Dear Joshi,
No matter what topic/title you used, no matter what goal you want to reach,
your post has raised a very important theory which can decide the future of
information science: Three Level Theory: Molecular (level1), Cellular
(level2), Social (level3). (Please excuse my minor modification).
The FIS colleagues can easily recollect the theory of Cell, Brain, Firm
which was advocated by Pedro about 10 years ago, but I think this hierarchy
is could be much better spent taking some positive action.
Social (level3): It can indicate the all human/social information studies.
Cellular (level2): It can indicate the all cellular/biological information
studies.
Molecular (level1): It can indicate the all molecular/chemical information
studies.
XXX (level0): Particlate/physical information studies??
As we know, due to the Technological Information Science (It includes
computer science and telecommunications) is not self-organizational, or
antipoetic, so we generally don't consider it as a real information science.
With my best regards!
Xueshan
Peking University
_
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of Nikhil Joshi
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:35 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es >> fis@listas.unizar.es
Cc: Nikhil Joshi
Subject: Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel,
Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1
Dear Joseph and Stan,
Both of you mention about earlier work on isomorphisms, and you also mention
hetero-organization. If it is not inconvenient, may I request more
information on this? You also mention that the use of self-organisation
could be a distracting, could you recommend an alternate formulation?
At this time, I must clarify that I am not suggesting a hierarchical
relationship between the three levels. I am referring to hierarchical
organisation within the species at each level - molecules (level1), cellular
species (level2) and social groups (level3).
Coming to your question- how does the concept of hierarchy affect the
analysis?
The common multilevel organisational pattern presented here suggests that a
core element in human social organisation involves exchange networks based
on flow of human resources between kinship based social groups (like
families) and non-kinship based social groups (like businesses). This
implies that evolution of social organisation is based on the emergence of
two species classes with greater complexity and greater compositional
hierarchy- kinship based social groups and non-kinship.
The question then are- why and how do living species give rise to exchange
networks between species with increasing complexity (and compositional
hierarchy) ? Will this pattern continue at the next higher level?
Bob Logan and others point to the role of human language and the generation
of conceptual knowedge in the emergence of non-kinship based social groups.
It is interesting that Timo Honkela and Kohonen generalise these ideas and
describe processes that gives rise to conceptual knowledge in systems of
interacting agents. Do Alphabetic catalysts like DNA and Proteins play a
similar role as human language in the emergence of exchange networks at two
different levels? (see section 4.4., paper II in this kick off email).
While many theoretical perspectives have been presented on the evolution of
such systems (Stanley Salthe- Evolving Hierarchial Systems, Ch 8, John
Holland- aggregate agents, Eric Chaission- growing energy rate density, and
others) what is most interesting here is that the CMOP provides opportunity
to examine processes that give rise to such organisation in much greater
details. This could provide more insights into the emergence and evolution
of such organisations.
Given the diverse research interests and great depth in this group, I would
love to get your views on these questions. Your views are greatly
appreciated.
Thanking you,
Regards,
Nikhil Joshi
Given the wide
-
Dear Nikhil,
I think it is a very interesting exercise to see how a consensus might be
reached on your work by both adding to and subtracting from the different
perspectives. Thus, I agree with Stan that we are looking at instances of
isomorphism at different levels, and this for me is entirely logical (;-).
Levels of reality exist and the rules that apply in them are not identical,
and this constitutes a discontinuity between them. Also, within a given
level involving three elements, even if they all influence one another, it
should be possible to decompose the interactions into those between A and B,
the resultant of which interacts with C. This is Pedro's comment in somewhat
different terms.
On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, the use of
