[Fis] 20% of most important Informatics

[Jason Hu]

Dear Jerry, my answer would be a respectful no. CS Peirce died at least 20
years before the first ideas of SCI emerged, so I consider his ideas out of
date, like most philosophers before Wittgenstein. Concepts such as
"firstness, secondness... etc." for me are too subjective or too ad hoc.
I'm not a fan of various "...isms" either, although I practice a lot of
pragmatism and am convinced by constructivism.

I like three-dimensional trinities, such as matter-energy-information. Or
structure-procedure-culture. Thus, SCI-Systemics-Cybernetics-Informatics,
as cognitive tools, learnable and teachable, is more interesting than CS
Peirce. I'm saying this with a danger of offending some colleagues who are
fans of CSP, but I'm entering the age of anti-political-correctness. 😁

Opinions are cheap - our academic friends are having too many opinions. The
challenge is how to actually make things happen. The world is full of
talkers. I prefer to do something if I can, in this case, to build an
online curriculum to sell to the younger generation what we have been
bragging about as good stuff. It is a self-validation process better than
just getting  papers published. I prefer a paycheck not because I need
money, but because I need confirmation of the value of my work.

Cheers! - Jason

On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 8:25 PM Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chandler at icloud.com> wrote:

> List:
>
> On Jun 24, 2025, at 4:24 AM, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Until those foundational issues are plainly addressed (per Shannon and
> Weaver, as a "real theory of meaning"), 'information' WITHOUT meaning
> suggests 'meaningless information'(?!?!) . . . which would only confuse
> your aspiring SCI scholars. Are YOU not confused by this notion of
> meaningless information?! Alternatively, presenting a "real theory of
> meaning" would hold a unifying role for your three-part 'SCI primer'. I
> thus suggest you need to address SCI WITHIN a context of a suitable 'SCI
> theory of meaning' . . . which would require that you actually break new
> ground —
>
>
> Jason
>
> Were you intentionally referring to the philosophy of CS Peirce and his
> trichotomies with the three- fold synthesis?
>
> Markus:
> Clearly, the need for foundational re-grounding of classical information
> theory is necessary for the life sciences.  This suggests  a poly-semic set
> of meanings for terms and poly-symbolic encoding of natural facts into the
> transmission of biological messages as well as the transformations of the
> inorganic into the organic.
>
>   Para-consistent logics may provide a base for such calculations within
> dynamic systems theory.
>
> Any thoughts from the perspective of well-formed formula?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250624/e1a0eda5/attachment-0001.html>