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.html>Beijing; > > Visiting Professor, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of > London; > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=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" 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 with a particular focus on its role in the production and > > interpretation of communication in vertebrate animals and humans. One > > core target of these studies was to understand the neurological > > changes that led to the evolution of the human language capacity and > > why it is so anomalous in the context of the other diverse > > communication systems that have evolved. This work was largely > > conducted using standard lab-based neuroscience tools—from axonal > > tracer techniques, to fetal neural transplantation, to MRI imaging, > > and more—and studying a diverse array of animal brains. Besides > > evolutionary and developmental neuroscience, this path led me to > > explore ethology, linguistics, semiotic theories, information theories > > and the philosophical issues that these research areas touched upon. > > Indeed, my first co-authored book was not on neuroscience but on the > > design of the early Apple desktop computers. So I came at the issues > > explored in my FIS essay from this diverse background. This has led me > > to pose what may be more basic questions than are usually considered, > > and to reconsider even the most unquestioned assumptions about the > > nature of information and the origins of its semiotic properties. > > > > I am aware that many who are following this discussion have a > > career-long interest in some aspect of human communication or > > computation. In these realms many researchers —including many of > > you— have provided sophisticated analytical tools and quite extensive > > theories for describing these processes. Though it may at first seem > > as though I am questioning the validity of some of this (now accepted) > > body of theory, for the most part I too find this adequate for the > > specific pragmatic issues usually considered. The essay I posted did > > not critique any existing theory. It rather explored some assumptions > > that most theories take for granted and need not address. > > > > I believe, however, that there remain a handful of issues that have > > been set aside and taken as givens that need to be reconsidered. For > > the most part, these assumptions don't demand to be unpacked in order > > to produce useful descriptions of communicative and information > > processes at the machine or interpersonal level. 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. Although, this may appear to some readers as a > > question that is merely of philosophical concern, I believe that > > failure to consider it will impede progress in exploring some of the > > most pressing scientific issues of our time, including both the nature > > an origins of living and mental processes, and possibly even quantum > > processes. > > > > In this respect, my exposition was not in any respect critical of other > > approaches but was rather an effort to solicit collaboration in digging > > into issues that have —for legitimate pragmatic reasons— not been a > > significant focus of most current theoretical analysis. I understand why > > some readers felt that the whole approach was peripheral to their current > > interests. Or who thought that I was re-opening debates that had long-ago > > been set aside. Or who just thought that I was working at the wrong level, > > on the conviction that the answer to such questions lies in other realms, > > e.g. quantum theories or panpsychic philosophies. To those of you who fell > > into these categories, I beg your indulgence. > > > > The issues involved are not merely of philosophical interest. They are of > > critical relevance to understanding biological and neurological information. > > So if there are any readers of this forum who are interested in the issue > > of the whether reference and significance are physically explainable > irrespective > > of human subjective observation, and who have been quietly reflecting on my > > proposals, I would be happy to carry on an email dialogue outside of > > this forum. > > > > For the rest, thank you for your time, and the opportunity to present > > these ideas. > > > > Sincerely, Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edu) > > > > > > > > -- > > Professor Terrence W. Deacon > > University of California, Berkeley > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Pedro C. Marijuán > > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > > Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) > > Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X > > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > > Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) > > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Pedro C. Marijuán > > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > > Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) > > Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X > > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > > Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) > > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
