[Fis] A Paradox
Loet Leydesdorff
loet at leydesdorff.net
Sun Mar 4 16:41:58 CET 2018
Dear Mark,
Can you, please, explain "transduction" in more detail? Perhaps, you can
also provide examples?
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: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>
To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet at leydesdorff.net>
Cc: yxs at pku.edu.cn; "FIS Group" <fis at listas.unizar.es>
Sent: 3/4/2018 1:03:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox
>Dear Loet, all,
>
>I agree with this. Our construction of reality is never that of a
>single system: there are always multiple systems and they interfere
>with each other in the way that you suggest. I would suggest that
>behind all the ins-and-outs of codification or information and meaning
>is a very simple principle of transduction. I often wonder if Luhmann’s
>theory isn’t really that different from Shannon’s (who talks about
>transduction endlessly). The fact that you've made this connection
>explicit and empirically justifiable is, I think, the most important
>aspect of your work. You may disagree, but if we kept transduction and
>jettisoned the rest of Luhmann's theory, I think we still maintain the
>essential point.
>
>
>There is some resonance (interesting word!) with McCulloch’s model of
>perception, where he considered “drome” (literally, “course-ing”,
>“running”) circuits each bearing on the other:
>http://vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_heterarchy.pdf (look at the
>pictures on pages 2 and 3) Perception, he argued was a syn-drome: a
>combination of inter-effects between different circuits. There is a
>logic to this, but it is not the logic of set theory. McCulloch wrote
>about it. I think it’s not a million miles away from Joseph’s/Lupasco’s
>logic.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Mark
>
>On 4 March 2018 at 07:03, Loet Leydesdorff <loet at leydesdorff.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>Dear Xueshan Yan,
>>
>>May I suggest moving from a set-theoretical model to a model of two
>>(or more) helices. The one dimension may be the independent and the
>>other the dependent variable at different moments of time. One can
>>research this empirically; for example, in bodies of texts.
>>
>>In my own models, I declare a third level of codes of communication
>>organizing the meanings in different directions. Meaning both codes
>>the information and refers to horizons of meaning being specifically
>>coded.
>>
>>Might this work as an answer to your paradox?
>>
>>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
>><http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en>
>>
>>
>>------ Original Message ------
>>From: "Xueshan Yan" <yxs at pku.edu.cn>
>>To: "FIS Group" <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>Sent: 3/4/2018 2:17:01 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox
>>
>>>Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet,
>>>
>>>I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post
>>>about the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank
>>>you. Now I offer my responses as follows:
>>>
>>>Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which
>>>reveals the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and
>>>figure, target and source based on rhetoric. But where is our
>>>information? It looks like Syed given the answer: "Information is the
>>>container of meaning." If I understand it right, we may have this
>>>conclusion from it: Information is the carrier of meaning. Since we
>>>all acknowledge that sign is the carrier of information, the task of
>>>our Information Science will immediately become something like an
>>>intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and Semantics (study
>>>of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. For a long
>>>time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science is so
>>>basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the
>>>information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted
>>>of axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates
>>>on information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it
>>>is very difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A
>>>grammatically correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the
>>>sentence itself IS information."
>>>
>>>Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a
>>>new discipline which level is more higher than the level of
>>>Information Science as well as Linguistics, such as his
>>>Cybersemiotics. I have no right to review your opinion, because I
>>>haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I don't know its content, same
>>>as I don't know what the content of Biosemiotics is, but my view is
>>>that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this paradox.
>>>
>>>Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and
>>>lock." which are two different things. Without one, the existence of
>>>another will lose its value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen
>>>and egg. I don't know how to answer this point. However, for your
>>>"The text may be an information for B, while it has no information
>>>value for A. The difference between the subjective." "‘Information’
>>>is synonymous with ‘new’." these claims are the classic debates in
>>>Information Science, a typical example is given by Mark Burgin in his
>>>book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a lot of information for
>>>a mathematics student but no information for a professional
>>>mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: One
>>>should firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to
>>>define their use of the term "information." I think this is effective
>>>and first step toward to construct a general theory about
>>>information, if possible.
>>>
>>>For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so
>>>transmitted information has no meaning without interpretation." I can
>>>only disagree with it kindly. The most simple example from genetics
>>>is: an egg cell accepts a sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set
>>>of effective genetic information from paternal and maternal cell,
>>>here information transmission has taken place, but is there any
>>>"meaning" and "explanation"? We should be aware that meaning only is
>>>a human or animal phenomena and it does not be used in any other
>>>context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the key we
>>>dissolve the paradox.
>>>
>>>In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox
>>>so far.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Best wishes,
>>>
>>>Xueshan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedalimd at gmail.com
>>><mailto:doctorsyedalimd at gmail.com>]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM
>>>To: Sungchul Ji <sji at pharmacy.rutgers.edu>
>>>Cc: Terrence W. DEACON <deacon at berkeley.edu>; Xueshan Yan
>>><yxs at pku.edu.cn>; FIS Group <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear All:
>>>
>>>If a non English speaking individual saw the newspaper headline
>>>“Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: would that be
>>>"information?"
>>>
>>>My belief is - Yes. But he or she would have no idea what it was
>>>about- the meaning would be : Possibly "something " as opposed to the
>>>meaning an English speaking individual would draw.
>>>
>>>In both situations there would be still be meaning - A for the non
>>>English speaking and B for the English speaking.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Conclusion: Information is the container of meaning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please critique.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Syed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are
>>>confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or
>>>entity to whom this email is addressed. If you are not one of the
>>>named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have
>>>received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
>>>this message immediately from your computer. Any other use,
>>>retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this
>>>message is strictly prohibited.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Sungchul Ji
>>><sji at pharmacy.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi FISers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am not sure whether I am a Procrustes (bed) or a Peirce
>>>>(triadomaniac), but I cannot help but seeing an ITR (irreducible
>>>>Triadic Relation) among Text, Context and Meaning, as depicted in
>>>>Figure 1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> f
>>>> g
>>>>
>>>> Context --------> Text
>>>> ---------> Meaning
>>>>
>>>> |
>>>> ^
>>>>
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>|_________________________|
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> h
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>“The meaning of a text is irreducibly dependent on its context.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Text, context, and meaning are irreducibly triadic.” The “TCM
>>>>principle” (?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Figure 1. The Procrustean bed, the Peircean triadomaniac, or both ?
>>>>
>>>>f = Sign production; g = Sign interpretation; h = Correlation or
>>>>information flow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>According to this 'Peircean/Procrustesian' diagram, both what Terry
>>>>said and what Xueshan said may be valid. Although their thinking
>>>>must have been irreducibly triadic (if Peirce is right), Terry may
>>>>have focused on (or prescinded) Steps f and h, while Xueshan
>>>>prescinded Steps g and h, although he did indicate that his
>>>>discussion was limited to the context of human information and human
>>>>meaning (i.e., Step f). Or maybe there are many other
>>>>interpretations possible, depending on the interpreter of the posts
>>>>under discussion and the ITR diagram.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There are an infinite number of examples of algebraic operations:
>>>>2+3 = 5, 3 - 1 = 2, 20 x 45 = 900, etc., etc.
>>>>
>>>>If I say "2 + 3 = 5", someone may say, but you missed "20 x 45 =
>>>>900". In other words, no matter what specific algebraic operation I
>>>>may come up with, my opponent can always succeed in coming up with
>>>>an example I missed. The only solution to such an end-less debate
>>>>would be to discover the axioms of algebra, at which level, there
>>>>cannot be any debate. When I took an abstract algebra course as an
>>>>undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, in 1962-5, I
>>>>could not believe that underlying all the complicated algebraic
>>>>calculations possible, there are only 5 axioms
>>>>(https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-5-basic-axioms-of-algebra
>>>><https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-5-basic-axioms-of-algebra>).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So can it be that there are the axioms (either symbolic,
>>>>diagrammatic, or both) of information science waiting to be
>>>>discovered, which will end all the heated debates on information,
>>>>meaning, data, etc. ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>All the best.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sung
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>From: Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Terrence W.
>>>>DEACON <deacon at berkeley.edu>
>>>>Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 1:13 PM
>>>>To: Xueshan Yan
>>>>Cc: FIS Group
>>>>Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is so easy to get into a muddle mixing technical uses of a term
>>>>with colloquial uses, and add a dash of philosophy and
>>>>discipline-specific terminology and it becomes mental quicksand.
>>>>Terms like 'information' and 'meaning" easily lead us into these
>>>>sorts of confusions because they have so many context-sensitive and
>>>>pardigm-specific uses. This is well exhibited in these FIS
>>>>discusions, and is a common problem in many interdisciplinary
>>>>discussions. I have regularly requested that contributors to FIS try
>>>>to label which paradigm they are using to define their use of the
>>>>term "information' in these posts, but sometimes, like fish unaware
>>>>that they are in water, one forgets that there can be alternative
>>>>paradigms (such as the one Søren suggests).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So to try and avoid overly technical usage can you be specific about
>>>>what you intend to denote with these terms.
>>>>
>>>>E.g. for the term "information" are you referring to statisitica
>>>>features intrinsic to the character string with respect to possible
>>>>alternatives, or what an interpreter might infer that this English
>>>>sentence refers to, or whether this reference carries use value or
>>>>special significance for such an interpreter?
>>>>
>>>>And e.g. for the term 'meaning' are you referring to what a
>>>>semantician would consider its underlying lexical structure, or
>>>>whether the sentence makes any sense, or refers to anything in the
>>>>world, or how it might impact some reader?
>>>>
>>>>Depending how you specify your uses your paradox will become
>>>>irresolvable or dissolve.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>— Terry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Xueshan Yan <yxs at pku.edu.cn> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cdafadeb387ea48d49e8308d57d44af49%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636552656347721416&sdata=9iZiY5RL9vuquc0n7Gr111RwX0AIk9dFuw0ow3HOGMA%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>Professor Terrence W. Deacon
>>>>University of California, Berkeley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Fis mailing list
>>>>Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>><http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Fis mailing list
>>Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>><http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Dr. Mark William Johnson
>Institute of Learning and Teaching
>Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
>University of Liverpool
>
>Phone: 07786 064505
>Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
>Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20180304/51c9b041/attachment.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list