Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

2015-04-25 Thread Francesco Rizzo
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

2015-04-24 Thread Guy A Hoelzer
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

2015-04-24 Thread joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
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

2015-04-24 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
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

2015-04-24 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
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