[Fis] Fwd: 10 Principles

Mon Jun 29 08:14:21 CEST 2020

Dear Krassimir

>These two points correspond to the different paradigms about concept 
>information.
>The first one is based on understanding that the information exists 
>independently of consciousness and it is everywhere. This is so called 
>“Attributive paradigm”.
>The second one is the “Subjective paradigm” which is based on 
>understanding that information is a result from consciousness 
>processing and exists only in its memory.
>So, it is clear, I belong to the second paradigm.
The issue is, in my opinion, the specification of the relation.  
Concepts are specified and entertained in discourses to which we have 
reflexive access to different extends. "Objective knowledge" is based on 
coding the communication.

>
>Why “data” instead of information?
>The “Data“ and “Information” are dialectically interconnected.
>The same reflection is Data or Information depending of the subjective 
>interconnections between internal mental models and it.
>
>What is reflected by whom?  The reflection for the Subject is what is 
>activated on its receptors. So, the subject, or INFOS, reflects states 
>of its external and internal sensors.
>
There is a model of agency in the background of these formulations. The 
"states" cannot communicate.

>
>The measurement is not clear. Yes! What is happen in the consciousness 
>is still not known. But for practical needs we already used differed 
>structures and distances. There is nice work of Deza and Deza called 
>“Encyclopedia of distances”  published by Springer. In addition you may 
>see the ITHEA book  “Mathematics of distances”  
>http://foibg.com/ibs_isc/ibs-25/ibs-25.htm .
>
>
Why not use information theory for the measurement? (Theil, 1972)

Best,
Loet

>
>You are welcome for further questions and remarks!
>
>Friendly greetings
>Krassimir
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From:Loet Leydesdorff <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>
>Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 8:57 PM
>To:Krassimir Markov <mailto:markov en foibg.com> ; FIS 
><mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es>
>Subject: Re: [Fis] 10 Principles
>
>Dear Krassimir,
>
>
>
>I find it difficult to follow. I added some comments and questions?
>
>
>
>Best,
>
>Loet
>
>
>
>1. Information is a primary concept
>
>2. Information is a secondary concept
>
>1. Information  can be considered as  information, neither matter nor 
>energy.
>
>Matter is expressed as mass (e.g. kilograms). Energy in Watts; 
>information in dimensionless bits.
>
>1. Information is a class of reflections in material entities. Not 
>every reflection is information. Only subjectively comprehended 
>reflections are information. Not comprehended reflections are data.
>
>Why subjectively? Why “data” instead of information.
>
>
>
>It seems that there can be mutual information between information and 
>reflections? -:)
>
>2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or 
>flows. What do you mean with “comprehended”? Who is comprehending?
>
>2. Reflections may be comprehended as structures, patterns, messages, 
>flows, etc.
>
>What is reflected by whom
>
>Or is this universally the case?
>
>3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be  
>processed (either computationally or non-computationally).
>
>3. Reflections can be recognized, can be measured—what is the 
>dimensionality? How can it be measured? , and can be processed (either 
>computationally or non-computationally).
>
>The measurement is not clear.
>
>4. Information (it seems to me that these are entropy and energy flows) 
>flows are essential organizers of life's self-production 
>processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up (vague) with the 
>accompanying energy flows.
>
>4. Reflection flows are essential organizers of life's self-production 
>processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying 
>energy flows.
>
>5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles 
>underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all 
>scales.Perhaps even beyond biology.
>
>5. Communication is based on special kind of reflections created by one 
>entity and reflected by a second one. This way, the reflections 
>comprehended as information by the first entity may be secondary 
>reflected by the second one. Such information exchanges among adaptive 
>life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all 
>scales.
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;
>
>------ Original Message ------
>From: "Krassimir Markov" <markov en foibg.com>
>To: "FIS" <fis en listas.unizar.es>
>Sent: 6/28/2020 3:46:22 PM
>Subject: [Fis] 10 Principles
>
>>
>>Dear Marcus and FIS Colleagues,
>>From my point of view the main choice which has to be made in the very 
>>beginning is between two opposite cases:
>>1. Information is a primary concept
>>2. Information is a secondary concept
>>This is fundamental choice which cause all further work.
>>
>>As I already had pointed, if information is a primary concept than no 
>>theories about information can be created. One may create many other 
>>theories for EVERYTHING but not for information. Only infinite variety 
>>of examples may be created but not fruitful theory and discussions. 
>>For instance, the religious approach belong to this class.
>>
>>The second case gives us possibility to create theories ABOUT 
>>information starting from one or more other primary concepts.
>>I prefer the second case. The primary concepts I have used are Entity 
>>and Relationship (http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol14/ijita14-1-p01.pdf), 
>>and Reflection as a result of interaction between entities.
>>
>>To illustrate the difference between two cases, let see the first 5 
>>principles of Pedro in the two variants:
>>
>>
>>1. Information is a primary concept
>>
>>2. Information is a secondary concept
>>
>>1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.
>>
>>1. Information is a class of reflections in material entities. Not 
>>every reflection is information. Only subjectively comprehended 
>>reflections are information. Not comprehended reflections are data.
>>
>>2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or 
>>flows.
>>
>>2. Reflections may be comprehended as structures, patterns, messages, 
>>flows, etc.
>>
>>3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be  
>>processed (either computationally or non-computationally).
>>
>>3. Reflections can be recognized, can be measured, and can be 
>>processed (either computationally or non-computationally).
>>
>>4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's 
>>self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with 
>>the accompanying energy flows.
>>
>>4. Reflection flows are essential organizers of life's self-production 
>>processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying 
>>energy flows.
>>
>>5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles 
>>underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.
>>
>>5. Communication is based on special kind of reflections created by 
>>one entity and reflected by a second one. This way, the reflections 
>>comprehended as information by the first entity may be secondary 
>>reflected by the second one. Such information exchanges among adaptive 
>>life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all 
>>scales.
>>
>>
>>I am afraid that many of FIS members prefer the first case.
>>I do not know who prefer the second one beside me. If such ones exist, 
>>please write to me and we will continue the productive common work.
>>
>>Friendly greetings
>>Krassimir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Loet Leydesdorff
>
>Professor, University of Amsterdam
>Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
>Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
>Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
>
>loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>; 
>http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
><http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; Honorary Professor, 
>SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of Sussex; 
>http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200629/4632abcc/attachment-0001.html>