[Fis] FW: : Anticipatory Systems

Joseph Brenner joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
Sun Nov 11 21:17:44 CET 2018

Dear Pedro, Dear Mark,


Thank you for your references to Logic in Reality. Before commenting on my
work, I would like to note that no references in this thread have been yet
made to the extensive work on anticipation by Rosen of course, and more
recently by Daniel Dubois in Liège and Roberto Poli in Trento. Roberto has
been leading a major European initiative in the field of anticipatory
systems. Although he and I do not always agree, no serious study of
anticipation should ignore his work.


I am very glad to be able to state here that Stéphane Lupasco, from whose
logical system LIR was derived, gives a major place to biological, cognitive
phenomena, including consciousness, and social systems, including his work
on ethics. By good fortune, I have just been able to publish the first paper
in English on the Lupasco theory of consciousness (in a Newsletter of the
American Philosophical Association.) With this work fresh in mind, I am in a
good position to suggest, taking up Mark’s point, that it is LIR and not
standard bivalent logic that expresses the dynamic structure of
consciousness and experience. 


As it turns out, the first paper I published was entitled “Process in
Reality”. I have emphasized process in all subsequent work and not only
criticized “easy cases of self-organization” but the major errors that can
be made by assigning self-organization an exclusive role, without prior and
accompanying hetero-organization, that is, the necessary external or prior


Coming back to Mark, I find very intriguing his thought that logic may be a
metasystem of itself. As background, I have claimed that Logic in Reality is
also a metalogic, in that it discusses how logic “is to be done”, and
further that its logical and metalogical characteristics are not separated
or separable. I further wrote:


The metalogical properties of LIR are thus of an entirely different kind,
since it is based on a view of nature that does not consider fundamental
either to the abstract entities of pure classical propositional or
mathematical logic or the anthropomorphic ontological concepts of
phenomenology. The most fundamental metalogical principle of LIR is that of
opposition or antagonism, without which, in this view, nothing could exist
(see the next Section). This is, therefore, at the same time the most
fundamental metaphysical principle of LIR.


On this basis, I could say that my Logic in Reality as a system could be a
metasystem of itself, without conflation. But what is the general relation
between a system and a metasystem? I would welcome some further thoughts by
Mark on this point in terms of a definition of a metasystem that we can all
discuss. But please let me again distinguish between standard logic and LIR:
it is the former that is the epitome of coherence. LIR does not require
absolute coherence as a necessary property in a world that is both coherent
and incoherent.


I will comment later on Xueshan’s concept of Inforware. I guess I hesitated
a bit when I read that reduction-analysis was a key part of the strategy for
development of information studies, but, Xueshan, “let’s talk”. There is
also a very delicate question of the usage here of the English terms
‘inevitable’ and ‘inevitably’. It is not incorrect but in my mind just
slightly ‘off’ in a negative sense. Perhaps an alternate term which someone
or my unconscious might suggest would be better.   


Best wishes to all,






From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
Sent: dimanche, 11 novembre 2018 17:31
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] : Anticipatory Systems


Dear all,


Whilst appreciating the opportunity to think about narrative (and the aspect
of narrative which interests me most is coherence) I have been worrying
about less positive ways in which stories can be powerful. Every nasty
ideological regime in history has a story to tell to defend itself. My mind
was drawn to Popper's "The Poverty of historicism". He's right isn't he?


This is where I disagree with Pedro about logic and complexity. We tend to
make stories about things we don't understand - and complexity is one of
those things: a story is a metasystem of something. If we are free to choose
our metasystem, we are free to manipulate others. I am tempted to say logic
is not a narrative but it is revealed through narrative's structure. More
importantly, logic may be a metasystem of itself. That implies that logic
(and maybe LIR) is a fundamental expression of the structure of
consciousness through which everything else is experienced. 


Is this another story? If it is, then I might distinguish it from other
possible stories by the extent of its coherence (to me). Logic is the
epitome of coherence, isn't it?


On Tue, 6 Nov 2018, 19:51 Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es

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

 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

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

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 of Inforwares 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 opponent to 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,


From: fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es  <mailto: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)







Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es


Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es

Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es

L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181111/0bf30c28/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00066.txt
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181111/0bf30c28/attachment-0001.txt>

More information about the Fis mailing list