[Fis] Social Information/Communication Theory

Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
Wed Nov 14 20:54:03 CET 2018


Dear FIS Colleagues,

As the current discussion advances, I am strengthening the opinion that 
a Social Information/Communication (SIC) Theory could be built... 
possibly! Indeed the covered phenomena of social information & 
communication form part of our nature; they are implicit everywhere in 
all stages of our life cycle, like water for the fish. It is their 
absence what starkly calls our attention rather than their continuous 
presence around. Szent Gyorgi made great sentences on water, one of 
them: "Water, the Hub of Life. Water is its mater and matrix, mother and 
medium. Water is the most extraordinary substance." Indeed so essential 
is water for whatever aspect of cellular life... nice metaphor for our 
seamless ocean of social communication via narratives/stories.

Remembering the quotation I made from Booker days ago: "The scientific 
approach has not realized that our urge to understand the world and to 
imagine stories is something as much governed by laws as the structures 
of the atom or the genome." The challenge I dare suggest for next weeks 
would be to compose a series of of well-crafted points giving more 
formal shape to he Golden Paradigm that articulates (good) stories... 
And if we remind the Principle of Conatus by Spinoza, the persistence of 
life on its own maintenance and flourishing, the proposed (futurible) 
SIC Theory would not be too far away from, let us say, the "Cellular 
Information/Communication" Theory.

Too bold for today?

Best wishes to all--Pedro


El 14/11/2018 a las 5:44, Francesco Rizzo escribió:
> 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 at leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet at 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 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
>     <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>>
>     To: "fis" <fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto: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
>>     <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 <mailto: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
>>>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
>>
>>         http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>>
>>         -------------------------------------------------
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Fis mailing list
>>         Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>         http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Fis mailing list
>     Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>     http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
-------------------------------------------------



---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181114/a0fbbbe8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list