Here I reply to Loet's lovely text.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net>wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> Perhaps, I misread or misunderstand some of these discussions, but it seems
> to me – having read Conrad – that in the background their philosophy is
> cosmological or, in other words, an attempt to ground “bits in it”. I
> understand that “it” is considered as a fluctuon and no longer a given, but
> in flux: the assumed flux generates uncertainty or information.
>
'Its' also necessarily must have been derived during the development
of the universe from vaguer forms. Uncertainty in the information theoretic
sense requires definite alternative possibilities, which would not have been
possible in a quark-gluon plasma. That is, 'its' might be processes as well
as things, but are always definite. The general developmental trajectory is
vague -> fuzzy -> -> increasingly definite.
>
>
> It does not appeal to me. Having studied philosophy, I may no longer be in
> need of such grounding in a metaphysics of metabiology (as I am not in need
> of a religion). What appeals to me in the mathematical notion of information
> is its basis in uncertainty and its dimensionlesness. In philosophical
> terms, it seems to me that Shannon mathematized the Cartesian Cogito: the
> uncertainty can nowadays be expressed as bits of information. Bits of
> information are yet meaningless without the specification of a system of
> reference: the cogitatum. Unlike Descartes, however, the cogitatum is no
> longer considered as a God (the Transcendent Other), but any system of
> reference can be specified. The specification of the system of reference
> provides meaning to the information: the difference(s) can then make a
> difference for the specified system of reference. The theoretical task is to
> specify the selection mechanisms in these systems of reference.
>
Here you have indicated the need for semiosis. Since semiotics is
more general that information theory, the latter must be seen to supervene
upon semiotics as the implicit source of IT.
>
>
> It seems to me important to follow Herbert Simon’s notion of vertical and
> horizontal differentiation and then to agree with Conrad that these
> differentiations can be interwoven and oblique.
>
Of course I disagree with this promiscuous view. In the
physical/material world of dynamics, e.g., a fluctuation among electrons
will not derange a protein function, and fluctuations in a protein's
gyrations will not interfere with some catalysis, and a fluctuation in a
catalytic moment will not interfere with, say, digestion, etc. etc. Order
of magnitude is one order of the Western scientific world.
> Synergies can be expected to emerge at some places more than others. The
> autopoiesis model is functional for the specification of the interactions
> among selection mechanism. At each level (vertically) or in each dimension
> (horizontally) the specification of selection mechanisms may give rise to
> new scientific specialisms.
>
It is the history of scientific specialities that justifies the
hierarchical construct that so many seem bent upon evading.
> This complex fabric is reflected in the scientific literature; for example,
> in the reference relations among scientific texts and journals. Note that
> what is considered horizontal or vertical can be tumbled because these
> remain constructs of the meta-theoretical descriptions of a dynamics of the
> sciences as discursive constructs.
>
Since the known world is what has been constructed by the scientific
specialities, there is no "tumbling" warranted except after incontrovertible
evidence suggesting the contrary. The likes of, e.g., 'fluctuons' have not
been demonstrated. This, of course, is the challenge to many hopefuls.
>
>
> For each of the discourses, one can expect the possibility to deconstruct
> and to clarify beyond a limited number of interfaces with neighbouring
> discourses. Beyond that horizon, the specific selection mechanisms of the
> discourse in question can become unsharp and uncertainty begins to prevail.
> Uncertainty is the cosmological – or perhaps better: chaological –
> assumption about the environments of the (selection) system.
>
Uncertainty, and selection, require crisp alternatives to select from.
Given these as constructed by the disciplines, one discipline might make an
incursion into another, as molecular studies burrowed into biology. But in
such cases, whole new phenomena, not previously known to be held within a
discipline, emerge. Molecular biology did not alter the kinds of knowledge
sought by, say, energetics (of flight, etc.), or ecological relations.
>
>
> Wasn’t it Tycho Brahe’s suscipio descipiendo, descipio suscipiendo? Nothing
> but uncertainty; if order emerges, selection mechanisms must have been
> specified.
>
If uncertainty emerges, particular choices must have been specified.
> (That is an epistemological assumption.) However, these selection
> mechanisms are not given. Who would have been the One who could have given
> them to us other than our various intellects and their interacting
> discourses?
>
Just so!
>
>
> Fortunately, I don’t send this on a Sunday morning. J
>
Fear not! I would suppose that you have been absolved by your own
intellect.
STAN
>
>
> With best wishes for a nice Saturday,
>
>
>
> Loet
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> Professor, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>
>
>
> *From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es]
> *On Behalf Of *Stanley N Salthe
> *Sent:* Friday, October 15, 2010 3:35 PM
> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap
>
>
>
> I would like to comment upon Conrad's statement:
>
> "When we look at a biological system we are looking at the face of the
> underlying physics of the universe... The picture is not one of
> simple upscale percolation. The higher levels act down scale on the
> lower levels to redefine their fundamental characteristics... the flow
>
> of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner
>
> loops. The circularity is imperfect; complete self-consistency is never
> attainable..."
> This appears in Conrad (1996, BioSystems vol. 38 p. 108).
>
>
>
> This message has been advanced in more detail in my own studies,
> published in:
>
>
>
> 1986. Evolving Hierarchical Systems. Columbia University Press (Conrad;'s
> work up to then informed this book)
>
> 1993. Development and Evolution. MIT Press (Chapter 3)
>
> 2002. Summary of the principles of hierarchy theory. General Systems
> Bulletin 31: 13-17. (I am updating this paper, and am willing to send a copy
> to anyone who requests it.)
>
>
>
> The 'devil is in the details' as they say. From that point of view,
> Conrad's "the flow of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with
> multiple inner loops." requires a lot of work, which I have laid some
> groundwork for in the above listed texts.
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
> 50009 Zaragoza, 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
