RE: [Fis] definitions of information
> 8. Any social, cultural, individual, neuronal, etc., visions or
> acceptations of meaning finally conduce to life cycles
> in-the-making and
> confronting an open ended environment.
>
> 9. Meaning can only be about life, around the multiple
> dimensions of fitness.
Dear Pedro,
In my opinion, providing meaning is primarily a human activity at
psychological and cultural levels. "Life" seems too biological to me for
understanding this phenomenon although some of the biological models may be
helpful. These models, however, have to be appreciated theoretically at the
level of psychological and cultural systems.
For example, Rosen's theory of anticipatory systems can be used for the
modeling as done by Dubois (computing anticipatory systems). Only including
notions from Husserl, Parsons, and Luhmann one fully exploit these models.
For example, the hyper-incursive formulation of the logistic equation:
x(t) = a x(t+1) {1 - x(t+1)}
models Parsons's notion of "double contingency": Ego [x(t)] entertains a
model of itself at x(t+1) and of Alter (non-Ego or 1 - x(t+1)) at a future
moment in time.
I am not so sure that these models about intentional systems have a
biological interpretation. Meaning is perhaps not to be attributed to life,
but to communication (Luhmann).
With best wishes,
Loet
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated.
385 pp.; US$ 18.95
The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of
Scientometrics
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] definitions of information
Commenting upon Pedro's"
>Dear FIS colleagues,
>
>Sorry that I could barely follow and participate in the recent exchanges
>(bureaucratic work overload). I was very interested in all the exchanges,
>particularly in the early stages of the discussion. Notwithstanding the
>high quality of the postings maybe we have a natural proclivity in this
>list --the trend of looking for and discussing about those places where
>there is light, evitating the obscure ones (as the joke of the theoretical
>physicist looking for the lost keys of his car the closest possible to the
>street lamp, and far from the very place he had lost them, "searching where
>there is light!").
>
>Thus, I come back to meaning, helas, to do the same than the theoretical
>physicist, but in the province of biology. The following 10 points could be
>defended:
>
>1. Meaning is built molecularly, by the living cell.
S: This is the position of the biosemiotics community (Semiotiics -
the study of meaning construction). With a nod to Loet, the procedure is
to begin with the most highly developed example of semiosis that we know of
-- human discourse -- to derive the necessary categories (induction, etc.),
which are then generalized in the spirit of systems science, so as to apply
them to biosemiosis, and all the way to pansemiosis if we like.
>2. The self construction machinery of the cell is susceptible of being
>guided by external signals evolutionarily "afforded" (converged upon).
>
>3. Metabolic networks, signaling networks, gene networks, degradation
>networks ---make sense overall, and together they provide the molecular
>signature of meaning.
S: Or the molecular machiney for meaning construction.
>4. A very special organization is formed, with formal properties not well
>explained yet, that provides attractors, amplification, robustness,
>resilience, stability, etc. involving the whole cellular system. See the
>contemporary problems of "System Biology" (or those of the old, outdated
>notion of "autopoiesis").
S: The formal properties will necessarily be derived from human
discourse, and imposed upon the cellular system.
>5. When eukaryotic multicellularity emerges, the above (4) becomes an even
>more fascinating set, where some of the mathematical-
>statistical-computational properties, converging in a controlled life
>cycle, become paradoxically more susceptible of formal approaches.
S: Likely because our semiotic categories can more easily be
visualized as being operative here.
>6. Nervous systems adopt the specialized function of putting in
>"electro-molecular" terms the computational task of guiding the whole
>multicellular organism along the implementation of its fitness in an open
>ended environment.
>
>7. Self-reference is an important aspect, both cellular-molecularly and
>also for nervous systems.
And, as Loet has ben telling us, understanding this has been derived
from study of human discourse.
>8. Any social, cultural, individual, neuronal, etc., visions or
>acceptations of meaning finally conduce to life cycles in-the-making and
>confronting an open ended environment.
>
>9. Meaning can only be about life, around the multiple dimensions of fitness.
S: In my (NSH) opinion, meaning can be extended to all dissipative
structures. From an evolutionary viewpoint, nothing comes from nothing.
If we have meaning, it must have a precursor in simpler sysems. After all,
e.g., hot air rising has great meaning to an individual nascent hurricane!
>10. The informational philosophy of the above points could be put in
>congruence with some new information-physics approaches ("generatitivity"
>of the vacuum).
