientific Use http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/278/269 . 2011. cognition, communication, co-operation. Vol 9, No 2 http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/issue/view/22 ). For example in astrophysics and cosmology it is useful to speak of information as a conserved quantity that is related to energy but is not the same (not two sides of the same coin as some would have it). Tom Schneider has done a lot of work on molecular machines ( http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/ http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/ ) in which he sees a computational model using information to keep track of computations as useful. Sure it al is grounded in energy, but this is not the most perspicacious way to view what happens in these macromolecular interactions. I have argued in Information in biological systems http://web.ncf.ca/collier/papers/Information%20in%20Biological%20Systems.pd f (Handbook of Philosophy of Science, vol 8, Philosophy of Information http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/716648/descriptio n#description , 2008, Chapter 5f) that we should distinguish between the instrumental use of information in biology and a substantive use, in which information is treated as such by the system. This is a stronger requirement than in the astrophysical and cosmological uses of information (in a different substantive way, and also stronger than Schneider's use). This is a useful distinction in biology, or so I argue. However, in an earlier paper, Intrinsic Information http://web.ncf.ca/collier/papers/intrinfo.pdf (1990) I argued that in order to understand what it is to mean that we get information about the world, we must understand what it is that makes the world capable of providing us with information. This leads to a natural description of the world as containing information (see also Dretske, knowledge and the flow of information, and Barwise and Perry, Situations and Attitudes and following work of theirs) that flows into our minds, given the right coordination. See also Barwise and Seligman, Information Flow for a general account not mind dependent. What you want to treat as information depends very much on what you are considering and how. I would argue that a unified theory of information should recognize all of these usages, and put them in their place relative to each other. Some usages, I believe, are dispensable in some context, and some may be dispensable in all contexts. But I doubt that information talk can be dispensed with entirely in favour of energy talk when boundary conditions are important to system behaviour. This happens especially with complex systems, but physicists have found it useful in talking about boundary conditions of black holes, among other things, that aren't obviously complexly organized. John At 02:43 PM 2013/04/15, Bob Logan wrote: Dear Xueshan - re Nalewajski's conjecture that molecular systems have
Re: [Fis] Cognitive Effects of Cognitive Research: Photographic evidence
Dear Bob, I now read the book: the description of autocatalysis is very convincing. It really clarifies how a triple helix (of university-industry-government relations) can operate in generating synergy (reducing uncertainty). You then go on with Average Mutual Information (AMI). You don't mention that AMI (that most of us call mutual information) is necessary positive since a Shannon-type information, but that mutual information in more than two dimensions can be negative and thus used as an indicator of synergy or autocatalysis. I usually make reference for this to Ulanowicz (1986, pp. 143 ff.). Is that methodologically the same argument? I assume so. Or have you taken these measurement issues also further? Best, 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 ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en -Original Message- From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Robert Ulanowicz Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:44 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Cognitive Effects of Cognitive Research: Photographic evidence I'm most grateful to both Bob L. for sharing his manuscript with FIS and to Loet for his new ms on 3-D mutual information. (I am on the road, but will read it as soon as I return home.) It's so gratifying to live long enough to see these leads in information theory taken up by others and improved upon. I've been working with them for over 30 years, and it was beginning to look as though my interest had been in vain. Thanks so much for paying attention! Most now dismiss Shannon-type information as incapable of treating meaning, when, in fact, we have only begun to fathom the potentialities of multi-dimensional and conditional forms of the Shannon formulation. Carry-on! There is an ambiguity in the meaning of redundancy in IT that I perhaps am responsible for. Conventional IT refers to redundancy as repetition of outcomes. In that sense it is connected with mutual information. I have always used the term to refer to multiplicity of pathways, or functional redundancy (as Henri Atlan called it). In that sense it is quantified by the conditional entropy. Of course, mutual information and conditional entropy are complementary attributes. I think Loet is using redundancy in the traditional sense. Ed is quite correct in his disagreement with the 3rd Window. He has convinced me that most of what I had labeled Newtonian in my book was more the work of Leibniz and Euler of the school of Berliner Mechanik. I now labor to set the record straight. Best regards to all! Bob U. Quoting Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net: Dear Bob, I should perhaps have clarified that in the text of which I sent the abstract around yesterday, I formulate at p. 10 (in honour of Bob Ulanowicz) as follows: With the same enthusiasm which Krippendorff (2009a) reports about Ashby (1969), one of us embraced this potentially negative sign in the mutual information in three dimensions as an indicator of potential reduction of uncertainty in Triple-Helix configurations once it was brought to his attention by Robert Ulanowicz, who had used the same indicator in the context of his ascendancy theory in mathematical biology (Ulanowicz, 1986: 143). This same indicator is used across disciplines (see for an overview: Jakulin, 2005) and sometimes called configurational information, but it has remained controversial because it is poorly understood. As noted, a signed information measure cannot be interpreted in Shannon information theory, whereas alternative frameworks for its appreciation have remained ill-defined (Krippendorff, 1980, 2009a and b). arXiv:1301.6849 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849 [pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6849 ] Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaning Does the issue return in the book? Our argument is that this mutual information is a redundancy and can then be integrated into the framework of the mathematical theory of communication. 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 mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:02 AM To: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Cognitive Effects of Cognitive Research
