Re: [Fis] Response to Sungchul. Generative Logic

2018-01-17 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari Tutti,
ho riflettuto molto sulle parole dei messaggi di Joseph, Loet, Karl e Sung.
Non sono un superficiale o un illuso, ma per natura e cultura privilegio la
dimensione empatica dell'esistenza e della conoscenza. Questo mi porta a
valorizzare quel poco o quel tanto di talentuoso e valido che v'è in ogni
donna o uomo, allievo o collega. Con non poca fatica compensata dai
risultati ottenuti, pur essendo un POVERINO ESPONENZIALE.
Armonizzare le divergenze richiede l'arte artigiana di integrare le
diversità perseguendo e raggiungendo l'unità, NON l'appiattimento, il
livellamento e l'uniformità. Tessere l'unità è un modo di ricostruire la
storia della vita e della scienza. Rifiuto, quindi, ogni forma di
"riduzionismo" (tendenzialmente atomistico, meccanicistico e statico), al
contrario ricerco l'approccio "olistico"(essenzialmente molecolare,
evolutivo, sistemico ed eco-dinamico).
Essere artigiani di unità nella realtà delle possibilità o nelle
possibilità della realtà è una cosa che fa diventare grandi i piccolini
come me!
Il mio non è uno sfoggio epistemologico, ma una riflessione onto-logica che
mi aiuta a valorizzare l'armonia del dis-accordo nei limiti del possibile,
attuale o potenziale..
Un abbraccio affettuoso a Tutti e scusatemi se sono (stato) noioso.
Francesco

2018-01-14 19:56 GMT+01:00 Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>:

> Hi Soren,
>
>
> Which comment is for me?
>
>
> Also, I want to clarify the following:
>
>
> (1) 'Semiotics' is the name given to the study of signs generally and
> existed since long before Peirce's time (1839-1914).
>
> (2) If we represent 'semiotics' as a large circle, it will contain many
> small sub-circles representing various theories about sign processes,
> including Peirce's own, yours, mine, and many others', each sub-circles
> contributing to the complete description of the large circle.
>
> (3) In this Venn diagrammatic sense, 'neo-semiotics' is a sub-circle
> belonging to the large circle of Semiotics that should have some overlap
> with the Peircean semiotics since it is an extension of the latter.
> Further, neo-semiotics has many new features not contained in the Peircean
> semiotics (e.g., molecular signs and their mechanisms of action driven by
> free energy dissipation, the essential thermodynamic requirement for
> semiosis, and the relation between micro- and macrosemiotics, etc.) and
> hence cannot be completely contained within the sub-circle of the Peircean
> semiotics.
>
>
> All the best.
>
>
> Sung
>
>
> --
> *From:* Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:32 AM
> *To:* Loet Leydesdorff; Joseph Brenner; Terrence W. DEACON; Alex Hankey;
> Fis,
> *Cc:* Emanuel Diamant; Sungchul Ji
> *Subject:* RE: [Fis] Response to Sungchul. Generative Logic
>
>
> Dear Pedro
>
>
>
> Their seems to be some malfunction in the system. Three comments – the
> last one to Sung – have not appeared on the list. Could you investigate?
>
>  Best
>
>   Søren Brier
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] Response to Sungchul. Generative Logic

2018-01-14 Thread Sungchul Ji
Hi Soren,


Which comment is for me?


Also, I want to clarify the following:


(1) 'Semiotics' is the name given to the study of signs generally and existed 
since long before Peirce's time (1839-1914).

(2) If we represent 'semiotics' as a large circle, it will contain many small 
sub-circles representing various theories about sign processes, including 
Peirce's own, yours, mine, and many others', each sub-circles contributing to 
the complete description of the large circle.

(3) In this Venn diagrammatic sense, 'neo-semiotics' is a sub-circle belonging 
to the large circle of Semiotics that should have some overlap with the 
Peircean semiotics since it is an extension of the latter.  Further, 
neo-semiotics has many new features not contained in the Peircean semiotics 
(e.g., molecular signs and their mechanisms of action driven by free energy 
dissipation, the essential thermodynamic requirement for semiosis, and the 
relation between micro- and macrosemiotics, etc.) and hence cannot be 
completely contained within the sub-circle of the Peircean semiotics.


All the best.


Sung



From: Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:32 AM
To: Loet Leydesdorff; Joseph Brenner; Terrence W. DEACON; Alex Hankey; Fis,
Cc: Emanuel Diamant; Sungchul Ji
Subject: RE: [Fis] Response to Sungchul. Generative Logic


Dear Pedro



Their seems to be some malfunction in the system. Three comments – the last one 
to Sung – have not appeared on the list. Could you investigate?

 Best

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


Re: [Fis] Response to Sungchul. Generative Logic

2018-01-13 Thread Joseph Brenner
Dear All again,



Terry has introduced an absolutely essential concept on which we need to
focus, that of a generative logic of informational relationships. I would
just like to point out that we are not starting from zero. Some of us, for
example Mark J. and I have already recognized the need for a new logic, in
which understanding the dynamic relationships is central. In Logic in
Reality, for example, Terry's suggestion of the need to avoid "the tendency
to use language-like communication as the paradigm exemplar" is already
achieved by focus on the non-linguistic dynamic process properties of
information.



If Terry could expand his concept of the contours of a 'generative logic',
it might be possible to show this even more clearly.



Thank you and best wishes,



Joseph



  _

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Terrence W.
DEACON
Sent: samedi, 13 janvier 2018 19:33
To: Alex Hankey
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es; Emanuel Diamant; Sungchul Ji
Subject: Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul



Hi all,



I would be very encouraged if we are trying to develop beyond mere lists of
different uses of the term 'information' TO structured taxonomies of
distinct types of information TO a generative logic of how these distinct
modes of a complex information relationship are interrelated.



Dualistically distinguishing intrinsic properties of an informing medium
from relational properties that determine its reference provides an
important first step in growing the concept to encompas its full usefulness.
But I hope that we will also eventually begin to attend to the functional
value that the coveyed reference provides, since this too is often also
implicitly part of the various uses of the term 'infomation' in colloquial
and even scientific use. This requires more careful parsing of the term
"meaning" that is often invoked.



For instance, one can receive information that is unambiguously "about"
something but where that which it is about is already known and therefore is
"functionally redundant" (not to be confused with signal redundancy). Or
this information can be about something that is irrelevant to a given
function or end, while still being information about something.



An example would be telling me the time when I already know what time it is.
The statement about the time does indeed "mean" something-i.e. it is not
meaningless as gibberish woiuld be. Similarly, if I ask to know the current
temperature and I am instead told the time, the reference provided would be
useless to me-i.e. it wouldn't "make a difference" in the colloquial English
sense of that phrase. The concept of "meaning" tends to collapse or conflate
these two distinctions-reference and significance-which I think we should
endeavor to distinguish.



In this respect I like the suggestion by Alex Hankey that we consider an
example like the barely conscious "feeling" of being watched which both
conveys information about an extrinsic state of affairs and additionally has
a functional relevance which is implicit in the discomfort it typically
elicits. Both the aboutness and the significance are relational, not
intrinsic properties of information. They are are distinct relations because
they are asymmetrically dependent on one another. Thus if I am entirely
unaware of being watched I am nnot discomforted by it.



Note also the difference in these relational attrributes: aboutness or
reference is "in relation to" some state of affairs, whereas significance or
value is "in relation to" some telos intrinsic to an interpreting agent or
system.



Exploring such nondiscursive examples can help us to escape the tendency to
use language-like communication as the paradigm exemplar. The analysis of
the information intrinsic to and conveyed by music might in this respect
provide a useful platform for future discussion.



Are there other critical distinctions that we additionally need to
highlight?



Happy New Year, Terry



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Alex Hankey  wrote:

And what about the Kinds of Information that you cannot put in a data set? 

The information that makes you turn your head and meet the gaze of someone
staring at you.

No one could do that, which we humans and all animals do constantly,

unless we had received such information at a subliminal level in the brain.

We all have that capacity, it is vital for survival in the wild. All animals
do it.

The 'Sense of Being Stared At' is a common experience for most animals,

how far down the tree of life no one yet knows.



Whatever triggers it is definitely 'A Difference that Makes a Difference', 

so fits in your definition of 'Meaningful Information' - it has to!

BUT IT CANNOT BE DIGITAL INFORMATION.

Please Face Up to This Fact.



All best wishes,



Alex





On 13 January 2018 at 07:30, Sungchul Ji  wrote:

Hi Emmanuel and FISers,



Thank you, Emmanuel, for your generous remarks.  It is heartening to