Re: [Fis] A Paradox
al product processing. The double-chessboards based on the wisdom integrated theory and cultural gene system engineering practice came into being. Its primary feature is that it is a combination of humans and machines that can instantly complete the knowledge production of any one knowledge module. The formation and promotion of popularity has gradually highlighted its unique charm. For example, any text segment imported into the word chessboard web development environment and application platform can instantly form almost all the language points, knowledge points, and original points contained in the world-wide super collaboration of the text segment. . This not only provides the convenience for the original creators or experts themselves to confirm their themes, styles, or characteristics, but also provides a common platform for teachers, students and the general public to participate in the finishing of knowledge modules. Such a large-scale production of knowledge is supported by the three major system engineering practices of language, knowledge, and software. It is a brand-new approach to education informatization. At the same time, it provides a typical example of collaborative innovation that focuses on the intelligence capabilities of human-computer dual-brain intelligence. Both men, women, and children can discover from their most interesting speech fragments. Their respective real interests, hobbies, and good at, and then used them to participate in the integration of teaching and learning of social system engineering and the combination of soft and hard language and formal system engineering double practice, so as to reflect the three basic categories of object-oriented text The generalized textual cultural genetic system project contributes meager forces and gradually discovers and finds their precise positioning in the overall system of human knowledge building construction. Data, language, information, and knowledge all have intersections. Therefore, it is often misunderstood. The text that records knowledge is a typical type of data. Obvious ambiguity allows the machine to be automatically ejected; human experts are easily ambiguous in their respective fields; the most difficult ambiguity is the category of overlapping (basic concepts). Best wish! Zou Xiaohui 发自我的iPhone -- Original --From: Syed Ali Date: 周二,3月 6,2018 11:20 上午To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>Cc: 闫学杉 , fis Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Many thanks Zou. Syed Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:35 PM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: Dear Colleagues and Syed: Thank you for your attention! Let me answer your question(“Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ?”):Undoubtedly,the point of view “ information is the container of meaning” is certainly wrong. For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content information. Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come from ambiguity. Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or subject of information science). These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or suggestions! Thank you! Best wish! Zou Xiaohui 发自我的iPhone -- Original --From: Syed Ali Date: 周一,3月 5,2018 4:26 上午To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>Cc: 闫学杉 , fis Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Colleagues:Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ?Syed 附中文: 谢谢关注! 让我来回答你的问题: 毋庸置疑,信息是容器的观点,它肯定是错误的。 因为,首先,除了具有质量和能量的载体之外, 现象信息是无所不包的,它们可以是物质世界的任何表现, 也可以是心智的任何情形,还可以是狭义和广义的语言, 或广义文本。其中,既有形式信息,也有内容信息。 进而,再来看本体信息,它由多种形式简化之后再聚焦于同一内容, 旨在排除歧义。人们的许多认知错误与误解,都源于歧义。 最后,实际上也是最重要的就是:可用真值计算的本质信息( 这才是信息科学根本的研究对象)。 以上是邹晓辉的观点。请各位给予评价、意见或建议! 谢谢! 祝 愉快!
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear colleagues The era of large-scale or big production of knowledge and small-scale or normal production of knowledge is about to come. Author: Zou Xiaohui Time: 2018-03-19 08:57:37 In the age of mobile networks where information and knowledge exponentially grows, any one of a small WeChat group and a circle of friends can detonate the spiritual world of any individual. This is incredible in ancient times. Therefore, it is already lagging behind to rely on the 2,000-year-long knowledge production method to do spiritual product processing.The double-chessboards based on the wisdom integrated theory and cultural gene system engineering practice came into being. Its primary feature is that it is a combination of humans and machines that can instantly complete the knowledge production of any one knowledge module. The formation and promotion of popularity has gradually highlighted its unique charm.For example, any text segment imported into the word chessboard web development environment and application platform can instantly form almost all the language points, knowledge points, and original points contained in the world-wide super collaboration of the text segment. . This not only provides the convenience for the original creators or experts themselves to confirm their themes, styles, or characteristics, but also provides a common platform for teachers, students and the general public to participate in the finishing of knowledge modules. Such a large-scale production of knowledge is supported by the three major system engineering practices of language, knowledge, and software. It is a brand-new approach to education informatization. At the same time, it provides a typical example of collaborative innovation that focuses on the intelligence capabilities of human-computer dual-brain intelligence. Both men, women, and children can discover from their most interesting speech fragments. Their respective real interests, hobbies, and good at, and then used them to participate in the integration of teaching and learning of social system engineering and the combination of soft and hard language and formal system engineering double practice, so as to reflect the three basic categories of object-oriented text The generalized textual cultural genetic system project contributes meager forces and gradually discovers and finds their precise positioning in the overall system of human knowledge building construction. Data, language, information, and knowledge all have intersections. Therefore, it is often misunderstood. The text that records knowledge is a typical type of data. Obvious ambiguity allows the machine to be automatically ejected; human experts are easily ambiguous in their respective fields; the most difficult ambiguity is the category of overlapping (basic concepts). Best wish! Zou Xiaohui iPhone -- Original -- From: Syed Ali Date: ,3?? 6,2018 11:20 To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> Cc: ?? , fis Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Many thanks Zou. Syed Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:35 PM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: Dear Colleagues and Syed?? Thank you for your attention!Let me answer your questionCould you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ?: Undoubtedly,the point of view ?? information is the container of meaning?? is certainly wrong. For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content information. Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come from ambiguity. Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or subject of information science). These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or suggestions! Thank you! Best wish! Zou Xiaohui iPhone -
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
tetus, as incompleteness saves it from Socrates critics. > > > > > > > Alex Hankey > > > > > On 4 March 2018 at 06:47, Xueshan Yan wrote: > >> Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet, >> >> I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about >> the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I >> offer my responses as follows: >> >> Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals >> the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and >> source based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed >> given the answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I >> understand it right, we may have this conclusion from it: Information is >> the carrier of meaning. Since we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier >> of information, the task of our Information Science will immediately become >> something like an intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and >> Semantics (study of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. >> For a long time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science >> is so basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the >> information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted of >> axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates on >> information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very >> difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically >> correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS >> information." >> >> Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new >> discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science >> as well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to >> review your opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I >> don't know its content, same as I don't know what the content of >> Biosemiotics is, but my view is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this >> paradox. >> >> Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." >> which are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will >> lose its value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't >> know how to answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an >> information for B, while it has no information value for A. The difference >> between the subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these >> claims are the classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is >> given by Mark Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a >> lot of information for a mathematics student but no information for a >> professional mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: >> One should firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to define >> their use of the term "information." I think this is effective and first >> step toward to construct a general theory about information, if possible. >> >> For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted >> information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree >> with it kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell >> accepts a sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic >> information from paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission >> has taken place, but is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be >> aware that meaning only is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be >> used in any other context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the >> key we dissolve the paradox. >> >> In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so >> far. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Xueshan >> >> >> >> *From:* Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedal...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM >> *To:* Sungchul Ji >> *Cc:* Terrence W. DEACON ; Xueshan Yan < >> y...@pku.edu.cn>; FIS Group >> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Paradox >> >> >> >> Dear All: >> >> If a non English speaking individual saw the newspaper headline “*Earthquake >> Occurred in Armenia Last Night*”: would that be "information?" >> >> My belief is - Yes. But he or she would have no
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
hought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." which > are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will lose its > value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't know how to > answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an information for B, > while it has no information value for A. The difference between the > subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these claims are the > classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is given by Mark > Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a lot of > information for a mathematics student but no information for a professional > mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: One should > firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to define their use of > the term "information." I think this is effective and first step toward to > construct a general theory about information, if possible. > > For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted > information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree with > it kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell accepts a > sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic information > from paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission has taken > place, but is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be aware that > meaning only is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be used in any > other context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the key we > dissolve the paradox. > > In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so far. > > > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > > > > From: Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedal...@gmail.com > <mailto:doctorsyedal...@gmail.com>] > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM > To: Sungchul Ji mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>> > Cc: Terrence W. DEACON mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>>; > Xueshan Yan mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>>; FIS Group > mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> > Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox > > > > Dear All: > > If a non English speaking individual saw the newspaper headline “Earthquake > Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: would that be "information?" > > My belief is - Yes. But he or she would have no idea what it was about- the > meaning would be : Possibly "something " as opposed to the meaning an English > speaking individual would draw. > > In both situations there would be still be meaning - A for the non English > speaking and B for the English speaking. > > > > Conclusion: Information is the container of meaning. > > > > Please critique. > > > > Syed > > > > Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential > and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this > email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise > have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please > notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any > other use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this > message is strictly prohibited. > > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Sungchul Ji <mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>> wrote: > > Hi FISers, > > I am not sure whether I am a Procrustes (bed) or a Peirce (triadomaniac), but > I cannot help but seeing an ITR (irreducible Triadic Relation) among Text, > Context and Meaning, as depicted in Figure 1. > > > f > g > Context > Text > -> Meaning > | > ^ > | > | > | > | > > |_| > > h > > “The meaning of a text is irreducibly dependent on its context.” > > “Text, context, and meaning are irreducibly triadic.” The “TCM principle” > (?) > > Figure 1. The Procrustean bed, the Peircean triadomania
