[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 86, Issue 9. Humor and Ontology

[joe.brenner at bluewin.ch]

Dear Pedro, Youri, Karl and All,
As we move toward the more usual form of FIS discussion, there is one aspect that, at least for me, emerged from our recent exchanges: it is the concurrent evolution of three if not more somewhat incompatible lines of thought. I suggest this "co-emergence" needs to be looked more closely. As a start, I quote from Youri of Jan. 31: 
In this respect, I have the impression that an epistemological perspective
on one's own activity is more conducive to a form of humour,
relativity and makes people less rigid and therefore less aggressive ?
I find throughout our discussion (and many others) an under-emphasis not to say neglect of ontological perspectives which are linked to science by their relation to the dynamics of thought. This dynamics is particularly visible in humor but the principle is much broader and applies to complex changes in general. One reason for the emphasis on epistemology is that ontology is often misdefined in a way that limits it to classification and categorization. In some approaches, such as Karl's, reference is not made to epistemology as such, but to abstract entities of thought ("numbers") the rules for whose changes and behavior capture, inefficiently, only a very small fraction of real phenomena.
This is not scientific. The "equivalent of humor" that Youri correctly urges that we look for is for me in the non-computable, emergent processes of life and creativity. We are thus quickly back to art but also science and philosophy. The critiques made by Pedro and others of philosophy should be directed against not a synthetic philosophy that includes science (and a suitable logic), but against a largely epistemological philosophy that lacks an essential minimum of physics.
One term used by Pedro captures almost everything I am trying to say: "inter-individual bonding". Change and an "science-philosophy" (the term is of Wu Kun) of change is immediately implied since such bonding like any real bonding is a dynamic process, with an ethical dimension 'built in'. The role of information, at the interface between ontology and epistemology, also appears in a more functional way. I hope that others may suggest other and better relations between these concepts.
Best,
Joseph
  
 ----Message d'origine----
De : pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com
Date : 09/02/2022 - 14:16 (CEST)
À : youri.timsit at mio.osupytheas.fr, fis at listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 86, Issue 9
 Dear Youri and FISers,
 
 Thanks for your reflections on humor.
 Curiously, within the crazy variety of themes my research group was focusing while I was active in IACS institute, laughter got our sustained effort (Jorge Navarro worked a lot on it).
 
 We approached it as an evolutionary phenomenon related to the extension and intensity of inter-individual bonding in social groups.
 We published a couple of papers, an introductory one:
 
 --"The Bonds of Laughter: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Information Processes of Human Laughter"
 
 https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1010/1010.5602.pdf
 And a more polished version in Kybernetes journal:
 --"Laughing bonds: A multidisciplinary inquiry into the social information processes of human laughter"
 https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/K-02-2016-0026/full/html
 
 
  Given the highly peculiar sound structure of laughter and our neuroscientific hypotheses, we had contemplated its possible application as an auxiliary tool in the detection, diagnostic, and prognostic on several mental disorders (particularly in depression). We developed an ad hoc experimental methodology, applied to a competitive research project, and got the project and very promising applied results--with a stream of publications. For instance: "Validation of laughter for diagnosis and evaluation of depression". In: 
 Journal of Affective Disorders 160(1–3):43–49 DOI:
 10.1016/j.jad.2014.02.035
 In spite of the dissolution of our group, the project is still potentially alive. There is an important hospital of Madrid willing to work on our methodology & software and finally develop , say, a "commercial" program and App. (Other partners would be very welcome!)
 
 
 About humor, I have always had a high respect for it; as being related to laughter mechanisms, it differs in the importance of language, meaning, and social context. 
 
 Probably our main research hypothesis applies there, but it should have more development and sophistication. The evolutionary context of "play" becomes central.
 Humor appears essentially as a play with words (also images, or actions) that by the the act of playing "degrade" the usual serious thing to a childish or abstruse occurrence, making then a strong contrast. The difficult point is that it has to be solved "positively" out from a benevolent or distanced position. Otherwise it becomes sarcasm or just malevolent ridicule. 
 
 
 Humor in science is not welcome as Youri comments. I think the enormous bureaucratization and technologization of our profession matters quite a bit.
 In any event, as long as playing is sufficiently maintained and welcome as a social attitude in adults too --and not condemned-- there is some hope...
 
