Dear Krassimir and Sungchul,
I suppose this bears out Von Neumann's tongue-in-cheek advice to
Krassimir, just to ask about Boltzmann's use of the logs... I first
understood this to be a measure of the probability distribution of a
on of essences suggesting that information (in a
general sense) exists in all three worlds but … in the physical world, it
is called *energy*, in the mental world, it is called *mental energy*, and
in the world of structures, it is called *information* (in the strict
sense). This conclusion well correlat
Thank you for this beautiful summary.
That describes the world doesn't it? (it also describes music - which is a good
I want to say why information matters to me, not to argue about what it is.
Information matters because it enables these conversations which dissolve
Dear Lou and Mark,
Thanks for this - it is very important.
A quick question: why does it have to one or the other? Does the law of the
excluded middle apply to information? Why can't it be both?
As a way of extending this, can I suggest that the boundary between the
physical and the
> It can be strengthen by particular
> mental practices, well described
> in the literature of Yoga.
> Digital Computing machines are
> not capable of this, and although
> number crunching is a way for
> Technology to assist, it is no substitute
> for the h
Thank you for this topic – it cuts to the heart of why we think the
study of information really matters, and most importantly, brings to
the fore the thorny issue of technology.
It has become commonplace to say that our digital computers have
changed the world profoundly. Yet at a
You'll be amused by this on Pavlov and Kornosky by Heinz Von Foerster...
The message is that one must be careful where one draws one's distinctions
What you call data-ism is a bit like the bell without the clapper ;-)
uest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
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
You've communicated *your* kaleidoscope rather wonderfully. Thank you!
I shall look into it...
From: "Karl Javorszky" <karl.javors...@gmail.com>
Sent: 12/02/2018 14:36
To: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonm
Thank you very much for this - a great way to start the new year!
I'd like to ask about "communication" - it's a word which is
understood in many different ways, and in the context of cells, is
hard to imagine.
When you suggest that “the unicellular state delegates its progeny to
This is great! I'm sympathetic to the view that a reconnection with physics is
necessary and I too worry about the political implication of Luhmann's ideas,
powerful work though I find it. I've started reading Logic in Reality, but am
finding it quite hard.
I have a question
There are some terms from physics which we use continually and assume
we all know what they mean. I'm taking my cue from Peter Rowland's
physics - see http://anpa.onl/pdf/S36/rowlands.pdf - in asking some
fundamental questions not only about information, but about physics
I was thinking that these words from A.N. Whitehead's "Science and the
modern world" (1926) are highly relevant to our discussions:
"When you are criticising the philosophy of an epoch do not chiefly direct
your attention to those intellectual positions which its exponents feel it
From: "Loet Leydesdorff" <l...@leydesdorff.net>
Sent: 15/10/2017 07:17
To: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonm...@gmail.com>; "Terrence W. DEACON"
<dea...@berkeley.edu>; "Sungchul Ji" <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>
When you say "distinguishing between the information content and the meaning of
a message requires a discourse" this is, I think, a position regarding what
scientific discourse does. There are, of course, competing descriptions of what
scientific discourse does. Does your
uld this do? It would maintain a counterpoint in the relative entropies
within the ensemble. Would adding the dial increase the apophasis? Or the
entropy? Or the relative entropy?
From: "Robert E. Ulanowicz" <u...@umces.edu>
Which "information paradigm" is not a discourse framed by the education system?
The value of the discussion about information - circular though it appears to
be - is that we float between discourses. This is a strength. But it is also
the reason why we might feel we're not getting anywhere!
Dear Arturo, all,
First of all, thank you to Pedro for exciting the list again - I was missing it!
I have sympathy with Arturo's position, not because I am a
mathematician (I'm not), but because I get tired of the "posturing"
that qualitative positions produce among academics. I work in
Dear Pedro and List,
I've really enjoyed leading the session on "scientific communication"
- it was an opportunity, for which I am very grateful, to explore the
nature and purpose of scientific communication, and to experiment with
different ways of communicating. It's been a fascinating couple
Dear Moises and all,
Floridi has an excellent chapter in his "philosophy of information" called
"Against digital ontology". It's worth quoting the two fundamental
questions he asks about digital ontology:
"a. whether the physical universe might be adequately modelled digitally
Just a few quick comments to relate this current discussion back to
1. Taking information seriously must entail taking "communicating what
we think about information" seriously - and exploring different ways
of communicating what we think.