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Current Information Science, particularly that purveyed by Fis, is far too poverty stricken to tackle this problem Xueshan. Metaphor is a rich purveyor of meaning utlised by human consciousness, even in the earliest epics written by mankind, like the Valmiki Ramayana, simply because human awareness adopts 'forms' as its mode of information content, and not digits. The way that forms are encoded in experience is now well understood. A proof has even been given that 'ideas' and not 'digits' are the primary content of human awareness. Best wishes to all, Alex Hankey On 4 March 2018 at 06:47, Xueshan Yan wrote: > Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet, > > I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about > the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I > offer my responses as follows: > > Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals > the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and > source based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed > given the answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I > understand it right, we may have this conclusion from it: Information is > the carrier of meaning. Since we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier > of information, the task of our Information Science will immediately become > something like an intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and > Semantics (study of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. > For a long time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science > is so basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the > information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted of > axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates on > information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very > difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically > correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS > information." > > Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new > discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science > as well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to > review your opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I > don't know its content, same as I don't know what the content of > Biosemiotics is, but my view is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this > paradox. > > Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." > which are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will > lose its value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't > know how to answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an > information for B, while it has no information value for A. The difference > between the subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these > claims are the classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is > given by Mark Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a > lot of information for a mathematics student but no information for a > professional mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: > One should firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to define > their use of the term "information." I think this is effective and first > step toward to construct a general theory about information, if possible. > > For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted > information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree > with it kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell > accepts a sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic > information from paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission > has taken place, but is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be > aware that meaning only is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be > used in any other context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the > key we dissolve the paradox. > > In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so > far. > > > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > > > > *From:* Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedal...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM > *To:* Sungchul Ji > *Cc:* Terrence W. DEACON ; Xueshan Yan < > y...@pku.edu.cn>; FIS Group > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Paradox > > > > Dear All: > > If a non English speaking individual saw the new
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
P.s.: nel quarto rigo dal basso bisogna sostituire bene-capitale ad ALTRO valoreconbene-capitale ad ALTO valore. Grazie. Francesco. 2018-03-05 6:21 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>: > Cari tutti, > permettetemi di dirVi alcune cose: > > * l'IN-FORM-AZIONE è un processo attraverso il quale prendono forma: le > persone, gli animali, le piante, le idee, le cose, etc. > * l'Informazione è preceduta dalla significazione e seguita dalla > comunicazione; > * è possibile classificare quattro tipi di informazione: naturale o > termodinamica, genetica, matematica e semantica; > * una cosa è il concetto-significato di informazione, un'altra cosa è la > MISURA dell'informazione che, seguendo la "Scienza della logica di Hegel, > può essere quantitativa, qualitativa e quantitativo-qualitativa o > qualitativo-quantitativa; > * la TRASDUZIONE è la trasformazione di una grandezza fisica, ad es. > acustica, in un'altra,ad es. elettrica, conservando la forma d'onda del > segnale: > - nel campo biologico è il trasferimento di un carattere ereditario da una > cellula batterica a un'altra senza contatto fra le due particelle; > - nel campo economico può coincidere con la trasmutazione di liquidità--la > proprietà più rilevante della moneta -- da un bene-capitale (che perde > valore) a un altro un bene-capitale (che guadagna valore) verificandosi il > passaggio di una FORMA D'ONDA MONETARIA che si conserva arricchendo alcuni > e impoverendo altri, una sorta di effetto ricchezza o di effetto > povertà; > * nella mia "Nuova economia" ho definito l'entropia finanziaria (la > liquidità monetaria si sposta da un bene-capitale a basso valore ad un > bene-capitale ad altro valore) e la neg-entropia finanziaria (la liquidità > monetaria si sposta da un bene-capitale ad alto valore ad un bene-capitale > a basso valore). > Questo ultimo punto meriterebbe un'esposizione più completa e matematica > che si ritrova in tanti miei libri. > Ancora una volta Vi prego di scusarmi per l'uso della lingua italiana e Vi > invio un saluto affettuoso. Davvero! > Francesco. > > 2018-03-05 1:35 GMT+01:00 ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>: > >> Dear Colleagues and Syed: >> Thank you for your attention!Let me answer your >> question(“Could you critique a view: Information is the container of >> meaning ?”): >> Undoubtedly,the point of view “ information is the container of >> meaning” is certainly wrong. >> For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, >> in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the >> physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or >> generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content >> information. >>Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified >> in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to >> disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come >> from ambiguity. >> Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information >> that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or >> subject of information science). >> These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or >> suggestions! >> Thank you! >> >> Best wish! >> >>Zou Xiaohui >> >> >> 发自我的iPhone >> >> >> -- Original -- >> *From:* Syed Ali >> *Date:* 周一,3月 5,2018 4:26 上午 >> *To:* ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> >> *Cc:* 闫学杉 , fis >> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Paradox >> >> Dear Colleagues: >> Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ? >> Syed >> 附中文: >> >> 谢谢关注! >> >> 让我来回答你的问题: >> >> 毋庸置疑,信息是容器的观点,它肯定是错误的。 >> >> 因为,首先,除了具有质量和能量的载体之外,现象信息是无所不包的,它们可以是物质世界的任何表现,也可以是心智的任何情形, >> 还可以是狭义和广义的语言,或广义文本。其中,既有形式信息,也有内容信息。 >> >> 进而,再来看本体信息,它由多种形式简化之后再聚焦于同一内容,旨在排除歧义。人们的许多认知错误与误解,都源于歧义。 >> >> 最后,实际上也是最重要的就是:可用真值计算的本质信息(这才是信息科学根本的研究对象)。 >> >> 以上是邹晓辉的观点。请各位给予评价、意见或建议! >> >> 谢谢! >> >> 祝 >> >> 愉快! >> >> 邹晓辉 >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:00 AM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues and Xueshan, >>> >>> >>> The relationship between meaning and information: &g
