[Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu 2016, web page

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Thank you Pedro!

For those of FIS colleagues who might be interested in the details of ICIS2016 
conference on Intelligence Science,
including the presentations, here is the web page:
http://www.intsci.ac.cn/ICIS2016/speaker.jsp

Still more information can be found at http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/

World Scientific is starting the series on Intelligence Science 
http://www.worldscientific.com/series/sis
edited by Zhongzhi Shi, who was part of ICIS2016 
http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/shizz/

So the new field is in its beginnings and the feeling is very hopeful.

Best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
http://is4si-2017.org/




From: Fis > 
on behalf of PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
>
Date: Sunday 13 November 2016 at 03:01
To: "fis@listas.unizar.es" 
>
Subject: [Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu

Dear FIS Colleagues,

During past days a conference on Intelligence Science was hold in Chengdu. It 
was organized by Zhao Chuan (fis member, who presented in this list about the 
same topic last year), and was chaired by Yixin Zhong (well known in this list 
too). Western FIS parties who attended were Gordana, Joseph Brenner (although 
finally read in absentia), and myself. Chinese FIS colleagues Wu Kun, Xiaohui, 
Bi Lin, and others were also attending or presenting. Well, it was quite 
interesting an experience. Rethinking the basic ideas on intelligence, both 
"natural" and "artificial", in parallel to FIS and IS4SI efforts around 
information science looks a promising complementary strategy. A second 
conference will take place next year, in another Chinese city. It will be more 
widely publicized so to facilitate the attendance of Western parties.

Best greetings from Xi'an Information Philosophy Institute, in Jiaotong 
University, one of the earliest and most fruitful Chinese initiatives in 
information studies...

--Pedro

PS. About meaning, what Malcolm says should be obvious: in central nervous 
systems meaning predates human language.
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu

[PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

During past days a conference on Intelligence Science was hold in Chengdu. It 
was organized by Zhao Chuan (fis member, who presented in this list about the 
same topic last year), and was chaired by Yixin Zhong (well known in this list 
too). Western FIS parties who attended were Gordana, Joseph Brenner (although 
finally read in absentia), and myself. Chinese FIS colleagues Wu Kun, Xiaohui, 
Bi Lin, and others were also attending or presenting. Well, it was quite 
interesting an experience. Rethinking the basic ideas on intelligence, both 
"natural" and "artificial", in parallel to FIS and IS4SI efforts around 
information science looks a promising complementary strategy. A second 
conference will take place next year, in another Chinese city. It will be more 
widely publicized so to facilitate the attendance of Western parties.

Best greetings from Xi'an Information Philosophy Institute, in Jiaotong 
University, one of the earliest and most fruitful Chinese initiatives in 
information studies...

--Pedro

PS. About meaning, what Malcolm says should be obvious: in central nervous 
systems meaning predates human language.
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 32, Issue 13

[Malcolm Dean]

To an animal about to be attacked and eaten, the meaning of an approaching
predator is quite clear.

Obviously, meaning is produced by, within, and among Observers, and not by
language.

Meaning may be produced *through* language, not *in* language, as a medium
of interaction (aka communication).

I wish scientific specialists had more awareness of the effects of their
specialization.

Malcolm Dean



> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 20:29:21 +0100
> From: "Loet Leydesdorff" 
> To: "'Alex Hankey'" , "'FIS Webinar'"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
>
> Dear Alex and colleagues,
>
> Thank you for the reference; but my argument was about meaning. Meaning
> can only be considered as constructed in language. Other uses of the word
> are metaphorical. For example, the citation to Maturana.
>
> Information, in my opinion, can be defined content-free (a la Shannon,
> etc.) and then be provided with meaning in (scholarly) discourses. I
> consider physics as one among other scholarly discourses. Specific about
> physics is perhaps the universalistic character of the knowledge claims.
> For example: "Frieden's points apply to quantum physics as well as
> classical physics." So what? This seems to me a debate within physics
> without much relevance for non-physicists (e.g., economists or linguists).
>


> Loet Leydesdorff
> Professor, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

[John Collier]

More on Quantum information and emergent spacetime, this time by Erik P. 
Verlinde:
Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

There is a less formal review at
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

I consider the idea very speculative, as I have seen no work on information 
within a spacetime boundary except for this sort of work.

Of course, meaning need not apply. I doubt that it is bounded by language, but 
it at least has to be representational. Perhaps more is also required. I am 
reluctant to talk of meaning when discussing the semiotics of biological 
chemicals, for example, but could not find a better word. A made up word like 
Deacon’s “entention” might work best, but it still would not apply to the 
physics cases, even though the information in the boundaries in all cases but 
the internal information one can tell you about the spacetime structure within 
the boundary. That seems to me that it is like smoke to fire: smoke doesn’t 
mean fire, despite the connection.

John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2016 9:29 PM
To: 'Alex Hankey' ; 'FIS Webinar' 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

Dear Alex and colleagues,

Thank you for the reference; but my argument was about “meaning”. “Meaning” can 
only be considered as constructed in language. Other uses of the word are 
metaphorical. For example, the citation to Maturana.

Information, in my opinion, can be defined content-free (a la Shannon, etc.) 
and then be provided with meaning in (scholarly) discourses. I consider physics 
as one among other scholarly discourses. Specific about physics is perhaps the 
universalistic character of the knowledge claims. For example: “Frieden's 
points apply to quantum physics
as well as classical physics.“ So what? This seems to me a debate within 
physics without much relevance for non-physicists (e.g., economists or 
linguists).

Best,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net  ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU,  University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor, ISTIC,  Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en

From: Alex Hankey [mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:07 PM
To: Loet Leydesdorff; FIS Webinar
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues,

Are you aware of Roy Frieden's
'Physics from Fisher Information'.
His book was published in the 1990s.
I consider it a very powerful statement.

Ultimately everything we can detect at
both macroscopic and microscopic levels
depends on information production from
a quantum level that forms Fisher Information.

Frieden's points apply to quantum physics
as well as classical physics.

Best wishes,

Alex Hankey


On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff 
> wrote:
Dear Marcus,

When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must confront 
the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the physical . . 
. and their necessarily entangled nature.

“Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires interhuman 
communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or the physical is 
metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider (with Maturana) as 
a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a semantic domain without 
being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50):

“In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within a 
second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer as if its nervous 
system interacted with internal representations of the circumstances of its 
interactions, and as if the changes of state of the organism were determined by 
the semantic value of these representations. Yet all that takes place in the 
operation of the nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of 
changing relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal 
network.”

Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. 
And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located 
. . .

Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to the 
phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with an 
explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for 

Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Alex and colleagues, 

 

Thank you for the reference; but my argument was about “meaning”. “Meaning” can 
only be considered as constructed in language. Other uses of the word are 
metaphorical. For example, the citation to Maturana.

 

Information, in my opinion, can be defined content-free (a la Shannon, etc.) 
and then be provided with meaning in (scholarly) discourses. I consider physics 
as one among other scholarly discourses. Specific about physics is perhaps the 
universalistic character of the knowledge claims. For example: “Frieden's 
points apply to quantum physics 

as well as classical physics.“ So what? This seems to me a debate within 
physics without much relevance for non-physicists (e.g., economists or 
linguists).

 

Best,

Loet

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

  l...@leydesdorff.net ;  
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Associate Faculty,   SPRU, University of Sussex; 

Guest Professor   Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor,   ISTIC, Beijing;

Visiting Professor,   Birkbeck, University of London; 

  
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en

 

From: Alex Hankey [mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:07 PM
To: Loet Leydesdorff; FIS Webinar
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

 

Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues, 

 

Are you aware of Roy Frieden's 

'Physics from Fisher Information'. 

His book was published in the 1990s.

I consider it a very powerful statement. 

 

Ultimately everything we can detect at 

both macroscopic and microscopic levels 

depends on information production from 

a quantum level that forms Fisher Information. 

 

Frieden's points apply to quantum physics 

as well as classical physics. 

 

Best wishes, 

 

Alex Hankey 

 

 

On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff  wrote:

Dear Marcus, 

 

When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must confront 
the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the physical . . 
. and their necessarily entangled nature.

 

“Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires interhuman 
communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or the physical is 
metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider (with Maturana) as 
a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a semantic domain without 
being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50): 

 

“In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within a 
second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer as if its nervous 
system interacted with internal representations of the circumstances of its 
interactions, and as if the changes of state of the organism were determined by 
the semantic value of these representations. Yet all that takes place in the 
operation of the nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of 
changing relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal 
network.”

 

Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. 
And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located 
. . .

 

Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to the 
phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with an 
explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly specialized language 
in which “mass” and “information” are provided with meanings different from 
classical physics.

 

Best, 

Loet

 

 


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





 

-- 

Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India  
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 

Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789



 

  2015 JPBMB 
Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and 
Phenomenological Philosophy

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

Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

[Alex Hankey]

Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues,

Are you aware of Roy Frieden's
'Physics from Fisher Information'.
His book was published in the 1990s.
I consider it a very powerful statement.

Ultimately everything we can detect at
both macroscopic and microscopic levels
depends on information production from
a quantum level that forms Fisher Information.

Frieden's points apply to quantum physics
as well as classical physics.

Best wishes,

Alex Hankey


On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff  wrote:

> Dear Marcus,
>
>
>
> When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must
> confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the
> physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature.
>
>
>
> “Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires
> interhuman communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or
> the physical is metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider
> (with Maturana) as a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a
> semantic domain without being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50):
>
>
>
> “In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within
> a second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer *as if* its
> nervous system interacted with internal representations of the
> circumstances of its interactions, and as if the changes of state of the
> organism were determined by the semantic value of these representations.
> Yet all that takes place in the operation of the nervous system is the
> structure-determined dynamics of changing relations of relative neuronal
> activity proper to a closed neuronal network.”
>
>
>
> Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory
> gap. And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also
> easily located . . .
>
>
>
> Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to
> the phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with
> an explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly specialized
> language in which “mass” and “information” are provided with meanings
> different from classical physics.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>


-- 
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789


2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics
and Phenomenological Philosophy

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

Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Marcus, 

 

When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must confront 
the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the physical . . 
. and their necessarily entangled nature.

 

“Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires interhuman 
communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or the physical is 
metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider (with Maturana) as 
a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a semantic domain without 
being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50): 

 

“In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within a 
second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer as if its nervous 
system interacted with internal representations of the circumstances of its 
interactions, and as if the changes of state of the organism were determined by 
the semantic value of these representations. Yet all that takes place in the 
operation of the nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of 
changing relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal 
network.”

 

Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. 
And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located 
. . .

 

Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to the 
phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with an 
explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly specialized language 
in which “mass” and “information” are provided with meanings different from 
classical physics.

 

Best, 

Loet

 

 

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

[Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

[Marcus Abundis]

Further to John's original note . . .
and then to Pedro's further note
> It would neatly apply to the living but also to the physical <

This is, of course, a recurring issue for FIS – the matter of meaning . . .
or even, what is "information?"
When it comes to defining "meaning" (or information) I have found it
infinitely more useful to think of things in terms of pure "functional
significance" rather than agents, as some (many?) seem disposed to do in
this group.
I too, used to be part of "that camp," but plainly no longer. Close
examination "showed me the light."

When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must
confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the
physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature. Failing to "make
that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. And then, once
connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located . . .

Further, it is profoundly odd/confusing/puzzling how this matter of
meaning, which is plainly a key issue for FIS continues to "float around."
But then, when the group is offered a serious(?) opportunity to engage with
the topic it seemed to draw very little legitimate energy or dialogue?! I
am happy to let that moment pass, but I do remain *curious* about WHY this
is the case for FIS – and invite private communications that offer insight.
Also, for those with genuine interest, the admittedly weak supporting
papers that went with that now-past session re meaning have been updated,
and are available on request.

Re Mark's note . . . I agree Floridi's view of an informational world is
highly speculative, and I would even say overblown, simply in an effort to
claim some novel ground? But then I also think I agree with Mark for
different reasons.

Marcus
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] FIS text testing spam filter

[Karl Javorszky]

Sorry for disturbing you with this test text.

A lengthy response to Josph's statements in the discussion about
Commutativity has not made it thru the spam filter.

Maybe, next week it can be persuaded to obey its human masters.

Nice weekend to you (if you read this)

Karl
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis