Re: [Fis] Cultural Legacy Redux (Freewheeling Speculation)

[Michel Godron]

Bien reçu votre message. MERCI. Cordialement. M. Godron
Le 17/07/2016 à 20:21, Loet Leydesdorff a écrit :

Dear Michel and colleagues,

I agree that adaptation is not specifically human and that "humanity's 
main adaptive role" is not to be defined as "information".

I agree also !
The best candidate for a spefically human is probably, in my opinion, 
"double contingency": Ego expects Alter to entertain expectations as 
s/he does herself.
Very interesting. I agree, but two birds who sing to find a candidate to 
copulation has also expectations.
expectations can be exchanged (for example, in language), and also be 
codified at the interpersonal level (for example, in legislation or in 
scholarly discourse).


How does this relate to information? In my opinion, the dynamics of 
meaning are driving cultural evolution.

I agree also !
Information is needed at the bottom providing the variation. The codes 
of communication -- for example, in discourse among biologists 
(Pedro!) -- operate as next-order selection mechanisms.

What is exactly the role of selection in this process ?
These selection mechanisms are not "objective" or observable, but can 
be expected to operate and be hypotesized; for example, in a sociology 
of communication. We have access to these discourses infra-reflexively.




M G



On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Michel Godron > wrote:



You wrote :
"First, humanity’s MAIN ADAPTIVE ROLE is “information,” if someone
questions that fact _I invite you to post your view _and I will
happily “reply.

My reply is  (in red) :
O K but I am not sure that the profound reason why it is true is
clear for every one : this constatation "humanity’s MAIN ADAPTIVE
ROLE is information,”  (or "information is the main way to adapt")
is true also for _any living being_, because the basic functioning
of Life is a tranmission of information. That information is
necessary for any living being to adapt to its environment in a
cybernetic system (which was not well understood by von
Bertalanffy cf. Fritjof Capra p. 48).

 I could explain this with more details, if you want, for each of
the six main scales (molecules in a cell, genetics with DNA,
epigenetics, vegetal and animal communities, landscapes, humanity).

M. Godron

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




--
Loet Leydesdorff
Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net ; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/



___
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

Re: [Fis] Cultural Legacy Redux (Freewheeling Speculation)

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Michel and colleagues,

I agree that adaptation is not specifically human and that "humanity's main
adaptive role" is not to be defined as "information". The best candidate
for a spefically human is probably, in my opinion, "double contingency":
Ego expects Alter to entertain expectations as s/he does herself. These
expectations can be exchanged (for example, in language), and also be
codified at the interpersonal level (for example, in legislation or in
scholarly discourse).

How does this relate to information? In my opinion, the dynamics of meaning
are driving cultural evolution. Information is needed at the bottom
providing the variation. The codes of communication -- for example, in
discourse among biologists (Pedro!) -- operate as next-order selection
mechanisms. These selection mechanisms are not "objective" or observable,
but can be expected to operate and be hypotesized; for example, in a
sociology of communication. We have access to these discourses
infra-reflexively.

Best,
Loet



On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Michel Godron  wrote:

>
> You wrote :
> "First, humanity’s MAIN ADAPTIVE ROLE is “information,” if someone
> questions that fact *I invite you to post your view *and I will happily
> “reply.
>
> My reply is  (in red) :
> O K but I am not sure that the profound reason why it is true is clear for
> every one : this constatation "humanity’s MAIN ADAPTIVE ROLE is
> information,”  (or "information is the main way to adapt") is true also for 
> *any
> living being*, because the basic functioning of Life is a tranmission of
> information. That information is necessary for any living being to adapt to
> its environment in a cybernetic system (which was not well understood by
> von Bertalanffy cf. Fritjof Capra p. 48).
>
>  I could explain this with more details, if you want, for each of the six
> main scales (molecules in a cell, genetics with DNA, epigenetics, vegetal
> and animal communities, landscapes, humanity).
>
> M. Godron
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>


-- 
Loet Leydesdorff
Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net;  http://www.leydesdorff.net/
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Cultural Legacy Redux (Freewheeling Speculation)

[Michel Godron]

You wrote :
"First, humanity’s MAIN ADAPTIVE ROLE is “information,” if someone 
questions that fact _I invite you to post your view _and I will happily 
“reply.


My reply is  (in red) :
O K but I am not sure that the profound reason why it is true is clear 
for every one : this constatation "humanity’s MAIN ADAPTIVE ROLE is 
information,”  (or "information is the main way to adapt") is true also 
for _any living being_, because the basic functioning of Life is a 
tranmission of information. That information is necessary for any living 
being to adapt to its environment in a cybernetic system (which was not 
well understood by von Bertalanffy cf. Fritjof Capra p. 48).


 I could explain this with more details, if you want, for each of the 
six main scales (molecules in a cell, genetics with DNA, epigenetics, 
vegetal and animal communities, landscapes, humanity).


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

[Fis] Cultural Legacy Redux (Freewheeling Speculation)

[Marcus Abundis]

Greetings to all,

This A Priori Modeling session began Thursday, 16 June, and today marks
four weeks. As “session leader” some meta-comments seem needed. In gauging
our progress, a sense akin to that in Terry Deacon’s 30 Jan 2015 post comes
to mind:
> . . . I haven't felt that the specific components of <
> this proposal have been addressed in this thread. <
• Likewise, I feel frustrated with the session and I am unsure of how to
address the issue. Still, I feel the best service I can offer FIS is to say
“something” – even if I risk sounding patronizing, pedantic, or [insert
your favorite pejorative].

I watched the video of Brian Josephson’s talk (Plamen, thank you for
sharing this). Four things from that talk struck me: 1) the dual-aspect he
argues for [as I also do in this session], 2) I paraphrase – “a theory of
meaning will likely displace quantum mechanics (QM), just as QM displaced
Newtonian mechanics,” 3) the need for a fundamentally new way of viewing
the world, and 4) seemingly *HUGE* gaps in his thinking on the subject. I
then compare those points with a “freewheeling speculation” label given to
the current session by the FIS moderator . . . and my mind again turns to
Cultural Legacy (re prior post).

Normally, I react to “freewheeling assaults” with humor or resigned
stoicism. But, in watching Josephson’s talk (point #2) I am reminded that I
should not let the comment pass – as the importance of what is at risk is
too great! First, humanity’s MAIN ADAPTIVE ROLE is “information,” if
someone questions that fact I invite you to post your view and I will
happily “reply.” Second, *absurdly ambitious* projects as the one now
before us, *DEMAND* strong “intellectual blood sport.” Only if done *here*
(in relative “safety”) can a model walk onto the world stage. This “honing”
requires a group setting – and I am not shy about this intellectual
reality, I hunger for it. But then, the level of constructive engagement
here has been acutely lacking.

So, the matter remains . . . is FIS culture equal to the challenge? Is
this lofty aim part of FIS’s legacy? I am unsure – but if I take my work
seriously I must find out. Without needing to defame FIS, IS4IS, or?, I
only need to find a firm forum for building/vetting an actual “theory of
meaning.”

Superficially, a “theory of meaning” seems to fall within FIS’s
purview. Initial prompts-and-pokes from António and Annette (in June) set
us off in a good direction, along with some ensuing simple clarifying
posts. Emanuel then gives us his “bizarre judgement.” Shortly after, I am
treated to a simplistic retelling of *my own view* (twice?) as oddly
arguing against the view I offer? – a rather Kafkaesque experience. This
then ripens into “freewheeling speculation, badly [in need] of
Schrodinger's disclaimer”. All this occurs in the face of available
material, given near the session’s beginning, and that directly addresses
the contested issues.

   Such assaults without intellectual content, while entertaining in
themselves, can be dismissed, but when they are given by senior members
(privately, I have had a few) of FIS or IS4IS, this speaks strongly to “A
Culture.” I have no need to change this culture, but in the conduct of
*this session* I sadly find it necessary to “name that culture.” To be
clear, this does not typify ALL senior members, but I have seen enough now
that I feel compelled to remark on its unhelpful presence.

As such, for the remainder of the session (however long Pedro decides
it should last), I ask that posting members be careful to include some
actual intellectual content with their next insult (i.e., SPECIFIC comments
on the offered model). In the end, if I am simply able to locate one or two
happy, like minded, and qualified individuals with whom I might work, I
will have achieved all that I need.

Thank you for your understanding.

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