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Cari tutti, permettetemi di dirVi alcune cose: * l'IN-FORM-AZIONE è un processo attraverso il quale prendono forma: le persone, gli animali, le piante, le idee, le cose, etc. * l'Informazione è preceduta dalla significazione e seguita dalla comunicazione; * è possibile classificare quattro tipi di informazione: naturale o termodinamica, genetica, matematica e semantica; * una cosa è il concetto-significato di informazione, un'altra cosa è la MISURA dell'informazione che, seguendo la "Scienza della logica di Hegel, può essere quantitativa, qualitativa e quantitativo-qualitativa o qualitativo-quantitativa; * la TRASDUZIONE è la trasformazione di una grandezza fisica, ad es. acustica, in un'altra,ad es. elettrica, conservando la forma d'onda del segnale: - nel campo biologico è il trasferimento di un carattere ereditario da una cellula batterica a un'altra senza contatto fra le due particelle; - nel campo economico può coincidere con la trasmutazione di liquidità--la proprietà più rilevante della moneta -- da un bene-capitale (che perde valore) a un altro un bene-capitale (che guadagna valore) verificandosi il passaggio di una FORMA D'ONDA MONETARIA che si conserva arricchendo alcuni e impoverendo altri, una sorta di effetto ricchezza o di effetto povertà; * nella mia "Nuova economia" ho definito l'entropia finanziaria (la liquidità monetaria si sposta da un bene-capitale a basso valore ad un bene-capitale ad altro valore) e la neg-entropia finanziaria (la liquidità monetaria si sposta da un bene-capitale ad alto valore ad un bene-capitale a basso valore). Questo ultimo punto meriterebbe un'esposizione più completa e matematica che si ritrova in tanti miei libri. Ancora una volta Vi prego di scusarmi per l'uso della lingua italiana e Vi invio un saluto affettuoso. Davvero! Francesco. 2018-03-05 1:35 GMT+01:00 ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>: > Dear Colleagues and Syed: > Thank you for your attention!Let me answer your > question(“Could you critique a view: Information is the container of > meaning ?”): > Undoubtedly,the point of view “ information is the container of > meaning” is certainly wrong. > For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, > in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the > physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or > generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content > information. >Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified > in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to > disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come > from ambiguity. > Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information > that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or > subject of information science). > These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or > suggestions! > Thank you! > > Best wish! > >Zou Xiaohui > > > 发自我的iPhone > > > ------ Original -- > *From:* Syed Ali > *Date:* 周一,3月 5,2018 4:26 上午 > *To:* ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> > *Cc:* 闫学杉 , fis > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Paradox > > Dear Colleagues: > Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ? > Syed > 附中文: > > 谢谢关注! > > 让我来回答你的问题: > > 毋庸置疑,信息是容器的观点,它肯定是错误的。 > > 因为,首先,除了具有质量和能量的载体之外,现象信息是无所不包的,它们可以是物质世界的任何表现, > 也可以是心智的任何情形,还可以是狭义和广义的语言,或广义文本。其中,既有形式信息,也有内容信息。 > > 进而,再来看本体信息,它由多种形式简化之后再聚焦于同一内容,旨在排除歧义。人们的许多认知错误与误解,都源于歧义。 > > 最后,实际上也是最重要的就是:可用真值计算的本质信息(这才是信息科学根本的研究对象)。 > > 以上是邹晓辉的观点。请各位给予评价、意见或建议! > > 谢谢! > > 祝 > > 愉快! > > 邹晓辉 > > > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:00 AM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues and Xueshan, >> >> >> The relationship between meaning and information: >> >> 1. Three levels to understand them >> >> 1.1 words in language: there are just two different words,meaning and >> information. >> >> 1.2 concepts in thought: the meaning of meaning, the meaning of >> information, where both are the same, then they are two usages of one use >> of synonymy, respectively; if both mean something different then they are >> two different concepts. >> >> 1.3 objects in world: the meaning and the information of these two terms >> specifically refer to. >> >> 2. Either look at them from a linguistic point of view, or talk about >> them both from an informational perspective. In principle, they shou
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Colleagues and Syed?? Thank you for your attention!Let me answer your questionCould you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ?: Undoubtedly,the point of view ?? information is the container of meaning?? is certainly wrong. For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content information. Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come from ambiguity. Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or subject of information science). These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or suggestions! Thank you! Best wish! Zou Xiaohui iPhone -- Original -- From: Syed Ali Date: ,3?? 5,2018 4:26 To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> Cc: ?? , fis Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Colleagues:Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ? Syed ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:00 AM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: Dear colleagues and Xueshan?? The relationship between meaning and information: 1. Three levels to understand them 1.1 words in language: there are just two different words,meaning and information. 1.2 concepts in thought: the meaning of meaning, the meaning of information, where both are the same, then they are two usages of one use of synonymy, respectively; if both mean something different then they are two different concepts. 1.3 objects in world: the meaning and the information of these two terms specifically refer to. 2. Either look at them from a linguistic point of view, or talk about them both from an informational perspective. In principle, they should not be discussed both in linguistics and in information science. Otherwise, they will encounter the contradiction between the two. Best wishes, Xiaohui, Zou ?? 1.1.?? 1.2. 1.3. 2.?? ?? iPhone -- Original -- From: ?? Date: ,3?? 4,2018 9:18 To: FIS Group Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Dai, S?0?3ren, 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, me
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
, it would all go haywire! I suspect out priority in life is to determine which transducers to tweak, how much, when and how long... and which ones to leave alone! Best wishes, Mark On 4 March 2018 at 15:41, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > 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 ; 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&hl=en > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "Mark Johnson" > To: "Loet Leydesdorff" > Cc: y...@pku.edu.cn; "FIS Group" > 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 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 ; 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&hl=en >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "Xueshan Yan" >> To: "FIS Group" >> 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 >&
