[Fis] [External Email] Re: Brenner 2020 New Year Lecture

[Karl Javorszky]

Disinformation
            (20200105)

Thank you, Joseph, for this overture of a symposium on intentionally
misleading messages.

1. Discussion of connotations of some points in the lecture

*a single ‘clear’ definition [of information] is neither possible nor
desirable, *

If we agree what we mean by using the term, our agreement defines the term.
Whether the content of what we shall agree on, will turn out to be an
algorithm, that is: a Sachverhalt, or it will turn out to be an idea of the
category of witchcraft and phlogiston, is what we currently analyse. If
nothing else, scientific and private curiosity makes it desirable to know,
whether we shall have chased a *fata morgana* or whether we shall have
uncovered, recognised, understood a basic attribute of Nature.

*but even this meta-question has not resulted in a consensus.*

This is what we, FIS, are presently doing. We are the patriarchs who
decide. We are chewing this question since very long. We are searching for
a consensus. We have not yet reached a judgement.

*structural aspects of information *

The term structure has many meanings. Here, in FIS, it has been introduced
to mean the existence of more than one group memberships of members of
groups. We know that what we look for is the concurrent existence of
symbols on elements.

*relating information to absence … duality absence-presence *

This is again in full congruence to the definition of information, which,
for the time being, is: Let *x = ak* and *k **Î** {1,2,...,k,...,n}*. This
statement contains the information *k **Ï** {1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}*.

*… what can we say about the structure of information that is new … last 9+
years?*

Modesty where there is no rational reason for modesty to take place has a
literature in psychology. Please read your own contributions in the FIS
chatroom. There are also some other contributions in that same archive,
which you might stumble upon, that discuss the structure of information.

*disinformation – disinforming - is an intentional process *

Good luck with that. In the trade, one does not use this word. Using the
term ‘intentional’ implicates that the speaker, the psychologist, does not
know that anyone, the proband, can be brought to acknowledging his, the
proband’s, inner participation in the creation of his, the proband’s, own
mental creations. They say anything in order to please you. Then again, one
can influence them to say that what one wants to hear, be it by sweets or
by waterboarding, or by telling them about angels and unicorns. It is like
a Heisenberg experiment. (It is only in your head. More to that later.)

*whose objective is to subvert information for criminal and/or selfish
purposes. *

The selfish purposes cause the subverted position of information, which
would have remained unsubverted, true to its original goals and principles,
if only the subject had remained true to its destiny and not had
degenerated into a selfish brute? Is this Rousseau? The writer implicates
the existence of an ideal state (ways, methods and contents of
communicating), and says that there are realisations, which deviate from an
ideal order among sentences to be said. (*<Such1> *has been said, which is
a deviation, relative to the ideal order, in which *<Such2> *would have
been said.)

*disinformation is a tool, a method of attempting domination by any means,
ipso facto immoral or unethical. *

As Bruno has expressed it, every study is basically a theological study. It
would be helpful, if the author could differentiate on the immorality
coming more from the goal or more from the tool. In studies relating to
biology, it is not usual to discuss ethical or moral issues while comparing
efficacity of strategies of survival and reproduction. Mimicry has many
forms.

(On the terminology: it appears to me, that in Hungarian and in German some
people do distinguish between *dIs*information and *dEs*information. The
former creates the wrong impression, that there is nothing remarkable to
notice against a background, the latter creates the wrong impression that
there is something different remarkable to notice against a background.
Disinformation is the keeping of secrecy (bringing the information
intensity close to Zero: ‘Greek warriors: 0’), desinformation is pretending
that a wooden horse is what to look at (creating a distraction, bringing
the information focus in areas far from ‘Greek warriors present?’). Not
smelling (fawns) and smelling differently (parasite wasps doing a cuckoo in
beehives). For both, excellent examples can be found in Wikipedia: mimicry.)

*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.*

Would there be by any chance a possibility of finding a fine example of
this manoeuvre in the FIS chatroom? A historical example would point to
Gregor Mendel and his chatroom.

*in science, disinformation becomes roughly equivalent to fraud, the
dissemination of data not obtained by actual experiments. *

Maybe, a terminological distinction could be made between *disinformation*,
which means the suppression, non-dissemination of inconvenient data or
theories, and *desinformation, *which publishes falsified data.

*… false accusations … can become auto-catalytic *

Is this the same technique mentioned by Schopenhauer in Eristic Dialectic,
known as Propaganda or *hasbara*? The dialectic method is discussed by
Aristoteles, and manipulative, threatening signals, which should evoke in
the recipient shock and awe, are with us ever since we crawled out of the
sea, and probably even before. To induce hysteria (dysregulation) in the
recipient is a time-honoured way of winning an argument. The technique
obviously makes use of the existence of a frame of reference within the
recipient which the sender targets and eventually destabilises.

*… ethics of production and marketing of goods that are not vital to
existence. *

The nervous system demands input to process. We are optimised for
surroundings of Nature which is different from the surroundings we find
ourselves having gotten been born into. For *homo erectus, *the world was
much more menacing, full of signals which had yet to be learnt. Such of our
ancestors, who have learnt that remembered experiences and present
experiences can be compared, whether similar or different, and lessons
drawn from the mental impressions being similar, these have become the *homo
sapiens*. By natural selection, we have a *faible*, a soft spot, a bias for
the similar. Yet, the physiology behind neurology keeps producing nutrients
for dealing with the different, as if we still lived in a world where
everything is a discovery (like for animals and children). Physiology
appears to observe the rule, that the natural relation between *same ↔
different *exists. Joseph puts an ethical value on an observed fact, namely
that there exists an optimal range between: *same ↔ different *which people
keep wanting to be maintained. We as humans happen to need such things
which have no other *raison d’être *but being something different. In the
golden ages, the *aurea saecula, *there was much more excitement and
diversity, and no time for boredom and monotony*.* The more safe and secure
one is, the more entertainment he needs. (Otherwise, he becomes
domesticated: dumbs down.) We have managed, in Europe, the production and
distribution of the *panem, *and many, apparently the writer included, are
of the opinion that less of *circenses* would be a good idea to pursue, at
least as a goal. Whether the human nature is a profitable subject of a
debate in Ethics, is discussed very much in other fields, but not in
psychology. We do not discuss, how we wish humans to be. We try to
understand how they are (including ourselves, in brotherhood with
Heisenberg).

*… we … should report instances of disinformation to an organ in the
institution [**FIS] **that would insure its dissemination.*

There is no higher authority, civil, military, informal, imperial or
divine, on foundations of information science than this here chatroom.
Other people have even less idea about what the term information means. You
yourself are, for yours, together with all other participants, for theirs,
the ultimate arbiter on grammatical correctness, factual truth and ethical
value of the contributions published here. We are located in a model Vienna
coffee house here: people are entertaining, clever, diverse, and the form
of the exchanges is polite and collegial to friendly, just like it should
be. Your opinion is part of the opinion of the coffee house. If you think
that someone is side-lined for no good reason, go ahead and refer publicly
to his thoughts. Except for the rule of twice a week short or once a week
long, there is no restriction on who can say what here, if I understand
right.



2. Discussion of denotations of some points in the lecture

*Sender and receiver*

Thank you for introducing the subject (the acting persona) as a participant
in the mysterious kabuki theatre that appears to be information, and two of
them. You are, again, mountains ahead of me in the cartography of possible
meanings of the term of information. While I work out the engineering
specifications for sentences, you already use them and establish, that some
of them are false, used in a communicative process of exchange of messages.

*Non-traditional use of the term truth*

Tradition was to consider false statements to be grammatically false. You
point out – clothed in words of ethic -, that a formally, grammatically
correct sentence can be false, by referring to a state of the world which
is not the case.

We agree, that there is a state of the world and that there is a
description of the state of the world. Your point is, that there are
alternative perspectives to readings of the same state of the world,
creating alternatives of descriptions of the state of the world, and that
one cultural observation (your) is, that alternatives are preferred
(higher) while the preference (higher) denies a natural order (lower) to
those preferred, which, had not the bias been active, would not have been
preferred (remained lower). Perfectly agree.

Restating: there exists a class of sentences which are insofar false, as
they describe a state of the world, which is in a *state A*, a) only in
parts, or b) by using such symbols which lead to an assumption that a *state
non-A* is the case. Both suppressing and altering the flow of signals that
emanate from a sender are equally valuable strategies of survival.
(Not-signalling happens here by active extinction of signals.)

*Sender exploits Great Expectations in receiver*

Your invention of *two *issuers of statements about the world helps in the
didactic of understanding the idea of information. We distinguish sender
and receiver, both equally able and fit.

What is important for me in your chain of thoughts is, that both sender and
receiver agree in assuming that there is an expectation in the receiver.
The disinformation *frustrates* the receiver, the desinformation fulfils
his expectations, but *manipulates *the receiver. To be able to manipulate
the receiver, the sender has to be in possession of the algorithms, the
principles, that govern the expectations of the receiver. Such ability
indeed can be achieved by trial and error in the course of evolution. (The
predator learns, which way the prey will try to flee.) This finding of
yours would support the idea, that FIS, after having eventually reached its
goal, should finalise its deliberations and land with a concept of
information, namely that information is a Sachverhalt. The Sachverhalt is a
non-reducible logical fact: a relation among facts that can be described
fully. (The set of relations among lengths of sides of a triangle is a
Sachverhalt which can be described fully.) Existence of the description
stands for the existence of facts: the description itself becomes a fact
that can be communicated. We are able to teach trigonometry to our young.
The same Sachverhalt is brought into existence in the pupil’s head as was
imagined in the teacher’s head.  (If in the brain of the predator a map is
established in which the potential paths of the prey are distinct, which
actually agrees both to the objective map and the map in the brain of the
prey, then the map as an idea has an independent existence, irrespective of
wolf and deer.) No one needs to teach bees the idea of hexagons. The idea
behind its realisations has an independent existence, which is axiomatic in
Nature, in this understanding of communication. (The predator knows, which
laws of acoustic govern the perception of the prey.) In order to manipulate
someone by an intrigue, we must have an understanding of what this person
would bite eagerly on. The sender must share the expectations of the
receiver.

*You have a place in my heart*

Empathy means the ability to duplicate within oneself a system of
relationships among values which is dear for the person one is emphasising
with. We have a mirror image /in the ideal case/ of the strategies of the
target, working as an app in our own brain. (If I mislead someone, the
procedure is planned in my head: I consider, what would interest him the
best so that he goes away the evening I plan a party.) The inner
representation of the receiver in the brain of the sender is an introject
in the sender. The introject has a name and a literature in psychology.

*Inner consistency and secrets the subject keeps hidden from himself: a
revolution*

Pondering on, deliberating about and weighing pro and contra of what
different inner voices say is a key playground of philosophy. That the
possibility of an inner dialogue exists was traditionally rejected by
technical sciences, which used to declare such complexities to be a part of
the trivial arts.

Joseph’s opening statement confers legitimacy, what’s more: respectability!
to discussions about sentences that are not true, although they are
grammatically true. This is a revolutionary invention in the field of
classical logic. By choosing the style of his presentation, the author
studiously avoids any appearance of a revolutionary, quasi asking for a
friend, by speaking of intentionally misleading messages causing ethical
problems. He is too polite to cry out *J’accuse!;* he avoids embarrassing
anyone by not pointing his finger to the underlying scandal: that of the
existence of concurrently true, but in their combinations generating near
to contradictory implications, of concurrent descriptions of one and the
same state of the world.

*Do you hear voices?*

The dialogue between proponents of reading the world from differing
perspectives can be, for didactic reasons, presented as an exchange between
a sender and a receiver, inhabiting two different heads. In fact, the
dialogue can as well be conducted in one person’s head. We are playing
games with ourselves here, asking: what can I tell myself that would *{surprise
me, make me ashamed, better be left alone, merit better advertising, get
quickly boring, etc.}.* (One’s inner companion is one’s Sancho Pansa, or is
it the other way?) That, what can be said, can be said, irrespective of
(solo, duet or choir vocals) the number of narrators. The partiture of
Othello is *one *sequence, and the bits of the CD record of the opera
follow each other in a sequence, just like the letters of the telephone
directory or in the Iliad. Study of Spy & Spy by Prohias is great for
further elucidation on the subject of misinformation. If the receiver is as
able as the sender, he knows equally well what would mislead him. If the
same team designed adversaries A and B of a computer game, these could
hardly ever mislead each other. To be able to do so, differing variants of
decision strategies need to exist for A, B, A’s introject in B, B’s
introject in A, so that they can begin plotting. If the adversaries – and
with them, their introjects – undergo differing experiences in their
histories which they can remember, before they meet, then the dramaturgy of
the interaction Joseph has drawn would be indeed playable. Joseph’s
approach can well open the door to a new understanding of artificial
intelligence, based on differing experiences of the participating systems.

*Summary*

The grammatical rules of the dialogue – the fact that it is possible to
conduct an inner dialogue – appear to put forward the idea that information
is a corollary of cyclic properties of permutations of structured sets,
therefore an algorithm, a Sachverhalt. Equally supportive of the general
idea, that information is a property of an algorithm, is the fact that prey
and predator are in agreement about some principles of spatial geometry.
Animals having adapted across species to *Principle Q*, it is reasonable to
assume that *Principle Q* exists in Nature. Congruent fundamental
assumptions are shared by the author of the lecture, who introduces the
subject by discussing that sender employs a (specific: misleading) variant
of *Principle Z*, of which sender is certain that it is present in, and
that it influences the receiver (that *Principle Z* is at work in receiver
and will handle this specific variant like if it was not misleading). This
is a milestone.

Am Fr., 3. Jan. 2020 um 21:51 Uhr schrieb Stanley N Salthe <
ssalthe en binghamton.edu>:

