Re: [Fis] TR: What is ³Agent²?

2017-10-23 Thread Loet Leydesdorff

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] TR: What is ³Agent²?

2017-10-22 Thread Stanley N Salthe
Christophe --

Regarding:

>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.

Final cause (teleology) is an issue separate from agency. I believe that in
the context of the Big Bang theory, and given the constitutive low energy
efficiency of all work, the Second Law of thermodynamics can be viewed as a
final cause of all energy usage whatever.

STAN

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Christophe Menant <
christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> wrote:

>
> 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  de la part de Gordana
> Dodig-Crnkovic 
> *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 faces of agency?
> Without matter/energy nothing will happen, nothing can act in the world
> but that which happens and anyone registers it, has informational side to
> it.
> For human agency (given that matter/energy side is functioning)
> information is what to a high degree drives agency.
>
> Do you think this would be a fruitful path to pursue, with “agency” of
> elementary particles and agency of social institutions as two limit cases?
>
> All the best,
> Gordana
>
>
>
> __
> Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> Chalmers University of Technology
> School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
> http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
> 
> Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
> www.mrtc.mdh.se
> GORDANA DODIG-CRNKOVIC Professor of Computer Science.
> gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se. Mobile
> MDH: +46 73 662 05 11 <+46%2073%20662%2005%2011>
>
> General Chair of is4si summit 2017
> http://is4si-2017.org
> 
> IS4SI-2017 - International Society for Information Studies
> 
> is4si-2017.org
> IS4SI-2017 Summit - International Society for Information Studies -
> DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY Embodied, Embedded, Networked,
> Empowered...
>
>
>
> From: Fis  on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff <
> l...@leydesdorff.net>
> Organization: University of Amsterdam
> Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net" 
> Date: Friday, 20 October 2017 at 08:40
> To: 'Bob Logan' , 'fis' 
> Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
>
> Dear 

[Fis] TR: What is “Agent”?

2017-10-22 Thread Christophe Menant


Yes Stan,
the Moreno-Mossio book is an interesting and recent treatment of autonomy but, 
as the title indicates, it is focused on biological autonomy.
FYI there is also a 2009 paper by Barandiaran & all (some from the Moreno IAS  
team) that addresses agency and autonomy in a different way, allowing to 
consider artificial agents:  "Defining Agency individuality, normativity, 
asymmetry and spatiotemporality in action". The paper is available at:
 
https://xabierbarandiaran.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/barandiaran_dipaolo_rohde_-_defining_agency_v_1_0_-_jab_20091.pdf

Best
Christophe



De : Fis  de la part de Stanley N Salthe 

Envoyé : jeudi 19 octobre 2017 21:47
À : Terrence W. DEACON; fis
Objet : Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

Here is an interesting recent treatment of autonomy.


Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio: Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical

and Theoretical Enquiry (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences 
12);

Springer, Dordrecht, 2015, xxxiv + 221 pp., $129 hbk, ISBN 978-94-017-9836-5


STAN

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Terrence W. DEACON 
> wrote:

AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT IS A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM ORGANIZED TO BE CAPABLE OF INITIATING 
PHYSICAL WORK TO FURTHER PRESERVE THIS SAME CAPACITY IN THE CONTEXT OF  
INCESSANT EXTRINSIC AND/OR INTRINSIC TENDENCIES FOR THIS SYSTEM CAPACITY TO 
DEGRADE.


THIS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE WORK THAT IS SPECIFICALLY CONTRAGRADE TO 
THE FORM OF THIS DEGRADATIONAL INFLUENCE, AND THUS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO BE 
INFORMED BY THE EFFECTS OF THAT INFLUENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENT’S CRITICAL 
ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Koichiro Matsuno 
> wrote:
On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:

the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe.

   This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem (2006). If 
(a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise their free 
will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and molecules lack their 
share of the similar capacity. For our bodies eventually consist of those atoms 
and molecules.

   Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent atoms and 
molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob Ulanowicz at long 
last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case would have to 
forcibly be dismissed.

   This has been my second post this week.

   Koichiro Matsuno



From: Fis 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Alex Hankey
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42 AM
To: Arthur Wist >; FIS 
Webinar >
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they are as 
fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass.

Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those emphasized by 
complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be non-reducible and 
fundamental to our universe.

Alex



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




--
Professor Terrence W. Deacon
University of California, Berkeley

___
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


[Fis] TR: What is ³Agent²?

2017-10-22 Thread Christophe Menant

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  de la part de Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 

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 faces of agency?
Without matter/energy nothing will happen, nothing can act in the world but 
that which happens and anyone registers it, has informational side to it.
For human agency (given that matter/energy side is functioning) information is 
what to a high degree drives agency.

