Dear Rafael, Thank you for the careful explanation!!
About 5 years ago, when I got your Angeletics (messaging theory) first time, I am very excited on your opinion "message should stress the human side of information" (not your original words, only its main idea), I had my student translate it into Chinese and discussed in my lesson at once. The effect is not very ideal, main reasons included two aspects: The Angeletics theory is not well established yet at that time, and, if we can call human side of information message, then what we should call the no-human side of information? According to your "message" from your mail, I will try to find «Messages and Messengers» to learn. As to the origin of concept "Information Theory", FIS colleagues should not get off it forever, it is a foundmental informatuion for us. Just like we have known that the origin of concept "Information Science" was in 1959 (Hans Wellisch From Information Science to Informatics, 1972). As we know, you have accomplished a series of excellent works on the English origin of concept information, I have done some same studies on Chinese origin of concept information (xinxi), but this is another story. About almost all of you agree with the Bateson's definition of "Information is a difference which makes a difference " on information, in Chinese, it is too hard to understand. If I am allowed to call it as "difference school", we (perhaps including many Russian colleagues) relatively appreciate a "reflection school", you can get its detail from Yixin Zhong's related articles. This is a huge barrier in the process of constructing a universal information science between the west and the east. Rafael, it had past more than a decade that since you put forward you "Capurro's trilemma", I really want to know your present thinking about this issue, and what is your opinion toward recent endeavors by Wolfgang (and others) on this study? Xueshan 23:15, January 14, 2014 Peking University P.S.: 1. If you come to China again, I welcome you to have a short stay on my campus and not at Renmin University only, OK? 2. According to "Is a Unified Theory of Information Feasible? A Trialogue", your "information trilemma" is not the first place to appear, then, when and where? > -----Original Message----- > From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es > [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of > fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:52 PM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 24 > > Send fis mailing list submissions to > fis@listas.unizar.es > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es > > You can reach the person managing the list at > fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific than "Re: Contents of fis digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 18 (Rafael Capurro) > 2. Re: fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 18 (Karl Javorszky) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:44:19 +0100 > From: Rafael Capurro <raf...@capurro.de> > Subject: Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 18 > To: y...@pku.edu.cn, fis@listas.unizar.es, John Holgate > <john.holg...@ozemail.com.au> > Message-ID: <52d506f3.7080...@capurro.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Dear Xueshan, > > thanks for your message! > > My colleague John Holgate (Sydney) with whom I co-edited the > book Messages and Messengers. Angletics as an Approach to the > Phenomenology of Communication (Munich 2011) suggested to use > the term "messaging theory". > > I start with your last point. According to Y. Bar-Hillel, the > term "information theory" started to be used in the USA > between 1928 and 1948 although neither Shannon nor Weaver > used it, the title of their book being The mathematical > theory of communication). (Y. Bar-Hillel: An Examination of > Informtion Theoty, p. 288). I quoted Bar-Hillel in my PhD > (published in 1978, p. 204: See: > http://www.capurro.de/info5.html The difference between > information and message is explained (partly) by Weaver when > he writes: "The word _information_, in this theory, is used > in a special sense that must not be confused with its > ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be > confused with meaning. In fact, two MESSAGES, one of which is > heavily loaded with meaning and the other of which is purely > nonsense, can be exactly equivalent, from the present > viewpoint, as regards information." (See this quote on page 2010 of my > PhD) Bar-Hillel said that this use of the concept of > information was a "semantic trap" because, he said, it is > almost impossible to avoid the connection between information > _as_ a set of signals and information_as_ their meaning > (quote in my PhD p. 212). Although Shannon used the > word/concept message in a very prominent place of his theory > of communication (of messages...) he never defines this term > beyond the fact that any message must consist of a set of > signals choses from an "information source" > > As far as I understood the complex history of the concepts of message > (messenger) and information, the origins of the word (and > concept) of information go back to Greek philosophy (forma > was the Latin term traducion idea/eidos/morphe/typos). The > Romans used 'informatio' in the sense of giving form to > something as well as of giving form the the soul/character of > a person (informatio morum, for instance). In this second > sense (the epistemological or pedagogical one) the term came > to be used in modern langagues (by the way in English mostly > in singular) and... the ontological (or "material") meaning > was disregarded probably because it was too Aristotelian and > not desired by, for instance, > (British) empiricists who preferred to use the term > 'impressions' (of the senses). T > > his communicational turn (as we could call it) of the concept > of information in modernity is important for the issues you > rise concerning the popularity of what I call the 'postal > turn' in modern biology in which the use of the term > 'message' (DNA etc.) is crucial and, as far as I understand, > it helps to take distance from a the more classic > substantialist view of living processes. At the same time, > the old concept of 'informatio' as giving form to something > became also 'popular' in physics in the 19th and 20th century > as I learnt from Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker who was