> Mark, regarding:
>
>
> I'm interested in Stan's comments:
>
> 1) the idea that disinformation is a "report".
>
> 2) the idea that the "searcher determines the comprehensibility of
> information for the searcher"
>
>
> raises a question about whether information is form or process. Is a
> report a "form"? (albeit one that then contributes to a communication
> process). Stan - do you mean to say that such a "report" is a kind of
> artefact? I'm sympathetic to this because it is one of the mistakes of "big
> data" (IMO) that sight is lost of the analytical "document" which is the
> end-result of data processing. It is given the "status" of truth by the
> agencies involved in its creation (much in the way Searle describes "status
> functions")
>
> STAN: Disinformation is content ‘passed on’ from a presumed discoverer
> (really constructor) of it. It has a second level of meaning (not available
> to its receiver). Normally information is viewed as something ‘neat’, newly
> constructed by a searcher, while disinformation has been passed on from a
> previous (supposed) searcher. It has a purpose not determined by its
> receiver while ‘normal’ information is
>
> guileless, without a second level of meaning.
>
>
> raises a question about meaning, and specifically, where and how the
> selection mechanism for determining meaning is constructed. Immediately we
> back to the difference between (dis)information and meaning. If we put
> emphasis on the agents involved (whether searcher or producer) I can't see
> how we end up with a theory of (dis)information. Rather we get a theory of
> agency (or a theory of a transcendental subject). Isn't it reasonable to
> suggest that a theory of information must be trans-individual in the sense
> that someone like Simondon (or more recently, Yuk Hui, whose "Recursivity
> and Contingency" spells this out most elegantly) envisages?
>
> STAN: It would be the case that info and disinfo would commonly have he
> same structure/form, and so, Within the Confines of Information Theory we
> could not distinguish them. That is why disinformation can work as a
> poison.  Some necessary ‘signature’ would have to be attached to
> information in order to separate disinfo from info.
>
>
> Following this, I have some questions. Might a trans-individual
> perspective throw some light on disinformation as something which destroys
> the coherence of the "information environment"? (While I agree with
> Joseph's judgement on Floridi, I think Floridi's information ethics, which
> he sees as a variety of environmental ethics, is good). Secondly, is
> coherence in some way essential to the construction of a selection
> mechanism for determining meaning? If disinformation destroys the operation
> of that selection mechanism, then disinformation can be a very powerful
> weapon.
>
> STAN: If I understand this, I think that the disinfo would destroy the
> info channel, likely revealing its malicious intent.
>
>
> Finally, I want to raise a question about the last point the Joseph makes.
> What is an institution? I'm not sure about this definition. What about
> families, churches, orchestras, universities, businesses? They're not
> reducible to their messages. They may be reducible to their capacity to
> conserve information in their operations. I think we have to be careful
> here: the idea of creating an "information police" is unattractive, or open
> to abuse (as the Conservative party in the UK showed in the recent election
> when they masqueraded as a "Fact Checking" service on Twitter!)
>
> STAN: I would suppose that the maintainers of info channels would take
> care to create a catalog of possible meanings-in-context that would flag at
> least some disinfo.
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:16 PM Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Joseph and Stan,
>>
>> First of all, thanks to Joseph for this provocation about disinformation.
>> I think it's an excellent assessment of our discussions on FIS, and draws
>> attention to a very practical problem of truth.
>>
>> I'm interested in Stan's comments:
>> 1) the idea that disinformation is a "report".
>> 2) the idea that the "searcher determines the comprehensibility of
>> information for the searcher"
>>
>> 1) raises a question about whether information is form or process. Is a
>> report a "form"? (albeit one that then contributes to a communication
>> process). Stan - do you mean to say that such a "report" is a kind of
>> artefact? I'm sympathetic to this because it is one of the mistakes of "big
>> data" (IMO) that sight is lost of the analytical "document" which is the
>> end-result of data processing. It is given the "status" of truth by the
>> agencies involved in its creation (much in the way Searle describes "status
>> functions")
>>
>> 2) raises a question about meaning, and specifically, where and how the
>> selection mechanism for determining meaning is constructed. Immediately we
>> back to the difference between (dis)information and meaning. If we put
>> emphasis on the agents involved (whether searcher or producer) I can't see
>> how we end up with a theory of (dis)information. Rather we get a theory of
>> agency (or a theory of a transcendental subject). Isn't it reasonable to
>> suggest that a theory of information must be trans-individual in the sense
>> that someone like Simondon (or more recently, Yuk Hui, whose "Recursivity
>> and Contingency" spells this out most elegantly) envisages?
>>
>> Following this, I have some questions. Might a trans-individual
>> perspective throw some light on disinformation as something which destroys
>> the coherence of the "information environment"? (While I agree with
>> Joseph's judgement on Floridi, I think Floridi's information ethics, which
>> he sees as a variety of environmental ethics, is good). Secondly, is
>> coherence in some way essential to the construction of a selection
>> mechanism for determining meaning? If disinformation destroys the operation
>> of that selection mechanism, then disinformation can be a very powerful
>> weapon.
>>
>> Finally, I want to raise a question about the last point the Joseph
>> makes. What is an institution? I'm not sure about this definition. What
>> about families, churches, orchestras, universities, businesses? They're not
>> reducible to their messages. They may be reducible to their capacity to
>> conserve information in their operations. I think we have to be careful
>> here: the idea of creating an "information police" is unattractive, or open
>> to abuse (as the Conservative party in the UK showed in the recent election
>> when they masqueraded as a "Fact Checking" service on Twitter!)
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 20:49, Stanley N Salthe <ssalthe en binghamton.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> ----------
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Mark William Johnson
>> Institute of Learning and Teaching
>> Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
>> University of Liverpool
>>
>> Phone: 07786 064505
>> Email: johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com
>> Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> ----------
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200106/1fd1a532/attachment-0001.html>