Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal; preprint version now available
Giddens' "structuration," Luhmann's "self-organization," and the operationalization of the dynamics of meaning Abstract: Luhmann's social systems theory and Giddens' structuration theory of action share an emphasis on reflexivity, but focus on meaning along a divide between inter-human communication and intentful action as two different systems of reference. Recombining these two theories, simulations of interaction, organization, and self-organization of intentional communication can be distinguished by using algorithms from the computation of anticipatory systems. The self-organizing and organizing layers remain rooted in the double contingency of the human encounter which provides the variation. Organization and self-organization of communication are reflexive upon and therefore reconstructive of each other. Using mutual information in three dimensions, the imprint of meaning processing in the modeling system on the historical organization of uncertainty in the modeled system can be measured. This is shown empirically in the case of intellectual organization as "structurating" structure in the textual domain of scientific articles. http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.5565v1 http://www.leydesdorff.net/GiddensLuhmann/index.htm ** apologies for cross posting Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Robin,
You described very nicely the most fundamental way I like to think of semantics
(the meaning of information; I hope I am using this term properly). I would
emphasize that for me the "effect on the system" is a strictly internal
cascade. For example, if I perceive new information as revealing a new
opportunity, the opportunity is not the meaning of the information. The
opportunity per se is just a potential, assuming it is even real. The meaning
of the information is defined by my internal reaction to internalizing the
information. As a physical consequence of the dynamical penetration of
information into my system, its meaning for me unfolds internally in a
context-dependent way. For a system as complicated as a living organism, I
suspect it would be impossible to measure all the internal consequences of any
instance of semantic construction, although there are certainly neurological or
metabolic effects that could be measured.
Best Wishes,
Guy
on 11/30/09 9:10 AM, Robin Faichney (by way of Pedro Marijuan
) at ro...@robinfaichney.org wrote:
Hi folks, it's a long time since I contributed, but now I have something new to
say (new to me, anyway!).
To me this issue is very simple: the meaning of information to a receiving
system is the effect on the system of the reception of the information.
This makes meaning relative, but I believe that's both as it should be, and
quite easily understood:
I've very recently been studying Millikan's biosemantics, in which "proper
function" is determined genetically: it is the function of the heart to pump
blood because that's what its predecessors were selected to do. The concept of
function is required in order to allow for a representation or meaning to be
false, or misleading: in that case, the function fails to do what it is
"supposed to". It occurred to me, that is good as far as it goes, but too
restrictive: functionality should be seen as relative to a given context. In
the context of biology, Millikan's "proper function" is appropriate, but in
most contexts that people are concerned with, the context is human aims and
aspirations. Within that category there are different levels, notably that of
the individual and of the society, but that's just another aspect of context.
In any case, the context determines the meaning of information. How that does
that relate to my first statement? The context will determine, for instance,
whether the system we look at to determine the effect of the information is an
individual or a population. But of course there are many other complexities to
consider!
Thanks for your patience from a mere dabbler...
Robin
Monday, November 30, 2009, 11:48:21 AM, Christophe wrote:
> Yes Joseph, you are right. As the satisfaction of the constraint is mandatory
> for the system to maintain its nature, system and constraint are indeed
> tightly linked. The "stay alive" constraint came up on earth with the first
> organisms that had to maintain a local far from equilibrium status. The
> existence of the constraint goes with the being of the living entity. As we
> are all more or less Cartesian networked, we are naturally brought to
> identify components. ("divide each of the problems I was examining in as many
> parts as I could"). More on this in a wider perspective at
> http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/MenantChristophe.pdf
> All the best Christophe
____________________
From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr;
fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest
proposal Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:01:35 +0100
Dear Christophe,
I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning
of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's
perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be.
Best wishes,
Joseph
- Original Message -
From: Christophe Menant <mailto:christophe.men...@hotmail.fr>
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear all,
As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront,
let's not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion
of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective.
Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity
to care about information before the coming up of life on earth.
Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help
the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage
information.
A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon
transmission capacity of a channel, whatever
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
I am a little troubled by this account of the term "meaning." As described the distinction is not necessary and the concept of "constraint" seems arbitrary. How are we to identify these constraints? What is the measure of meaning? As I understand it Christophe proposes that the measure of meaning is "the suitability of information for some purpose" as defined by a natural constraint. So that we may say that a system input is meaningful if and only if it produces a behavior that statisfies some constraint, otherwise it is not meaningful. However, Christophe provides no means to systematically identify constraints. I'm sure those he mentions seem obvious to him but they seemed far from obvious to me. It isn't clear, for example, how to derive "to stay alive" or "to pursue happiness" as a natural constraint. I much prefer a more general definition derived from the Peircian pragmaticist definition (and internally consistent in my model). Meaning is a term concerning signs, it is the difference that a sign makes in the world. A meaning is a reference to the information that a sign provides. It is a meta concept allowing us to reason about information. With respect, Steven -- Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering http://IASE.info http://senses.info On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:48 AM, Christophe Menant > wrote: Yes Joseph, you are right. As the satisfaction of the constraint is mandatory for the system to maintain its nature, system and constraint are indeed tightly linked. The “stay alive” constraint came up on earth with the first organisms that had to maintain a local far from equilibrium status. The existence of the constraint goes with the being of the living en tity. As we are all more or less Cartesian networked, we are naturally brought to identify components. (“divide each of the problems I was examining in as many parts as I could”). More on this in a wider perspective at http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/MenantChristophe.pdf All the best Christophe From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:01:35 +0100 Dear Christophe, I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Christophe Menant To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Dear all, As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion of meaning and allows to bring in a system or iented perspective. Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information being transmitted thru the channel. The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, … As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a syst em that needs this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or us es it in order to satisfy a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are then organic (stay ali ve, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look for happines s, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usabl e for animals and humans and robots (1), (2). This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in simple terms. All the best Christophe (1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf (2) http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200 > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es > From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote: > >Dear Joseph, > > > >Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! > > > >I did not mea
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear Stan In general I can accept the drift of most of your answers, but I think you overlook one important process in the living systems, they experience the universe and the more they develop the more refined their experience becomes. Then they start to talk about them, later to write tem down and then to make institution to discuss and develop them such as religion and science. Venlig hilsen/best wishes Søren Brier Professor of semiotics at Department of International Studies of Culture and Communication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15, DK-2000 Frederiksberg. Tel. (+ 45) 38153132 Ed. Cybernetics & Human Knowing http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/ , Subscription $ 104 New book: Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough, Toronto University Press. Now also a Google Book. From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of ssal...@binghamton.edu [ssal...@binghamton.edu] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 3:53 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Commenting upon Christophe's: C: Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. -snip-: C: I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, S: As a materialist, I am unable to see that something completely new can come into being without any precursor. Thus, our 'meaning' had to have had a precursor relationship. We are aided in identifying this by using the Aristotelian causal analysis, and we can find the general precursor of meaning in final cause. The universe itself, being in a non-equilibrium condition since its inception has the deepest finality of all -- the tendency toward thermodynamic equilibrium. Thus everything that happens, at all scales, has the meaning of furthering universal equilibration. Our own human finalities are refinements added to this. C: Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. S: All of the natural world as we name and model it is a 'human invention'. Then Joseph says: I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be. S: The universe fits this 'bill' nicely! then Chritophe replies: Yes Joseph, you are right. As the satisfaction of the constraint is mandatory for the system to maintain its nature, system and constraint are indeed tightly linked. The “stay alive” constraint came up on earth with the first organisms that had to maintain a local far from equilibrium status. The existence of the constraint goes with the being of the living entity. S: Once again, the universe fits this 'bill'. then Søren replies: May I point out then that meaning of information is not information, but meaning and therefore not comprehensible in information theory or science? S: Yes indeed. In the Aristotelian causal analysis, the system embodies formal causes. Its aims are the finalities. Søren adds: Again, I would like to point out that "a local far from equilibrium status" is not enough to define life. It only defines a chemical aspect of living system as well as many other non-living systems. Our problem is that something about life evades our present scientific attempts to find a scientific model to describe it, because meaning is not a scientific concept and neither s first person consciousness, even if we include the largest informational paradigm as long as it is ontologically based on matter, energy and information only.. S: What the living bring in is the preservation and multiplication of historical accidental configurations, which, nodding to John, increases dramatically the degrees of freedom in any system. Their 'role' in the universe's project is to ferret out energy gradients that do not dissipate rapidly by conduction alone. Thus, the living, as dissipative structures, are basically convection centers. STAN fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Hi folks, it's a long time since I contributed, but now I have something new to say (new to me, anyway!). To me this issue is very simple: the meaning of information to a receiving system is the effect on the system of the reception of the information. This makes meaning relative, but I believe that's both as it should be, and quite easily understood: I've very recently been studying Millikan's biosemantics, in which "proper function" is determined genetically: it is the function of the heart to pump blood because that's what its predecessors were selected to do. The concept of function is required in order to allow for a representation or meaning to be false, or misleading: in that case, the function fails to do what it is "supposed to". It occurred to me, that is good as far as it goes, but too restrictive: functionality should be seen as relative to a given context. In the context of biology, Millikan's "proper function" is appropriate, but in most contexts that people are concerned with, the context is human aims and aspirations. Within that category there are different levels, notably that of the individual and of the society, but that's just another aspect of context. In any case, the context determines the meaning of information. How that does that relate to my first statement? The context will determine, for instance, whether the system we look at to determine the effect of the information is an individual or a population. But of course there are many other complexities to consider! Thanks for your patience from a mere dabbler... Robin Monday, November 30, 2009, 11:48:21 AM, Christophe wrote: > Yes Joseph, you are right. As the satisfaction of the constraint is mandatory for the system to maintain its nature, system and constraint are indeed tightly linked. The “stay alive” constraint came up on earth with the first organisms that had to maintain a local far from equilibrium status. The existence of the constraint goes with the being of the living entity. As we are all more or less Cartesian networked, we are naturally brought to identify components. (“divide each of the problems I was examining in as many parts as I could”). More on this in a wider perspective at http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/MenantChristophe.pdf All the best Christophe From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:01:35 +0100 Dear Christophe, I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Christophe Menant To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Dear all, As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective. Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information being transmitted thru the channel. The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, … As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or uses it in order to satisfy a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are then organic (stay alive, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look for happiness, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usable for animals and humans and robots (1), (2). This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in simple terms. All the best Christophe (1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf (2) http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200 > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es > From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Subje
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Commenting upon Christophe's: C: Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. -snip-: C: I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, S: As a materialist, I am unable to see that something completely new can come into being without any precursor. Thus, our 'meaning' had to have had a precursor relationship. We are aided in identifying this by using the Aristotelian causal analysis, and we can find the general precursor of meaning in final cause. The universe itself, being in a non-equilibrium condition since its inception has the deepest finality of all -- the tendency toward thermodynamic equilibrium. Thus everything that happens, at all scales, has the meaning of furthering universal equilibration. Our own human finalities are refinements added to this. C: Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. S: All of the natural world as we name and model it is a 'human invention'. Then Joseph says: I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be. S: The universe fits this 'bill' nicely! then Chritophe replies: Yes Joseph, you are right. As the satisfaction of the constraint is mandatory for the system to maintain its nature, system and constraint are indeed tightly linked. The “stay alive” constraint came up on earth with the first organisms that had to maintain a local far from equilibrium status. The existence of the constraint goes with the being of the living entity. S: Once again, the universe fits this 'bill'. then Søren replies: May I point out then that meaning of information is not information, but meaning and therefore not comprehensible in information theory or science? S: Yes indeed. In the Aristotelian causal analysis, the system embodies formal causes. Its aims are the finalities. Søren adds: Again, I would like to point out that "a local far from equilibrium status" is not enough to define life. It only defines a chemical aspect of living system as well as many other non-living systems. Our problem is that something about life evades our present scientific attempts to find a scientific model to describe it, because meaning is not a scientific concept and neither s first person consciousness, even if we include the largest informational paradigm as long as it is ontologically based on matter, energy and information only.. S: What the living bring in is the preservation and multiplication of historical accidental configurations, which, nodding to John, increases dramatically the degrees of freedom in any system. Their 'role' in the universe's project is to ferret out energy gradients that do not dissipate rapidly by conduction alone. Thus, the living, as dissipative structures, are basically convection centers. STAN fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Again, I would like to point out that "a local far from equilibrium status" is not enough to define life. It only defines a chemical aspect of living system as well as many other non-living systems. Our problem is that something about life evades our present scientific attempts to find a scientific model to describe it, because meaning is not a scientific concept and neither s first person consciousness, even if we include the largest informational paradigm as long as it is ontologically based on matter, energy and information only.. Venlig hilsen/best wishes Søren Brier Professor of semiotics at Department of International Studies of Culture and Communication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15, DK-2000 Frederiksberg. Tel. (+ 45) 38153132 Ed. Cybernetics & Human Knowing http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/ , Subscription $ 104 New book: Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough, Toronto University Press. Now also a Google Book. From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Christophe Menant [christophe.men...@hotmail.fr] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 12:48 PM To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Yes Joseph, you are right. As the satisfaction of the constraint is mandatory for the system to maintain its nature, system and constraint are indeed tightly linked. The “stay alive” constraint came up on earth with the first organisms that had to maintain a local far from equilibrium status. The existence of the constraint goes with the being of the living entity. As we are all more or less Cartesian networked, we are naturally brought to identify components. (“divide each of the problems I was examining in as many parts as I could”). More on this in a wider perspective at http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/MenantChristophe.pdf All the best Christophe From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:01:35 +0100 Dear Christophe, I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Christophe Menant<mailto:christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> To: fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Dear all, As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective. Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information being transmitted thru the channel. The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, … As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or uses it in order to satisfy a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are then organic (stay alive, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look for happiness, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usable for animals and humans and robots (1), (2). This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in simple terms. All the best Christophe (1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf (2) http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200 > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es > From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote: > >Dear Joseph, > > > >Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! > > > >I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. > >In addition to
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear Christophe May I point out then that meaning of information is not information, but meaning and therefore not comprehensible in information theory or science? Venlig hilsen/best wishes Søren Brier Professor of semiotics at Department of International Studies of Culture and Communication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15, DK-2000 Frederiksberg. Tel. (+ 45) 38153132 Ed. Cybernetics & Human Knowing http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/ , Subscription $ 104 New book: Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough, Toronto University Press. Now also a Google Book. From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Christophe Menant [christophe.men...@hotmail.fr] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:30 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Dear all, As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective. Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information being transmitted thru the channel. The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, … As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or uses it in order to satisfy a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are then organic (stay alive, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look for happiness, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usable for animals and humans and robots (1), (2). This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in simple terms. All the best Christophe (1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf (2) http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200 > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es > From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote: > >Dear Joseph, > > > >Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! > > > >I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. > >In addition to a mathematical theory of communication, we need substantive > >theories of communication. This became clear to me when Maturana formulated > >life as a consequence of the communication of molecules. If atoms are > >communicated, one obtains a theory of chemical evolution (Mason), etc. All > >these special theories of communication can usefully be matched with a > >mathematical theory of communication (or perhaps more generally non-linear > >dynamics). > > > >The special case, of course, is when one multiplies H with k(B) that one > >obtains S (Joule/Kelvin). John seems to imply that there is another unit of > >information in physics which is a conserved entity. John: Can you perhaps > >provide the dimensionality of this unit and provide the derivation? > > Dear Loet, > > It is usually defined as a bit, which is understood as a binary distinction, > wherefore the "it from bit" formulation found in a number of places, but > the term is due, I believe, to John Wheeler. More typically the term is > related to entropy considerations (as in the black hole case). My > derivation is by dimensional analysis. Entropy is the compliment > of information. If we take the maximal entropy of a system by > relaxing all constraints with no other change in macroscopic > parametres (impossible in practice, but possible in the imagination), > and subtract from this the statistical entropy using Boltzman's > formulation based on the number of complexions of the system, > we get negentropy, which can be identified with the information > in the system. This will break up into two parts, configurational > and statistical. The it from bit view is usually talking of configurational > information. The differe
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Yes Joseph, you are right. As the satisfaction of the constraint is mandatory for the system to maintain its nature, system and constraint are indeed tightly linked. The “stay alive” constraint came up on earth with the first organisms that had to maintain a local far from equilibrium status. The existence of the constraint goes with the being of the living entity. As we are all more or less Cartesian networked, we are naturally brought to identify components. (“divide each of the problems I was examining in as many parts as I could”). More on this in a wider perspective at http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/MenantChristophe.pdf All the best Christophe From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:01:35 +0100 Dear Christophe, I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Christophe Menant To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Dear all, As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective. Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information being transmitted thru the channel. The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, … As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or uses it in order to satisfy a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are then organic (stay alive, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look for happiness, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usable for animals and humans and robots (1), (2). This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in simple terms. All the best Christophe (1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf (2) http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200 > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es > From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote: > >Dear Joseph, > > > >Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! > > > >I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. > >In addition to a mathematical theory of communication, we need substantive > >theories of communication. This became clear to me when Maturana formulated > >life as a consequence of the communication of molecules. If atoms are > >communicated, one obtains a theory of chemical evolution (Mason), etc. All > >these special theories of communication can usefully be matched with a > >mathematical theory of communication (or perhaps more generally non-linear > >dynamics). > > > >The special case, of course, is when one multiplies H with k(B) that one > >obtains S (Joule/Kelvin). John seems to imply that there is another unit of > >information in physics which is a conserved entity. John: Can you perhaps > >provide the dimensionality of this unit and provide the derivation? > > Dear Loet, > > It is usually defined as a bit, which is understood as a binary distinction, > wherefore the "it from bit" formulation found in a number of places, but > the term is due, I believe, to John Wheeler. More typically the term is > related to entropy considerations (as in the black hole case). My > derivation is by dimensional analysis. Entropy is the compliment > of information. If we take the maximal entropy of a system by > relaxing all constraints with no other change in macrosc
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear Christophe and all I am sorry not to have had the time to anticipate in this discussion, but now that Christophe bring up my favorite problem: the relation between information and meaning I feel I must say something. This comment goes to those who also have ontological reflections on information and thus not on Loet's approach. In his review of my book Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough in CHK V. 16. no. 1-2 Wolfgang asks why not information all the way, why do I need semiotics also? That pertains to meaning and how it is related to living beings and later living conscious beings and the deep problem of explaining what life and consciousness is from a scientific point of view. I claim that even if you enlarge your ontological basis from matter and energy to include (Winerian) information it is not enough to explain life, consciousness and meaning production. I am also critical towards a broad common ontological concept of information that should cover both technical, physical, chemical, biological and mental information with or without meaning. Something fundamental is overlooked, I think. But that does not rule out the more instrumental and mathematical measurement of informational contend in various communicative processes as Loet practices. But he is not building up an informational philosophy, as far as I understand him, but as specific type of transdisciplinary measurement. Venlig hilsen/best wishes Søren Brier Professor of semiotics at Department of International Studies of Culture and Communication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15, DK-2000 Frederiksberg. Tel. (+ 45) 38153132 Ed. Cybernetics & Human Knowing http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/ , Subscription $ 104 New book: Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough, Toronto University Press. Now also a Google Book. From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Christophe Menant [christophe.men...@hotmail.fr] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:30 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Dear all, As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective. Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information being transmitted thru the channel. The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, … As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or uses it in order to satisfy a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are then organic (stay alive, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look for happiness, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usable for animals and humans and robots (1), (2). This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in simple terms. All the best Christophe (1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf (2) http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200 > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es > From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote: > >Dear Joseph, > > > >Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! > > > >I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. > >In addition to a mathematical theory of communication, we need substantive > >theories of communication. This became clear to me when Maturana formulated > >life as a consequence of the communication of molecules. If atoms are > >communicated, one obtains a theory of chemical evolution (Mason), etc. All > >these special theories of communication can usefully be matched with a > >mathematical theory of communication (or perhaps more generally non-linear > >dynamics). > > > >The special case, of course, is when one multiplies H
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear Christophe, I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Christophe Menant To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Dear all, As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective. Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information being transmitted thru the channel. The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, … As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or uses it in order to satisfy a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are then organic (stay alive, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look for happiness, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usable for animals and humans and robots (1), (2). This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in simple terms. All the best Christophe (1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf (2) http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200 > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es > From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote: > >Dear Joseph, > > > >Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! > > > >I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. > >In addition to a mathematical theory of communication, we need substantive > >theories of communication. This became clear to me when Maturana formulated > >life as a consequence of the communication of molecules. If atoms are > >communicated, one obtains a theory of chemical evolution (Mason), etc. All > >these special theories of communication can usefully be matched with a > >mathematical theory of communication (or perhaps more generally non-linear > >dynamics). > > > >The special case, of course, is when one multiplies H with k(B) that one > >obtains S (Joule/Kelvin). John seems to imply that there is another unit of > >information in physics which is a conserved entity. John: Can you perhaps > >provide the dimensionality of this unit and provide the derivation? > > Dear Loet, > > It is usually defined as a bit, which is understood as a binary distinction, > wherefore the "it from bit" formulation found in a number of places, but > the term is due, I believe, to John Wheeler. More typically the term is > related to entropy considerations (as in the black hole case). My > derivation is by dimensional analysis. Entropy is the compliment > of information. If we take the maximal entropy of a system by > relaxing all constraints with no other change in macroscopic > parametres (impossible in practice, but possible in the imagination), > and subtract from this the statistical entropy using Boltzman's > formulation based on the number of complexions of the system, > we get negentropy, which can be identified with the information > in the system. This will break up into two parts, configurational > and statistical. The it from bit view is usually talking of configurational > information. The difference between the two is largely a matter of relative > time scale, butt the time scale differences are typically large, so > there is a qualitative difference. So negentropy (physical information) > should be in entropy units. Entropy, as you point out, can be measured &
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear all, As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective. Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information being transmitted thru the channel. The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, … As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or uses it in order to satisfy a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are then organic (stay alive, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look for happiness, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usable for animals and humans and robots (1), (2). This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in simple terms. All the best Christophe (1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf (2) http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200 > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es > From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote: > >Dear Joseph, > > > >Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! > > > >I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. > >In addition to a mathematical theory of communication, we need substantive > >theories of communication. This became clear to me when Maturana formulated > >life as a consequence of the communication of molecules. If atoms are > >communicated, one obtains a theory of chemical evolution (Mason), etc. All > >these special theories of communication can usefully be matched with a > >mathematical theory of communication (or perhaps more generally non-linear > >dynamics). > > > >The special case, of course, is when one multiplies H with k(B) that one > >obtains S (Joule/Kelvin). John seems to imply that there is another unit of > >information in physics which is a conserved entity. John: Can you perhaps > >provide the dimensionality of this unit and provide the derivation? > > Dear Loet, > > It is usually defined as a bit, which is understood as a binary distinction, > wherefore the "it from bit" formulation found in a number of places, but > the term is due, I believe, to John Wheeler. More typically the term is > related to entropy considerations (as in the black hole case). My > derivation is by dimensional analysis. Entropy is the compliment > of information. If we take the maximal entropy of a system by > relaxing all constraints with no other change in macroscopic > parametres (impossible in practice, but possible in the imagination), > and subtract from this the statistical entropy using Boltzman's > formulation based on the number of complexions of the system, > we get negentropy, which can be identified with the information > in the system. This will break up into two parts, configurational > and statistical. The it from bit view is usually talking of configurational > information. The difference between the two is largely a matter of relative > time scale, butt the time scale differences are typically large, so > there is a qualitative difference. So negentropy (physical information) > should be in entropy units. Entropy, as you point out, can be measured > as joules per degree Kelvin. Going back to basics, joules are energy, > and degrees Kelvin as average energy per degree of freedom. > Dividing through by the energy, and correcting for the double denominator, > we get information in units of degrees of freedom. I submit that bits > are an excellent measure of degrees of freed, both being pure numbers. > > So that is it, information (and entropy) are pure numbers with dimensions > of degrees of freedom. Boltzman's constant relates this to energy > measures and other physical values. However
