[Fis] LECTURE RESPONSES UP TO 23.01.20
joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
Thu Jan 23 16:27:09 CET 2020
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Herewith as promised is my second group of comments. Since there are some
things with which I can agree in most responses, they will be indexed D/A,
rather than D. Rather than separate them for another later group, I have
also included comments with which I agree, designated A2.
I look forward to your responses as the basis for the final phase of the
Thank you and best wishes,
D/A.1 03.01 Michel was quite positive on the intent of the Lecture, and I
accept his thanks. I placed his comments in this category simply because I
felt he was arguing from examples that were too binary, such as optical
A2.1 Mark's emphasis in this note on communication and complexity and its
'management' are right on. It can and will be included in the final summary
of possible FIS 'actions'.
D/A.2 18.01 As Loet knows, I have great respect for his theory of
communication. I just think his critique of the notion of truth could have
been stated more positively. How do the code and progress of science
'operate'? Also, falseness is not restricted only to leaders. Finally, for
better understanding, Louis XIV may well be called the Great King of the
codification, but the contrast with Caligula is not warranted since I did
not claim such a role for him. For me, a theory of falsehood, as of
disinformation, begins with intent.
A2.3 18.01 Stan points correctly to the dialectics of modern art, where
distortions are 'false', markers of an artist's sensibility. Photography in
contrast is 'correct', but can itself be manipulated as disinformation. Art
is not disinformation, however, since there is no intent to deceive for
A2.4 20.01 Again, I take from this comment by Pedro on the parallel
'communication' thread the need to refocus on disinformation and the
possibility of its detection.
D/A.3 21.01 I (Joseph) accept the rebuke of Pedro and an off-line member of
the group. The latter stated that my tone was 'Fascist'. In agreeing, with
apologies, I note that an 'anti-Fascist' manifesto can still have a Fascist
tone, to be avoided. My criticism of cultural relativism still stands for
A.4 22.01 Terry's note goes to the heart of intent and its complexity. I
tend to think that 'cultural-hyper-relativism', produced with the intention
only to persuade and not to mislead is mis-information, but is probably
His second point comes back to the problem of markers for disinformation or
rather disinforming. It will add to the body of comments along these lines.
A.5 22.01 Pedro discusses how disinformation can arise in situations
involving large bodies of knowledge as well as the new media, which overlap.
There is a link to emotional reactions to, I suppose, both information annd
disinformation that in and of itself may be a form of disinformation,
depending as always, as I see it, on intent.
D.1 22.01 I (Joseph) regret that Krassimir not taken just one fact and given
his expert analysis of it. As to some comments by others being at the
'wiki-level', that seems a polite and accurate way of describing them.
I do not see, however, without further discussion which I hope he will
provide, how a theory that describes the relations of mathematical entities
(morphisms) and ways of mapping between them (functors) can apply to
information process phenomena. A structure is not necessarily a static
entity. The term meta- is used in the sense of both 'about' and 'beyond';
especially in the second use, I do not see a requirement for the principle,
from category theory, of exclusivity and exhaustivity. There is no need for
absolute separation between, say, between physics and metaphysics. I think
there is a lot more to be said about the dynamic structure of information
and disinformation in this sense because I see in it the possibility for new
markers for disinformation. I hope this justifies my having gone to this
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Fis