This is a repost of the note erroneously marked as SPAM by the list server. ====== Dear Pedro, thank you for your excellent post.
Oddly, I have the feeling you think that you and I differ, but I saw little to disagree with in your note. As with Loet(?), I believe that *for now* I simply focus on a different level. > the limits of the received Shannonian approach and < > the (narrow?) corridors left for advancement . . highly < > reminiscent of what happened with Mechanics long ago . .< • If I did not see those limits I could not pursue this project. Still, it seems many do fail to see the limits here; especially in computer science (or *fill in the blank*). I suggested an origin for this “iceberg“ in my post on Cultural Legacy. Terry Deacon has also noted this odd “scientific failure“ – I say, so glaring that it would be comic if it were not so tragic. • Re Mechanics, can you please point me to a time frame for that session so I can see what the archives hold? >far from useful --nefarious?-- for humanities and for the< > future of psychological and social science studies. < • This is a bit painful to read, when I started the project I saw it as attempting a new structural psychology (social and individual). My thinking became more reductive (a priori) as I sought a firm base for modeling. Videos are available on this other "elevated" aspect (vimeo.com/evolv), but they stray for the focus of *this* session. >The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other< > aspects of the information phenomenon do not enter. < • You name Loet’s post here, and I saw the same issue – “processing meaning” versus “generating meaning.” But then my model synthesizes Shannon, Bateson, and Darwin; at the least Darwin targets why, what, how long, whom, etc. While this note of mine heads into “advanced material“ (papers #3, #4), I ask “How does my model fail to *minimally* frame these facets?“ > Pretty big and impressive, but is it enough? Shouldn't < > we try to go beyond? . . a far wider "phenomenology of < > information" is needed < • This is clear, but “exclaiming the need“ does not “answer the need“; a reason to explore specific models (and the reason for this session, no?). At the least I thought paper #3 on Selection Dynamics might intrigue your biological interests. > 1. There are UNIVERSALS of information. Not only in . . < • Named in items 1 and 2 of the introductory text, and reiterated in J Brenner’s post as “order and disorder” – I would merely add dynamic interactions between them. Still, you also point to “the duration, the cost, the value, the fitness or adaptive "intelligence", etc.“ This evokes the entire body of the offered material. > 2. Those UNIVERSALS are SPECIES' SPECIFIC.< • Assuredly, named in item 5 of the introductory text. > 3. Those UNIVERSALS would be organized, wrapped, around < > an ESSENTIAL CORE . . . < • This is hard to miss as needed, I label the model “natural (core) informatics.” > universals of our own species [or human universals] — < > but with the terrific advantage of an open-ended < > communication system, language.< • Agree, now pointing to cultural anthropology, and fond/early study of mine . . . > 4. Those UNIVERSALS [are] streamlined in very different < > ways as "principles" [in diverse] disciplines [re] four < > Great Domains Science. A renewed Information Science < > should nucleate one[?!] of those domains.< • Here, we might explore what exactly "science" *is* and *is not.* Science supposedly reinvents itself, but what is the *creative narrative* that drives this. How does intuition/inference/etc. all arise . . . the ugly secret being that "it is all psycho-logical," or even worse "sub-conscious," no? – not sure how far "down that rabbit hole" we want to chase. • Also, "nucleate" as in "a priori", no? How do we disagree . . . I am having trouble seeing it. But "one domain," this surprises me a bit . . . you must have more to say about just *one* rather than *all* domains (other than the project quickly becomes absurdly unwieldy). As usual, I appreciate your fine synthetic thinking, and admittedly there is much complexity that is not targeted in this session . . . but *my* aim is to find a firm foundation, and to then proceed from there. Thanks for your thoughts! Marcus
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
