[Fis] Meta-observer?

[PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ]

Dear Colleagues,

I am reluctant to discuss the information matters related to our language as 
they too easily mess things up. But Eric Werner short paper (2010, Science 
329, 629-630) makes a very adequate remark in the context of Shannon's 
theory and biologic information that may also apply to language use: "The 
meaning of a message is determined by how it affects the informational and 
intentional state of the agent. Agents coordinate their actions by using 
communication to adjust their respective strategies so that they cohere to 
achieve their interlocking goals."
The point on "interlocking goals" by Werner brings me to the centrality of 
life cycles (synchronization of lives), in all quarters pertaining to the 
biological and to the social, and also in our languages. But they are not 
still recognized as a central concern to ponder. They are like the water for 
the fish, that invisible
stuff which permeates our societies.
Finally, let me return to Joseph's interpretation of meta-observers below, 
which I concur. In actuality, the full world of disciplines with all their 
institutional collective bodies, Institutes, Departments, Journals, 
Reviewers, Meetings, formal and informal gatherings, etc. constitute a 
thought collective well beyond the individual. In our case, the "meta" 
complexity is well credited, as the problems around information cross along 
some of the deepest conundrums: from a new evolutionary/cellular theory to 
the absence of an efficient central theory of neurosciences 
(&consciousness); from quantum information (&measurement&coherence 
interpretations) to cosmology; from the relationship with entropy to the 
information society, and of course including the new "dataism" to be 
discussed soon.
And this is my second cent of the week.
Best--Pedro


On Sat, 3

Mar 2018 02:58:28 +0100 (CET) "joe.brenner at bluewin.ch"  wrote:
>Dear Pedro and All,
>
>If I go back to Pedro's original note, I see a further aspect which might be worked into its discussion. There are no ideal meta-observers; we are all, to a certain extent, both meta-observers of the discussion and participants in it. This is not a simple vertical hierarchy. We move between these two roles, switching from actualizing one to the other. Recognition of both should help accomplish what I have tried to propose, namely, that we force ourselves to emphasize someone else's work in our proposals, rather than our own.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Joseph
>>----Message d'origine----
>>De : pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
>>Date : 28/02/2018 - 05:34 (PST)
>>À : fis at listas.unizar.es
>>Objet : [Fis] Meta-observer?
>>
>>
>>
>>head>
>>
>>Dear FISers,
>> 
>>Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think
that
>>expostulating one's general framework is going to facilitate the
>>discussions. Perhaps opposite, as it will introduce a trend towards
>>generalization that fortifies the perspectival differences and makes
>>the rhetorics less adjusted to the concrete. The problem basically
>>resides in the persistent immaturity of the "information synthesis" so
>>to speak. Defenders of each approach advocate a different "observer",
>>charged in each case with their favorite conceptualizations. Taking
>>into account the apparent multitude of dimensions of information, and
>>its almost unfathomable reach, a "battery" of those observers has to
>>be in place. And an agile switching among the observers has to be
>>established. A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious
>>displacements of the focus...  helas, this means a meta-observer
>>or an observer-in-command.
>>But what sort of reference
may such a
>>metaobserver arbitrate? There is no conceivable book of rules about
>>the switching between heterogeneous disciplinary bodies.
>>I see
>>only one way, imitating the central goal of nervous systems: the
>>metaobserver should finally care about our collective social life. It
>>was Whitehead, as far as I remember, who put it: "to live, to live
>>better." In each level of organization it is the life cycle of the
>>concerned entities and the aggregates built upon them what
>>matters. 
>>Information is not only about logic-formal
>>aspects. It is the bread and butter of complexity, that which allows
>>contemporary social life. 
>>So, in the coming session about
>>"dataism" we can also explore these themes.
>> 
>>Best--Pedro
>> 
>> 
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20180304/eb62b432/attachment.html>