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote: >Dear Joseph, > >Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! > >I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. >In addition to a mathematical theory of communication, we need substantive >theories of communication. This became clear to me when Maturana formulated >life as a consequence of the communication of molecules. If atoms are >communicated, one obtains a theory of chemical evolution (Mason), etc. All >these special theories of communication can usefully be matched with a >mathematical theory of communication (or perhaps more generally non-linear >dynamics). > >The special case, of course, is when one multiplies H with k(B) that one >obtains S (Joule/Kelvin). John seems to imply that there is another unit of >information in physics which is a conserved entity. John: Can you perhaps >provide the dimensionality of this unit and provide the derivation? Dear Loet, It is usually defined as a bit, which is understood as a binary distinction, wherefore the "it from bit" formulation found in a number of places, but the term is due, I believe, to John Wheeler. More typically the term is related to entropy considerations (as in the black hole case). My derivation is by dimensional analysis. Entropy is the compliment of information. If we take the maximal entropy of a system by relaxing all constraints with no other change in macroscopic parametres (impossible in practice, but possible in the imagination), and subtract from this the statistical entropy using Boltzman's formulation based on the number of complexions of the system, we get negentropy, which can be identified with the information in the system. This will break up into two parts, configurational and statistical. The it from bit view is usually talking of configurational information. The difference between the two is largely a matter of relative time scale, butt the time scale differences are typically large, so there is a qualitative difference. So negentropy (physical information) should be in entropy units. Entropy, as you point out, can be measured as joules per degree Kelvin. Going back to basics, joules are energy, and degrees Kelvin as average energy per degree of freedom. Dividing through by the energy, and correcting for the double denominator, we get information in units of degrees of freedom. I submit that bits are an excellent measure of degrees of freed, both being pure numbers. So that is it, information (and entropy) are pure numbers with dimensions of degrees of freedom. Boltzman's constant relates this to energy measures and other physical values. However, information as a measure of degrees of freedom can be used in more abstract formulations as well (it implies Shannon's approach, as well as all but the required machine dependent part of the computational approach). I think it is as fundamental as we can get. I've argued this all on the list in one place or another before. John -- Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://www.ukzn.ac.za/undphil/collier/index.html ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear Joseph, Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. In addition to a mathematical theory of communication, we need substantive theories of communication. This became clear to me when Maturana formulated life as a consequence of the communication of molecules. If atoms are communicated, one obtains a theory of chemical evolution (Mason), etc. All these special theories of communication can usefully be matched with a mathematical theory of communication (or perhaps more generally non-linear dynamics). The special case, of course, is when one multiplies H with k(B) that one obtains S (Joule/Kelvin). John seems to imply that there is another unit of information in physics which is a conserved entity. John: Can you perhaps provide the dimensionality of this unit and provide the derivation? With best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > -Original Message- > From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es > [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 8:43 PM > To: Pedro C. Marijuan; fis > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > Dear All, > > Let me please first call attention to a key phrase in Pedro's note: > > "a new assortment of analytical items to apply in the > social-problems of > today --multidisciplinary recombination, sustainability and > social use of > knowledge..." > > As some of you may not know, the phrase "A Modest Proposal" > is the title of > a deadly political satire by Jonathan Swift against the cruelty and > indifference of late 18th Century British society. He > "proposed" (much > earlier than H.G. Wells' adaptation of the idea in /The Time > Machine/) that > the babies of poor Irish couples be fattened and eaten as > meat, to save the > costs of bringing them up. > > Although I respect Loet's esthetic view of formalism, I am > concerned that > with all the other calls for formalism being made we will > wind up with > something so abstract it will have little relevance to the > real world, and > how information is actually used. I for one do not wish to be > a target of a > Swiftian satire. > > "Cheers", > > Joseph > > - Original Message - > From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" > To: "fis" > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > > Dear Jerry and John H, > > As far as I see the problem, rather than a "gold standard" > for the term > information, an enlargement of context is required. We should speak > about "informational entities" ---living cells, organisms, nervous > systems, companies and institutions, countries, global > civilization) and > their peculiar way of handling very different categories of > information-related constructs (e.g., knowledge, meaning). A new > perspective is needed, just a way of thinking that provides a economic > view of this realm. > > In computer science they study the "Knapsack Problem" of combinatorial > optimization. An optimal composition has to be chosen for the multiple > contents of the rucksack needed in a trip, given a certain > limit weight > and keeping the total value as large as possible. We cannot accumulate > endless discussions on quantum information, thermodynamics, open > systems, origins of life, etc. and finally devote a few lines to say > what info is or not is. We should make a light recollection > of starting > points so that the rucksack can carry a new assortment of analytical > items to apply in the social-problems of today --multidisciplinary > recombination, sustainability and social use of knowledge... > > Thus, as a matter of play, we might pen the "10 basic principles of > information science": > > 1. Information goes beyond communication, involving info generation, > signaling, reception, meaning elaboration and response by the > "informational entities". > > 2. Information is a way of existence, based on the exchange of signals > that are used to guide the inner self-production (and self > degradation) > processes of informational entities. > > 3. Informational entities are capable of modifying their own > structures > adaptively, by means of inner "adaptive codes" (DNA& RNA, neural > memories, cultural ru
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear All,
Let me please first call attention to a key phrase in Pedro's note:
"a new assortment of analytical items to apply in the social-problems of
today --multidisciplinary recombination, sustainability and social use of
knowledge..."