Do you think this would be a fruitful path to pursue, with “agency” of 
elementary particles and agency of social institutions as two limit cases?

All the best,
Gordana



__
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
[http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/IMG_1101-20150801-G.jpg]

Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
www.mrtc.mdh.se
GORDANA DODIG-CRNKOVIC Professor of Computer Science. 
gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se. Mobile MDH: 
+46 73 662 05 11


General Chair of is4si summit 2017
http://is4si-2017.org
[http://media.is4si-2017.org/2016/06/IS4SI-2017-2.jpg]

IS4SI-2017 - International Society for Information 
Studies
is4si-2017.org
IS4SI-2017 Summit - International Society for Information Studies - 
DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY Embodied, Embedded, Networked, 
Empowered...




From: Fis > 
on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
>
Organization: University of Amsterdam
Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net" 
>
Date: Friday, 20 October 2017 at 08:40
To: 'Bob Logan' >, 
'fis' >
Subject: 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 

[Fis] TR: What is “Agent”?

2017-10-19 Thread Christophe Menant
Resent to FIS correct address


De : Christophe Menant
Envoyé : jeudi 19 octobre 2017 11:15
À : is
Cc : Krassimir Markov
Objet : RE: [Fis] What is “Agent”?


Dear FIS colleagues,

Looking at defining agency is an interesting subject, somehow close to 
information and meaning. Thank you Krassimir for bringing it up.
Let me propose here an approach based on what we can call ‘agents’ in our 
everyday life. This can highlight characteristics possibly leading to a 
definition.for agents.
Based on laymen’s understanding of the world most of us would agree about items 
that can be considered as agents and items that cannot.
Obviously, animals, humans and plants are agents (Natural Agents).
Also, robots and most of our programmable builds up are agents (Artificial 
Agents).
But stones, puddles, smokes (inert items) are not generally considered as 
agents (‘non-agents’).
In terms of characteristics it is pretty obvious that both agents and 
non-agents obey physico-chemical laws that exist everywhere.
But in contrast it is worth noticing that agents are local entities submitted 
to internal constraints.
Natural Agents are submitted to ‘intrinsic constraints’ like ‘stay alive’ 
(individual & species) and ‘live group life’, with other specific constraints 
for humans.
AAs are different as they have to satisfy ‘derived constraints’ coming from 
their designer.
All these internal constraints are satisfied by actions implemented by the 
agents. These actions can be physical, biological or mental and take place in 
or out the agent.
Inert items (non-agents) are not submitted to internal constraints and do not 
act for constraint satisfaction.
Such characterization of agents as different from non-agents brings us to the 
following:
Agents are local entities.
Agents are submitted to internal constraints.
Agents are capable of action for constraint satisfaction.
This leads to a possible definition for an agent as being ‘an identifiable 
entity submitted to internal constraints and capable of actions for the 
satisfaction of the constraints’ (a more detailed presentation of that 
definition is available at https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2).

Such definition of an agent focused on action for internal constraint 
satisfaction positions meaning generation at the core of agency (a meaning is 
generated as being the connection between received information and an internal 
constraint).
And such relations between agency and meaning allow to look at some AI concerns 
in quite simple terms. Characterizing agents and meanings by intrinsic or 
derived constraints leads to positions on the Turing Test, on the Chinese Room 
Argument and on the Symbol Grounding Problem (short paper on subject at 
https://philpapers.org/rec/MENTTC-2).

Best
Christophe


De : Fis  de la part de Krassimir Markov 

Envoyé : dimanche 15 octobre 2017 23:27
À : Foundation of Information Science
Objet : [Fis] What is “Agent”?

Dear FIS Colleagues,

After nice collaboration last weeks, a paper Called “Data versus
Information” is prepared in very beginning draft variant and already is
sent to authors for refining.
Many thanks for fruitful work!

What we have till now is the understanding that the information is some
more than data.
In other words:
 d = r
 i = r + e
where:
 d => data;
 i => information;
 r => reflection;
 e => something Else, internal for the Agent (subject, interpreter,
etc.).

Simple question: What is “Agent”?

When an entity became an Agent? What is important to qualify the entity as
Agent or as an Intelligent Agent? What kind of agent is the cell? At the
end - does information exist for Agents or only for Intelligent Agents?

Thesis: Information exists only for the Intelligent Agents.

Antithesis: Information exists at all levels of Agents.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir





___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Fis Info Page - unizar.es
listas.unizar.es
The FIS initiative (Foundations of Information Science) started in 1994 with a 
first meeting in Madrid (organized by Michael Conrad and Pedro Marijuan), and 
was ...



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