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Sung May I suggest that you take a look at this paper that sums up the book http://www.integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf and the point relevant to your objection is that you have to integrate cybernetics, systems and semiotics to create this transdisciplinary framework, It will therefore integrate a concept of information within a communicative concept of meaning developed from Peirce’s phenomenologically based triadic pragmaticist and fallibilist philosophy of science created long before Popper’s. Best Søren From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Xueshan Yan Sent: 4. marts 2018 02:17 To: FIS Group Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet, I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I offer my responses as follows: Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and source based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed given the answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I understand it right, we may have this conclusion from it: Information is the carrier of meaning. Since we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier of information, the task of our Information Science will immediately become something like an intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and Semantics (study of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. For a long time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science is so basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted of axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates on information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS information." Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science as well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to review your opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I don't know its content, same as I don't know what the content of Biosemiotics is, but my view is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this paradox. Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." which are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will lose its value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't know how to answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an information for B, while it has no information value for A. The difference between the subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these claims are the classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is given by Mark Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a lot of information for a mathematics student but no information for a professional mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: One should firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information." I think this is effective and first step toward to construct a general theory about information, if possible. For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree with it kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell accepts a sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic information from paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission has taken place, but is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be aware that meaning only is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be used in any other context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the key we dissolve the paradox. In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so far. Best wishes, Xueshan From: Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedal...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM To: Sungchul Ji mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>> Cc: Terrence W. DEACON mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>>; Xueshan Yan mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>>; FIS Group mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear All: If a non English speaking individual saw the newspaper headline “Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: would that be "information?" My belief is - Yes. But he or she would hav
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&hl=en -- Original Message -- From: "Mark Johnson" To: "Loet Leydesdorff" Cc: y...@pku.edu.cn; "FIS Group" 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 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&hl=en <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en> -- Original Message -- From: "Xueshan Yan" To: "FIS Group" 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
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 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 ; 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=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "Xueshan Yan" > To: "FIS Group" > 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 diff
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear colleagues and Xueshan?? The relationship between meaning and information: 1. Three levels to understand them 1.1 words in language: there are just two different words,meaning and information. 1.2 concepts in thought: the meaning of meaning, the meaning of information, where both are the same, then they are two usages of one use of synonymy, respectively; if both mean something different then they are two different concepts. 1.3 objects in world: the meaning and the information of these two terms specifically refer to. 2. Either look at them from a linguistic point of view, or talk about them both from an informational perspective. In principle, they should not be discussed both in linguistics and in information science. Otherwise, they will encounter the contradiction between the two. Best wishes, Xiaohui, Zou ?? 1.1.?? 1.2. 1.3. 2.?? ?? iPhone -- Original -- From: ?? Date: ,3?? 4,2018 9:18 To: FIS Group Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Dai, S?0?3ren, 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." S?0?3ren 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 anim
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&hl=en -- Original Message -- From: "Xueshan Yan" To: "FIS Group" 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 dissolve the par
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet, I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I offer my responses as follows: Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and source based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed given the answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I understand it right, we may have this conclusion from it: Information is the carrier of meaning. Since we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier of information, the task of our Information Science will immediately become something like an intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and Semantics (study of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. For a long time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science is so basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted of axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates on information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS information." Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science as well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to review your opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I don't know its content, same as I don't know what the content of Biosemiotics is, but my view is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this paradox. Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." which are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will lose its value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't know how to answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an information for B, while it has no information value for A. The difference between the subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these claims are the classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is given by Mark Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a lot of information for a mathematics student but no information for a professional mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: One should firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information." I think this is effective and first step toward to construct a general theory about information, if possible. For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree with it kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell accepts a sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic information from paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission has taken place, but is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be aware that meaning only is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be used in any other context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the key we dissolve the paradox. In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so far. Best wishes, Xueshan From: Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedal...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM To: Sungchul Ji Cc: Terrence W. DEACON ; Xueshan Yan ; FIS Group Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear All: If a non English speaking individual saw the newspaper headline “Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: would that be "information?" My belief is - Yes. But he or she would have no idea what it was about- the meaning would be : Possibly "something " as opposed to the meaning an English speaking individual would draw. In both situations there would be still be meaning - A for the non English speaking and B for the English speaking. Conclusion: Information is the container of meaning. Please critique. Syed Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. On Mon, Feb 26, 2018
