[Fis] A Paradox

Mon Feb 26 19:15:46 CET 2018

Dear Loet

I know that we have very divergent understandings of biosemiotics. The biosemiotic understanding of living systems is not based on a mechanistic either monistic or dualistic ontology but on a semiotic process philosophy based on an non-dual emptiness ontology that has some similarities to Bertallanffy’s General systems theory’s organicism or Aristotle’s hylozoism. I have tried to explain these differences in ontology in the papers from JPBMB below. I have summed up the cybersemiotic view as it looked some years ago here https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b513bfbe2.pdf

Best wishes

Søren Brier

New articles in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology
How Peircean semiotic philosophy connects Western science with Eastern emptiness ontology https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7KI6VGXcej    and
Peircean cosmogony's symbolic agapistic self-organization as an example of the influence of eastern philosophy on western thinking https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1WF7KI6VGXceX
2017 JPBMB Focused Issue on Integral Biomathics: The Necessary Conjunction of Western and Eastern Thought Traditions for Exploring the Nature of Mind and Life<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/131>  *
* free promotional access to all focused issue articles until June 20th 2018
Brier, S. (2017). C.S. Peirce’s Phenomenological, Evolutionary and Trans-disciplinary Semiotic Conception of Science and Religion. Research as Realization: Science, Spirituality and Harmony. Editor / Ananta Kumar Giri. Delhi : Primus Books, 2017. pp. 53-96

From: loet at leydesdorff.net [mailto:leydesdorff at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: 26. februar 2018 19:03
To: Søren Brier <sbr.msc at cbs.dk>; Stanley N Salthe <ssalthe at binghamton.edu>; fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] A Paradox

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<mailto:sbr.msc at cbs.dk>>
To: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssalthe at binghamton.edu<mailto:ssalthe at binghamton.edu>>; "fis" <fis at listas.unizar.es<mailto: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<mailto:ssalthe at binghamton.edu>]
Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19
To: Søren Brier <sbr.msc at cbs.dk<mailto:sbr.msc at cbs.dk>>; fis <fis at listas.unizar.es<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.cbs.dk/en/staff/sbrmsc> , cybersemiotics.com<http://cybersemiotics.com>.

Fra: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es<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<mailto: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<mailto: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/cc516740/attachment.html>