[Fis] FW: : Anticipatory Systems

Loet Leydesdorff loet at leydesdorff.net
Mon Nov 12 07:12:02 CET 2018

Dear Joseph, Mark, Pedro, and colleagues,

1. Yes, I agree with Joseph: Daniel Dubois did a wonderful job in Liege. 
I was deeply involved in it. See, for example, my vice-presidential 

Leydesdorff, L. (2008). The Communication of Meaning in Anticipatory 
Systems: A Simulation Study of the Dynamics of Intentionality in Social 
Interactions. In D. M. Dubois (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Intern. 
Conf. on Computing Anticipatory Systems CASYS'07 (Vol. 1051 pp. 33-49). 
Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings.

But in the context of this list, please, note:

Leydesdorff, L., Johnson, M., & Ivanova, I. A. (2014). The Communication 
of Expectations and Individual Understanding: Redundancy as Reduction of 
Uncertainty, and the Processing of Meaning. Kybernetes, 43(9/10), 

Leydesdorff, L., Johnson, M., & Ivanova, I. (2018). Toward a Calculus of 
Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural 
Evolution. Journal of the Association for Information Science and 
Technology, 69(10), 1181-1192. doi: 10.1002/asi.24052

2. A narrative assumes a geometrical metaphor. Systems, however, are 
algorithmic. Thus, the geometrical model provides us with a window on 
the evolving complexity. The model does terrible things to the 
tangential systems (John Casti).


Loet Leydesdorff

Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>; 
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of 

Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 

Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;


------ Original Message ------
From: "Joseph Brenner" <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
To: "fis" <fis en listas.unizar.es>
Sent: 11/11/2018 9:17:44 PM
Subject: [Fis] FW: : Anticipatory Systems

>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 input.
>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 
>Best wishes to all,
>From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Mark 
>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 en 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 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 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 en listas.unizar.es<fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> 
>>><mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es>On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
>>>Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 4:53 PM
>>>To:fis en 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 
>>>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 en listas.unizar.es
>>Pedro C. Marijuán
>>Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>>pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es
>>Fis mailing list
>>Fis en listas.unizar.es
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181112/402573af/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list