As some of you may not know, the phrase "A Modest Proposal" is the title of
a deadly political satire by Jonathan Swift against the cruelty and
indifference of late 18th Century British society. He "proposed" (much
earlier than H.G. Wells' adaptation of the idea in /The Time Machine/) that
the babies of poor Irish couples be fattened and eaten as meat, to save the
costs of bringing them up.
Although I respect Loet's esthetic view of formalism, I am concerned that
with all the other calls for formalism being made we will wind up with
something so abstract it will have little relevance to the real world, and
how information is actually used. I for one do not wish to be a target of a
Swiftian satire.
"Cheers",
Joseph
- Original Message -
From: "Pedro C. Marijuan"
To: "fis"
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear Jerry and John H,
As far as I see the problem, rather than a "gold standard" for the term
information, an enlargement of context is required. We should speak
about "informational entities" ---living cells, organisms, nervous
systems, companies and institutions, countries, global civilization) and
their peculiar way of handling very different categories of
information-related constructs (e.g., knowledge, meaning). A new
perspective is needed, just a way of thinking that provides a economic
view of this realm.
In computer science they study the "Knapsack Problem" of combinatorial
optimization. An optimal composition has to be chosen for the multiple
contents of the rucksack needed in a trip, given a certain limit weight
and keeping the total value as large as possible. We cannot accumulate
endless discussions on quantum information, thermodynamics, open
systems, origins of life, etc. and finally devote a few lines to say
what info is or not is. We should make a light recollection of starting
points so that the rucksack can carry a new assortment of analytical
items to apply in the social-problems of today --multidisciplinary
recombination, sustainability and social use of knowledge...
Thus, as a matter of play, we might pen the "10 basic principles of
information science":
1. Information goes beyond communication, involving info generation,
signaling, reception, meaning elaboration and response by the
"informational entities".
2. Information is a way of existence, based on the exchange of signals
that are used to guide the inner self-production (and self degradation)
processes of informational entities.
3. Informational entities are capable of modifying their own structures
adaptively, by means of inner "adaptive codes" (DNA& RNA, neural
memories, cultural rules, knowledge compilations).
4. The advancement of a life cycle, or just permanence in time, is the
overall result of all the self-modifying processes and signaling operations.
5. Signals are exchanged in multiple ways, often through specialized
communicating networks ("media").
6. The overall reference of signals is the life cycle --in order to
establish their meaning & value.
7. 8. 9. and 10. points should refer to knowledge in itself and to
information science in relation with the system of sciences... but have
no time to continue ---more thought needed on the whole idea.
By the way (to John H), a fascinating power law appears in the
partitions of all natural numbers. The exponent is close to the 4/3 (or
3/4) so prevalent in biological dynamics ---does that mean anything?
best wishes
Pedro
--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza. España / Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Pedro
thanks for this interesting proposal. Just a simple question: are all
entities (of whatever kind, including, for instance, numbers or thoughts
or any kind of concepts, or non existing but possible entities, and
impossible entities etc.etc.) informational entities? and if not, how to
make a distinction? If all entities qua entities are in-formed entities,
then we will have to do with all hte problems of Platonic philosophy.
kind regards
Rafael
> Dear Jerry and John H,
>
> As far as I see the problem, rather than a "gold standard" for the term
> information, an enlargement of context is required. We should speak
> about "informational entities" ---living cells, organisms, nervous
> systems, companies and institutions, countries, global civilization) and
> their peculiar way of handling very different categories of
> information-related constructs (e.g., knowledge, meaning). A new
> perspective is needed, just a way of thinking that provides a economic
> view of this realm.
>
> In computer science they study the "Knapsack Problem" of combinatorial
> optimization. An optimal composition has to be chosen for the multiple
> contents of the rucksack needed in a trip, given a certain limit weight
> and keeping the total value as large as possible. We cannot accumulate
> endless discussions on quantum information, thermodynamics, open
> systems, origins of life, etc. and finally devote a few lines to say
> what info is or not is. We should make a light recollection of starting
> points so that the rucksack can carry a new assortment of analytical
> items to apply in the social-problems of today --multidisciplinary
> recombination, sustainability and social use of knowledge...
>
> Thus, as a matter of play, we might pen the "10 basic principles of
> information science":
>
> 1. Information goes beyond communication, involving info generation,
> signaling, reception, meaning elaboration and response by the
> "informational entities".
>
> 2. Information is a way of existence, based on the exchange of signals
> that are used to guide the inner self-production (and self degradation)
> processes of informational entities.
>
> 3. Informational entities are capable of modifying their own structures
> adaptively, by means of inner "adaptive codes" (DNA& RNA, neural
> memories, cultural rules, knowledge compilations).
>
> 4. The advancement of a life cycle, or just permanence in time, is the
> overall result of all the self-modifying processes and signaling operations.
>
> 5. Signals are exchanged in multiple ways, often through specialized
> communicating networks ("media").
>
> 6. The overall reference of signals is the life cycle --in order to
> establish their meaning & value.
>
> 7. 8. 9. and 10. points should refer to knowledge in itself and to
> information science in relation with the system of sciences... but have
> no time to continue ---more thought needed on the whole idea.
>
> By the way (to John H), a fascinating power law appears in the
> partitions of all natural numbers. The exponent is close to the 4/3 (or
> 3/4) so prevalent in biological dynamics ---does that mean anything?
>
> best wishes
>
> Pedro
>
>
>
>
--
Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Germany
Director, Steinbeis-Transfer-Institute Information Ethics (STI-IE), Germany
Information Ethics Senior Fellow, 2009-2010, Center for Information Policy
Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA
Distinguished Researcher in Information Ethics, School of Information Studies,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA
Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
E-Mail: raf...@capurro.de
Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
Homepage: www.capurro.de
STI-IE: http://sti-ie.de
ICIE: http://icie.zkm.de
IRIE: http://www.i-r-i-e.net
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear Jerry and John H,
As far as I see the problem, rather than a "gold standard" for the term
information, an enlargement of context is required. We should speak
about "informational entities" ---living cells, organisms, nervous
systems, companies and institutions, countries, global civilization) and
their peculiar way of handling very different categories of
information-related constructs (e.g., knowledge, meaning). A new
perspective is needed, just a way of thinking that provides a economic
view of this realm.
In computer science they study the "Knapsack Problem" of combinatorial
optimization. An optimal composition has to be chosen for the multiple
contents of the rucksack needed in a trip, given a certain limit weight
and keeping the total value as large as possible. We cannot accumulate
endless discussions on quantum information, thermodynamics, open
systems, origins of life, etc. and finally devote a few lines to say
what info is or not is. We should make a light recollection of starting
points so that the rucksack can carry a new assortment of analytical
items to apply in the social-problems of today --multidisciplinary
recombination, sustainability and social use of knowledge...
Thus, as a matter of play, we might pen the "10 basic principles of
information science":
1. Information goes beyond communication, involving info generation,
signaling, reception, meaning elaboration and response by the
"informational entities".
2. Information is a way of existence, based on the exchange of signals
that are used to guide the inner self-production (and self degradation)
processes of informational entities.
3. Informational entities are capable of modifying their own structures
adaptively, by means of inner "adaptive codes" (DNA& RNA, neural
memories, cultural rules, knowledge compilations).
4. The advancement of a life cycle, or just permanence in time, is the
overall result of all the self-modifying processes and signaling operations.
5. Signals are exchanged in multiple ways, often through specialized
communicating networks ("media").
6. The overall reference of signals is the life cycle --in order to
establish their meaning & value.
7. 8. 9. and 10. points should refer to knowledge in itself and to
information science in relation with the system of sciences... but have
no time to continue ---more thought needed on the whole idea.
By the way (to John H), a fascinating power law appears in the
partitions of all natural numbers. The exponent is close to the 4/3 (or
3/4) so prevalent in biological dynamics ---does that mean anything?
best wishes
Pedro
--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza. España / Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Jerry -- List, Pedro, Bob: A modestt proposal -snip- So, where does this Peircian categorification of the kinds or sorts of information lead? I suggest that Stan's usage of the term "valency" of information may be a useful name for the values of information in the respective systems that is being referred to. The polyvalency of biosemiotic and cultural information is already well-established in practice. Does "polyvalency" signify an organization capable of multiple interpretations (polysemy)? The concept of polyvalent information provides a reasonable term to describe the exactness of the reproduction of biological structures, of genetic inheritance. Certainly genetic information can have many different 'interpretations' according to conditions / context. The conundrums over the questions of symmetry and asymmetry remain open for description in logical terms of the valency of the symbolization of information used for communication. For example, can practical communication be achieved with an infinitely polyvalent "chunk" of information? Is this meaning interpreted in an indefinite number of contexts? Or, is this merely a useful metaphor? How does the Barwise metaphor of categorical information fit into the concept of polyvalency? Can one actually encode information into infinite groups or is this merely a mathematical metaphor? Numerous other questions can be raised from the logical proposition that communication implicitly connects via valencies. The connection to valency in semiotics would be via different systems of interpretance. It would be promoted, presumably, by some degree of vagueness in the information. STAN ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
