[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 
lecture:

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), 
1362-1371.

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).

Best,
Loet


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loet Leydesdorff

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

loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en 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: "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 
>better.
>
>
>
>Best wishes to all,
>
>
>
>Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en 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 en aragon.es 
>wrote:
>
>>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 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,
>>>
>>>Xueshan
>>>
>>>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 
>>>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 en listas.unizar.es
>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>>
>>--
>>-------------------------------------------------
>>Pedro C. Marijuán
>>Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>>
>>pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es
>>http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>>-------------------------------------------------
>>_______________________________________________
>>Fis mailing list
>>Fis en listas.unizar.es
>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
------------ 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