<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks Loet, that is helpful, and makes intuitively good sense. But
I remain puzzled. I see two distinct cases:<br>
<br>
Case 1: For molecules 'communication' consists of interaction
between the molecules themselves, resulting in biology. <br>
Similarly, for atoms 'communication' consists of interaction between
the atoms themselves. They bang into each other and exchange their
components. <br>
<br>
Case 2: For words and sentences (in my view of the world) it is
human beings who communicate, not words and sentences. From a
Maturana perspective, language is a recursive coordination between
autopoietic entities, not interaction between linguistic items. <br>
<br>
In case 1, there is no mediating domain. Molecules and atoms
interact directly. <br>
<br>
But in case 2, there is a hierarchy. Communication is between human
beings, but interaction is through words and sentences in a
linguistic domain. When I respond to your email, I do not have an
effect on that email. Rather, I hope to have an effect on your
thought processes. <br>
<br>
Of course there are other interactions between people which
correspond to my case 1, for example when someone barges another
person out of the way, or when they dance together. But I think
Maturana would distinguish these examples by describing them in
terms of structural coupling rather than languaging. <br>
<br>
By calling both of these cases 'communication' we gain some valuable
traction on patterns of interaction in different domains. But I am
concerned that we also make it more difficult to disentangle our
idea of what information is, by equating it with a catch-all notion
of 'communication'.<br>
<br>
Dai<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/05/15 11:12, Loet Leydesdorff
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:00b701d092e5$6ba22960$42e67c20$@leydesdorff.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear colleagues, </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I see "informational processes" as
essentially being proto-scientific – how is any "science"
not an informational process? <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The sciences, in my opinion, are
different in terms of what is communicated. As Maturana
noted, the communication of molecules generates a
biology. Similarly, the communication of atoms generates
a chemistry, etc. The communication of words and
sentences generates the interhuman domain of
communication. One can also communicate in terms of
symbolic media such as money. This can be reflected by
economics.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thus, the sciences are different.
The formal perspective (of the mathematical theory of
communication) provides us with tools to move metaphors
heuristically from one domain to another. The assumption
that the mathematics is general is over-stated, in my
opinion. One has to carefully check and elaborate after
each translation from one domain to another. In this
sense, I agree with “proto-scientific”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Best,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Loet</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, I think this places me in the
camp of Peirce's view. Second, I am unsure of how to
regard the focus on "higher-order" interdisciplinary
discussions when a much more essential view of lower-order
roles (i.e., What are science and information?) has not
been first established.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> From my "naive" view I find myself
wondering how "informational process" is not the ONE
overarching discipline from which all other disciplines
are born (is this too "psychological" of a framework?). As
such, I argue for one great discipline . . . and thus
wouldn't try to frame my view in terms of "science,"
mostly because I am unclear on how the term "science" is
being formally used here. Thoughts?<br>
</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="187">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="187">
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Marcus
Abundis</span></b></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>about.me/marcus.abundis</span></p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1025" height="4"
width="88"></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="187"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-----------------------------------------
Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
Professor of Educational Cybernetics
Institute for Educational Cybernetics (IEC)
The University of Bolton
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC">http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC</a>
SKYPE: daigriffiths
UK Mobile: + 44 (0)7826917705
Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dai.griffiths.1@gmail.com">dai.griffiths.1@gmail.com</a></pre>
</body>
</html>