aware > that the concept of information is a new way to think about > what Plato and Aristotle called idea/eidos. > When philosophers like Floridi use the term infosphere and > talk about information _as_ the structure of reality (not > only of the digital > world...) then this is not something new. Plato wrote about > this some 2500 years ago. > > This provoked my interest in this issue and I tried to find > out which Greek classical texts were traduced into Latin with > 'informatio'. I found some roots but I was not very happy > with this and so it came that I discovered at that time (in > the seventies) that the Greek used in everyday language the > word "angelia" and that this word somehow (!) corresponds to > what we mean with information. But... well they are not > synonyms as Iearnt later on. One of the main differences > being that a message is somening coming from the other, > something I receive, or something I send and the other > receives. It is a heteronomic phenomenon, while information > is something I can look for. I discovered this difference in > Luhmann's concepts of "Mitteilung" and "Information" which > are in German synonyms, but for Luhman a Mitteilung means a > "meaning offer" and so a message, and Information means the > selection I (or a "system" or I _as_ a system) make and then > connect within my pre-understanding (in hermeneutic terms). > > Your last question about information _as_ genus and _message_ > as differentia specifica. Hm... I think we would > misunderstand both phenomena. Following Luhmann I would say > that in order for (human) understanding to choose between > different possibilities of interpreting a message (!) this > (the message) has to be offered (or transmitted), and so I > say that hermeneutics presupposed what I called angeletics > (or messaging theory). Both concepts address different but > related phenomena. At the non-human biological level (and > also at the biological level of humans...) I find that there > is a more closed relationship between both concepts because, > as far as I understand biological processes not being a > biologist..., when a cell sends a message (and, of course, it > is we, humans, who interpret this process _as_ a messaging > process, cells know (!) nothing about it...) then they send a > 'form' or make a 'meaning offer' (I put a lot of quotation > marks...) to the other cell and so the 'meaning' of this > message is a form that can or cannot be accepted by the other > cell. Sometimes the receiver is not prepared to 'understand' > what this message 'means' for it, it can be a killing cell. > So, the problem is how to make a difference between different > 'forms' in this messaging process. As far as I know, this is > imporant for instance for interpreting cancer processes and > in many other cases too. So, the paradigm shift in biology > presupposes not only change in the modern concept of > information but at the same time a reappraisal of the > ontological concept of 'giving form', this 'giving' being now > a 'messaging'. > > Sorry, for this long mail. Many issues remain unclear (to me). > > best > > Rafael > > > > Dear Rafael, > > > > I am sure you were right in "what is communicated between a > sender and > > a receiver is NOT information but a MESSAGE", I can provide > you more > > supports from Biology. Between two nerve cells, between > gland cell and > > target cell, it is MESSENGERS but not others which carry > MESSAGE from > > sender to receiver, this is the situation in first messenger theory. > > > > In second messenger theory, not message or information, > they call it > > SIGNAL. In computer science, DATA some time was adopted, > such as Data > > Structure, Data Bank, Data Mining. No matter what happens, all > > message, signal etc. should recognize as a special usage of > > information. This is an interesting history in past related > > information explorations. But in modern science, such in > > semiochemistry, when talk about the effects of pheromones, > allomones, > > kairomones, attractants, repellents, most Chemists like to use > > information rather then signal (or message). First and > last, shall we > > consider INFORMATION as genus and MESSAGE, news, > knowledge, etc. as > > its differentia? > > > > By the way, who knows who are the first people who called Shannon's > > "Mathematical Theory of Communication" as "Information > Theory"? What > > time? Where? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Xueshan > > 20:45, January 13, 2014 > > Peking University > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es > >> [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of > >> fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es > >> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 6:45 PM > >> To: fis@listas.unizar.es > >> Subject: fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 18 > >> > >> Send fis mailing list submissions to > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> > > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' > > to > >> fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >> fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific > >> than "Re: Contents of fis digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. Re: Fw: Responses (Rafael Capurro) > >> > >> > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > ---------- > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:30:20 +0100 > >> From: Rafael Capurro <raf...@capurro.de> > >> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Responses > >> To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic > > <gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>, Hans von > >> Baeyer <henrikrit...@gmail.com>, Joseph > > Brenner > >> <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>, fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> > >> Message-ID: <52d11d3c.3040...@capurro.de> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> > >> Dear Gordana, > >> > >> what is communicated between a sender and a receiver is > > NOT > >> information but a MESSAGE > >> And: the title of Shannon's paper is NOT theory of information but > >> theory of communication There are too many > misunderstandings in this > >> discussion best Rafael > >>> Dear Hans, Joseph, Loet, All > >>> > >>> > >>> Loet: It seems to me that there is at least one > >> alternative: Shannon's > >>> mathematical theory of information. Information is then > > defined as > >>> content-free. > >>> > >>> Gordana: There is a link between Shannon information and > >> information > >>> for an agent (meaningful, semantic information).// > >>> > >>> What we call "context-free" is actually "fixed context". > > In > >> Shannon's > >>> case, information is that which is communicated between > > a > >> sender and a > >>> receiver. That means we can look at the world as a > > complex > >> system of > >>> agents within agents communicating Shannon information. > > This can be > >>> useful even in understanding of cognitive agents, if we > > define > >>> cognition broadly and accept that bacteria and any other > > kind of > >>> living being cognize -- that is use information that > > makes > >> sense for > >>> them (has meaning first to survive in a direct > > individual > >> contact with > >>> the environment, then through social cognition (for > >> bacteria it is a > >>> colony which enables an individual organism to "know" > > about much > >>> bigger space and much longer time than one individual > > would > >> be able to > >>> -- this is based in molecular language). There are > > striking > >>> similarities in information management principles of > > bacterial > >>> colonies and our brains (which of course are much more > >> complex than a > >>> bacterial colony) but now we are talking about basic > > principles. > >>> // > >>> > >>> Thus Shannon information can be used to understand > > mechanisms of > >>> cognition as a process of life itself (Maturana) and > > meaning for an > >>> agent. > >>> > >>> // > >>> > >>> Loet: Thermodynamic entropy (physics) is the special > > case that H is > >>> multiplied by the Boltzmann constant and thus one > > obtains the > >>> dimensionality of S. (S = kB * H). > >>> > >>> Gordana: (Ben-Naim, 2008)argues for the revision of the > > above, in > >>> order to get it into better agreement with understanding > > of > >> entropy as > >>> a lack of information. > >>> > >>> > > http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6469 > >>> Loet: Information theory, however, can also be used in > >> other contexts > >>> such as economics (Theil, 1972). It does not have a > > realistic > >>> interpretation such as in your argument. > >>> > >>> Gordana: Yes, in economics one cannot talk about > > realism, > >> as it is a > >>> high level of organization of information. Computer > >> analogy: hardware > >>> is something where we can talk about some kind of > > realism > >> in a sense > >>> of instrumental interpretation of elementary > > interactions with the > >>> physical world. One can use a metaphor of virtual > > machine that Paul > >>> Smolensky (Smolensky, 1986)and Aaron Sloman (Sloman, > > 1996)are using. > >>> Virtual machine, even though it runs on a physical > > hardware > >> is virtual > >>> in a sense that it is representation of representation. > > But on the > >>> bottom of this hierarchy of realism there is a physical > >> world. And if > >>> anything is real in any sense then it must be this > > physical > >> layer of > >>> information. > >>> > >>> Loet: From such a more differentiated perspective, > > concepts (e.g., > >>> "electrons") do not "exist", but are meaningful and > > codified within > >>> theories. There can be sufficient evidence (in physical > >> theorizing) to > >>> assume (for the time being) that the external referents > > (electrons) > >>> exist. > >>> > >>> Gordana: Electrons exist in the sense of instrumentalist > >> epistemology. > >>> That is why we have a requirement for reproducibility of > >> experiments. > >>> In the following sense: > >>> > >>> /"/The world in some very real sense is a construct and > > creation of > >>> thinking beings simply because its properties are so > >> severely tied to > >>> the particular questions we ask of it./But on the other > > hand, the > >>> world is not completely unreal as a result of this; we > > generally > >>> cannot control the outcomes of our measurements."/ > > (Fuchs, 2011: > >>> p.151) > >>> > >>> Loet: The logic is not in reality, but in the argument, > > and > >> one cannot > >>> jump to the (ontic) conclusion of existence. > >>> > >>> Gordana: In the above sense, on the bottom, there is > > logic > >> in reality. > >>> Argument is that which virtual machine of our mind > > produces > >> by running > >>> on the physical machine of the brain. > >>> > >>> > >>> Hans: Gordana -- I am out of my depth in a discussion of > >>> phenomena/noumena/Ding-an-sich. But when I agree that > > the > >> Higgs exists > >>> out there in the world, I am sure it's not an object > > like a marble, > >>> but a symbol for a collection of experiences that many > > people have > >>> had, and have discussed, and codified, so that if they > >> perform another > >>> experiment where it might play a role, they can be > > prepared with > >>> betting odds for what they might experience next. > >>> > >>> Joseph (New): - - That it is a collection of experiences > > does not > >>> exclude that it is an object, or better process, of a > > kind > >> other than > >>> a 'marble'. As such, in discussing it, we can go beyond > >> binary game > >>> metaphors. > >>> > >>> Gordana (New): As this has important relevance for > > understanding of > >>> information as a phenomenon in the physical world > > (Landauer, 1996)I > >>> would like to return to my (epistemological) question. > > Regarding > >>> marble, Bateson reflects over Kant: > >>> > >>> "Kant argued long ago that this piece of chalk contains > > a million > >>> potential facts (Tatsachen) but that only a very few of > >> these become > >>> truly facts by affecting the behavior of entities > > capable of > >>> responding to facts. For Kant's Tatsachen, /I would > > substitute > >>> differences and point out that the number of potential > >> differences in > >>> this chalk is infinite but that very few of them become > > effective > >>> differences (i.e., items of information) in the mental > >> process of any > >>> larger entity. Information consist of differences that > > make a > >>> difference./" (Bateson, 1979: 110) (Emphasis added) > >>> > >>> Epistemologically, marble is not different from a piece > > of > >> chalk or a > >>> quantum mechanical object, and I like your > > characterization of a > >>> notion of Higgs boson as: > >>> > >>> /"a symbol for a collection of experiences that many > > people > >> have had, > >>> and have discussed, and codified, so that if they > > perform another > >>> experiment