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Hi FISers, I am not sure whether I am a Procrustes (bed) or a Peirce (triadomaniac), but I cannot help but seeing an ITR (irreducible Triadic Relation) among Text, Context and Meaning, as depicted in Figure 1. f g Context > Text -> Meaning | ^ | | | | |_| h “The meaning of a text is irreducibly dependent on its context.” “Text, context, and meaning are irreducibly triadic.” The “TCM principle” (?) Figure 1. The Procrustean bed, the Peircean triadomaniac, or both ? f = Sign production; g = Sign interpretation; h = Correlation or information flow. According to this 'Peircean/Procrustesian' diagram, both what Terry said and what Xueshan said may be valid. Although their thinking must have been irreducibly triadic (if Peirce is right), Terry may have focused on (or prescinded) Steps f and h, while Xueshan prescinded Steps g and h, although he did indicate that his discussion was limited to the context of human information and human meaning (i.e., Step f). Or maybe there are many other interpretations possible, depending on the interpreter of the posts under discussion and the ITR diagram. There are an infinite number of examples of algebraic operations: 2+3 = 5, 3 - 1 = 2, 20 x 45 = 900, etc., etc. If I say "2 + 3 = 5", someone may say, but you missed "20 x 45 = 900". In other words, no matter what specific algebraic operation I may come up with, my opponent can always succeed in coming up with an example I missed. The only solution to such an end-less debate would be to discover the axioms of algebra, at which level, there cannot be any debate. When I took an abstract algebra course as an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, in 1962-5, I could not believe that underlying all the complicated algebraic calculations possible, there are only 5 axioms (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-5-basic-axioms-of-algebra). So can it be that there are the axioms (either symbolic, diagrammatic, or both) of information science waiting to be discovered, which will end all the heated debates on information, meaning, data, etc. ? All the best. Sung From: Fis on behalf of Terrence W. DEACON Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 1:13 PM To: Xueshan Yan Cc: FIS Group Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox It is so easy to get into a muddle mixing technical uses of a term with colloquial uses, and add a dash of philosophy and discipline-specific terminology and it becomes mental quicksand. Terms like 'information' and 'meaning" easily lead us into these sorts of confusions because they have so many context-sensitive and pardigm-specific uses. This is well exhibited in these FIS discusions, and is a common problem in many interdisciplinary discussions. I have regularly requested that contributors to FIS try to label which paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information' in these posts, but sometimes, like fish unaware that they are in water, one forgets that there can be alternative paradigms (such as the one Søren suggests). So to try and avoid overly technical usage can you be specific about what you intend to denote with these terms. E.g. for the term "information" are you referring to statisitica features intrinsic to the character string with respect to possible alternatives, or what an interpreter might infer that this English sentence refers to, or whether this reference carries use value or special significance for such an interpreter? And e.g. for the term 'meaning' are you referring to what a semantician would consider its underlying lexical structure, or whether the sentence makes any sense, or refers to anything in the world, or how it might impact some reader? Depending how you specify your uses your paradox will become irresolvable or dissolve. — Terry On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Xueshan Yan mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>> wrote: 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 eart
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Loet I know that we have very divergent understandings of biosemiotics. The biosemiotic understanding of living systems is not based on a mechanistic either monistic or dualistic ontology but on a semiotic process philosophy based on an non-dual emptiness ontology that has some similarities to Bertallanffy’s General systems theory’s organicism or Aristotle’s hylozoism. I have tried to explain these differences in ontology in the papers from JPBMB below. I have summed up the cybersemiotic view as it looked some years ago here https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf Best wishes Søren Brier New articles in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology How Peircean semiotic philosophy connects Western science with Eastern emptiness ontology https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7KI6VGXcejand Peircean cosmogony's symbolic agapistic self-organization as an example of the influence of eastern philosophy on western thinking https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7KI6VGXceX 2017 JPBMB Focused Issue on Integral Biomathics: The Necessary Conjunction of Western and Eastern Thought Traditions for Exploring the Nature of Mind and Life<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/131> * * free promotional access to all focused issue articles until June 20th 2018 Brier, S. (2017). C.S. Peirce’s Phenomenological, Evolutionary and Trans-disciplinary Semiotic Conception of Science and Religion. Research as Realization: Science, Spirituality and Harmony. Editor / Ananta Kumar Giri. Delhi : Primus Books, 2017. pp. 53-96 From: l...@leydesdorff.net [mailto:leydesdo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: 26. februar 2018 19:03 To: Søren Brier ; Stanley N Salthe ; fis Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Soren, I agree with Stan's wording, but your wording is ambiguous. The meaning is not biologically given, but constructed in a discourse among biologists. The discourse can also be theological and then one obtains "theological" meaning. Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ.<http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> Beijing; Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en -- Original Message -- From: "Søren Brier" mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>> To: "Stanley N Salthe" mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>; "fis" mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Sent: 2/26/2018 6:41:25 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Thanks Stan. I agree: Behind production and interpretation of all quantitative data, there is either an biological or an existential or a religious or a philosophical framework of meaning. Best Søren From: Stanley N Salthe [mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>] Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19 To: Søren Brier mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>>; fis mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Following upon Søren: Meaning is derived for a system by way of Interpretation. The transmitted information has no meaning without interpretation. STAN On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>> wrote: Dear Xueshan The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such a paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory with it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf Cordially yours Søren Brier Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 2000 Frederiksberg Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , cybersemiotics.com<http://cybersemiotics.com>. Fra: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] På vegne af Xueshan Yan Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47 Til: FIS Group mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Emne: [Fis] A Paradox Dear colleagues, In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media of the world have given
