[Fis] : Anticipatory Systems

Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
Tue Nov 6 20:50:49 CET 2018


Dear FIS Colleagues,

Commenting first on Xueshan, agreeing with him in several remarks, but 
disagreeing on why "firms" or even "societies" should be denied the 
genuine communication capability? The communication, quite massive, 
among the former generates conventional markets, stock markets, futures 
markets, etc. Firms have "closure" in several senses (legal, 
administrative, productive, personnel) and engage in cooperation, 
competition, "predation" etc.  Precisely it is one of the most curious 
scenarios of emergence about problem-solving derived from social 
information: most of our present world-economy. These days we read about 
the Chinese-American "commercial war"; it is another instance where two 
clearly identifiable partners send signals, communications, etc. about 
each-other commercial behavior. Future world supremacy is at the 
stake... In my opinion we can learn quite interesting things from each 
of these emerging informational arenas.

Joseph made interesting points. My personal trouble with LIR is that it 
has been mostly thought concerning the logic of the physical, of the 
inanimate, plus relatively easy instances of self-organization. In its 
present formulation it says relatively little about the conditions of 
complexity in life, how living entities must behave and cooperate to 
produce the emergence of new instances of organized "closure". However I 
think that symmetry, balance of opposites, symmetry breaking & 
restoration, where LIR views can be engaged, are very meaningful 
concerning the massive organization of cellular signaling--but who can 
advance that synthetic job? Herein the parallel with synthesizing social 
narratives can be of some interest. It has been my main concern along 
this discussion...

I have not entered yet into synthesizing the contents of Booker's work 
(remember: The Seven Basic Plots). It is quite difficult a job, and an 
extra impediment for the task has been the kind suggestion by Malcolm 
(offline) to confront it with James Bonnet (Stealing Fire from the Gods, 
2006). So, it will take an extra time. In any case, if the life cycle, 
or life course, or life arch, as lived in a series of (socially 
interesting) circumstances is the fundamental content of all stories, of 
all narratives, that means that we are handling an inner schema (a 
composite of many other lower level schemes) of how life stories have to 
flow, and we pay singular attention to violations of expectations 
(Loet's?), within a curious economy of information, redundancy, etc. 
"Where is the story?" we ask when someone is boring us with a trite 
narrative. This violation of expectations may connect with humor and 
with "the news"... but the story would get too confusing now.

Best wishes
--Pedro

  El 05/11/2018 a las 6:42, Xueshan Yan escribió:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Let’s return to the core theme of narrative/story of this session--a 
> very valuable direction in information studies. Here I would like 
> provide some historical achievements which were developed by other 
> related disciplines and give some comments related to Pedro’s early 
> consideration. If no evident specifications, the default effectiveness 
> only be limited to human atmosphere.
>
> *1. Surface Structure of Information: Word, Sentence, Discourse*
>
> According to the linguistic research in the past decades, the surface 
> structure of information can be divided into three levels: word, 
> sentence, and discourse (also called text). Some people think that 
> clause and paragraph should be added to them, but they are not 
> generally recognized because they have not put forward effective 
> results. For a long time, word and sentence research has achieved 
> almost perfect theoretical results, while discourse research is still 
> under exploration. The most famous work about discourse research 
> formed by Teun A. van Dijk of the Netherlands, whose theory of News 
> Schemata which he put forward in 1986 reached the peak in this aspect. 
> Since then, the whole discourse theory has never got important 
> achievement until today.Word, Sentence, and Discourse are the surface 
> structure of information (meaning) existing as physical sign form.
>
> *2. Narrative: A Special Discourse*
>
> Narration is a kind of describing behavior of information,and its 
> result is narrative. Narrative is a special discourse, which focuses 
> on the description of one or more events or others. It is mainly 
> applied in the humanities, especially in literature and history. 
> Natural science and engineering science generally do not use this 
> concept. The soul of a narrative is that it must have story. A story 
> is a narrative that was constituted of one or more figures' thoughts, 
> words, and actions as the main line. The record of one's daily life 
> could be narrative and there is not always story in it. The yearbook 
> records everything but there is not necessarily a story there. Story 
> is the basic premise of novel, ballad, lullaby, opera, song, music, 
> painting, etc. The most typical study of story is carried out by 
> folklorists, psychologists, and linguists, such as Smith Thompson, 
> Jean Mandler, David Rumelhart and others, they have put forward the 
> theory of motif, plot, and story grammar in 1970s, but their research 
> is still difficult now.Behind Discourse, Narrative, and Story, there 
> are complex and interesting information issues.
>
> *3. Stratification and Reduction: An Inevitable Way to Develop 
> Information Studies*
>
> In a 2002 post, Pedro summed up an interesting idea: Cell-Brain-Firm, 
> it also be expressed as Cell-Brain-Society sometime. It implied 
> information stratification existentialities and could make people 
> separate information research on cell from information research on 
> society. However, this idea has received little attention from our 
> FIS/UTI circle afterwards. In my opinion, the problem perhaps is that 
> the consideration is defective at logical level. I have coined two 
> concepts in my research, one is "Inforware" and the other is 
> "Communication-dipole" which can explain this problem. An Inforware is 
> a physical object consisting of Information, Sign, and Substrate. A 
> pair ofInforwares that can communicates each other is called a 
> Communication-dipole. An Inforware can holds information, and a 
> Communication-dipole can transmits information.
>
> Analyzing Pedro's idea, both of cell and brain are organism, they can 
> be consider as Inforwares and of course can form Communication-dipole 
> to communicate each other, but a society cannot be consider as 
> Inforware and we cannot find an opponentto communicate with unless we 
> consider it as an Inforware and can communicate with other society as 
> a whole, such as a panda society or a rice society. So, if Pedro 
> agrees, I would like to revise the Cell-Brain-Firm idea to 
> Molecule-Cell-Brain idea (of course, should plus elementary particle 
> and mechanical product in somewhere of it.). All Molecules, Cells, and 
> Brains can be consider as Inforwares and of course can form 
> Communication-dipoles to communicate. Information research inside 
> brain is a biology task, and outside brain is a (Human/Social) 
> Informatics task. Stratification and Reduction analysis is the way to 
> develop information studies inevitably in the future.
>
> (The above discussions have been described in detail in my book 
> /Information Science: Concept, System and Perspective/, (2016)).
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Xueshan
>
> *From:*fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> *On 
> Behalf Of *Joseph Brenner
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 1, 2018 4:53 PM
> *To:* fis at listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* [Fis] FW: Anticipatory Systems. Vicious Coherence
>
> Dear Pedro and All,
>
> Despite the promising start, I think we are indeed missing a central 
> element and more importantly its function, which may not be to bring 
> coherence as such but a proper view of the co-existence and 
> co-operation of coherence and incoherence/decoherence, consistency and 
> inconsistency, coincidence and decoincidence, certitude and 
> incertitude. In a world/context where we are confronted daily with the 
> vicious coherence of a quasi-fascist system, not taking it into 
> account would make the FIS discussion worse than incorrect; it would 
> make it irrelevant.
>
> The tools to formally capture at least the part of living cyclical 
> processes that can be so ‘captured’ (binary concept, again) may look 
> quite differently from those we are used to. I have suggested that the 
> dances and rhythms – to use Pedro’s excellent image – can be not 
> modelled but described by reference to a contradictorial dynamics of 
> motion from actuality to potentiality and back plus a basis for 
> emergence. As simply as I can put them, here are some further things I 
> believe need to be addressed as a consequence:
>
> 1.Simple references to cycles and cyclicity, ignoring the sinusoidal 
> development of natural phenomena, which suggest a return to an 
> identical point on the curve, should be avoided.
>
> 2.It should be obvious to Karl and others that an alternative to 
> “classical Wittgenstein logic” exists, namely Logic in Reality, but 
> its explanatory capacity has simply been ignored. Why? My discussion 
> of a logic for macroscopic processes can be found in a recent Physics 
> /arXiv /article.
>
> 3.Pedro’s point about ‘multi-time’ has also been addressed in my 
> logical system, basically, by suggesting a more interactive relation 
> between time and space than is possible in classical mechanics.
>
> 4.Karl, your formulation, in my humble opinion, includes another error 
> if my point of view is at least accepted for discussion: you have 
> intuition and instinct on one side, and ‘science’ and certitude on the 
> other. The statement of the problem in dichotomous terms is part of 
> the problem.
>
> 5.Unless the cases are constructed and limited, attempting to foretell 
> the future is a Promethean objective which will bring its own punishment.
>
> I look forward, still, to some minimum exchange on the above. Cheers,
>
> Joseph (Epimetheus)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


-- 
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group

pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------



---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181106/e2c41e7d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list