Dear Sungchul, I do not have anything against you, therefore sorry for my words, but your propositions gave me the opportunity to demonstrate the weirdness of such approaches for science. YOU find it convenient to define communication as an irreducibly triadic process (physical, chemical, biological, physiological, or mental). YOU identify such a triadic process with the Peircean semiosis (or the sign process) often represented as the following diagram which is isomorphic with the commutative triangle of the category theory. Thus, to YOU, communication is a category. I do not agree at all: therefore, could your proposition be kept as science? All the scientists agree on the definition (even if operational) of an atom, or agree that E=mc^2. If we are talking of something qualitative, that one agrees and another do not, we are not in front of Science. Sorry, Nothing personal.
Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ ----Messaggio originale---- Da: "Sungchul Ji" <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> Data: 17/11/2017 17.12 A: "Pedro C. Marijuan"<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>, "fis"<fis@listas.unizar.es>, "Loet Leydesdorff"<l...@leydesdorff.net> Ogg: Re: [Fis] some notes --> Hi FISers, I find it convenient to define communication as an irreducibly triadic process (physical, chemical, biological, physiological, or mental). I identify such a triadic process with the Peircean semiosis (or the sign process) often represented as the following diagram which is isomorphic with the commutative triangle of the category theory. Thus, to me, communication is a category: f g A ------> B -------> C | ^ | | |______________| h Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of semiosis, sign process, or communication. The names of the nodes and edges can vary depending on the communication system under consideration, which can be chemical reaction systems, gene expression mechanisms, human communication using symbols, computer systems using electrical signals. If applied to the Shannon communication system, A = source, B = signals, C = receiver, f = encoding, g = decoding, and h = information transfer/flow. When applied to human symbolic communicatioin, A = object, B = sign, C = interpretant, f = sign production, g = interpretation, and h = information flow. One usefulness of Figure 1 is its ability to distinguish between "interactions" (see Steps f and g) and "communication" (see Steps f, g and h); the former is dyadic and the latter triadic. All the best. Sung From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 8:06 AM To: Pedro C. Marijuan; fis Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes Dear Pedro and colleagues, 2. Eigenvectors of communication. Taking the motif from Loet, and continuing with the above, could we say that the life cycle itself establishes the eigenvectors of communication? It is intriguing that maintenance, persistence, self-propagation are the essential motives of communication for whatever life entities (from bacteria to ourselves). With the complexity increase there appear new, more sophisticated directions, but the basic ones probably remain intact. What could be these essential directions of communication? I am not so convinced that there is an a priori relation between life and communication. Communication is not alive. Non-living systems (e.g., computers, robots) also communicate. Perhaps, it matters for the communication whether the communicators are living systems; but this needs to be specified. Communication studies is not biology. Perhaps, there is a specific biological communication as Maturana claims: when molecules are exchanged, one can expect life. Can one have life without communication? It seems to me that one can have communication without life. Communication would then be the broader category and life a special case. Best, Loet 3. About logics in the pre-science, Joseph is quite right demanding that discussion to accompany principles or basic problems. Actually principles, rules, theories, etc. are interconnected or should be by a logic (or several logics?) in order to give validity and coherence to the different combinations of elements. For instance, in the biomolecular realm there is a fascinating interplay of activation and inhibition among the participating molecular partners (enzymes and proteins) as active elements. I am not aware that classical ideas from Jacob (La Logique du vivant) have been sufficiently continued; it is not about Crick's Central Dogma but about the logic of pathways, circuits, modules, etc. Probably both Torday and Ji have their own ideas about that-- I would be curious to hear from them. 4. I loved Michel's response to Arturo's challenge. I think that the two "zeros" I mentioned days ago (the unsolved themes around the cycle and around the observer) imply both multidisciplinary thinking and philosophical speculation... Best wishes--Pedro ------------------------------------------------- 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 0 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