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
It is so easy to get into a muddle mixing technical uses of a term with colloquial uses, and add a dash of philosophy and discipline-specific terminology and it becomes mental quicksand. Terms like 'information' and 'meaning" easily lead us into these sorts of confusions because they have so many context-sensitive and pardigm-specific uses. This is well exhibited in these FIS discusions, and is a common problem in many interdisciplinary discussions. I have regularly requested that contributors to FIS try to label which paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information' in these posts, but sometimes, like fish unaware that they are in water, one forgets that there can be alternative paradigms (such as the one Søren suggests). So to try and avoid overly technical usage can you be specific about what you intend to denote with these terms. E.g. for the term "information" are you referring to statisitica features intrinsic to the character string with respect to possible alternatives, or what an interpreter might infer that this English sentence refers to, or whether this reference carries use value or special significance for such an interpreter? And e.g. for the term 'meaning' are you referring to what a semantician would consider its underlying lexical structure, or whether the sentence makes any sense, or refers to anything in the world, or how it might impact some reader? Depending how you specify your uses your paradox will become irresolvable or dissolve. — Terry On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Xueshan Yan wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the > following inference, I call it *Paradox of Meaning and Information* or > *Armenia > Paradox*. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below > and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. > > > > Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main > media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two > students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper > headline “*Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night*”: > > Q: What is the *MEANING* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Q: What is the *INFORMATION* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Thus we come to the conclusion that *MEANING is equal to INFORMATION*, or > strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In > Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In > Information Science, the study of human information is called Human > Informatics. > > Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of > human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or > Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human > language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions > here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. > > Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its > main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one > of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with > the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, > thus we have the following corollary: > > A: *Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics*. > > According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle > for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human > Informatics, so we have another corollary: > > B: *Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics*. > > Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a > paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement > about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a > subject, but how should we understand this paradox? > > > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ 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&hl=en -- Original Message -- From: "Søren Brier" To: "Stanley N Salthe" ; "fis" 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 ; fis 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 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 Emne: [Fis] A Paradox Dear colleagues, In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline “Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, the study of human information is called Human Informatics. Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have the following corollary: A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics. According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human Informatics, so we have another corollary: B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics. Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a subject, but how should we understand this paradox? Best wishes, Xueshan ___ Fis mailing
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 ; fis 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 mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>> wrote: Dear Xueshan The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such a paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory with it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf Cordially yours Søren Brier Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 2000 Frederiksberg Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , cybersemiotics.com<http://cybersemiotics.com>. Fra: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] På vegne af Xueshan Yan Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47 Til: FIS Group mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Emne: [Fis] A Paradox Dear colleagues, In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline “Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, the study of human information is called Human Informatics. Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have the following corollary: A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics. According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human Informatics, so we have another corollary: B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics. Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a subject, but how should we understand this paradox? Best wishes, Xueshan ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
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 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/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b51 > 3bfbe2.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 > *Emne:* [Fis] A Paradox > > > > Dear colleagues, > > In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the > following inference, I call it *Paradox of Meaning and Information* or > *Armenia > Paradox*. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below > and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. > > > > Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main > media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two > students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper > headline “*Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night*”: > > Q: What is the *MEANING* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Q: What is the *INFORMATION* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Thus we come to the conclusion that *MEANING is equal to INFORMATION*, or > strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In > Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In > Information Science, the study of human information is called Human > Informatics. > > Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of > human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or > Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human > language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions > here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. > > Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its > main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one > of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with > the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, > thus we have the following corollary: > > A: *Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics*. > > According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle > for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human > Informatics, so we have another corollary: > > B: *Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics*. > > Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a > paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement > about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a > subject, but how should we understand this paradox? > > > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
> > > Søren Brier > > > > Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 > (2VO25), 2000 Frederiksberg > > Mobil 28494162 <(28)%20494%20162> 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 > *Emne:* [Fis] A Paradox > > > > Dear colleagues, > > In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the > following inference, I call it *Paradox of Meaning and Information* or > *Armenia > Paradox*. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below > and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. > > > > Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main > media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two > students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper > headline “*Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night*”: > > Q: What is the *MEANING* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Q: What is the *INFORMATION* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Thus we come to the conclusion that *MEANING is equal to INFORMATION*, or > strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In > Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In > Information Science, the study of human information is called Human > Informatics. > > Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of > human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or > Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human > language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions > here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. > > Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its > main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one > of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with > the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, > thus we have the following corollary: > > A: *Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics*. > > According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle > for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human > Informatics, so we have another corollary: > > B: *Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics*. > > Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a > paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement > about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a > subject, but how should we understand this paradox? > > > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Xueshan The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce's semiotics is such a paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory with it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf Cordially yours Søren Brier Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 2000 Frederiksberg Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , cybersemiotics.com. Fra: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På vegne af Xueshan Yan Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47 Til: FIS Group Emne: [Fis] A Paradox Dear colleagues, In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline "Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night": Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, the study of human information is called Human Informatics. Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have the following corollary: A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics. According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human Informatics, so we have another corollary: B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics. Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a subject, but how should we understand this paradox? Best wishes, Xueshan ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Xueshan, You ask "how should we understand this paradox?" I suggest that we start by looking at what it might mean for information or meaning to be 'contained' in a sentence. Lakoff would have told us that this is a metaphor, and specifically the pervasive 'container metaphor'. According to https://glossary.sil.org/term/container-metaphor: === Container metaphor. A containment metaphor is an ontological metaphor in which some concept is represented as: * having an inside and outside, and * capable of holding something else. Examples: (English) * I’ve had a full life. * Life is empty for him. * Her life is crammed with activities. * Get the most out of life. Source: Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago. 29–30, The paradox is dissolved by proposing that "In everyday speech it is usual to say that a sentence has 'an inside and an outside', and that it is 'capable of holding something else', but this is no more than a convenient fiction. Both 'information' and 'meaning' (in the senses you are using) are constituted by social and cognitive processes, and consideration of these processes can enable us to understand the relationship between the two terms". Best Dai On 26/02/18 09:47, Xueshan Yan wrote: Dear colleagues, In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the following inference, I call it *Paradox of Meaning and Information* or *Armenia Paradox*. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline “*Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night*”: Q: What is the *MEANING* contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Q: What is the *INFORMATION* contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Thus we come to the conclusion that *MEANING is equal to INFORMATION*, or strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, the study of human information is called Human Informatics. Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have the following corollary: A: *Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics*. According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human Informatics, so we have another corollary: B: *Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics*. Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a subject, but how should we understand this paradox? Best wishes, Xueshan ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] A Paradox
Dear colleagues, In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline "Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night": Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, the study of human information is called Human Informatics. Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have the following corollary: A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics. According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human Informatics, so we have another corollary: B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics. Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a subject, but how should we understand this paradox? Best wishes, Xueshan ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis