[Fis] about the idea of “hierarchies of structures”
Loet Leydesdorff
loet at leydesdorff.net
Sun Feb 3 23:45:13 CET 2019
Dear Stan,
I know that you made "hierarchies" central to your highly-respected
theorizing. However, there is a difference between considering a system
as hierarchical and claiming that it is hierarchical. The latter claim
has to be proven.
I would accept the claim that most if not all systems can be considered
as hierarchical (Herbert Simon). However, some of the interesting ones
are not. For example, in the case of strange loops -- that is, when
routines interrupt each other in ways that are not allowed in do-while
loops. (Latour proposed the notion "infrareflexive" for this possibility
of interruptions in the relations among communication systems.) I call
these systems interesting because they bring new models, such as
anticipatory systems, etc.)
My argument was mainly about the "simplicitly" of general assertions
which cannot be proven. (Fortunately, I send this message as my second
message in a week which passes in 15 minutes. :-) )
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: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssalthe en binghamton.edu>
To: "fis" <fis en listas.unizar.es>
Sent: 2/3/2019 9:00:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] about the idea of “hierarchies of structures”
>Loet -- Regarding:
>>
>>The idea is simple: the real world consists of hierarchies of
>>structures which are built by other structures from low levels.
>>
>This is not only simple, it is a simplification. Perhaps, a
>considerable percentage of the "hierarchies" are "heterarchies"? We
>need a strategy to test the truth of such statements.
>
>S: Heterarchies, I have found are for the most part systems of several
>hierarchies that are intersecting with common members -- a kind of
>mashup of hierarchies. There is no other principle of organization
>involved.
>STAN
>
>On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 1:22 PM Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net>
>wrote:
>>Dear Krassimir,
>>
>>>The idea is simple: the real world consists of hierarchies of
>>>structures which are built by other structures from low levels.
>>>
>>This is not only simple, it is a simplification. Perhaps, a
>>considerable percentage of the "hierarchies" are "heterarchies"? We
>>need a strategy to test the truth of such statements. References to
>>Genesis are not helpful because that (Crhistianity) is a belief
>>system, and not a system of rationalized and if possible testable
>>expectations.
>>
>>It seems to me that there is no theoretical need for a "general theory
>>of information." Information is generated when systems communicate.
>>The information is yet dimension-free (bits). The reference to a
>>system provides the information with dimensionality.
>>
>>For example, when energy and momenta are communicated (and tend to be
>>conserved), thermodynamic entropy is generated. When atoms are
>>communicated, one expects a chemistry; when molecules are communicated
>>a biology, etc. There may be no hierarchy among these levels, but
>>rather a fractional manifold. The fragments perhaps fail to exist as
>>hierarchies? We should not derive from "esse" (e.g., ontology), but
>>from "frangere" (e.g., failure).
>>
>>Best,
>>Loet
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This model shows that, practically, all entities of the real world
>>>are hierarchically organized.
>>>
>>>Very important is that there not exists a total comprehensive
>>>structure - just the opposite - the real world consists of very great
>>>variety of structures.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What is common for all structures?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>To answer, one need to look in the bases of the structures - all are
>>>organizations of very small elements.
>>>
>>>Greeks call them “atoms”, now we know that there exist “smaller”
>>>elements - electrons, particles, photons, waves, and other “minute
>>>portions of matter” (“tiny particles of dust”).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Further, I remembered the Ross Ashby idea of emerging of the new
>>>features at the given level of the system, which not exist in the
>>>elements of low levels.
>>>
>>>Just, such features are live, intelligence, and consciousness, which
>>>emerge as new properties of the structures (systems).
>>>
>>>Ancient wise people had noticed this!
>>>For instance, please remember Genesis 2:7: “Then the LORD God formed
>>>a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the
>>>breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
>>>
>>>There is no clear boundary between live structures and not live ones.
>>>In every moment first may be destroyed to the second as well as the
>>>former may be organized to the first one.
>>>For instance, please remember Genesis 3:19: “for dust you are and to
>>>dust you will return”.
>>>
>>>In General Information Theory (GIT), we consider the real world as a
>>>space of entities.
>>>
>>>The entities are built by other entities, connected with
>>>relationships.
>>>
>>>The entities and relationships between them form the internal
>>>structure of the entity they build.
>>>
>>>To create the entity of a certain structural level of the world, it
>>>is necessary to have:
>>>
>>>− Entities of the lower structural level;
>>>
>>>− Established forming relationship.
>>>
>>>The entity can dialectically be considered as a relationship between
>>>its entities of all internal structural levels.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The forming relationship has a representative significance for the
>>>entity.
>>>
>>>The destruction of this essential relationship causes its
>>>disintegration.
>>>
>>>The establishment of forming relationship between already existing
>>>entities has a determine significance for the emerging of the new
>>>entity.
>>>
>>>The forming relationship is the reason for the emergence of
>>>individual properties, which distinguish the new entity from the
>>>forming ones.
>>>
>>>The relationships form and present the entity.
>>>
>>>(http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol14/ijita14-1-p01.pdf)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Kind regards
>>>
>>>Krassimir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----
>>>
>>>Krassimir Markov
>>>
>>>Honorary professor, PhD
>>>
>>>University of Telecommunications and Post
>>>
>>>Sofia, Bulgaria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From:Krassimir Markov <mailto:markov en foibg.com>
>>>Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2019 6:30 PM
>>>To:jose luis perez velazquez <mailto:jlpvjlpv en gmail.com> ; fis
>>><mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es>
>>>Subject: [Fis] Living and not living structures
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hola, José Luis y queridos FIS colegas!
>>>
>>>The discussion came to very important point marked by José Luis.
>>>
>>>Now it is seen that there exists a hierarchy of structures which are
>>>built by other structures from low levels. This model shows that,
>>>practically, all entities of the real world are hierarchically
>>>organized.
>>>
>>>What about the live and the intelligence?
>>>
>>>Practically, we came to the W. Ross Ashby’s “PRINCIPLES OF THE
>>>SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEM”
>>>https://emergent.blob.core.windows.net/classic-articles/3aa37176-f414-4820-b5e5-b3be0cdb0395.pdf
>>>.
>>>
>>>I kindly recommend this paper to be reread.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>For our discussion, very important are the next sentences:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>“Every isolated determinate dynamic system obeying unchanging laws
>>>will develop "organisms" that are adapted to their "environments"
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>“In any isolated system, life and intelligence inevitably develop.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At the given level of complexity and organization, some structures
>>>became “alive” and “intelligent” in some degree. As the structure
>>>(system) is more complex, so it may be more intelligent.
>>>
>>>As Ashby remarked, live, intelligence, and (if I may add)
>>>consciousness emerge as new property of the structure (system).
>>>
>>>There is no need to ask if the cell has consciousness and
>>>intelligence. The answer is clear - YES!
>>>
>>>But its consciousness and intelligence are quite different of those
>>>of the fish, bee, dog, or human.
>>>
>>>There is no clear boundary between live structures and not live ones.
>>>In every moment first may be destroyed to the second as well as the
>>>former may be organized to the first one.
>>>
>>>Finally, all live structures we know at this moment have very
>>>important feature of self-reproducing using DNA structures.
>>>
>>>Friendly greetings
>>>
>>>Krassimir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----
>>>
>>>Krassimir Markov
>>>
>>>Honorary professor, PhD
>>>
>>>University of Telecommunications and Post
>>>
>>>Sofia, Bulgaria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From:jose luis perez velazquez <mailto:jlpvjlpv en gmail.com>
>>>Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2019 1:21 PM
>>>To:fis <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es>
>>>Subject: [Fis] Fwd: "the mother of information"--MINI-BRAINS
>>>
>>>---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>From: jose luis perez velazquez<jlpvjlpv en gmail.com>
>>>Date: Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:44 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Fis] "the mother of information"--MINI-BRAINS
>>>To: Alexander Fingelkurts <alexander.fingelkurts en bm-science.com>
>>>
>>> Hola a todos. In what I wrote about lack of consciousness in
>>>particles or cells I should have been clearer. I admit cells,
>>>bacteria etc. have some aspects/features of consciousness, but I
>>>would not say they display self-awareness, perhaps one of the top
>>>features. These problems are derived, once again,from the desire to
>>>define precisely something like life, consciousness, or intelligence,
>>>things that are almost impossible to define in one sentence. To wit,
>>>one definition of intelligence is the ability to adapt to change,
>>>well, then bacteria are intelligent. One aspect of life is
>>>compartmentalization and exchange of energy, tehrefore some inorganic
>>>materials have this property and could be considered "half alive".
>>>These notions we have created, life, consciousness, intelligence etc.
>>>are nothing but that: our inventions. Out there in nature there is a
>>>continuum; evolution operates mainly as a continuum without sharp
>>>steps (although some apparently existed), as a dynamical system, a
>>>process. Similar principles of organization apply to the living and
>>>non living (as I tried to expound in "Finding simplicity in
>>>complexity: general principles of biological and nonbiological
>>>organization", www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2710456).
>>> Trying to impose clear demarcations in these concepts is, to me,
>>>a mistake (or misunderstanding). Hence, I do agree that cells share
>>>some features of consciousness, but perchance everybody would agree
>>>with the fact that only humans, and perhaps other close relatives,
>>>have all the properties one can think of when enumerating the
>>>features of consciousness, and of course one can try to set up a
>>>hierarchy in which self-awareness could be at the top... but again,
>>>that hierarchy would be our invention.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/20190203/f32ec4a0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list