[Fis] FW: : Anticipatory Systems

Francesco Rizzo 13francesco.rizzo at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 05:44:20 CET 2018


Cari Pedro,  Xueshan, Joseph e Tutti,
desidero dare un contributo teorico e pratico al filone della ricerca
intrapresa, senza alcuna presunzione.

A. La logica nella realtà o la realtà nella logica prende le mosse
dall'economia dialettica hegeliana che ha
un ruolo costitutivo, rilevante e strutturale nella SCIENZA DELLA LOGICA
pubblicata dal filosofo dal 1812
al 1816.
Essa si articola in tre dottrine:
* dell'ESSERE, cioè del pensiero nella sua immediatezza, del concetto in
quanto è IN SE';
* dell'ESSENZA, che studia il pensiero nella sua riflessione o mediazione,
cioè il concetto in quanto è PER SE'
e dunque appare;
* del CONCETTO, che studia il concetto IN SE' e PER SE'.
La dottrine dell'ESSERE tratta delle categorie della QUANTITA', QUALITA' e
MISURA.
Dottrina dell'ESSERE e dottrina dell'ESSENZA costituiscono per Hegel un
tutt'uno che egli chiama LOGICA
 OGGETTIVA perché riferita alla REALTA' che esiste indipendentemente del
soggetto che la pensa, mentre la
 terza parte, dottrina del CONCETTO, è definita LOGICA SOGGETTIVA.
La realtà esiste come oggetto-ESSERE e nel suo aspetto più intimo e
profondo come ESSENZA.
Per Hegel la categoria della QUANTITA' svolge il suo ruolo come antitesi
della QUALITA' che rappresenta la tesi,
per giungere al risultato finale sintetico rappresentato dalla MISURA.
La QUANTITA' QUALITATIVA o MISURA è alla base soprattutto delle scienze
esperenziali, non astratte, che
 si basano sulla logica concreta, empirica, reale (Joseph).

B. Tra queste scienze stanno anche la biologia e l'economia che adottano e
adattano la scienza della logica, non la
filosofia della logica. E in questo con-testo si situa la
semiotica-ermeneutica della triade significazione, informazione,
comunicazione. La NARRAZIONE si avvale di questa terna che non vale solo
per le relazioni umane, ma in
un certo qual modo riguarda anche la comunicazione cellulare e inter o
epi-genetica (Pedro).

C. Per quanto riguarda, "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" (Xueshan),  affermo che
come v'è una comunicazione-trasmissione
di segnali tra le macchine, a maggior ragione v'è una
comunicazione-interazione tra le cellule sane e/o
malate che siano.
Inoltre, già sin dal 1983, nel rinnovare la definizione di bene culturale,
ho dichiarato che un'opera d'arte
è contemporaneamente INFORMATA e INFORMATRICE perchè è  nello stesso tempo
EFFETTO-FRUTTO
di un processo di tras-in-form-azione e CAUSA di un altro processo di
tras-in-form-azione.
So che le mie parole possono essere considerate aforistiche, apodistiche e
oracolari, ma ho creduto di
scriverle per contribuire con imiltà a tracciare una strada comune,
percorribile da Tutti, ma sempre poliedrica.
Grazie per l'attenzione che mi regalerete.
Francesco.



Il giorno lun 12 nov 2018 alle ore 07:28 Loet Leydesdorff <
loet en leydesdorff.net> ha scritto:

> 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 ; 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>
> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181114/506deaf4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list