 Best--Pedro    
 
 
 El 06/02/2022 a las 16:31, Youri Timsit escribió:
 
 
Humour, systems and information
 
 
Dear all, 
All these discussions around humour could lead to the following question:
Does humour in a given system contain information about itself and about
the system to
which it is addressed?
In system, we can for example include religion, science or art or try to
extend this
reflection to any physical system and thus find an equivalent of humour in
biology, physics, mathematics and information theory.
 
Any system contains a series of rules and conventions that give it
structure and maintain
consistency. One might, at first glance, suggest that humour is an element
that
endangers the order of this structure. In one way or another, it questions
and
challenges certain rules, plays with conventions and thus undermines the
established order in a given system.
Of course, there are certainly different categories of humour... (I am not
familiar with
the philosophy of humour, nor with the work that has considered the place
of
humour in information theoryŠ)
 
Let's take, for example, a play on words: a shift in meaning turns a
discourse on its head,
but also the entire semantics, the entire edifice of a language, and this
is
perhaps why it can make people laugh, it's associated with the vertigo of
the
order of a world that vanishes in a fraction of a second. What suddenly
makes
one laugh? the awareness that nothing holds together?
 
Umberto Ecco, the great semiotician, placed humour - the laughter of
Christ - at the centre
of his novel 'The Name of the Rose'. He showed that religious orthodoxy
left
little room for humour, which could threaten its coherence and very
existence.
 
In Western music, another system based on multiple conventions ranging
from the rules of
harmony to bourgeois decorum in concert halls, humour has little place. A
musical performance, such as a classical music concert or an opera, would
be
the place of a musical discourse of course, but also of a ceremony, a
ritual
even, intended to reinforce the established order, the social structuring
of
the Western bourgeoisie. It is very rare that humour and derision disrupt
these
ceremonies (see the movie of F. Fellini, Prova d¹orchestra).
However, some composers have made a point of teasing out these
rituals: Haydn, for example, broke with protocol in his 'farewell
symphony',
where the musicians leave one by one before the end of the piece... the
opposite can be seen in the film The Concert (2009, Radu Mihaileanu),
where the
two trumpeters arrive late with large bags filled with jars of sweet and
sour
pickles at the Théâtre du Chatelet of Paris. These scenes create a comic
effect that shakes up the order and rituals of the Viennese or Parisian
upper
middle class in a bittersweet way. The humour here carries a message: it
disturbs, disrupts and questions conventions, but also the conventions
associated with 20th century musical representations.
 
Science, like religion, is not conducive to humour: the seriousness of
scientific
theories and the experiments that are supposed to demonstrate them do not
tolerate humour. However, a scientific theory should be, Œin theory¹,
refutable
(Popper) and in this respect, ephemeral.... Being aware of the brevity of
existence should however encourage a certain distance, humour and
derision...
but unfortunately, we rarely laugh at a scientific conference. Most
researchers
take themselves very seriously and it must be admitted that you don't come
to a
seminar to have a laughŠ
I would dream of a congress where after the conferences, actors or clowns
would take up
our speeches by caricaturing them... this would create a more cordial
atmosphere between researchers. David Lodge, in a "small world", also
made fun of scientific rituals, we should make all students read it...
With his Cantatrix Sopranica, George Perrec has
made a mockery of scientific protocol! A magnificent parody of an article
published in Nature, with colourful bibliographic
references and a beautiful caricature of the scientific method that is both
serious and grotesque. Serious and Grotesque are unfortunately the
qualifiers
that one could attribute to many articles published in "Great"
journals... and that one finds retracted quite early (see the Lancet
episode).
The established order and the Narcissism of researchers (see Science,
narcissism and the quest for visibility from Bruno Lemaitre; DOI:
10.1111/febs.14032) is a major obstacle to humour in research.
 
Thus, one could hypothesise here that humour contains indispensable
information: this
information challenges and shakes up the rigid rules of a system and
allows it
to evolve.... If we extrapolate to biology, the appearance of a mutation, a
sequence shift, would therefore be a form of humour... ? the humour of DNA?
Youri
Le 06/02/2022 12:00, « fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es on behalf of
fis-request at listas.unizar.es » <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es on behalf of
fis-request at listas.unizar.es> a écrit :
 
  
Send Fis mailing list submissions to
	fis at listas.unizar.es
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	fis-request at listas.unizar.es
You can reach the person managing the list at
	fis-owner at listas.unizar.es
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
Today's Topics:
  1. Re: [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
     16--CLOSING (Loet Leydesdorff)
  2. Re: [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
     16--CLOSING (Francesco Rizzo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 11:13:14 +0000
From: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet at leydesdorff.net>
To: karl.javorszky at gmail.com, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
	16--CLOSING
Message-ID: <emba24b591-9376-42ee-bc49-0d7eff2db1b2 at pc2014>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Dear Karl,
  
   
The Lecture by Youri has opened many approaches towards understanding
the general concept of information, specifically in a biologic context.
  
  
The concept of information, defined specifically in a biological context
is for that very reason not the general concept of information. This
confusion does not help for the understanding. In economics, for
example, one should not work with a biological concept of information.
Information can be measured in bits and bytes. I have not heard a single
argument in this discussion of how the biological theorizing leads to
(proposals for) the measurement of information. Without the beginning of
an operationalization, the theory remains a pure philosophy. I don't
think that one should go for a biological philosophy, including social
darwinism etc.
Best,
Loet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220205/31f158cf/attac
hment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:59:24 +0100
From: Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.rizzo at gmail.com>
To: Loet Leydesdorff <loet at leydesdorff.net>
Cc: fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
	16--CLOSING
Message-ID:
	<CAEvKwyTCjpP63GCsbVK1pD00zU-725AMZd1y9JQAny3f0caMzA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Caro carlo e Cari tutti,
nessuna scienza dell'informazione, compresa quella di Shannon, pu? basarsi
sull'esattezza delle misurazioni delle variabili dei fenomeni
che analizza e studia, figuriamoci l'economia. D'altra parte all'economia
interessano pi? le valutazioni che le misurazioni. Cio? il prezzo
o valore di mercato di un bene (capitale) pu? calcolarsi tenendo conto
dell'affidabil?t? e della probabilit? dei dati della cosiddetta realt? di
mercato e dei comportamenti  degli operatori economici (acquirenti e
venditori) che, fra l'altro, stabiliscono un rapporto di complementarit?
con i beni economici medesimi.. Nascono cos? i valori normali dal punto di
vista soggettivo, sottesi. da un'economia quantistica.
Questo per?, come economista, non mi ha impedito  di elaborare una teoria
del valore basata sulla legge dell'informazione in uno con
il processo  produttivo di tras-in-formazione, di cui la Fis si ?
(pre)occupata in passato.
La legge generale e universale dell'informazione  consiste nel prendere o
nel dare forma a tutto e a tutti: alle persone, alle idee e alle cose-.
Sulla base di questo procedimento che, in maniera interattiva e
relazionale  coglie il relativo valore delle differenze, ? possibile
esprimere
giudizi di valore, pi? o meno attendibili. Quindi v'ha una sola legge
dell'informazione, ma infiniti modi di misurarla-valutarla.
Spetta alle diverse discipline teoriche o alle pratiche operative darsi le
norme o regole ad-atte alle proprie specifiche misurazioni o valutazioni.
Ad es. gli economisti matematici, che  a partire dal diciannovesimo secolo
hanno incominciato ad applicare il calcolo infinitesimale al fine di
quantizzare-quantificare le variabili della produzione e della
distribuzione della ricchezza, sono in irreversibile crisi, in grande
sfacelo, fuori strada,
perch? incapaci di comprendere e vedere-leggere la realt? economica
capitalistica.
Vi chiedo scusa se sono stato pi? lungo di quanto volevo essere.
Un abbraccio
Francesco
Il giorno sab 5 feb 2022 alle ore 12:13 Loet Leydesdorff <
loet at leydesdorff.net> ha scritto:
  
   
Dear Karl,
The Lecture by Youri has opened many approaches towards understanding
the
general concept of information, specifically in a biologic context.
The concept of information, defined *specifically *in a biological
context is for that very reason not the *general *concept of
information.
This confusion does not help for the understanding. In economics, for
example, one should not work with a biological concept of information.
Information can be measured in bits and bytes. I have not heard a single
argument in this discussion of how the biological theorizing leads to
(proposals for) the measurement of information. Without the beginning
of an
operationalization, the theory remains a pure philosophy. I don't think
that one should go for a biological philosophy, including social
darwinism
etc.
Best,
Loet
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
----------
INFORMACI?N SOBRE PROTECCI?N DE DATOS DE CAR?CTER PERSONAL
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
por
la Universidad de Zaragoza.
Puede encontrar toda la informaci?n 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 est? suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
baja desde la propia aplicaci?n 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/20220205/af424ae2/attac
hment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
------------------------------
End of Fis Digest, Vol 86, Issue 9
**********************************
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
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
----------
 
 
  
   
    
    Libre de virus. www.avast.com
   
  
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220211/f0d2ec0e/attachment-0001.html>