2. When I made my
> M. Godron
> Le 29/10/2016 à 15:25, Mark Johnson a écrit :
> Dear Michel,
> Ok. Steve Keen has been close to Tony Lawson's work (he presented Minsky at
> Lawson's conference last year) - he's a supporter of his broad thesis,
From: "Michel Godron" <migod...@wanadoo.fr>
Sent: 29/10/2016 14:06
To: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonm...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific communication
You write : "I'm guessing you are thinking of the line of thought from
presunzione o superbia. Ho inventato davvero una una nuova concezione
economica. Complimenti per la tua capacità comunicativa e auguri.
2016-10-26 13:21 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson <johnsonm...@gmail.com>:
Dear Jose, Francisco and Pedro, (Pedro - please co
>>> bureaucratic internecine conflicts. The book of Gregory Clark (2014, The Son
>>> also Raises) is an excellent reading on class "iron statistics" everywhere,
>>> particularly in education.
>>> E puor si muove! All those burdens have a ba
I'll go off to check out Sci-Hub, ... or maybe I'll wait until I leave
> the office and get home.
>> From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff
>> Sent: 27 September 201
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
Is this a question about counting? I'm thinking that Ashby noted that Shannon
information is basically counting. What do we do when we count something?
Analogy is fundamental - how things are seen to be the same may be more
important than how they are seen to be different.
Dear FIS colleagues,
I'm sympathetic to Maxine's comment: "untethered observations and
meticulous descriptions are the cornerstone of any life science. One
is not out there trying to
make others as you want them to be, but attempting to know them as
they are. The task is precisely
I'd be interested to know whether "mattering" is considered within
"meaning". I suspect "mattering" is distinct.
Science isn't just meaningful. It matters to scientists. Perhaps it's
only because it matters to some people, it exists.
Re. meaning, I think the connection
> the apparent distinctions that we take for granted.
> Lou K.
>> On Apr 3, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Mark Johnson <johnsonm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Soren, Lou and Loet,
>> I can appreciate that Bateson might have had it in for hypnot
I'm really grateful for Maxine's summary here.
To those who query the value of phenomenology, I find myself reflecting on
what Alain Badiou and a number of others (e.g. Burrell and Morgan's
"Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis") have argued in there
being (at least) three main
There's something important about the politics of information in this case.
Sociologist Steve Fuller has argued that the open access movement is merely
a "consumerist revolt, academic style" (see
http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/9953/comment-page-1). It's an
Dear FIS colleagues,
I'm curious about why the discussion about momenta matters. Does it matter
because we believe it is important to determine the boundaries of specific
discourses? Does that matter because we fear incoherence or confusion in our
discussion if we don't demarcate boundaries?
Dear Loet, Joseph and Fis colleagues,
Pascal: "the heart has its reasons [the constraints of the body] which the
reason cannot perceive [because it is abstract]" and yet... we do come to
know the reasons of the heart - we know them long before we know reason. In
language as Joseph
Maybe I've missed something, but the subsumption I mentioned
(referring to Bateson) was not between A, B and C: these are
co-existent interacting dynamics as I understand them, and certainly a
very rigorous and powerful generative model.
I was worrying about subsumption of Bateson's "imagination"
Dear Loet and colleagues,
I wonder if an alternative view is possible: that the symbolic
codification of the sciences inherent in discourse and supported by
our universities (as they are currently constituted) is a constraint
which prevents us exploring a proper science of constraint. To
Without wanting to spawn a new debate, I think it might be useful to flag
something up about the 'phenomenology' that you mention. I understand
Joseph's reaction to what to you say and I agree. However, phenomenology is
a rich a complex topic, and few scholars have the tenacity to
Dear Drs Flores and de-Marcos
I very much enjoyed reading this paper: there is a lot to reflect on and I
need to spend more time with it, but I have some immediate questions which
I hope you can address.
The first concerns the concept of the ‘foundations’ in your title.
Mail list logo