[Fis] A Paradox

Mon Feb 26 19:03:16 CET 2018

Dear Soren,

I agree with Stan's wording, but your wording is ambiguous. The meaning 
is not biologically given, but constructed in a discourse among 
biologists. The discourse can also be theological and then one obtains 
"theological" meaning.

Best,
Loet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loet Leydesdorff

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

loet at leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net>; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of 
Sussex;

Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;

Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en

------ Original Message ------
From: "Søren Brier" <sbr.msc at cbs.dk>
To: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssalthe at binghamton.edu>; "fis" 
<fis at listas.unizar.es>
Sent: 2/26/2018 6:41:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

>Thanks Stan. I agree: Behind production and  interpretation of all 
>quantitative data, there is  either an biological or an existential or 
>a religious or a philosophical framework of meaning.
>
>
>
>    Best
>
>                     Søren
>
>
>
>From: Stanley N Salthe [mailto:ssalthe at binghamton.edu]
>Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19
>To: Søren Brier <sbr.msc at cbs.dk>; fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox
>
>
>
>Following upon Søren:  Meaning is derived for a system by way of 
>Interpretation.  The transmitted information has no meaning without 
>interpretation.
>
>
>
>STAN
>
>
>
>On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier <sbr.msc at cbs.dk> wrote:
>
>>Dear  Xueshan
>>
>>
>>
>>The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can 
>>encompass information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s 
>>semiotics is such a paradigm especially if you can integrate 
>>cybernetics and systems theory  with it. There is a summary of the 
>>framework of Cybersemiotics here:
>>
>>https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>Cordially yours
>>
>>
>>
>>                  Søren Brier
>>
>>
>>
>>Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 
>>(2VO25), 2000 Frederiksberg
>>
>>Mobil 28494162 www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc , cybersemiotics.com.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Fra: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] På vegne af Xueshan Yan
>>Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47
>>Til: FIS Group <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>Emne: [Fis] A Paradox
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by 
>>the following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information 
>>or Armenia Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I 
>>state it below and strictly limit our discussion within the human 
>>context.
>>
>>
>>
>>Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the 
>>main media of the world have given the report about it. On the second 
>>day, two students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the 
>>newspaper headline “Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night”:
>>
>>Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence?
>>
>>A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.
>>
>>Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence?
>>
>>A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.
>>
>>Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, 
>>or strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In 
>>Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In 
>>Information Science, the study of human information is called Human 
>>Informatics.
>>
>>Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the 
>>study of human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological 
>>Linguistics or Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural 
>>study of a human language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt 
>>the first definitions here, so we regard Human Linguistics and 
>>Linguistics as the same.
>>
>>Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and 
>>its main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics 
>>is one of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is 
>>to deal with the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to 
>>human information, thus we have the following corollary:
>>
>>A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics.
>>
>>According to the definition of general linguists, language is a 
>>vehicle for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a 
>>branch of Human Informatics, so we have another corollary:
>>
>>B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics.
>>
>>Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is 
>>a paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a 
>>settlement about the related paradox could lead to some important 
>>discoveries in a subject, but how should we understand this paradox?
>>
>>
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Xueshan
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Fis mailing list
>>Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20180226/98181ef6/attachment.html>