[Fis] FIS News

2013-11-04 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear FIS colleages,

Some new people from the Xian conference have joined our list --welcome 
to all of them. Before coming back to the ongoing discussion, let me 
briefly refer to ongoing changes in FIS organization. The _scientific 
committee_ will be enlarged to incorporate new trends, a _steering 
committee_ will be established to provide stable management, the 
_Secretariat_ will be finally in working order, and the _fis web pages_ 
reformed. The compromise is to implement these changes during coming 
months. Information Science is definitely entering a new time, and at 
FIS we need a little bit more of organization if we want to keep playing 
our role of scientific mentorship, also including matters of research, 
publishing, conferences, summer school, etc. Another related news, quite 
recent one, refers to the creation of the _Chinese Chapter of ISIS_ 
organization ( FIS). It will be integrated by the parties in Beijing, 
Wuhan, Xi'an, and other regions. At the time being it will be 
coordinated by Xueshan Yan and Liu Chang. It will be more amply 
disclosed during coming weeks.


About the ongoing discussion, why an essentially empirical work is 
reinterpreted exclusively towards the most theoretical-abstract? It is 
not quite useful. There are very cool aspects of Raquel's work that 
would benefit of comments more having the feet on the ground. Then, 
from those further applied aspects we could connect with the 
abstract-theoretical, but with more fertility than now.  I am thinking 
particularly on Jared Diamond's work on the environmental and cultural 
conditions for the development of social complexity. Do these conditions 
dovetail with some of the mental/numerical thresholds of the type argued 
by Raquel and Jorge (and myself)? I think so.


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 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
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

2013-11-04 Thread Stanley N Salthe
Joseph said:

Of course it is persons, and not systems, in their complexity, that are
communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to
communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more
complete understanding of communication should be able to take such
complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion.

S: Here, in my thinking, you are broaching the internalist / externalist
dichotomy.   Hierarchy, as I have just outlined it in a recent posting, is
a global systems model -- an externalist construction such as is used in
the natural sciences.  When you refer to a human person, you are referring
to an entirely different order of entity.  Persons peer out at the universe
from their local positions -- from inside themselves. They have no place --
as unique persons -- in systems diagrams or models like the hierarchy
models.

Bruno said:

This thread reminds me George Bush when he said that that corporations are
persons.

S: It was the Supreme Court -- many appointed by Butch -- that said that.
 In any case, you can see from my comments above that this statement is
sheer nonsense.  Corporations are subsystems of a Corporative State (phrase
coined by Mussolini).  They are unable to vote, as such, but they can
deploy costly messages aimed at defeating politicians who are not striving
to increase their corporate power.


STAN


On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.chwrote:

  Dear Gordana and Loet,

 I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of the
 hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially very
 important. In reality, it is the processes in the hierarchy that
 have been moving and continue to move partly in a non-univocal manner,
 countercurrently if you like. My logic gives a framework for such
 movement in a spiral, not circular manner by alternating actualization and
 potentialization.

 Of course it is persons, and not systems, in their complexity, that are
 communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to
 communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more
 complete understanding of communication should be able to take such
 complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion.

 Best,

 Joseph

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se
 *To:* Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net ; 'Stanley N 
 Salthe'ssal...@binghamton.edu;
 'fis' fis@listas.unizar.es
 *Cc:* Инга inga@mail.ru
 *Sent:* Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:51 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Fis] reply to Loet


  Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion (bottom-up--top-down—
 and-back-again)?

 Just a thought.


 All the best,

 Gordana


 http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


 From: Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net
 Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM
 To: 'Stanley N Salthe' ssal...@binghamton.edu, 'fis' 
 fis@listas.unizar.es
 Cc: Инга inga@mail.ru

 Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.)  A nice example for you
 might be communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse
 code.  The actual local operations here may not be the best framework to
 view this (including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this
 example into my above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is
 communicating, not individual persons.  It takes two positions for this
 communication to occur, and this makes the system a large scale one, and so
 its speed of communication is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy
 principles.

  I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would
 then be subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size
 and speed), but it is a social construction on top of the individuals,
 isn’t it? Is there room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of
 the second law?) such as the generation of redundancy?

  Best,

 Loet

   !--[if !supportLists]--・!--[endif]--Inga Ivanova and Loet
 Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government
 Relations: The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, and 
 Simulated.http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3836

  !--[if !supportLists]--・!--[endif]--Loet Leydesdorff and
 Inga Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems:
 Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing 
 Meaninghttp://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849,
 *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology *(in
 press).

 --

 ___
 fis mailing list
 fis@listas.unizar.es
 https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis