[Fis] Life goes on - the Narration debate

[Emanuel Diamant]

Dear Pedro, Dear FIS Colleagues, 

 

I am really pleased with the FIS discussion renewing, and I am thankful to
Pedro for bringing the theme of Narration to the debate. However, I am
disappointed that his introductory standpoint is focused mainly on the
Humanity issues (economics, socio-cultural issues, literature, and so on),
as well as the supporting references to the Christopher Booker's and George
Akerlof's mentions. In my opinion, Narration (or Storytelling) is a
fundamental and indispensable part of information producing, processing and
communication chain. And as FIS teammates, we are first of all interested in
these information-related issues and studies. 

 

I know that my understanding of these matters deviates significantly from
the rest of my FIS partners. Never mind, with all due respect to the
colleagues' point of view, I will dare to persist with my comments on the
Narration (Storytelling) issue. 

 

First, I consider that "Information is a linguistic description of
structures observable in a given data set" 

Next, two kinds of structures are usually distinguishable in a data set:
primary (or physical) data structures and secondary (or semantic) data
structures. Respectively, their descriptions are denoted as physical and
semantic information. The descriptions are implemented in some language with
a proper alphabet. Thus, an information description appears as a string of
letters, a piece of text, a fragment of a story or a narrative. This
conjecture holds for all living beings, not for the human beings only. 

 

All further information processing or information communication issues are
tightly coupled with this fundamental property - information is a text
string, a fragment of a narrative - and as such it should be considered and
treated in all information-related processes, investigations, and studies. 

 

Of course, contemporary neuroscience knows nothing about my elucidations.
So, now and always - action potential propagation is regarded as an
interneuron information flow and synaptic strength alterations are regarded
as memory formation.  Of course, all that is a wrong and an erroneous
depiction of the information handling matters. In my publications, I am
trying to explain and repair these habitual flaws. But the public prefers
the Good Old-Fashioned Traditional Approaches. 

 

I give up, ashamed. 

Best regards. 

Emanuel.

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181014/91d0e858/attachment.html>