S: A task for pensemiotics!
STAN
>
>Thanks for the patience.
>
>Pedro
>
>
>
>=
>Pedro C. Marijuán
>Cátedra SAMCA
>Institute of Engineering Research of Aragon (I3A)
>Maria de Luna, 3. CPS, Univ. of Zaragoza
>50018 Zaragoza, Spain
>TEL. (34) 976 762761 and 762707, FAX (34) 976 762043
>email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>=
>
>
>___
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] definitions of information
Dear FIS colleagues, Adding to Bob's and Karl's on Shannonian info, I am still under the influence of Seth Lloyd (one of the founders of quantum computation) insights about inf physics. For him, the second law is but a statement about information processing, how the underlying physical dynamic laws of the universe "preserve bits and prevent their number for decreasing". Landauer's principle connect it with erasure... (and temperature becomes energy per bit). Anyhow, some of Karl's releted statements should be put into test --first, by establishing empirically the number of multidimensional partitions, a crucial point in my view). Then, on Stan & Loet about semiosis, I civilizedly disagree. Perhaps I should have written my ten points more universally (they were put mainly around the "street lamp" of biology), but the central argument is clear: in which place there is more generality concerning wholistic information (which for instance comprises: generation, coding, emision, communication channel, reception, decoding, meaningful interpretation, etc.), either in "human language" or in the "bioinformational realm"? That's the question. Very shortly, I would bring three arguments on the primacy of the latter: evolutionary (real origins), ontogenetic (developmental process), and formal (Robert Rosen's train of thought about physical/biological systems and degeneracy in "Life itself" ). Otherwise, by straitjacketing the global discussion of info into some particular semiotic or pansemiotic school, we are lead into cul-de-sacs with different decorations. As often stated in this list, we need new thought, a new info synthesis. best regards Pedro PS. By the way, a famous paper (a talk initially) by Lloyd on "31 Measures of Complexity" may be a good idea for our info field too. This is a suggestion addressed to Dail and other collegues of the nascent info institute. = Pedro C. Marijuán Cátedra SAMCA Institute of Engineering Research of Aragon (I3A) Maria de Luna, 3. CPS, Univ. of Zaragoza 50018 Zaragoza, Spain TEL. (34) 976 762761 and 762707, FAX (34) 976 762043 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] definitions of information
Pedro said --
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> Adding to Bob's and Karl's on Shannonian info, I am still under the
>influence of Seth Lloyd (one of the founders of quantum computation)
>insights about inf physics. For him, the second law is but a statement
>about information processing, how the underlying physical dynamic laws of
>the universe "preserve bits and prevent their number for decreasing".
>Landauer's principle connect it with erasure... (and temperature becomes
>energy per bit). Anyhow, some of Karl's releted statements should be put
>into test --first, by establishing empirically the number of
>multidimensional partitions, a crucial point in my view).
>
> Then, on Stan & Loet about semiosis, I civilizedly disagree. Perhaps I
>should have written my ten points more universally (they were put mainly
>around the "street lamp" of biology), but the central argument is clear:
>in which place there is more generality concerning wholistic information
>(which for instance comprises: generation, coding, emision, communication
>channel, reception, decoding, meaningful interpretation, etc.), either in
>"human language" or in the "bioinformational realm"?
S: In my view the situation is quite clear, given that the human
(sociocultura)l realm developed out of the biological realm. From that
point of view, human semiosis must be a later development in the universe
than biosemiosis. Thus, biosemiosis is more generally present throughout
nature than human semiosis. Then, since we discover our semiotic
principles by studying human semiosis, it is natural to view biosemiosis as
a generalization of human semiosis. Thus, I do not see any disagreement
with Pedro when he continues:.
> That's the question. Very shortly, I would bring three arguments on the
>primacy of the latter: evolutionary (real origins), ontogenetic
>(developmental process), and formal (Robert Rosen's train of thought about
>physical/biological systems and degeneracy in "Life itself" ).
but then Pedro continues:
> Otherwise, by straitjacketing the global discussion of info into some
>particular semiotic or pansemiotic school, we are lead into cul-de-sacs
>with different decorations. As often stated in this list, we need new
>thought, a new info synthesis.