where it might play a role"/ > >>> > >>> That is epistemological instrumentalism, which from the > > cognitive > >>> point of view is a very natural position. > >>> > >>> I believe that QBism methodologically can be related to > >> Rössler's idea > >>> of observer-dependency of physics (Rössler, 1998). > >>> > >>> Also, it seems to me that epistemology of QBit can be > >> supported by the > >>> Third order cybernetics (an on-going project aiming at > >> understanding > >>> of an observer in the context of shared, > > inter-subjective > >> knowledge). > >>> There is no need to give up reality on the fundamental > > level of > >>> experimental results in physics. We cannot say that we > > know what an > >>> electron really is. History of science teaches us that > > we > >> constantly > >>> learn more, and understand broader context so we revise > > and improve > >>> our ideas about nature. If we accept that a /notion/ of > > a physical > >>> object is > >>> > >>> / > >>> / > >>> > >>> /"a symbol for a collection of experiences that many > > people > >> have had, > >>> and have discussed, and codified, so that if they > > perform another > >>> experiment where it might play a role"/ > >>> > >>> / > >>> / > >>> > >>> then what seems to me necessary is to reconstruct the > >> observer, from > >>> physics up. QBit makes a step in that direction, as far > > as > >> I can tell. > >>> With best regards, > >>> > >>> Gordana > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> References: > >>> > >>> Bateson, G. (1979). /Mind and Nature: A Necessary > > Unity/. London: > >>> Wildwood House. > >>> > >>> Ben-Naim, A. (2008). /A farewell to entropy: statistical > >>> thermodynamics based on information/. Singapore-New > >> Jersey-London-Hong > >>> Kong: World Scientific. > >>> > >>> Fuchs, C. A. (2011). /Coming of Age With Quantum > >> Information: Notes on > >>> a Paulian Idea/. Cambridge Univ. Press. > >>> > >>> Landauer, R. (1996). The Physical Nature of Information. > > /Physics > >>> Letter A/, /217/, 188. > >>> > >>> Rössler, O. (1998). /Endophysics: the world as an > > interface/. > >>> Singapore-New Jersey-London-Hong Kong: World Scientific. > >>> > >>> Sloman, A. (1996). Beyond Turing Equivalence. In A. > > Clark & > >> P. J. R. > >>> Millican (Eds.), /Machines and Thought: The Legacy of > > Alan > >> Turing (vol > >>> I)/ (pp. 179--219). OUP (The Clarendon Press). > >>> > >>> Smolensky, P. (1986). Information processing in > > dynamical systems: > >>> Foundations of harmony theory. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. > >> McClelland, & > >>> PDP Research Group (Eds.), /Parallel distributed > > processing: > >>> Explorations in the microstructure of cognition/ (pp. > > 194--281). > >>> Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch > >>> <mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>> > >>> Reply-To: Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch > >>> <mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>> > >>> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 9:16 AM > >>> To: Hans von Baeyer <henrikrit...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:henrikrit...@gmail.com>>, fis > > <fis@listas.unizar.es > >>> <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> > >>> Subject: [Fis] Fw: Responses > >>> > >>> Gordana -- I am out of my depth in a discussion of > >>> phenomena/noumena/Dinge-an-sich. But when I agree that > > the Higgs > >>> exists out there in the world, I am sure it's not an > > object like a > >>> marble, but a symbol for a collection of experiences > > that > >> many people > >>> have had, and have discussed, and codified, so that if > > they perform > >>> another experiment where it might play a role, they can > > be prepared > >>> with betting odds for what they might experience next. > >>> Joseph (New) - - That it is a collection of experiences > > does not > >>> exclude that it is an object, or better process, of a > > kind > >> other than > >>> a 'marble'. As such, in discussing it, we can go beyond > >> binary game > >>> metaphors. > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> fis mailing list > >>> fis@listas.unizar.es > >>> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >> > >> -- > >> Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro > >> Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany Capurro > > Fiek > >> Foundation for Information Ethics > >> (http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org) > >> Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of > > Excellence > >> for Information Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, > >> University of Pretoria, South Africa. > >> Distinguished Researcher in Information Ethics, School of > Information > >> Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, > > USA > >> President, International Center for Information Ethics > > (ICIE) > >> (http://icie.zkm.de) Editor in Chief, International Review > > of > >> Information Ethics (IRIE) (http://www.i-r-i-e.net) 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 > >> > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was > >> scrubbed... > >> URL: > >> > > http://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20140111/ > > 1b > >> 183bd0/attachment.htm > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> fis mailing list > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >> > >> > >> End of fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 18 > >> ************************************ > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > fis mailing list > > fis@listas.unizar.es > > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > -- > Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro > Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany Capurro Fiek > Foundation for Information Ethics > (http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org) > Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence > for Information Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information > Science, University of Pretoria, South Africa. > Distinguished Researcher in Information Ethics, School of > Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA > President, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) > (http://icie.zkm.de) Editor in Chief, International Review of > Information Ethics (IRIE) (http://www.i-r-i-e.net) 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:51:56 +0100 > From: Karl Javorszky <karl.javors...