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: Science, Philosophy and Information. An Alternative Relation] S.Brier
How does one measure the synergy among three discourses? That is an interesting question within information theory (as part of both science and philosophy). Best, Loet -Original Message- From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:29 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: Science, Philosophy and Information. An Alternative Relation] S.Brier Original Message Subject:SV: [Fis] Science, Philosophy and Information. An Alternative Relation Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:32:04 +0100 From: Søren Brier sb@cbs.dk To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch, Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis@listas.unizar.es fis@listas.unizar.es, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za References: 6043399.89641360255002322.javamail.webm...@bluewin.ch Dear Joseph I go for each of the three nominally independent disciplines are not independent, but that each provides a dynamic ontological and epistemological link to the other two, more or less strong or actual depending on the extent to which one wishes to emphasize certain aspects of knowledge. Science without philosophy is stupid but philosophy without science is blind. I am for a synergetic interaction. Best wishes Søren Brier Professor in the semiotics of information, cognition and commmunication science, department of International Business Communication, Copenhagen Business School, Dalgas Have 15, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark, *Fra:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *På vegne af *joe.bren...@bluewin.ch *Sendt:* 7. februar 2013 17:37 *Til:* Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez; fis@listas.unizar.es; John Collier *Emne:* [Fis] Science, Philosophy and Information. An Alternative Relation Dear FIS Colleagues, The formation of the the Society for the Philosophy of Information at the University of Hertfordshire is announced in the link in John's note. It includes the announcement and Call for Papers of the International Conference on the Philosophy of Information to be held in Xi'An, China in October, 2013, sponsored by both the above Society, led by Professor Luciano Floridi and the Institute for the Philosophy of Information in Xi'An under the direction of Professor Wu Kun. This increased activity in the area of the philosophy of information (another major Workshop is planned this Spring) raises the issue of the relation between the science and philosophy of information as well as of the philosophy of science. I am aware of and agree with the position expressed by Pedro that information science in the FIS framework should emphasize scientific research in the sense of knowledge that is quantifiable and/or provable. However, I do not believe that either he or others of you intend to exclude rigorous qualitative knowledge, especially as it concerns the dual nature of information. The ubiquitous presence of information in all disciplines, as emphasized by Wu, suggests an alternative relation linking philosophy, science and information that is NOT one of simple hierarchical inclusion or possession (of). One possibility is to say that it is information that links philosophy and science, but this formulation perhaps fails to recognize the general properties of the latter two. Another possibility is to say that each of the three nominally independent disciplines are not independent, but that each provides a dynamic ontological and epistemological link to the other two, more or less strong or actual depending on the extent to which one wishes to emphasize certain aspects of knowledge. I look forward to your comments regarding the pros and cons of such a conception. Thank you. Best wishes, Joseph Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: colli...@ukzn.ac.za mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za Datum: 04.02.2013 18:57 An: fisfis@listas.unizar.es mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es Betreff: [Fis] Society for the Philosophy of Information http://www.socphilinfo.org/ -- Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za mailto: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://web.ncf.ca/collierhttp://web.ncfhttp://web.ncf.ca/collier.ca/coll ier http://web.ncf%3chttp:/web.ncf.ca/collier%3e.ca/collier ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
Re: [Fis] Cognitive Effects of Cognitive Research: Photographic evidence
Dear Bob, I should perhaps have clarified that in the text of which I sent the abstract around yesterday, I formulate at p. 10 (in honour of Bob Ulanowicz) as follows: With the same enthusiasm which Krippendorff (2009a) reports about Ashby (1969), one of us embraced this potentially negative sign in the mutual information in three dimensions as an indicator of potential reduction of uncertainty in Triple-Helix configurations once it was brought to his attention by Robert Ulanowicz, who had used the same indicator in the context of his ascendancy theory in mathematical biology (Ulanowicz, 1986: 143). This same indicator is used across disciplines (see for an overview: Jakulin, 2005) and sometimes called configurational information, but it has remained controversial because it is poorly understood. As noted, a signed information measure cannot be interpreted in Shannon information theory, whereas alternative frameworks for its appreciation have remained ill-defined (Krippendorff, 1980, 2009a and b). arXiv:1301.6849 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849 [pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6849 ] Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaning Does the issue return in the book? Our argument is that this mutual information is a redundancy and can then be integrated into the framework of the mathematical theory of communication. 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 mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:02 AM To: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Cognitive Effects of Cognitive Research: Photographic evidence Dear Colleagues - I was very moved by Robert Ulanowicz's book A Third Window - I saw parallels with the work of McLuhan and a project I co-authored with Stuart Kauffman and others. That resulted in the attached paper. Some of you on FIS will receive this email post twice as I do not know who all is on FIS - I am sending this post to all folks that were copied on emails to or from Robert Ulanowicz. I hope you will find time to read my paper and sent me your comments. If you like this paper I have another that I submitted to Zygon that deals with matters spiritual and theological also stimulated by Robert Ulanowicz's A 3rd Window. I would be happy to send it to you. with kind regards to all - Bob Logan ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] FW: Cognitive Effects of Cognitive Research: Photographic evidence
Dear colleagues, It seems to me that this notion of constraint can be compared with Maturana's structural coupling. How would one operationalize it in terms of information theory? The constraint is different from a condition, because a conditional probability distribution also implies the notion of a difference when compared with the unconditioned probability distribution. This difference is equal to the transmission and thus an operation - that is, operational coupling - would be implied. How to conceptualize a structural constraint? It seems to me a selection rather than a variation. Using the word information therefore seems square to the Shannon-concept of information, but words are not the issue, in my opinion. Best wishes, Loet PS. This discussion may be a bit lamed by the constraint imposed on this list of only two messages/week. Thus, if you reply, I can only reply off-line. J L. From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Christophe Menant Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:35 PM To: lo...@physics.utoronto.ca Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] FW: Cognitive Effects of Cognitive Research: Photographic evidence Dear Bob, Your paper is interesting. And there is a point on which I would appreciate knowing a bit more. It is about the way you use the word constraint. Here are the understandings I got from your paper (your last paragraph): 1) Constraint as information: - biotic information is nothing more than the constraints that allows a living organism to harness energy from its environment to propagate its organization. - I do not know where the energy comes from to build the constraints but the constraints are the information. - That constraint, that vital piece of information was the spark that ignited the biosphere. 2) Constraint as part of a system transforming energy into work: - a living organism must be able through constraints to do work with the energy it imports from its environment - where does the energy come from to build the constraints to turn environment energy into the work needed by an organisms to achieve its metabolism 3) Constraint as constructing information: - foundation which views information as the construction of constraints. 4) Constraint as allowing a finalized work: - an aleatoric event took place in which a constraint emerged that allowed a collection of organic molecules to do the work necessary to propagate their organization. These usages of the word look as gravitating around information and energy/work. But perhaps you mean something else as the word can be used in many different ways. (as you may remember, I use it as characterizing the nature of a system: http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf) It would interesting you tell us a bit more about the way you position the word in your approach. Thanks in advance Christophe _ From: lo...@physics.utoronto.ca Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:02:17 -0500 To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Cognitive Effects of Cognitive Research: Photographic evidence Dear Colleagues - I was very moved by Robert Ulanowicz's book A Third Window - I saw parallels with the work of McLuhan and a project I co-authored with Stuart Kauffman and others. That resulted in the attached paper. Some of you on FIS will receive this email post twice as I do not know who all is on FIS - I am sending this post to all folks that were copied on emails to or from Robert Ulanowicz. I hope you will find time to read my paper and sent me your comments. If you like this paper I have another that I submitted to Zygon that deals with matters spiritual and theological also stimulated by Robert Ulanowicz's A 3rd Window. I would be happy to send it to you. with kind regards to all - Bob Logan __ Robert K. Logan Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan ___ 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] Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems [preprint]
Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849 Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaning Loet Leydesdorff and Inga A. Ivanova Assuming that meaning cannot be communicated, we extend Shannon's mathematical theory of communication by defining mutual redundancy as a positional counterpart of the relational communication of information. Mutual redundancy indicates the surplus of meanings that can be provided to the exchange of information in reflexive communications. In the three-dimensional case (e.g., a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations), mutual redundancy is equal to mutual information [R(xyz) = T(xyz)]; but when the dimensionality is even, the sign is different. We generalize to the measurement in N dimensions. Using Luhmann's social-systems theory and/or Giddens' structuration theory, mutual redundancy can be provided with an interpretation in the sociological case: different meaning-processing structures code and decode with other algorithms. A surplus of (absent) options can then be generated that add to the redundancy. Luhmann's functional (sub)systems of expectations or Giddens' rule-resource sets are positioned mutually, but can be coupled operationally in events or instantiated in actions. Shannon-type information is generated by the mediation. The structures are re-positioned towards one another as sets of (potentially counterfactual) expectations. Preprint avaliable at http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849 [1] Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; l...@leydesdorff.net; [2] Department of International Education Department of Economics and production management, Far Eastern Federal University, Office 514, 56 Aleutskaya st., Vladivostok 690950, Russia; inga@mail.ru. ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis