[Fis] Book Presentation. The Interpersonal domain
Mariusz Stanowski
stanowskimariusz at wp.pl
Sun Apr 24 10:52:51 CEST 2022
Dear Joseph,
You've wrtten: "such as information processes, has both an ontic and an
epistemic component"
If we introduce a distinction between ontic and epistemic then we are
assuming a dualistic view in advance, which, for example, I am not in
favor of.
Best regards
Mariusz
W dniu 2022-04-24 o 09:53, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch pisze:
>
> Dear Friends
>
> My tentative conclusion regarding the consensus referred to in recent
> notes is that if it exists, it is doing more harm than good. I
> therefore propose “bracketing” it, following the suggestion of Husserl
> for human experience, but with a different objective. I would replace
> the current consensus by a recognition that any reasonable description
> of complex phenomena, such as information processes, has both an ontic
> and an epistemic component. These components are not static but change
> and evolve. The epistemic component is usually recognized and
> accepted. That it is accompanied dynamically by a physical, energetic
> change. The extrapolation of physical properties to cognitive is
> obviously considered in neurology but not adequately in philosophy.
>
> A counter-theory to the above might be that the suggested
> ontic-epistemic “partnership” is irrelevant to information. All you
> need is semiotics and communication theory. I would be curious to know
> where the group comes out on this point.
>
> (Karl, 14/04) The hypothesis of common-different, attraction-repulsion
> is a really good one and should be followed-up.
>
> (Pedro, 18/, 04) In any case, co-ligation of disciplines is a tough
> matter, not very well solved/articulated as yet.
>
> (Mariusz, 19/04) Energy is not a metaphor but a physical value.
>
> (Karl, 21/04) The main point is that art is interpersonally
> communicable, and by this criterion can be shown to be part of
> objective reality.
>
> (Joseph, 21/04) Working backwards, intersubjective intentionality, to
> the extent that it is expressed in human beings has a real existence
> and must be considered cognitively objective as well as subjective
> accordingly.
>
> (Loet, 22/0)4 The human carriers live in the tension between potential
> and actual.
>
> These are all logical statements in Logic Reality. Together, they add
> up to a "bracketing" of an unwarranted objective-subjective dichotomy,
> which talks directly to Loet's next to last sentence (/q.v./).
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
> ----Message d'origine----
> De : loet at leydesdorff.net
> Date : 22/04/2022 - 08:05 (CEST)
> À : joe.brenner at bluewin.ch, r.karl.javorszky at gmail.com,
> fis at listas.unizar.es
> Objet : Re: [Fis] Book Presentation. The Interpersonal domain
>
> Dear Joe and colleagues:
>
>> I am not sure where the error lies here, but Loet seems to have
>> taken a quite limited view of the reality of the interpersonal
>> domain. It does not exist like a table, but there are other
>> options which give it objective properties other than as a pure
>> "construct".
> I reacted primarily to an assumed consensus.
>
> I did not say that these constructs are "pure constructs": the
> networks can be considered as observable retention. However, our
> sense and communication of beauty and our thoughts are not are not
> objective. I don't consider this as a "limited view of the reality
> of the interpersonal domain". On the contrary, the interpersonal
> domain is much richer than its objectively observable instantiations.
>
>> The chief one of these for me are the potentialities in a process
>> view of nature. The inclusion of potentiality in the description
>> of the evolution of natural processes enables a clear connection
>> to the potential properties of information - those that are
>> absent, exactly in Terry Deacon's term.
> Yes, the absent options can be measured as redundancy. I asked you
> before whether you would agree. There is a finite number of
> alternatives in the imagination. You call this potentiality if I
> correctly understand.
>
>> Working backwards, intersubjective intentionality, to the extent
>> that it is expressed in human beings has a real existence and
>> must be considered cognitively objective as well as subjective
>> accordingly.
> I don't agree with this inference; it entails a positivistic turn.
> The word combination "cognitively objective" may be the problem.
> Res cogitans is different from res extensa. Therefore, we can test
> hypotheses in terms of observed versus expected. Without such a
> design, the knowledge generated remains subjective.
>
> "expressed in human beings" reduces the communication to behavior
> in an objectivistic reality. The issue is "what is expressed," and
> "what is evolving"? (Boulding). The human carriers live in the
> tension between potential and actual. "Living" is biological and
> not specifically human.
>
> Best, Loet
>
> PS. Stan: it seems to me that we more or less agree. L.
>
>> As some of you know, I have referred frequently to the reality of
>> potentiality in gravitation, chemical reactions
>> (oxidation/reduction potential), and cognition. The role of such
>> aspects of reality seems to me to have been ignored or
>> trivialized, but I think that many of our recurrent problems
>> might benefit from their inclusion in the debate.
> We need to address redundancy generated by the looping of
> information when provided with meaning. Otherwise, these ignored
> aspects remain subject of philosophical (pre-paradigmatic)
> speculation.
>
>> Best regards,
>> Joseph
>>
>> ----Message d'origine----
>> De : loet at leydesdorff.net
>> Date : 21/04/2022 - 12:30 (CEST)
>> À : karl.javorszky at gmail.com, fis at listas.unizar.es
>> Objet : Re: [Fis] Book Presentation. Emotions
>>
>> Dear Karl and colleagues,
>>
>> Before you conclude to consensus, perhaps, a bit of error
>> should be removed:
>>
>>> Pedro’s story about the empathic, nonverbal communication
>>> happening between humans, who share each other’s emotional
>>> state, drives a point home that is clearly observable in a
>>> fashion where one can relate his experiences and be sure
>>> that others will understand him. The main point is that *art
>>> is interpersonally communicable, *and by this criterium can
>>> be shown to be a part of objective reality.
>>>
>> I don't think so: It is not "objective reality" but
>> "intersubjective intentionality." This has huge consequences.
>>
>>> (We refer to the agreement that if a concept is referable to
>>> interpersonally and the participants agree on what they have
>>> experienced in a common fashion, that concept has an
>>> inter-individual existence, which is then by definition a
>>> part of the objective reality.)
>>>
>> The interpersonal domain does not "exist" in the sense that a
>> table may exist. It remains a construct. These constructs
>> have the status of hypotheses. They can be tested against
>> observations of things which may exist.
>>
>> Best, Loet
>>
>>
>> *_______________*
>>
>> *Loet Leydesdorff*
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>> *"The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discusive Knowledge"
>> <https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-59951-5>(Open
>> Access)*
>>
>> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
>>
>> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>>
>> loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>>
>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>> <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en>
>>
>> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *Examples *abound, where signs and symbols are understood
>>> interpersonally in a common fashion. Human new-borns share
>>> the instinctive ability to recognise the optical picture of
>>> a smiley (😊), and of the pitch of the human voice (they
>>> prefer alto to soprano to baritone to bass). We use the term
>>> ‘/supra-normal stimuli/’ to refer to such constellations of
>>> stimuli that appear to be hard-wired into our genetic
>>> instinctive predispositions. Animals are evidently in
>>> possession of large inventories of potential supra-normal
>>> stimuli (‘triggering inputs’).
>>>
>>> The *hypothesis *is that there exist structures
>>> (constellations of facts) in Nature which evolution has made
>>> use of to select those individuals which recognise such to
>>> their advantage. These structures are a) communicable
>>> inter-individually, b) describable by means of a language
>>> that is independent of its speaker: that is, such impression
>>> patterns are objectively existing. Art is a different name
>>> for supra-normal stimuli.
>>>
>>> *Where does art begin* and how does art differ to a random
>>> collection of facts? For formal reasons, one should include
>>> sunshine among the constituents of art, as evidenced by the
>>> heliotaxia of sunflowers. It is evident, that supra-normal
>>> stimuli, that is: art, can come in a wide variety of
>>> articulations, be it the mating dance of cranes, the melody
>>> of frogs’ chants, the form of nests built by weaver birds or
>>> the color patterns of octopus. (If memory serves right, some
>>> 50 years ago, girls had a tendency of emitting a fragrance
>>> that caused the writer of these lines to want to be near them.)
>>>
>>> *Art is a variation on a theme *by Nature, where there
>>> exists an underlying theme (the idealised target value) to
>>> which the actual performance comes near, nearer or smack in
>>> the ideal centre. We suppose that there exists an ideal form
>>> for performing the artwork (the ultimate Song of A Lonely
>>> Frog, an optimal Hole in A Tree to Invite Females to Lay
>>> Eggs In, etc), and that those individuals which come nearest
>>> to the ideal variant have the best chances of progeniture.
>>>
>>> Here again, *Discrepancies Between Ideal and Observed
>>> Values* show us Art to be nothing different to other forms
>>> of Information. Information is the extent of being
>>> otherwise, and Art is in its essence nothing but a
>>> demonstration of an Observed Value, to which we look
>>> (imagine, project, hallucinate) into the background the
>>> Expected Value.
>>>
>>> The only *epistemological difficulty *comes from our
>>> traditional cultural convention, namely that Nature – and as
>>> such, the Background to everything and all – is *not
>>> pre-structured.* During Renaissance, in the age of emerging
>>> Rationality, the decision has been taken to define that
>>> there exist no *a-priori existing structural relations
>>> *among the concepts that we use to build up our world view.
>>> This decision was practical and helpful at that time,
>>> because by this cleaning of the slate we have eliminated all
>>> superstition, anthropogenic explanations, religious
>>> teleological systems of beliefs, witchcraft and sorcery at
>>> the same time. Yet, it appears we have cleaned the table too
>>> much. Leptons, quarks, charms, chemical attraction,
>>> gravitation, etc., and also the existence of artwork in the
>>> living subsection of Nature show that there indeed do exist
>>> relations among logical tokens, even if we create such
>>> logical tokens as nondescript as we can, in the form of
>>> natural numbers. Even if we dream up a world view that is
>>> made up of synthetic, unform, nondescript units, even in
>>> that environment, a-priori existing relations pop up, as
>>> soon as we do anything with them which a child would do when
>>> bored, like ordering, sorting ad resorting these same
>>> tokens. We cannot avoid acknowledging the existence of
>>> a-priori relations connecting in manifold ways the tokens we
>>> make up our world of. /(Et expellas furcam, natura recurrit.)/
>>>
>>> //
>>>
>>> *Summary: *Art is shown to be one of readings of the idea
>>> that there are at least two readings of the same collection
>>> of symbols that make up our world view. In regulation
>>> theory, one speaks of sets of target values vs sets of
>>> actual values. In art, the set of target values is created
>>> by our neurology and serves as the background, to which we
>>> relate the set of actual, observed values.
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Mi., 20. Apr. 2022 um 17:09 Uhr schrieb Francesco Rizzo <
>>> 13francesco.rizzo at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Dear Mauriusz,
>>>
>>> I take the liberty of telling you that in Rizzo F., An
>>> economy of hope for the multi-ethnic city,Franco Angeli,Milan 2007, pp. 309-313, we find paragraph 7.1 cultural
>>> heritage between energy and
>>>
>>> cultural heritage between energy and information. If you have the opportunity, read it and you will see how consonances there are between Yours and my thoughts.
>>>
>>> many
>>>
>>> see how many consonances there are between Yours and my thoughts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fig. 7.1
>>>
>>> In base alla == qualsiasi cosa oscilli con frequenza n,
>>> può presentarsi /solo/ in unità discrete di massa . Nel
>>> mondo della natura /particelle/ e /oscillazioni di
>>> campo/ non sono cose diverse [4; 12]/./ Nel campo
>>> dell’economia i valori si valutano secondo le loro
>>> differenze e variazioni, oscillazioni impropriamente
>>> ritenute «volatilità».
>>>
>>> Le trasformazioni della materia possono manifestare
>>> l’energia immagazzinata al suo interno (/relatività
>>> ristretta/). La struttura dello spazio è influenzata
>>> dalla massa o dall’energia degli oggetti qualunque sia
>>> la posizione in cui si collocano. Più massa e/o energia
>>> si concentrano in un punto, più lo spazio e il tempo si
>>> curvano intorno ad esso (/relatività generale/). Albert
>>> Einstein intuisce con geniale fantasia (qualcuno
>>> sostiene che egli abbia utilizzato abbondantemente il
>>> pensiero di Henri Poincarè) che tutta la «massa-energia»
>>> in un’area sia in relazione funzionale con lo
>>> «spazio-tempo» vicino o, con uno schematismo simbolico,
>>> che energia-massa = spazio-tempo. La /E/ e la /m/ di /E
>>> /= /mּc/^2 divengono due elementi che stanno su un unico
>>> lato di questa nuova e più profonda equazione. Tale
>>> generalizzazione, con la stessa mediazione o finzione
>>> simbolica, può estendersi con qualche cautela e
>>> superando il tarlo dell’incredulità irriducibile, alla
>>> formula di capitalizzazione /V /= /R_n ּ/1//r/ legata da
>>> un’appassionante associazione isomorfica con l’equazione
>>> della relatività ristretta. Anzi, l’isomorfismo
>>> fisico-economico delle due formule viene convalidato e
>>> reso più convincente proprio da questa interpretazione
>>> estensiva che dà ampiezza ed applicazione superiore alla
>>> generalizzazione, assegnando allo spazio-tempo una
>>> funzione di cerniera epistemica tra le due accoppiate:
>>> valore-energia (monetaria) dell’economia e
>>> materia-energia (fisica) della natura. Si può scrivere
>>> quindi: /R_n / = /Vּr /= energia-massa = spazio-tempo =
>>> /mּc/^2 = /E/ oppure 1//r /= /V///R_n / = spazio-tempo =
>>> energia-massa = /m///E/ = 1//c/^2 .
>>>
>>> La trasformazione di un /flusso/ di redditi in un
>>> /fondo/ di valore, operata dal co-efficiente di
>>> capitalizzazione 1//r/, manifesta la dualità dinamica
>>> dell’essere valore e dell’essere reddito di un bene
>>> capitale o dell’essere spazio (integrazione) e
>>> dell’essere punto (derivazione) che si rivela
>>> sorprendentemente analoga alla relazione tra l’essere
>>> materia e l’essere energia della stessa realtà fisica
>>> secondo l’equazione della relatività ristretta. La
>>> somiglianza delle due form(-ul)e matematiche appare
>>> incredibilmente forte alla /luce/ della musicale e
>>> misteriosa uni-dualità spazio-tempo che è fondamentale
>>> sia per la capitalizzazione o solidificazione dei
>>> redditi (economici) che dell’energia (naturale). Come la
>>> natura corpuscolare e la natura ondulatoria sono due
>>> forme (diverse), una implicante l’altra in un approccio
>>> uni-duale alla stessa realtà fisica, l’essere flusso di
>>> redditi e l’essere fondo di capitale sono due forme
>>> (diverse) costituenti un’interpretazione uni-duale della
>>> stessa realtà economica che può rap-presentarsi /solo/
>>> in unità discrete di valore /R_n ּ/1//r/. E dato che
>>> l’energia è in-formazione della natura e l’in-formazione
>>> è energia della cultura il triangolo della figura 7.1
>>> può essere ri-scritto secondo la figura 7.2.
>>>
>>> Fig. 7.2
>>>
>>> La meta-dualità essere-energia ed essere-in-formazione
>>> rap-presenta e com-pone in maniera trans-disciplinare le
>>> dualità: essere-segno ed essere-merce o essere-flusso
>>> (di redditi) ed essere-fondo (di valore) dei beni
>>> (culturali) che sono beni-moneta privilegiati;
>>> essere-energia ed essere-materia od essere-particella ed
>>> essere-oscillazione di campo delle «cose» (naturali).
>>> Beninteso, affinché non si prendano abbagli gli
>>> accostamenti analogici tra le leggi della natura e le
>>> leggi dell’economia debbono evitare ogni tentazione di
>>> identicità, sfuggire a qualunque identificazione
>>> concettuale e non farsi ingannare da alcuna automatica
>>> trasposizione. Credere nell’armonia meravigliosa che
>>> governa il mondo (naturale e sociale) non significa
>>> s-cadere nella con-fusione o nel con-formismo naturale e
>>> culturale, esistenziale e conoscitivo.
>>>
>>> 3. L’ateniese Takis intende l’opera d’arte come simbolo
>>> di energia. Stephen Hawking rivedendo la sua teoria
>>> sostiene che i buchi neri non si limitano a perdere
>>> massa attraverso una radiazione di energia, ma evaporano
>>> o rilasciano informazione. Essi non distruggono mai
>>> completamente quello che fagocitano. Con-tengono
>>> un’informazione, non casuale e indefinibile, sulla
>>> materia di cui sono fatti che con-sente di predirne il
>>> futuro. In una relazione del 1998 [7], ripresa nel 2005
>>> [8], Hawking studia la possibilità di collegare i campi
>>> gravitazionali (che sembravano eliminare ogni
>>> in-formazione) all’entropia e alla predicibilità del
>>> futuro che la seconda legge della termodinamica
>>> permette. In tal modo i buchi neri non evaporano o
>>> irradiano un’energia invisibile o enigmatica priva di
>>> informazione come se fossero delle inafferrabili e
>>> indecifrabili entità cosmiche, e non s-fuggono alla
>>> (mia) super-legge della combinazione creativa (anche se
>>> talvolta stupefacente) di energia e in-formazione. I
>>> buchi neri possono considerarsi quindi come speciali
>>> scatole nere o magici processi di tras-informazione
>>> produttivi (i cui /input/ e /output/ sono materia,
>>> energia e informazione) e prospettici.
>>>
>>> L’energia e l’in-formazione costituiscono le due
>>> sostanze primarie della vita e della scienza che
>>> implicano «affermazioni complementari» non identiche
>>> all’una o all’altra delle due «affermazioni alternative»
>>> che presuppongono scelte binarie del tipo 0 o 1. Ad ogni
>>> affermazione complementare corrisponde uno stato o
>>> «potenzialità coesistente» che in una certa misura
>>> contiene anche gli altri «stati coesistenti». Queste
>>> considerazioni di fisica quantistica, riconducibili al
>>> pensiero di Carl von Weizsäcker e stimolate da Werner
>>> Heisenberg, richiamano la logica fuzzy [9, pp. 214-7].
>>>
>>> Caro Mariuz
>>>
>>> il nichilismo economico, sotteso dall’ideologia
>>> utilitaristica, esalta i prezzi e annulla i valori. La
>>> mia nuova concezione economica è basata sulla teoria del
>>> valore-informazione. Le opere d’arte non valgono perché
>>> sono utili, ma perché sono dotate dibellezza in senso
>>> generale. E la bellezza è regolata dalla legge delle
>>> leggi dell’informazione
>>>
>>> Ancora una volta Ti dico bravo, perché Ti intendi di
>>> economia dell’arte o di arte dell’economia.
>>>
>>> Un abbraccio
>>>
>>> Francesco
>>>
>>> Dear Mariusz,
>>>
>>> on the theory of information-value. Works of art are not
>>> worthwhile because they are useful, but because they are
>>> endowed with beauty in a general sense. And beauty is
>>> governed by the law of information laws. Once again I
>>> tell you good, because you understand the economics of
>>> art or the art of economics. A hug. Francis
>>>
>>>
>>> Il giorno mar 19 apr 2022 alle ore 17:47 Mariusz
>>> Stanowski < stanowskimariusz at wp.pl> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Pedro and FIs Colleagues,
>>>
>>> You raised an interesting and important issue of
>>> emotions in art. This made me think about how it is
>>> that art evokes/intensifies our emotions.
>>> From my research it follows that art (the essence of
>>> art) in the most general/abstract sense is the
>>> compression of information (contained in a work of
>>> art) thanks to which our perception saves energy,
>>> becomes more economical (cost-effective), e.g. a
>>> shorter text is more economical/compressed than a
>>> longer one containing the same amount of
>>> information. Thanks to this saving of energy
>>> (effort) we feel satisfaction, pleasure. This
>>> pleasure is related to our development, because
>>> saving energy obviously contributes to our
>>> development, which is our greatest value.
>>>
>>> These positive emotions related to our development
>>> can be considered abstract because they have no
>>> “direction”, they do not concern any concrete sphere
>>> of reality but the abstract development itself
>>> (increase in complexity). These absolutely abstract
>>> emotions, however, always occur in conjunction with
>>> more or less concrete realities, because we cannot
>>> experience both absolute abstraction and absolutely
>>> abstract (pure) art. The diversity of art comes from
>>> the necessity of the presence of different concrete
>>> realms/objects/media of reality in works of art.
>>> Each work/type of art speaks differently about what
>>> they have in common - what art is in essence, which
>>> is contrast, complexity, compression of information,
>>> development or value.
>>>
>>> The type of emotion depends on what specific realm
>>> of reality the compression of information refers to.
>>> If it is, for example, a landscape painted by an
>>> artist, we should like it more than an
>>> (uncompressed) natural landscape. The same is the
>>> case with all other emotions - they are intensified
>>> thanks to the compression of information -
>>> associated with them. The most abstract art is
>>> music, which is why it is often difficult for us to
>>> associate it with known/conscious emotions. However,
>>> connections with reality also occur here, mainly in
>>> the structural sphere. That is why, for example,
>>> different pieces of music are performed on different
>>> occasions. To sum up, we can say that art can be
>>> made of anything if we include information
>>> compression. However, compression alone does not
>>> tell us about the value/size of art because one can
>>> compress a larger (more difficult to
>>> compress/organize) area or a smaller area to the
>>> same degree. The compressed larger area (of
>>> information) has more complexity and aesthetic
>>> value, which can be equated with value in general -
>>> as discussed in the presentation.
>>>
>>> P.S. As a budding artist and art theorist I
>>> encountered a knowledge of art that relied mainly on
>>> closer and further metaphors. There was also a
>>> belief that only such knowledge was possible. For
>>> example, it was said that a work of art "gives us
>>> energy" which of course was treated as a metaphor.
>>> The attempt to understand this metaphor led me to
>>> the conclusion that it is not about receiving energy
>>> but about saving it and that energy is not a
>>> metaphor but a physical value, which was confirmed
>>> by studies in perception, information theory and
>>> physics.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Mariusz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> W dniu 2022-04-18 o 21:20, Pedro C. Marijuan pisze:
>>>> Dear Mariusz and FIs Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> May I disturb this calm vacation state and
>>>> introduce some "contrast"? For the sake of the
>>>> discussion, the Theory & Practice of Contrast
>>>> presented may be considered as a pretty valid
>>>> approach to visual arts, also extended to a
>>>> diversity of other fields in science & humanities.
>>>> let me warn that the overextension of a decent
>>>> paradigm is a frequent cause of weakening the
>>>> initial paradigm itself. The Darwinian cosmovision
>>>> is a good example. One can read in a book of Peter
>>>> Atkins: /“/ /A great deal of the universe does not
>>>> need any explanation. Elephants, for instance. Once
>>>> molecules have learnt to compete and to create
>>>> other molecules in their own image, elephants, and
>>>> things resembling elephants, will in due course be
>>>> found roaming around the countryside/ /... / /Some
>>>> of the things resembling elephants will be men.” /I
>>>> am not comfortable at all with that type of
>>>> bombastic paradigm overextension--but maybe it is
>>>> my problem. Finally it is the explanatory
>>>> capability of the attempt what counts (which in
>>>> Atkins case is close to nil). In any case, the
>>>> co-ligation of disciplines is a tough matter not
>>>> very well solved/articulated yet.
>>>>
>>>> Let me change gears. My main concern with arts
>>>> stems from their close relationships with emotions.
>>>> I remember a strange personal experience. In a
>>>> multidisciplinary gathering (scientists & artists)
>>>> time ago, there was a small concert in an ancient
>>>> chapel. Cello and electronic music together--great
>>>> performers. In the middle of the concert, for
>>>> unknown reasons, I started to feel sad, very sad. I
>>>> was very absorbed in the music and could not
>>>> realize having had any other bad interfering
>>>> remembrance. Then I discretely looked at the person
>>>> aside me, a lady. She was in tears, quite openly. I
>>>> realized it was the music effect. Quite a few of
>>>> the audience after the end of the concert were with
>>>> red eyes... Some years later, in some biomedical
>>>> research of my team on laughter (the analysis of
>>>> its auditory contents as a helpful tool in the
>>>> diagnosis of depression) we stumbled on Manfred
>>>> Clynes "sentic forms". Some of the basic emotions
>>>> can be clearly distinguished in ad hoc acoustic
>>>> patterns, as well in tactile expression. (He made
>>>> and sold a few gadgets about that). To make a long
>>>> story short, we found the most important sentic
>>>> forms in the sounds of laughter, including the
>>>> "golden mean" in the expression of joyful laughs.
>>>> End of the story.
>>>>
>>>> Trying to articulate a concrete question, in what
>>>> extension could have been some of the arts a
>>>> powerful means to elicit emotions which are not so
>>>> easily felt in social life? Think in the liturgy
>>>> of these days... such a powerful rites....
>>>> /
>>>> /
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> --Pedro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El 11/04/2022 a las 12:31, Mariusz Stanowski escribió:
>>>>> We are all right you are talking about the
>>>>> practical possibility of simulation and I am
>>>>> talking about the theoretical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Mariusz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> W dniu 2022-04-11 o 11:30, Daniel Boyd pisze:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Joe, dear Mariusz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thankyou for both your responses. If I may pursue
>>>>>> the topic of continuous-discontinuous contrasts
>>>>>> further: is the solution to Joseph’s issue with
>>>>>> non-computable processes perhaps to be found in
>>>>>> acknowledging the distinction between the reality
>>>>>> and its representation/simulation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take a landscape. In reality this contains an
>>>>>> almost infinite amount of continuous and
>>>>>> discontinuous detail from the subatomic particle
>>>>>> to the geological mountain. A representation or
>>>>>> simulation (artistic or scientific) of this
>>>>>> reality cannot and need not accurately reproduce
>>>>>> this detail to fulfil its purpose: distillation,
>>>>>> approximation, even distortion may justifiably be
>>>>>> involved. An artistic rendition, unless intended
>>>>>> as photo-realistic, will be intentionally
>>>>>> inaccurate. Digital representations are, for the
>>>>>> sake of efficiency, designed to compress
>>>>>> information to the minimum required to provide
>>>>>> the illusion of accuracy based on the sensitivity
>>>>>> of our senses. This accounts for the 16,7 million
>>>>>> colour standard for images: a lot of colours, but
>>>>>> only a coarse approximation to the real colours
>>>>>> of the rainbow. Our own senses apply similar
>>>>>> necessary estimations: the cells of the retina
>>>>>> determine the maximal pixel definition of the
>>>>>> image recreated in the brain: the continuous is
>>>>>> made discontinuous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such representational approximations do not,
>>>>>> however, imply discontinuity in the object
>>>>>> observed. We see this in the inability of
>>>>>> algorithmic simulations to accurately predict the
>>>>>> future of non-linear systems in which arbitrarily
>>>>>> small differences in initial conditions may have
>>>>>> large effects as the system evolves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps this distinction between reality and
>>>>>> representation lies, in your diagram, between the
>>>>>> being-contrast-complexity column and the
>>>>>> neighbouring elements? Or, possibly, you intend
>>>>>> the being-contrast-complexity elements not to
>>>>>> refer to the objects of reality themselves, but
>>>>>> the perception/representation of them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards, Daniel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From: *joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
>>>>>> *Sent: *Sunday, 10 April 2022 11:53
>>>>>> *To: *Mariusz; daniel.boyd at live.nl; "fis"
>>>>>> *Cc: *fis at listas.unizar.es; daniel.boyd at live.nl
>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Re: [Fis] Book Presentation.
>>>>>> Potentiality as well as Actuality
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Mariusz, Dear Daniel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please allow me to enter the discussion at this
>>>>>> point. I will go back to the beginning as
>>>>>> necessary later. I am in general agreement with
>>>>>> Mariusz' approach, but I believe it could be
>>>>>> strengthened by looking at the potential as well
>>>>>> as the actual aspects of the phenomena in
>>>>>> question. Thus when Mariusz writes interaction,
>>>>>> is a prior concept to the concept of being,
>>>>>> because without interaction there is no being. It
>>>>>> follows that the basic ingredient of being must
>>>>>> be two objects/elements/components (forming a
>>>>>> contrast) that have common and differentiating
>>>>>> features."). , I would add the dimension of
>>>>>> becoming, which is a more dynamic relation. We
>>>>>> can more easily talk about processes and change
>>>>>> instead of component objects
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A similar comment could be made about the
>>>>>> discrete-continuous distinction. This is at the
>>>>>> same time also an appearance-reality duality
>>>>>> which is not static, but embodies the change from
>>>>>> actual to potential and vice versa just mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not, however, agree with the following
>>>>>> statement: Besides it is already known that using
>>>>>> binary structures it is possible to simulate any
>>>>>> processes and objects of reality) There are many
>>>>>> non-computable process aspects of reality that
>>>>>> cannot be captured and simulated by an algorithm
>>>>>> without loss of information and meaning. In the
>>>>>> "graph" of the movement of a process from
>>>>>> actuality to potentiality, the limiting points of
>>>>>> 0 and 1 are not included - it is non-Kolmogorovian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say regarding beauty that it is a
>>>>>> property emerging from the various contrast or
>>>>>> antagonisms in the mind/body of the artist. The
>>>>>> logic of such processes as I have remarked is a
>>>>>> logic of energy, and this seems to fit here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you and best wishes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----Message d'origine----
>>>>>> De : stanowskimariusz at wp.pl
>>>>>> Date : 10/04/2022 - 08:35 (CEST)
>>>>>> À : daniel.boyd at live.nl, fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>>> Objet : Re: [Fis] Book Presentation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Daniel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your questions. Below are the
>>>>>> highlighted answers (of course they are more
>>>>>> complete in the book).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mariusz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> W dniu 2022-04-09 o 17:37, Daniel Boyd pisze:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Mariusz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While (or perhaps because!) your work is
>>>>>> a fair distance from my own field of
>>>>>> expertise, I found your conceptual
>>>>>> framework intriguing. Herewith some of
>>>>>> the thoughts it elicited. While they may
>>>>>> be unexpected because they come from a
>>>>>> different angle, hopefully a
>>>>>> cross-disciplinary interaction will be
>>>>>> fruitful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates
>>>>>> the ultimate heat death of the universe
>>>>>> (a state in which all 'contrasts' are
>>>>>> erased). (The heat death of the universe
>>>>>> is just a popular view and not a
>>>>>> scientific truth)Its current state,
>>>>>> fortunately for us, is teeming with
>>>>>> differences (between entities, properties
>>>>>> and interactions) which underlie all that
>>>>>> is of importance to us. To take such
>>>>>> contrasts as a unifying principle would
>>>>>> therefore seem to be undeniable, if
>>>>>> extremely ambitious! After all, the sheer
>>>>>> diversity of contrasts takes us from the
>>>>>> different spins of subatomic particles
>>>>>> underlying the various elements to the
>>>>>> masses of the celestial bodies
>>>>>> determining their orbits around the sun;
>>>>>> from the colours in a painting to the
>>>>>> sounds of a symphony. Systemically,
>>>>>> different patterns of contrasts underlie
>>>>>> the distinctions between linear and
>>>>>> complex systems. Contrasts also form the
>>>>>> basis for the working of our sense
>>>>>> organs, the perceptions derived from
>>>>>> them, and the inner world of conscious
>>>>>> experience. In each of these contexts
>>>>>> very different classes of contrasts lead
>>>>>> to different mechanisms and laws, leading
>>>>>> me to wonder just what the 'underlying
>>>>>> structure' is (beyond the observation
>>>>>> that, ultimately, some type of contrast
>>>>>> is always involved and that we tend to
>>>>>> deal with such diverse contrasts in a
>>>>>> similar way). Maybe your book provides an
>>>>>> answer to this question that I am unable
>>>>>> to find in this brief abstract: could you
>>>>>> perhaps say something about this? (The
>>>>>> answer to this question is contained in
>>>>>> the contrast-being relation:
>>>>>> "Contrast-Being Contrast, or interaction,
>>>>>> is a prior concept to the concept of
>>>>>> being, because without interaction there
>>>>>> is no being. It follows that the basic
>>>>>> ingredient of being must be two
>>>>>> objects/elements/components (forming a
>>>>>> contrast) that have common and
>>>>>> differentiating features.").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moving on to more specific topics, I see
>>>>>> that you equate the complexity of a
>>>>>> system to a relationship between binary
>>>>>> values (C = N²/n). While such as approach
>>>>>> may work for discontinuous contrasts
>>>>>> (e.g. presence/absence, information in
>>>>>> digital systems) many naturally occurring
>>>>>> differences are continuous (e.g. the
>>>>>> electromagnetic frequencies underlying
>>>>>> the colours of the rainbow). In
>>>>>> neuroscience, while the firing of a
>>>>>> neuron may be a binary event, the charge
>>>>>> underlying this event is a dynamic
>>>>>> continuous variable. My question: how
>>>>>> does the concept of abstract complexity
>>>>>> deal with continuous variables
>>>>>> ("contrasts")?(What seems to us to be
>>>>>> continuous in reality may be discrete,
>>>>>> e.g. a picture or a sound on a computer
>>>>>> is continuous and in reality it is a
>>>>>> binary structure of electric impulses; a
>>>>>> continuous color is a vibration of an
>>>>>> electromagnetic wave. Besides it is
>>>>>> already known that using binary
>>>>>> structures it is possible to simulate any
>>>>>> processes and objects of reality).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was also intrigued by your statement
>>>>>> that "Beautiful are objects with high
>>>>>> information compression" based on the
>>>>>> reasoning "perceiving beauty, we save
>>>>>> energy, the perception becomes more
>>>>>> economical and pleasant". Intuitively, it
>>>>>> seems odd to me to equate beauty to the
>>>>>> lack of perceptive effort required.(This
>>>>>> is not about "no effort" but about
>>>>>> "saving effort". If we have a beautiful
>>>>>> and an ugly object with the same
>>>>>> information content, the perception of
>>>>>> the beautiful object will require less
>>>>>> energy. The measure of beauty is not the
>>>>>> amount of effort/energy, but the amount
>>>>>> of energy saved, which in the case of the
>>>>>> Sagrada Familia will be greater). This
>>>>>> would mean that the Pentagon (high
>>>>>> regularity/compressibility) is more
>>>>>> beautiful than the Sagrada Familia (low
>>>>>> regularity/compressibility); and a
>>>>>> single-instrument midi rendition of Bach
>>>>>> is more beautiful than a symphonic
>>>>>> performance. It seems to me that beauty
>>>>>> often stimulates (gives energy) rather
>>>>>> than just costing minimal energy. Much
>>>>>> research has been done on the universal
>>>>>> and culture-dependent perception of
>>>>>> beauty: does this support your
>>>>>> statement? see e.g.
>>>>>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x
>>>>>> <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x> which
>>>>>> describes factors other than simplicity
>>>>>> as necessary characteristics. (This
>>>>>> article is based on faulty assumptions
>>>>>> e.g. misunderstanding Kolmogorov's
>>>>>> definition of complexity, which is not
>>>>>> applicable here).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Musings About Beauty - Kintsch - 2012 -
>>>>>> Cognitive Science - Wiley Online Library
>>>>>> <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aesthetics has been a human concern
>>>>>> throughout history. Cognitive science is
>>>>>> a relatively new development and its
>>>>>> implications for a theory of aesthetics
>>>>>> have been largely unexplored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> onlinelibrary.wiley.com
>>>>>> <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By defining contrast as a distinction
>>>>>> between entities or properties, it seems
>>>>>> to come close as a definition to the type
>>>>>> of information underlying physical
>>>>>> entropy. That being the case, your
>>>>>> approach would seem to resemble those who
>>>>>> would give such information a comparable
>>>>>> fundamental significance (e.g. Wheeler's
>>>>>> "it from bit"). Could you say something
>>>>>> about how you see the relationship
>>>>>> between 'contrast' and 'information? Are
>>>>>> they effectively synonyms?Contrast and
>>>>>> information are different concepts.
>>>>>> Information is a feature or form of
>>>>>> energy. Contrast is the
>>>>>> tension/force/energy created by the
>>>>>> interaction of common features
>>>>>> (attraction) and different features
>>>>>> (repulsion) of contrasting objects).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thankyou, in any case, for your
>>>>>> contribution which certainly demonstrates
>>>>>> the relationship between Value and
>>>>>> Development 😉
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards, Daniel Boyd
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Van: *Mariusz Stanowski
>>>>>> *Verzonden: *zaterdag 2 april 2022 19:23
>>>>>> *Aan: *fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>>> *Onderwerp: *[Fis] Book Presentation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Book Presentation*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *“Theory and Practice of Contrast:
>>>>>> Integrating Science, Art and Philosophy.”*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Mariusz Stanowski*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Published June 10, 2021 by CRC Press
>>>>>> (hardcover and eBook).*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear FIS list members,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks for the opportunity to
>>>>>> present my recent book in this list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our dispersed knowledge needs an
>>>>>> underlying structure that allows it to be
>>>>>> organised into a coherent and complex
>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe “Theory and Practice of
>>>>>> Contrast” provides such a structure by
>>>>>> bringing the considerations to the most
>>>>>> basic, general and abstract level. At
>>>>>> this level it is possible to define
>>>>>> *contrast as a tension between common and
>>>>>> differentiating features of objects. It
>>>>>> grows in intensity as the number/strength
>>>>>> of differentiating and common features of
>>>>>> contrasting structures/objects
>>>>>> increases*. Contrast understood in this
>>>>>> way applies to any objects of reality
>>>>>> (mental and physical) and is also an
>>>>>> impact (causal force) in the most general
>>>>>> sense. Contrast as a common principle
>>>>>> organises (binds) our knowledge into a
>>>>>> coherent system. This is illustrated by a
>>>>>> diagram of the connections between the
>>>>>> key concepts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Below are brief descriptions of these
>>>>>> connections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Contrast—Development *When observing a
>>>>>> contrast, we also observe the connection
>>>>>> between contrasting objects/structures
>>>>>> (resulting from their common features)
>>>>>> and the emergence of a new, more complex
>>>>>> structure possessing the common and
>>>>>> differentiating features of connected
>>>>>> structures. In the general sense, the
>>>>>> emergence of a new structure is
>>>>>> tantamount to development. Therefore, it
>>>>>> may be stated that contrast is a
>>>>>> perception of structures/objects
>>>>>> connections, or experience of
>>>>>> development. The association of contrast
>>>>>> with development brings a new quality to
>>>>>> the understanding of many other
>>>>>> fundamental concepts, such as beauty,
>>>>>> value, creativity, emergence. (Similarly,
>>>>>> /contrast as development /is understood
>>>>>> in Whitehead’s philosophy).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Contrast—Complexity *In accordance with
>>>>>> the proposed definition, when we consider
>>>>>> the contrast between two or more
>>>>>> objects/structures, it grows in intensity
>>>>>> as the number/strength of differentiating
>>>>>> and common features of contrasting
>>>>>> structures/objects increases. Such an
>>>>>> understanding of contrast remain an
>>>>>> intuitive criterion of complexity that
>>>>>> can be formulated as follows: *a system
>>>>>> becomes more complex the greater is the
>>>>>> number of distinguishable elements and
>>>>>> the greater the number of connections
>>>>>> among them*/. /If in definition of
>>>>>> contrast we substitute “differentiating
>>>>>> features” for “distinguishable elements”
>>>>>> and “common features” for “connections”,
>>>>>> we will be able to conclude that
>>>>>> *contrast is the perception and measure
>>>>>> of complexity.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: Two types of contrasts can be
>>>>>> distinguished: the sensual (physical)
>>>>>> contrast, which is determined only by the
>>>>>> force of features of contrasting objects
>>>>>> and the mental (abstract) contrast which
>>>>>> depends primarily on the number of these
>>>>>> features. (This contrast can be equated
>>>>>> with complexity). (The equation of
>>>>>> contrast with complexity is an important
>>>>>> finding for the investigations in:
>>>>>> cognitive sciences, psychology, ontology,
>>>>>> epistemology, aesthetics, axiology,
>>>>>> biology, information theory, complexity
>>>>>> theory and indirectly in physics).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Complexity—Information Compression
>>>>>> *Intuition says that the more complex
>>>>>> object with the same number of components
>>>>>> (e.g. words) has more
>>>>>> features/information (i.e. more common
>>>>>> and differentiating features), which
>>>>>> proves its better organization (assuming
>>>>>> that all components have the same or
>>>>>> similar complexity). We can also say that
>>>>>> such an object has a higher degree of
>>>>>> complexity. The degree of complexity is
>>>>>> in other words the brevity of the form or
>>>>>> the compression of information.
>>>>>> Complexity understood intuitively (as
>>>>>> above) depends, however, not only on the
>>>>>> complexity degree (that could be defined
>>>>>> as the ratio of the number of features to
>>>>>> the number of components) but also on the
>>>>>> (total) number of features, because it is
>>>>>> more difficult to organize a larger
>>>>>> number of elements/features. In addition,
>>>>>> the more features (with the same degree
>>>>>> of complexity), the greater the contrast.
>>>>>> Therefore, in the proposed /Abstract
>>>>>> Definition of Complexity /(2011), we
>>>>>> multiply the degree of complexity by the
>>>>>> number of features. This definition
>>>>>> defines the complexity (C) of the binary
>>>>>> structure (general model of all
>>>>>> structures/objects) as the quotient of
>>>>>> the square of features
>>>>>> (regularities/substructures) number (N)
>>>>>> to the number of components or the number
>>>>>> of zeros and ones (n). It is expressed in
>>>>>> a simple formula: C = N²/n and should be
>>>>>> considered the most general definition of
>>>>>> complexity, among the existing ones,
>>>>>> which also fulfils the intuitive
>>>>>> criterion. (This relation explains what
>>>>>> compression of information in general is
>>>>>> and what role it plays as a complexity
>>>>>> factor. This allows to generalize the
>>>>>> notion of information compression and use
>>>>>> it not only in computer science, but also
>>>>>> in other fields of knowledge, such as
>>>>>> aesthetics, axiology, cognitive science,
>>>>>> biology, chemistry, physics).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Information compression—Development *Our
>>>>>> mind perceiving objects (receiving
>>>>>> information) more compressed, saves
>>>>>> energy. Compression/organization of
>>>>>> information reduce energy of perception
>>>>>> while maintaining the same amount of
>>>>>> information (in case of lossless
>>>>>> compression). Thanks to this, perception
>>>>>> becomes easier (more economical) and more
>>>>>> enjoyable; for example, it can be
>>>>>> compared to faster and easier learning,
>>>>>> acquiring knowledge (information), which
>>>>>> also contributes to our development.
>>>>>> Compression of information as a degree of
>>>>>> complexity also affects its size.
>>>>>> Complexity, in turn, is a measure of
>>>>>> contrast (and vice versa). Contrast,
>>>>>> however, is identified with development.
>>>>>> Hence, complexity is also development.
>>>>>> This sequence of associations is the
>>>>>> second way connecting the compression of
>>>>>> information with development. Similarly,
>>>>>> one can trace all other possibilities of
>>>>>> connections in the diagram. (The
>>>>>> association of information compression
>>>>>> with development brings a new,
>>>>>> explanatory knowledge to many fields
>>>>>> including cognitive science, aesthetics,
>>>>>> axiology, information theory).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Development—Value *Development is the
>>>>>> essence of value, because all values
>>>>>> (ethical, material, intellectual, etc.)
>>>>>> contribute to our development which is
>>>>>> their common feature. It follows that
>>>>>> value is also a contrast, complexity and
>>>>>> compression of information because they
>>>>>> are synonymous with development. (The
>>>>>> relation explains and defines the notion
>>>>>> of value fundamental to axiology).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Value—Abstract Value *About all kinds of
>>>>>> values (with the exception of aesthetic
>>>>>> values) we can say, what they are useful
>>>>>> for. Only aesthetic values can be said to
>>>>>> serve the development or be the essence
>>>>>> of values, values in general or abstract
>>>>>> values. This is a property of abstract
>>>>>> concepts to express the general idea of
>>>>>> something (e.g. the concept of a chair
>>>>>> includes all kinds of chairs and not a
>>>>>> specific one). It follows that *what is
>>>>>> specific to aesthetic value is that it is
>>>>>> an abstract value* (although it is
>>>>>> difficult to imagine). (This is a new
>>>>>> understanding of aesthetic value, crucial
>>>>>> for aesthetics and axiology).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Contrast—Being *Contrast or interaction
>>>>>> is a concept prior to the concept of
>>>>>> being because without interaction there
>>>>>> is no existence. It follows that the
>>>>>> basic component of being must be two
>>>>>> objects/elements/components (creating a
>>>>>> contrast) having common and
>>>>>> differentiating features. (Understanding
>>>>>> of being as a contrast is fundamental to
>>>>>> ontology and metaphysics and worth
>>>>>> considering in physics).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Contrast—Cognition *The object of
>>>>>> cognition and the subject (mind)
>>>>>> participate in the cognitive process. The
>>>>>> object and the subject have common and
>>>>>> differentiating features, thus they
>>>>>> create a contrast. Cognition consists in
>>>>>> attaching (through common features)
>>>>>> differentiating features of the object by
>>>>>> the subject. In this way, through the
>>>>>> contrast, the subject develops. It can
>>>>>> therefore be said that cognition is a
>>>>>> contrast of the object with the subject.
>>>>>> (This is a new definition of cognition
>>>>>> important for epistemology and cognitive
>>>>>> science).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Cognition—Subjectivity *The above
>>>>>> understanding of cognition agrees all
>>>>>> disputable issues (present, among others,
>>>>>> in psychology, cognitive science and
>>>>>> aesthetics) regarding the objectivity and
>>>>>> subjectivity of assessments (e.g. whether
>>>>>> the source of beauty is the observer's
>>>>>> mind, whether it is a specific quality
>>>>>> from the observer independent), because
>>>>>> it shows that they depend on both the
>>>>>> subject and the object, i.e. depend on
>>>>>> their relationship—contrast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Compression of information—Beauty
>>>>>> *Beautiful are objects with high
>>>>>> information compression (a large degree
>>>>>> of complexity/organization). Thanks to
>>>>>> the compression of information,
>>>>>> perceiving beauty, we save energy, the
>>>>>> perception becomes more economical and
>>>>>> pleasant which favours our development
>>>>>> and is therefore a value for us. The
>>>>>> example is golden division. Counting
>>>>>> features (information) in all possible
>>>>>> types of divisions (asymmetrical,
>>>>>> symmetrical and golden) showed that the
>>>>>> golden division contains the most
>>>>>> features/information (an additional
>>>>>> feature is well known golden proportion)
>>>>>> and therefore creates the greatest
>>>>>> contrast, complexity and aesthetic value.
>>>>>> (This explains the previously unknown
>>>>>> reasons for aesthetic preferences, key to
>>>>>> aesthetics, art theory, psychology,
>>>>>> cognitive science and neuroaesthetics).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Development—Beauty *Beauty contributes
>>>>>> to development thanks to the economy of
>>>>>> perception. Perception of beauty is
>>>>>> accompanied by a sense of development or
>>>>>> ease and pleasure of perception. (This
>>>>>> explains the causes of aesthetic
>>>>>> preferences).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Abstract Value—Beauty, Art *Only beauty
>>>>>> and art have no specific value but they
>>>>>> express/have value in general (an
>>>>>> abstract value). The objects that make up
>>>>>> a work of art are not important, but
>>>>>> their contrast-interaction, which results
>>>>>> from the complexity of the artwork. (If
>>>>>> we see a single object in the gallery,
>>>>>> then the art is its contrast with the
>>>>>> context - as in the case of Duchamp's
>>>>>> "Urinal" or Malevich's "Black Square").
>>>>>> One can say that beauty and art are
>>>>>> distinguished (defined) by two elements:
>>>>>> abstract value and a large contrast.(This
>>>>>> is a new and only definition of
>>>>>> beauty/art that indicates the distinctive
>>>>>> common features of all aesthetic/artistic
>>>>>> objects, it is crucial for the theory of
>>>>>> art, aesthetics, axiology and epistemology).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.eshttp://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
>>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>>>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>>>> pedroc.marijuan at gmail.compcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>>>>
>>>> Editor special issue: Evolutionary dynamics of social systems
>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/biosystems/special-issue/107DGX9V85V
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>> El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este
>>>> correo electrónico en busca de virus.
>>>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.eshttp://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 at 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 at 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 at 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
> ----------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220424/c8d7e1f9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list