[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 at leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet at 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 at bluewin.ch>
To: "fis" <fis at 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 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
>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 at listas.unizar.es<fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es>
>>><mailto: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/
>>-------------------------------------------------
>>_______________________________________________
>>Fis mailing list
>>Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181112/402573af/attachment.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list