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 18 > To: raf...@capurro.de > Cc: John Holgate <john.holg...@ozemail.com.au>, fis > <fis@listas.unizar.es>, y...@pku.edu.cn > Message-ID: > > <ca+nf4cvi6uvf3kcwu1dycnhxessxyv-5cjeszba50qqe9tc...@mail.gm ail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Thanks for pointing out that my beliefs and methods re > biological use of > carriers of symbols (bioinformatics, theoretical genetics) > appear presently > idiosyncratic, that is, unique, independent, individual, not > shared by > many. > > The belief is that biology works as rational as classical > mechanics and > trigonometry. > > The method is that of hair splitting. To understand how > bioinformatics > works, we do not glide over differences among additions that > yield one sum; > we do not make use of the commutativity rules. By paying attention to > details traditionally overlooked we have a much more exact > and flexible > system to picture interdependences with. > > The interdependence between the DNA and the cell is obvious. > This can only > be a tautology, otherwise it would not function. A tautology can be > pictured by natural numbers. The accounting can be demonstrated. It is > indeed a tautology how Nature translates a linear sequence into a more > dimensional complex and back. > > I stand by these ideas and hope that you, the FIS group, will > find them > useful. > > Karl > Am 14.01.2014 10:45 schrieb "Rafael Capurro" <raf...@capurro.de>: > > > Dear Xueshan, > > > > thanks for your message! > > > > My colleague John Holgate (Sydney) with whom I co-edited the book > > Messages and Messengers. Angletics as an Approach to the > Phenomenology > > of Communication (Munich 2011) suggested to use the term "messaging > > theory". > > > > I start with your last point. According to Y. Bar-Hillel, the term > > "information theory" started to be used in the USA between > 1928 and 1948 > > although neither Shannon nor Weaver used it, the title of their book > > being The mathematical theory of communication). (Y. Bar-Hillel: An > > Examination of Informtion Theoty, p. 288). I quoted > Bar-Hillel in my PhD > > (published in 1978, p. 204: See: > http://www.capurro.de/info5.html The > > difference between information and message is explained (partly) by > > Weaver when he writes: "The word _information_, in this > theory, is used > > in a special sense that must not be confused with its > ordinary usage. In > > particular, information must not be confused with meaning. > In fact, two > > MESSAGES, one of which is heavily loaded with meaning and > the other of > > which is purely nonsense, can be exactly equivalent, from > the present > > viewpoint, as regards information." (See this quote on page > 2010 of my > > PhD) Bar-Hillel said that this use of the concept of > information was a > > "semantic trap" because, he said, it is almost impossible > to avoid the > > connection between information _as_ a set of signals and > information_as_ > > their meaning (quote in my PhD p. 212). Although Shannon used the > > word/concept message in a very prominent place of his theory of > > communication (of messages...) he never defines this term beyond the > > fact that any message must consist of a set of signals > choses from an > > "information source" > > > > As far as I understood the complex history of the concepts > of message > > (messenger) and information, the origins of the word (and > concept) of > > information go back to Greek philosophy (forma was the Latin term > > traducion idea/eidos/morphe/typos). The Romans used > 'informatio' in the > > sense of giving form to something as well as of giving form the the > > soul/character of a person (informatio morum, for instance). In this > > second sense (the epistemological or pedagogical one) the > term came to > > be used in modern langagues (by the way in English mostly > in singular) > > and... the ontological (or "material") meaning was > disregarded probably > > because it was too Aristotelian and not desired by, for instance, > > (British) empiricists who preferred to use the term > 'impressions' (of > > the senses). T > > > > his communicational turn (as we could call it) of the concept of > > information in modernity is important for the issues you > rise concerning > > the popularity of what I call the 'postal turn' in modern biology in > > which the use of the term 'message' (DNA etc.) is crucial > and, as far as > > I understand, it helps to take distance from a the more classic > > substantialist view of living processes. At the same time, the old > > concept of 'informatio' as giving form to something became also > > 'popular' in physics in the 19th and 20th century as I > learnt from Carl > > Friedrich von Weizsäcker who was aware that the concept of > information > > is a new way to think about what Plato and Aristotle called > idea/eidos. > > When philosophers like Floridi use the term infosphere and > talk about > > information _as_ the structure of reality (not only of the digital > > world...) then this is not something new. Plato wrote about > this some > > 2500 years ago. > > > > This provoked my interest in this issue and I tried to find > out which > > Greek classical texts were traduced into Latin with 'informatio'. I > > found some roots but I was not very happy with this and so > it came that > > I discovered at that time (in the seventies) that the Greek used in > > everyday language the word "angelia" and that this word somehow (!) > > corresponds to what we mean with information. But... well > they are not > > synonyms as Iearnt later on. One of the main differences > being that a > > message is somening coming from the other, something I receive, or > > something I send and the other receives. It is a > heteronomic phenomenon, > > while information is something I can look for. I discovered this > > difference in Luhmann's concepts of "Mitteilung" and > "Information" which > > are in German synonyms, but for Luhman a Mitteilung means a "meaning > > offer" and so a message, and Information means the selection I (or a > > "system" or I _as_ a system) make and then connect within my > > pre-understanding (in hermeneutic terms). > > > > Your last question about information _as_ genus and _message_ as > > differentia specifica. Hm... I think we would misunderstand both > > phenomena. Following Luhmann I would say that in order for (human) > > understanding to choose between different possibilities of > interpreting > > a message (!) this (the message) has to be offered (or > transmitted), and > > so I say that hermeneutics presupposed what I called angeletics (or > > messaging theory). Both concepts address different but related > > phenomena. At the non-human biological level (and also at > the biological > > level of humans...) I find that there is a more closed relationship > > between both concepts because, as far as I understand biological > > processes not being a biologist..., when a cell sends a > message (and, of > > course, it is we, humans, who interpret this process _as_ a > messaging > > process, cells know (!) nothing about it...) then they send > a 'form' or > > make a 'meaning offer' (I put a lot of quotation marks...) > to the other > > cell and so the 'meaning' of this message is a form that > can or cannot > > be accepted by the other cell. Sometimes the receiver is > not prepared to > > 'understand' what this message 'means' for it, it can be a > killing cell. > > So, the problem is how to make a difference between > different 'forms' in > > this messaging process. As far as I know, this is imporant > for instance > > for interpreting cancer processes and in many other cases > too. So, the > > paradigm shift in biology presupposes not only change in the modern > > concept of information but at the same time a reappraisal of the > > ontological concept of 'giving form', this 'giving' being now a > > 'messaging'. > > > > Sorry, for this long mail. Many issues remain unclear (to me). > > > > best > > > > Rafael > > > > > > > Dear Rafael, > > > > > > I am sure you were right in "what is communicated between a > > > sender and a receiver is NOT information but a MESSAGE", I > > > can provide you more supports from Biology. Between two > > > nerve cells, between gland cell and target cell, it is > > > MESSENGERS but not others which carry MESSAGE from sender to > > > receiver, this is the situation in first messenger theory. > > > > > > In second messenger theory, not message or information, they > > > call it SIGNAL. In computer science, DATA some time was > > > adopted, such as Data Structure, Data Bank, Data Mining. No > > > matter what happens, all message, signal etc. should > > > recognize as a special usage of information. This is an > > > interesting history in past related information > > > explorations. But in modern science, such in semiochemistry, > > > when talk about the effects of pheromones, allomones, > > > kairomones, attractants, repellents, most Chemists like to > > > use information rather then signal (or message). First and > > > last, shall we consider INFORMATION as genus and MESSAGE, > > > news, knowledge, etc. as its differentia? > > > > > > By the way, who knows who are the first people who called > > > Shannon's "Mathematical Theory of Communication" as > > > "Information Theory"? What time? Where? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Xueshan > > > 20:45, January 13, 2014 > > > Peking University > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es > > >> [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of > > >> fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es > > >> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 6:45 PM > > >> To: fis@listas.unizar.es > > >> Subject: fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 18 > > >> > > >> Send fis mailing list submissions to > > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > > >> > > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > >> > > > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' > > > to > > >> fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es > > >> > > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > > >> fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es > > >> > > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > > >> specific than "Re: Contents of fis digest..." > > >> > > >> > > >> Today's Topics: > > >> > > >> 1. Re: Fw: Responses (Rafael Capurro) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ---------- > > >> Message: 1 > > >> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:30:20 +0100 > > >> From: Rafael Capurro <raf...@capurro.de> > > >> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Responses > > >> To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic > > > <gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>, Hans von > > >> Baeyer <henrikrit...@gmail.com>, Joseph > > > Brenner > > >> <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>, fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> > > >> Message-ID: <52d11d3c.3040...@capurro.de> > > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > >> > > >> Dear Gordana, > > >> > > >> what is communicated between a sender and a receiver is > > > NOT > > >> information but a MESSAGE > > >> And: the title of Shannon's paper is NOT theory of > > >> information but theory of communication There are too many > > >> misunderstandings in this discussion best Rafael > > >>> Dear Hans, Joseph, Loet, All > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Loet: It seems to me that there is at least one > > >> alternative: Shannon's > > >>> mathematical theory of information. Information is then > > > defined as > > >>> content-free. > > >>> > > >>> Gordana: There is a link between Shannon information and > > >> information > > >>> for an agent (meaningful, semantic information).// > > >>> > > >>> What we call "context-free" is actually "fixed context". > > > In > > >> Shannon's > > >>> case, information is that which is communicated between > > > a > > >> sender and a > > >>> receiver. That means we can look at the world as a > > > complex > > >> system of > > >>> agents within agents communicating Shannon information. > > > This can be > > >>> useful even in understanding of cognitive agents, if we > > > define > > >>> cognition broadly and accept that bacteria and any other > > > kind of > > >>> living being cognize -- that is use information that > > > makes > > >> sense for > > >>> them (has meaning first to survive in a direct > > > individual > > >> contact with > > >>> the environment, then through social cognition (for > > >> bacteria it is a > > >>> colony which enables an individual organism to "know" > > > about much > > >>> bigger space and much longer time than one individual > > > would > > >> be able to > > >>> -- this is based in molecular language). There are > > > striking > > >>> similarities in information management principles of > > > bacterial > > >>> colonies and our brains (which of course are much more > > >> complex than a > > >>> bacterial colony) but now we are talking about basic > > > principles. > > >>> // > > >>> > > >>> Thus Shannon information can be used to understand > > > mechanisms of > > >>> cognition as a process of life itself (Maturana) and > > > meaning for an > > >>> agent. > > >>> > > >>> // > > >>> > > >>> Loet: Thermodynamic entropy (physics) is the special > > > case that H is > > >>> multiplied by the Boltzmann constant and thus one > > > obtains the > > >>> dimensionality of S. (S = kB * H). > > >>> > > >>> Gordana: (Ben-Naim, 2008)argues for the revision of the > > > above, in > > >>> order to get it into better agreement with understanding > > > of > > >> entropy as > > >>> a lack of information. > > >>> > > >>> > > > http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6469 > > >>> Loet: Information theory, however, can also be used in > > >> other contexts > > >>> such as economics (Theil, 1972). It does not have a > > > realistic > > >>> interpretation such as in your argument. > > >>> > > >>> Gordana: Yes, in economics one cannot talk about > > > realism, > > >> as it is a > > >>> high level of organization of information. Computer > > >> analogy: hardware > > >>> is something where we can talk about some kind of > > > realism > > >> in a sense > > >>> of instrumental interpretation of elementary > > > interactions with the > > >>> physical world. One can use a metaphor of virtual > > > machine that Paul > > >>> Smolensky (Smolensky, 1986)and Aaron Sloman (Sloman, > > > 1996)are using. > > >>> Virtual machine, even though it runs on a physical > > > hardware > > >> is virtual > > >>> in a sense that it is representation of representation. > > > But on the > > >>> bottom of this hierarchy of realism there is a physical > > >> world. And if > > >>> anything is real in any sense then it must be this > > > physical > > >> layer of > > >>> information. > > >>> > > >>> Loet: From such a more differentiated perspective, > > > concepts (e.g., > > >>> "electrons") do not "exist", but are meaningful and > > > codified within > > >>> theories. There can be sufficient evidence (in physical > > >> theorizing) to > > >>> assume (for the time being) that the external referents > > > (electrons) > > >>> exist. > > >>> > > >>> Gordana: Electrons exist in the sense of instrumentalist > > >> epistemology. > > >>> That is why we have a requirement for reproducibility of > > >> experiments. > > >>> In the following sense: > > >>> > > >>> /"/The world in some very real sense is a construct and > > > creation of > > >>> thinking beings simply because its properties are so > > >> severely tied to > > >>> the particular questions we ask of it./But on the other > > > hand, the > > >>> world is not completely unreal as a result of this; we > > > generally > > >>> cannot control the outcomes of our measurements."/ > > > (Fuchs, 2011: > > >>> p.151) > > >>> > > >>> Loet: The logic is not in reality, but in the argument, > > > and > > >> one cannot > > >>> jump to the (ontic) conclusion of existence. > > >>> > > >>> Gordana: In the above sense, on the bottom, there is > > > logic > > >> in reality. > > >>> Argument is that which virtual machine of our mind > > > produces > > >> by running > > >>> on the physical machine of the brain. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Hans: Gordana -- I am out of my depth in a discussion of > > >>> phenomena/noumena/Ding-an-sich. But when I agree that > > > the > > >> Higgs exists > > >>> out there in the world, I am sure it's not an object > > > like a marble, > > >>> but a symbol for a collection of experiences that many > > > people have > > >>> had, and have discussed, and codified, so that if they > > >> perform another > > >>> experiment where it might play a role, they can be > > > prepared with > > >>> betting odds for what they might experience next. > > >>> > > >>> Joseph (New): - - That it is a collection of experiences > > > does not > > >>> exclude that it is an object, or better process, of a > > > kind > > >> other than > > >>> a 'marble'. As such, in discussing it, we can go beyond > > >> binary game > > >>> metaphors. > > >>> > > >>> Gordana (New): As this has important relevance for > > > understanding of > > >>> information as a phenomenon in the physical world > > > (Landauer, 1996)I > > >>> would like to return to my (epistemological) question. > > > Regarding > > >>> marble, Bateson reflects over Kant: > > >>> > > >>> "Kant argued long ago that this piece of chalk contains > > > a million > > >>> potential facts (Tatsachen) but that only a very few of > > >> these become > > >>> truly facts by affecting the behavior of entities > > > capable of > > >>> responding to facts. For Kant's Tatsachen, /I would > > > substitute > > >>> differences and point out that the number of potential > > >> differences in > > >>> this chalk is infinite but that very few of them become > > > effective > > >>> differences (i.e., items of information) in the mental > > >> process of any > > >>> larger entity. Information consist of differences that > > > make a > > >>> difference./" (Bateson, 1979: 110) (Emphasis added) > > >>> > > >>> Epistemologically, marble is not different from a piece > > > of > > >> chalk or a > > >>> quantum mechanical object, and I like your > > > characterization of a > > >>> notion of Higgs boson as: > > >>> > > >>> /"a symbol for a collection of experiences that many > > > people > > >> have had, > > >>> and have discussed, and codified, so that if they > > > perform another > > >>> experiment where it might play a role"/ > > >>> > > >>> That is epistemological instrumentalism, which from the > > > cognitive > > >>> point of view is a very natural position. > > >>> > > >>> I believe that QBism methodologically can be related to > > >> Rössler's idea > > >>> of observer-dependency of physics (Rössler, 1998). > > >>> > > >>> Also, it seems to me that epistemology of QBit can be > > >> supported by the > > >>> Third order cybernetics (an on-going project aiming at > > >> understanding > > >>> of an observer in the context of shared, > > > inter-subjective > > >> knowledge). > > >>> There is no need to give up reality on the fundamental > > > level of > > >>> experimental results in physics. We cannot