S: Now here Pedro seems to be rejecting the particular semiotic
theoretical framework that most semioticians (and particularly all
biosemiotians) use -- the Peircean triadic framework. This rejection may
be justified, but it would be nice to know what is being suggested as a
framework instead. It can be said (I think -- maybe I'm wrong) that
Peircean semiotics has not yet been integrated with information theory. I
think the relations here would likely be {information theory {Peircean
semiotics}}, with a reformulation of semiotics under the general rules of
informatoin theory.
STAN
> best regards
>
> Pedro
>
> PS. By the way, a famous paper (a talk initially) by Lloyd on "31
>Measures of Complexity" may be a good idea for our info field too. This is
>a suggestion addressed to Dail and other collegues of the nascent info
>institute.
>
>
>
> = Pedro C. Marijuán Cátedra
>SAMCA Institute of Engineering Research of Aragon (I3A) Maria de Luna, 3.
>CPS, Univ. of Zaragoza 50018 Zaragoza, Spain TEL. (34) 976 762761 and
>762707, FAX (34) 976 762043 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>=
>___
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] definitions of information
why? Rafael You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [Fis] definitions of information Von: Rafael Capurro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Datum: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:01:12 +0100 Stanley I think this is less a question of "grand theories" than of persons and interests. In this list the natural scientists are in the majority (?) and they have their special interests and "blind spots" (like everybody too). When the discussion turns to other themes as, say, atoms and cells into, say, culture or economics or a specific historical event or a piece of art or..., then there is (almost) no more interest in a "discussion" and the possibility of explaining (also in a Peircean framework) say Shakespeare's "Machbeth" out of the interaction of neurons becomes absurd not just because such an "explanation" would never explain what "Machbeth" is all about but also because the endless chain of causes and effects could never be discovered and if it is discovered it does not reach "Macbeth" but "just" the process leading to it. This is not a plea for "defaitism" but just trying not to lie ourselves when we speak about "interdisciplinarity" and the like. Such a dialogue is only possible if there is a common phenomenon we can address from different perspectives and...a common interest in doing this. The case of "information" is clearly only apparently such a common phenomenon. Why? because information is not a thing or a property of things but a second order category (agree with Peirce). The best we can achieve in this regard is to compare (in some way) information (and communication) phenomena in, say, the cell or in society. But such a comparison is probably in many cases not very attractive to persons interested only or mainly in studying one phenomenon and not the other. Most of the time the discussions are frustrating for both sides. Rafael Pedro said -- Dear FIS colleagues, Adding to Bob's and Karl's on Shannonian info, I am still under the influence of Seth Lloyd (one of the founders of quantum computation) insights about inf physics. For him, the second law is but a statement about information processing, how the underlying physical dynamic laws of the universe "preserve bits and prevent their number for decreasing". Landauer's principle connect it with erasure... (and temperature becomes energy per bit). Anyhow, some of Karl's releted statements should be put into test --first, by establishing empirically the number of multidimensional partitions, a crucial point in my view). Then, on Stan & Loet about semiosis, I civilizedly disagree. Perhaps I should have written my ten points more universally (they were put mainly around the "street lamp" of biology), but the central argument is clear: in which place there is more generality concerning wholistic information (which for instance comprises: generation, coding, emision, communication channel, reception, decoding, meaningful interpretation, etc.), either in "human language" or in the "bioinformational realm"? S: In my view the situation is quite clear, given that the human (sociocultura)l realm developed out of the biological realm. From that point of view, human semiosis must be a later development in the universe than biosemiosis. Thus, biosemiosis is more generally present throughout nature than human semiosis. Then, since we discover our semiotic principles by studying human semiosis, it is natural to view biosemiosis as a generalization of human semiosis. Thus, I do not see any disagreement with Pedro when he continues:. That's the question. Very shortly, I would bring three arguments on the primacy of the latter: evolutionary (real origins), ontogenetic (developmental process), and formal (Robert Rosen's train of thought about physical/biological systems and degeneracy in "Life itself" ). but then Pedro continues: Otherwise, by straitjacketing the global discussion of info into some particular semiotic or pansemiotic school, we are lead into cul-de-sacs with different decorations. As often stated in this list, we need new thought, a new info synthesis. S: Now here Pedro seems to be rejecting the particular semiotic theoretical framework that most semioticians (and particularly all biosemiotians) use -- the Peircean triadic framework. This rejection may be justified, but it would be nice to know what is being suggested as a framework instead. It can be said (I think -- maybe I'm wrong) that Peircean semiotics has not yet been integrated with informatio
