[Fis] Brenner 2020 New Year Lecture

[Stanley N Salthe]

Joseph -- Here I post a pdf version of your writing, which makes it easier
to comment upon. In ot I comment upon your introduction
only. The rest does not in my view involve concepts, merely examples.

STAN

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:34 AM Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
wrote:

> Dear FIS Friends and Colleagues,
>
>
>
> My best wishes for a healthy, happy and productive New Year!
>
>
>
> As requested by Pedro, following a dialogue with him on the subject of
> disinformation, I attach below a few pages that I have prepared on the
> subject. I have also attached the file, but the system may not accept it.
> If anyone needs a separate Word copy, please let me know.
>
>
>
> I look forward to your comments, criticisms and suggestions of examples. I
> will let the format for summaries ‘emerge’ from your responses and the
> subsequent discussion.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Joseph a.k.a Joe
>
>
>
> *STRUCTURES OF INFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION*
>
>
>
> *Joseph Brenner*
>
>
>
> These notes summarize some of my recent thoughts about disinformation as a
> valid subject of discussion within FIS. They have emerged in part from the
> massive amounts of disinformation produced by, among others, the current
> Administration of the United States and its most partisan supporters. The
> notes are not intended for publication as such, but, as usual to generate
> exchanges. I certainly urge readers to provide their own examples of forms
> of disinformation to complete the few noted below.
>
>
>
>
>
> *INTRODUCTION*
>
>
>
> *1 The Structure of Information*
>
>             Those of us who have been able to learn from the FIS
> discussions of the last, now, 20 years will realize that they have not led
> to a fully agreed-upon definition of information. This is perhaps an
> indication that a single ‘clear’ definition is neither possible nor
> desirable, but even this meta-question has not resulted in a consensus.
>
>             A key related concept, only touched on in prior discussion, is
> the structure of information.  In the comments to the subject “Revisiting
> the Fluctuon Model”, of which I was one of the two organizers. Loet
> Leydesdorff wrote (25 Sep 2010, in part): “In the Informational
> Structural Realism of Floridi, reality is an informational structure. The
> It-part (of the It-from-Bit model) is in the “structure” which assumes the
> specification of a system of reference. In evolutionary terms: structure is
> deterministic/selective; Shannon-type information measures only
> variation/uncertainty.” The immediate corollary is that the structure of
> information is both real and dynamic. It is a meaningful *process*, in my
> opinion insufficiently recognized (cognized) as such. The idea that
> structure is an ontological/dynamic process is to be found in the work of
> Stéphane Lupasco “*Qu’est-ce qu’une structure?*” In contrast, Floridi’s
> description is static, epistemological only. More familiar to most readers
> will be the work of Anthony Giddens who captured the dynamic properties of
> processes by the terms ‘structuring’ or ‘structuration’, also used in
> French by Lupasco. Other key structural properties of information include -
> breadth: a scalar measure applicable to categorization and comprehension
> (or comprehensibility): presumably a higher dimensional parameter.
>
>             In this period of 2011 and after, additional seminal ideas
> about the structural aspects of information were presented by Mark Burgin,
> Terrence Deacon and Stuart Kauffmann and their colleagues which centered on
> the concept of information as a constraint on the evolution of processes.
> Deacon went further in relating information to *absence* rather than only
> to the uncertainty in the original concept of Shannon. I expanded this to
> the duality absence-presence. Today, I would ask what can we say about the
> structure of information that is new and that we have learned in the last
> 9+ years?
>
>
>
> *2 The Structure of Disinformation*
>
>             Some people have suggested that disinformation is radically
> different in *kind *from information. I believe that disinformation has a
> structure close to if not identical to that of information. The big
> differences lie in the intentionality behind it and its meaning content and
> its consequences. For discussion, we may try to see if there are ‘signs’ of
> the falsity and intent to deceive that are perceptible and hence may
> characterize disinformation. In any case, its consequences can be same as
> for misinformation, but the intentionality is clearly different, as
> indicated below.
>
>
>
>
>
> *DEFINITIONS*
>
>
>
> *1. Information*
>
>               For the purposes of this exercise, I will give my own
> definition of information as a process of informing, a transfer of
> knowledge from one human being to another that is meaningful in the sense
> of having value for his/her survival or pleasure. It supervenes on the
> definition of information as data (Floridi). The theory of information
> includes its communication or messaging, Angeletics in the term of Capurro.
>
>
>
> *2. Misinformation*
>
>               Misinformation is false information that has been generated
> and transferred by accident, without any intention on the part of the
> sender. Any negative consequences, even if they are disastrous, does not
> imply negative intent, but the sender may still be held responsible for
> them. Negligence, at least in a somewhat decent society, cannot be allowed
> to go without suitable reaction.
>
>
>
> *3. Disinformation*
>
>               As I have just learned from Wikipedia, we have Joseph Stalin
> to thank for the invention (and use) of the term *dezinformatsiya*, which
> then entered French and English. Today, disinformation has become a major
> topic of concern at the level of the European Union as evidenced in this
> March, 2019 article,
> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/624279/EPRS_STU(2019),
> “Regulating disinformation with artificial intelligence. Effects of
> disinformation initiatives on freedom of expression and media pluralism”.
>
> For me, disinformation – disinforming - is an intentional process whose
> objective is to subvert information for criminal and/or selfish purposes.
> It is characterized by having no meaning, since there is no dialectical
> relation between message and intent, and any meaning, for the disinformer,
> is subordinate to his/her underlying – lying – objective. In other words,
>
> disinformation is a lie, characterized by the logical properties of
> semantic, mathematical and visual paradoxes, namely, the perceivable
> oscillation between limiting binary logical states of yes or no, truth or
> falsity, 0 and 1. In the social domain, disinformation is a tool, a method
> of attempting domination by any means, *ipso* facto immoral or unethical.
>
> My definition can be compared with that of the EU study: “false,
> inaccurate or misleading information designed, presented and promoted to
> intentionally cause public harm or for profit”. The difference with
> misinformation is as in the above in its intentionality.
>
>
>
>
>
> *STRUCTURES OF DISINFORMATION*
>
>
>
> *1. Forms*
>
>               Typical forms of disinformation consist of messages that are
> incomplete and misleading as well as directly false. Disinformation in this
> sense is close to lying by omission, and in fact one could consider
> disinformation as describing lying in the social sphere. People who
> withhold information about their physical condition in connection with
> their employment are ‘engaging’ in this form of disinformation, and I point
> here to the utility of using the verb form instead of the noun.
>
>
>
> *2. Domains. Socio-politics of Disinformation*
>
>               Disinformation in all walks of life is so prevalent that it
> becomes – almost – taken for granted. This is becoming an increasingly
> greater danger for the society in view of the influence of social media,
> some of which can now only be described as anti-social media. In fact, the
> only question may be to what extent political and narrow economic
> objectives can be maintained *without* disinformation.
>
>             There is no obvious solution, as we are very close here to the
> domain of belief, from which science is excluded. There is no overlap or
> interaction possible in the information/disinformation content of the
> following two statements: “Climate change is an impending disaster for
> which there is almost no remaining time to avoid,” and  “Climate change is
> a hoax propagated by Communists  to weaken the U. S. economy.”
>
>
>
> *3. Philosophy*
>
>               Philosophy and the social sciences in general benefit from
> the vast capacities for identification of sources that are now available.
> On the other hand, these are more than compensated by the information
> explosion, such that finding all relevant references is still a difficult
> process. Disinformation can come down to a very specific, at least partly
> intentional process of ignoring easily available references.
>
> Other methods include swamping of new results by overemphasis on classical
> sources of only historical value.
>
>
>
> *4. Scientific Literature*
>
>             In general in science, disinformation becomes roughly
> equivalent to fraud, the dissemination of data not obtained by actual
> experiments. However, for data with major social implications, such as data
> on climate change, its misuse is a clear example of disinformation
> including a major ideological component as in 2 above..
>
>              In addition, false accusations of fraud or plagiarism are
> usually supported by a mass of disinformation which can become
> auto-catalytic.
>
>
>
> *5. Advertising. Gambling and Lotteries*
>
>               In my opinion, there is a difference between making people
> aware of the availability of consumer goods and services and aggressive
> advertising of them. The latter will generally involve recourse to clearly
> unethical practices based on psychological tools, known since antiquity,
> but whose effectiveness is unfortunately enhanced by modern technology.
> ‘Creating demand’ is an accepted professional objective, despite being
> probably counterproductive for the common good.
>
>               Promotion of gambling and lotteries always overemphasizes
> the potential gains compared to their low probability in a specific
> instance. To be fair, some TV advertising for sports now includes the
> message “Bet Responsibly”, calling attention to possible, if not probable
> losses which the bettor might not be able to afford.. This opens up the
> entire domain of the ethics of production and marketing of goods that are
> not vital to existence. The authors of disinformation are watching closely
> the outcome of the related debate
>
>
>
> *6. “The Informer”. Délation or Denouncement*
>
>               As a different topic in these notes, I would like to mention
> the 1935 movie “The Informer”, starring Victor McLaglen. The main character
> provides a canonical example of a negative transfer of information that is
> true! What is involved is the treacherous transfer of correct information
> about one group to its controlling opposition with disastrous results for
> the former, in this case, during the ‘troubles’ in Ireland. The
> disinformation, of course, lies in the concealing by the informer of his
> intentions and actions. The French term *délation*, and native
> French-speakers may wish to correct this, always has for me the implication
> that the denouncement carries disinformation.
>
>
>
> *7. Combating Disinformation*
>
>               There are several levels on which disinformation can be
> combated: 1) on the personal level, correcting false information in one’s
> personal network; 2) on the institutional level. Let me define an
> institution as a group that is present in the public domain with sufficient
> resources to insure the reception of its messages by a wide audience. I
> separate this from individuals accessing masses of people through social
> media. Let us assume that the Foundations of Information Science initiative
> is such an institution. Then its members – we – must, can and should,
> report instances of disinformation to an organ in the institution that
> would insure its dissemination.
>
>               I have no idea whether or not this would ‘work’, but I feel
> that it could do no harm for anyone with the access to the FIS site to see
> a regularly up-dated Section listing examples of disinformation which we
> have encountered. Many further details on regulatory and technological
> responses to disinformation are provided in the EU study, and some of them
> should be addressed in the forthcoming discussion
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200102/ed30dc8a/attachment-0001.html>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Brenner text in pdf.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 116621 bytes
Desc: no disponible
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200102/ed30dc8a/attachment-0001.pdf>