Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath
Cari Tutti, a proposito della uni-dualità tra informazione e interpretazione, non bisogna essere per forza pragmatici tifosi di R. Rorty per affermare che i fatti-segni o segni-fatti restano chiusi nella loro arbitrarietà o irrazionalità semiotica senza un'interpretazione o ermeneutica adeguata. Purtroppo, questo non l'hanno capito gran parte dei sor-passati economisti e di tanti filosofi ancora alla ricerca dell'Araba Fenice del pensiero assoluto, mentre contrassegna il poderoso avanzamento delle scienze fisiche e matematiche. Ecco perché la sessione precedente, appena conclusa, a mio giudizio ha avuto una grandissima importanza. La nostra esistenza e la nostra conoscenza sono un grande mistero che sola la poesia e la musica, impregnate di tenerezza o amore divino e umano, possono educarci a com-prendere. Un abbraccio affettuoso da un poverino esponenziale, quale sono io, che per il disegno o progetto di Dio può diventare un Io sono. E ciò vale per tutti, credenti e non credenti. Oggi, più che mai, affascina la ricerca di Un incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza della scienza (F. Rizzo,Aracne editrice, Roma, 2014). Il valore dell'uomo non dipende da ciò che è, ha, sa, ma dalla capacità di uscire da se stesso, aprendosi e amando gli altri.La co-scienza dell'amore, vale più dell'amore della scienza. Grazie. Francesco Rizzo. 2015-04-25 8:00 GMT+02:00 Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net: Dear Pedro, Terrence, and colleagues, *“… to explain how this interpretive capacity couldpossibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causalinfluence is the rule.* The contiguity is relational. However, meaning is generated not relationally, but positionally. As the network system is shaped in terms of relations, it can be expected to develop an architecture. The structure is based on correlations, that is, patterns of relations including zeros. For example, two synonyms may have similar meaning without co-occurring ever in a single text. In other words, the vectors of relations span a vector space in which both nodes and links are positioned. A link may then mean something different for node A and node B; the link becomes directed because of its function in the network. The correlational analysis of the vector space adds to the graph analysis of the networks of relations. Reflexivity adds to the mutual contingency in the relations by bringing the patterns of relations to bear. Human reflexivity enables us to change (self-organize) additionally the diaphragm of the reflection. Thus, degrees of freedom can be added recursively using the same principle that the network of relations develops a next-order architecture. Best, Loet -- Loet Leydesdorff *Emeritus* University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.htmlBeijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Pedro C. Marijuan *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2015 2:34 PM *To:* Terrence W. DEACON; 'fis' *Subject:* Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath Dear Terry and colleagues, I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate closure to a very intense discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an essential point (at least in my opinion): *Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize presentintrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent ordisplaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorablewhen it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters aspart of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, itbecomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is beingassumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity couldpossibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causalinfluence is the rule.*My suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that there is an entity capable of dynamically building upon an external absences, OK quite clear, but what about internal absences? I mean at the origins of communication there could be the sensing of the internal-- lets call it functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a metabolic code
Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath
Hi Terry, I have used the term ‘perception’ in referring to in-formation that affects internal structure or dynamics. This would contrast with forms of potential information that might pass through the system without being ‘perceived’. For example, we have a finite number of mechanisms we call senses, each of which is sensitive to particular modes of information we encounter in our environment, but we are not able to perceive every form of information that we encounter (e.g., UV light). I think you are using the term ‘interpretation’ to describe the same thing. Do you agree? Do you think the notions of perception and interpretation are effectively the same thing? Cheers, Guy Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor Department of Biology University of Nevada Reno Phone: 775-784-4860 Fax: 775-784-1302 hoel...@unr.edumailto:hoel...@unr.edu On Apr 24, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edumailto:dea...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Pedro, Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely agree with your comment about living processes and their internal informative organization. The three exceedingly simple molecular model systems (forms of autogenesis) that I discuss toward the end of the paper were intended to exemplify a minimal life-like unit that—because of its self-reconstituting and self-repairing features—could both exemplify an origin of life transition and a first simplest system exhibiting interpretive competence. It is only because these autogenic systems respond to disruption of their internal organizational coherence that they can be said to also interpret aspects of their environment with respect to this. My goal in this work is to ultimately provide a physico-chemical foundation for a scientific biosemiotics, which is currently mostly exemplified by analogies to human-level semiotic categories. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your mediation of these discussions. Sincerely, Terry On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate closure to a very intense discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an essential point (at least in my opinion): Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize present intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as part of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it becomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is being assumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity could possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal influence is the rule. My suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that there is an entity capable of dynamically building upon an external absences, OK quite clear, but what about internal absences? I mean at the origins of communication there could be the sensing of the internal-- lets call it functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a metabolic code hypothesis crafted on the origins of cellular signaling. For instance, one of the most important environmental internal detections concerns cAMP, which means you/me are in an energy trouble... some more evolutionary arguments can be thrown. Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its self-production needs in the center of communication, and in the very origins of the interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen much reflections around the life cycle as the true provider of both communications and meanings, maybe it conduces to new avenues of thought interesting to explore... All the best! --Pedro Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear FIS colleagues, Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds. Remember that in less than ten days we will have a new session on info science and library science. best --Pedro -- Retrospective comments on the January 2015 FIS discussion Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edumailto:dea...@berkeley.edu) During the bulk of my career since the early 1980s I studied brain organization with a particular focus on its role in the production and interpretation of communication
Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath
Dear Pedro, Dear Terry, Always an optimist, I was convinced that there could be a convergence of your approaches and my Logic in Reality starting from the domain of absence. What Pedro refers to as functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies (absences) are all predominantly negative aspects of systems that operate especially in living systems 'together' with their positive counterparts (presences). The evolution of these elements in the physico-chemical domain follows this logic, in which negative elements always are given the necessary ontological 'status'. They are the basis for the emergence of higher level entities, following Terry's hierarchies of dynamics. Thus we may have, to further support a scientific biosemiotics, a dynamic logic to replace the analogies to human-level semiotic categories many of which (read: Peirce) do not instantiate the necessary ontological complexity and commitment. Cheers, Joseph Message d'origine De : dea...@berkeley.edu Date : 24/04/2015 - 10:22 (PST) À : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath Hi Pedro, Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely agree with your comment about living processes and their internal informative organization. The three exceedingly simple molecular model systems (forms of autogenesis) that I discuss toward the end of the paper were intended to exemplify a minimal life-like unit that—because of its self-reconstituting and self-repairing features—could both exemplify an origin of life transition and a first simplest system exhibiting interpretive competence. It is only because these autogenic systems respond to disruption of their internal organizational coherence that they can be said to also interpret aspects of their environment with respect to this. My goal in this work is to ultimately provide a physico-chemical foundation for a scientific biosemiotics, which is currently mostly exemplified by analogies to human-level semiotic categories. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your mediation of these discussions. Sincerely, Terry On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate closure to a very intense discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an essential point (at least in my opinion): Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize present intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as part of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it becomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is being assumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity could possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal influence is the rule. My suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that there is an entity capable of dynamically building upon an external absences, OK quite clear, but what about internal absences? I mean at the origins of communication there could be the sensing of the internal-- lets call it functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a metabolic code hypothesis crafted on the origins of cellular signaling. For instance, one of the most important environmental internal detections concerns cAMP, which means you/me are in an energy trouble... some more evolutionary arguments can be thrown. Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its self-production needs in the center of communication, and in the very origins of the interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen much reflections around the life cycle as the true provider of both communications and meanings, maybe it conduces to new avenues of thought interesting to explore... All the best! --Pedro Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear FIS colleagues, Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds. Remember that in less than ten days we will have a new session on info science and library science. best --Pedro -- Retrospective comments on the January 2015 FIS discussion Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edu) During the bulk of my career since the early 1980s I studied brain organization
Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath
Hi Pedro, Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely agree with your comment about living processes and their internal informative organization. The three exceedingly simple molecular model systems (forms of autogenesis) that I discuss toward the end of the paper were intended to exemplify a minimal life-like unit that—because of its self-reconstituting and self-repairing features—could both exemplify an origin of life transition and a first simplest system exhibiting interpretive competence. It is only because these autogenic systems respond to disruption of their internal organizational coherence that they can be said to also interpret aspects of their environment with respect to this. My goal in this work is to ultimately provide a physico-chemical foundation for a scientific biosemiotics, which is currently mostly exemplified by analogies to human-level semiotic categories. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your mediation of these discussions. Sincerely, Terry On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate closure to a very intense discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an essential point (at least in my opinion): *Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize present intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as part of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it becomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is being assumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity could possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal influence is the rule. *My suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that there is an entity capable of dynamically building upon an external absences, OK quite clear, but what about internal absences? I mean at the origins of communication there could be the sensing of the internal-- lets call it functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a metabolic code hypothesis crafted on the origins of cellular signaling. For instance, one of the most important environmental internal detections concerns cAMP, which means you/me are in an energy trouble... some more evolutionary arguments can be thrown. Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its self-production needs in the center of communication, and in the very origins of the interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen much reflections around the life cycle as the true provider of both communications and meanings, maybe it conduces to new avenues of thought interesting to explore... All the best! --Pedro Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear FIS colleagues, Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds. Remember that in less than ten days we will have a new session on info science and library science. best --Pedro* -- Retrospective comments on the January 2015 FIS discussion* Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edu) During the bulk of my career since the early 1980s I studied brainorganization with a particular focus on its role in the production andinterpretation of communication in vertebrate animals and humans. Onecore target of these studies was to understand the neurologicalchanges that led to the evolution of the human language capacity andwhy it is so anomalous in the context of the other diversecommunication systems that have evolved. This work was largelyconducted using standard lab-based neuroscience tools—from axonaltracer techniques, to fetal neural transplantation, to MRI imaging,and more—and studying a diverse array of animal brains. Besidesevolutionary and developmental neuroscience, this path led me toexplore ethology, linguistics, semiotic theories, information theoriesand the philosophical issues that these research areas touched upon.Indeed, my first co-authored book was not on neuroscience but on thedesign of the early Apple desktop computers. So I came at the issuesexplored in my FIS essay from this diverse background. This has led meto pose what may be more basic questions than are usually considered,and to
Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath
Hi Guy, Yes. At the very basic level that I explore with these ultra simple model systems it would not be easy to distinguish perception and reaction. Both involve interpretive steps, in that only some material features—specifically those with potentially disruptive or constructive potential for system organization—are assigned informative value in consequence of the self-rectifying dynamics they correlate with. — Terry On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Guy A Hoelzer hoel...@unr.edu wrote: Hi Terry, I have used the term ‘perception’ in referring to in-formation that affects internal structure or dynamics. This would contrast with forms of potential information that might pass through the system without being ‘perceived’. For example, we have a finite number of mechanisms we call senses, each of which is sensitive to particular modes of information we encounter in our environment, but we are not able to perceive every form of information that we encounter (e.g., UV light). I think you are using the term ‘interpretation’ to describe the same thing. Do you agree? Do you think the notions of perception and interpretation are effectively the same thing? Cheers, Guy Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor Department of Biology University of Nevada Reno Phone: 775-784-4860 Fax: 775-784-1302 hoel...@unr.edu On Apr 24, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Pedro, Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely agree with your comment about living processes and their internal informative organization. The three exceedingly simple molecular model systems (forms of autogenesis) that I discuss toward the end of the paper were intended to exemplify a minimal life-like unit that—because of its self-reconstituting and self-repairing features—could both exemplify an origin of life transition and a first simplest system exhibiting interpretive competence. It is only because these autogenic systems respond to disruption of their internal organizational coherence that they can be said to also interpret aspects of their environment with respect to this. My goal in this work is to ultimately provide a physico-chemical foundation for a scientific biosemiotics, which is currently mostly exemplified by analogies to human-level semiotic categories. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your mediation of these discussions. Sincerely, Terry On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate closure to a very intense discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an essential point (at least in my opinion): *Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize present intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as part of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it becomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is being assumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity could possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal influence is the rule. *My suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that there is an entity capable of dynamically building upon an external absences, OK quite clear, but what about internal absences? I mean at the origins of communication there could be the sensing of the internal-- lets call it functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a metabolic code hypothesis crafted on the origins of cellular signaling. For instance, one of the most important environmental internal detections concerns cAMP, which means you/me are in an energy trouble... some more evolutionary arguments can be thrown. Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its self-production needs in the center of communication, and in the very origins of the interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen much reflections around the life cycle as the true provider of both communications and meanings, maybe it conduces to new avenues of thought interesting to explore... All the best! --Pedro Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear FIS colleagues, Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but conclusively and not looking for argumentative
[Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath
Dear FIS colleagues, Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds. Remember that in less than ten days we will have a new session on info science and library science. best --Pedro * -- Retrospective comments on the January 2015 FIS discussion* Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edu) During the bulk of my career since the early 1980s I studied brain organization with a particular focus on its role in the production and interpretation of communication in vertebrate animals and humans. One core target of these studies was to understand the neurological changes that led to the evolution of the human language capacity and why it is so anomalous in the context of the other diverse communication systems that have evolved. This work was largely conducted using standard lab-based neuroscience tools—from axonal tracer techniques, to fetal neural transplantation, to MRI imaging, and more—and studying a diverse array of animal brains. Besides evolutionary and developmental neuroscience, this path led me to explore ethology, linguistics, semiotic theories, information theories and the philosophical issues that these research areas touched upon. Indeed, my first co-authored book was not on neuroscience but on the design of the early Apple desktop computers. So I came at the issues explored in my FIS essay from this diverse background. This has led me to pose what may be more basic questions than are usually considered, and to reconsider even the most unquestioned assumptions about the nature of information and the origins of its semiotic properties. I am aware that many who are following this discussion have a career-long interest in some aspect of human communication or computation. In these realms many researchers —including many of you— have provided sophisticated analytical tools and quite extensive theories for describing these processes. Though it may at first seem as though I am questioning the validity of some of this (now accepted) body of theory, for the most part I too find this adequate for the specific pragmatic issues usually considered. The essay I posted did not critique any existing theory. It rather explored some assumptions that most theories take for granted and need not address. I believe, however, that there remain a handful of issues that have been set aside and taken as givens that need to be reconsidered. For the most part, these assumptions don't demand to be unpacked in order to produce useful descriptions of communicative and information processes at the machine or interpersonal level. Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize present intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as part of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it becomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is being assumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity could possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal influence is the rule. Although, this may appear to some readers as a question that is merely of philosophical concern, I believe that failure to consider it will impede progress in exploring some of the most pressing scientific issues of our time, including both the nature an origins of living and mental processes, and possibly even quantum processes. In this respect, my exposition was not in any respect critical of other approaches but was rather an effort to solicit collaboration in digging into issues that have —for legitimate pragmatic reasons— not been a significant focus of most current theoretical analysis. I understand why some readers felt that the whole approach was peripheral to their current interests. Or who thought that I was re-opening debates that had long-ago been set aside. Or who just thought that I was working at the wrong level, on the conviction that the answer to such questions lies in other realms, e.g. quantum theories or panpsychic philosophies. To those of you who fell into these categories, I beg your indulgence. The issues involved are not merely of philosophical interest. They are of critical relevance to understanding biological and neurological information. So if there are any readers of this forum who are interested in the issue of the whether reference and significance are physically explainable irrespective of human subjective observation, and who have been quietly reflecting on my proposals, I would be happy to carry on an email dialogue outside of this forum. For the