say that we > > > know what an > > >>> electron really is. History of science teaches us that > > > we > > >> constantly > > >>> learn more, and understand broader context so we revise > > > and improve > > >>> our ideas about nature. If we accept that a /notion/ of > > > a physical > > >>> object is > > >>> > > >>> / > > >>> / > > >>> > > >>> /"a symbol for a collection of experiences that many > > > people > > >> have had, > > >>> and have discussed, and codified, so that if they > > > perform another > > >>> experiment where it might play a role"/ > > >>> > > >>> / > > >>> / > > >>> > > >>> then what seems to me necessary is to reconstruct the > > >> observer, from > > >>> physics up. QBit makes a step in that direction, as far > > > as > > >> I can tell. > > >>> With best regards, > > >>> > > >>> Gordana > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> References: > > >>> > > >>> Bateson, G. (1979). /Mind and Nature: A Necessary > > > Unity/. London: > > >>> Wildwood House. > > >>> > > >>> Ben-Naim, A. (2008). /A farewell to entropy: statistical > > >>> thermodynamics based on information/. Singapore-New > > >> Jersey-London-Hong > > >>> Kong: World Scientific. > > >>> > > >>> Fuchs, C. A. (2011). /Coming of Age With Quantum > > >> Information: Notes on > > >>> a Paulian Idea/. Cambridge Univ. Press. > > >>> > > >>> Landauer, R. (1996). The Physical Nature of Information. > > > /Physics > > >>> Letter A/, /217/, 188. > > >>> > > >>> Rössler, O. (1998). /Endophysics: the world as an > > > interface/. > > >>> Singapore-New Jersey-London-Hong Kong: World Scientific. > > >>> > > >>> Sloman, A. (1996). Beyond Turing Equivalence. In A. > > > Clark & > > >> P. J. R. > > >>> Millican (Eds.), /Machines and Thought: The Legacy of > > > Alan > > >> Turing (vol > > >>> I)/ (pp. 179--219). OUP (The Clarendon Press). > > >>> > > >>> Smolensky, P. (1986). Information processing in > > > dynamical systems: > > >>> Foundations of harmony theory. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. > > >> McClelland, & > > >>> PDP Research Group (Eds.), /Parallel distributed > > > processing: > > >>> Explorations in the microstructure of cognition/ (pp. > > > 194--281). > > >>> Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> From: Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch > > >>> <mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>> > > >>> Reply-To: Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch > > >>> <mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>> > > >>> Date: Saturday, January 11, 2014 9:16 AM > > >>> To: Hans von Baeyer <henrikrit...@gmail.com > > >>> <mailto:henrikrit...@gmail.com>>, fis > > > <fis@listas.unizar.es > > >>> <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> > > >>> Subject: [Fis] Fw: Responses > > >>> > > >>> Gordana -- I am out of my depth in a discussion of > > >>> phenomena/noumena/Dinge-an-sich. But when I agree that > > > the Higgs > > >>> exists out there in the world, I am sure it's not an > > > object like a > > >>> marble, but a symbol for a collection of experiences > > > that > > >> many people > > >>> have had, and have discussed, and codified, so that if > > > they perform > > >>> another experiment where it might play a role, they can > > > be prepared > > >>> with betting odds for what they might experience next. > > >>> Joseph (New) - - That it is a collection of experiences > > > does not > > >>> exclude that it is an object, or better process, of a > > > kind > > >> other than > > >>> a 'marble'. As such, in discussing it, we can go beyond > > >> binary game > > >>> metaphors. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> fis mailing list > > >>> fis@listas.unizar.es > > >>> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro > > >> Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany Capurro > > > Fiek > > >> Foundation for Information Ethics > > >> (http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org) > > >> Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of > > > Excellence > > >> for Information Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information > > >> Science, University of Pretoria, South Africa. > > >> Distinguished Researcher in Information Ethics, School of > > >> Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, > > > USA > > >> President, International Center for Information Ethics > > > (ICIE) > > >> (http://icie.zkm.de) Editor in Chief, International Review > > > of > > >> Information Ethics (IRIE) (http://www.i-r-i-e.net) 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 > > >> > > >> -------------- next part -------------- > > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > >> URL: > > >> > > > http://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20140111/ > > > 1b > > >> 183bd0/attachment.htm > > >> > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> fis mailing list > > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > > >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > >> > > >> > > >> End of fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 18 > > >> ************************************ > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > fis mailing list > > > fis@listas.unizar.es > > > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > -- > > Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro > > Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany > > Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics ( > > http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org) > > Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for > > Information Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information > Science, University > > of Pretoria, South Africa. > > Distinguished Researcher in Information Ethics, School of > Information > > Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA > > President, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) ( > > http://icie.zkm.de) > > Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) ( > > http://www.i-r-i-e.net) > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > fis mailing list > > fis@listas.unizar.es > > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20140114/ 2a > 776dc1/attachment.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > End of fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 24 > ************************************ > _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
