<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE type=text/css>.mceResizeHandle {position: absolute;border: 1px solid black;background: #FFF;width: 5px;height: 5px;z-index: 10000}.mceResizeHandle:hover {background: #000}img[data-mce-selected] {outline: 1px solid black}img.mceClonedResizable, table.mceClonedResizable {position: absolute;outline: 1px dashed black;opacity: .5;z-index: 10000}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=031040213-01122015><FONT size=4
face=微软雅黑>Dear Joshi,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=031040213-01122015><FONT size=4 face=微软雅黑>No
matter what topic/title you used, no matter what goal you want to reach, your
post has raised a very important theory which can decide the future of
information science: Three Level Theory: Molecular (level1), Cellular (level2),
Social (level3). (Please excuse my minor modification).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=031040213-01122015><FONT size=4
face=微软雅黑>The FIS colleagues can easily recollect the theory of Cell, Brain,
Firm which was advocated by Pedro about 10 years ago, but I think this
hierarchy is could be much better spent taking some positive
action.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=微软雅黑></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=031040213-01122015><FONT size=4
face=微软雅黑>Social (level3): It can indicate the all human/social information
studies.<BR>Cellular (level2): It can indicate the all cellular/biological
information studies.<BR>Molecular (level1): It can indicate the all
molecular/chemical information studies.<BR>XXXXXXX (level0): Particlate/physical
information studies??</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=微软雅黑></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=031040213-01122015><FONT size=4 face=微软雅黑>As
we know, due to the Technological Information Science (It includes computer
science and telecommunications) is not self-organizational, or antipoetic, so we
generally don't consider it as a real information science.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=微软雅黑></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=031040213-01122015><FONT size=4
face=微软雅黑>With my best regards!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=031040213-01122015><FONT size=4
face=微软雅黑>Xueshan<BR>Peking University</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=031040213-01122015></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es
[mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Nikhil
Joshi<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:35 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
fis@listas.unizar.es >> fis@listas.unizar.es<BR><B>Cc:</B> Nikhil
Joshi<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research:
The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Dear Joseph and Stan,</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=031040213-01122015><FONT face=微软雅黑> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>Both of you mention about earlier work on isomorphisms, and you also
mention hetero-organization. If it is not inconvenient, may I request more
information on this? You also mention that the use of self-organisation could be
a distracting, could you recommend an alternate formulation?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At this time, I must clarify that I am not suggesting a hierarchical
relationship between the three levels. I am referring to hierarchical
organisation within the species at each level - molecules (level1), cellular
species (level2) and social groups (level3). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Coming to your question- how does the concept of hierarchy affect the
analysis?</DIV>
<DIV>The common multilevel organisational pattern presented here suggests that a
core element in human social organisation involves exchange networks based on
flow of human resources between kinship based social groups (like families) and
non-kinship based social groups (like businesses). This implies that
evolution of social organisation is based on the emergence of two species
classes with greater complexity and greater compositional hierarchy- kinship
based social groups and non-kinship.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The question then are- why and how do living species give rise to exchange
networks between species with increasing complexity (and compositional
hierarchy) ? Will this pattern continue at the next higher level? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bob Logan and others point to the role of human language and the generation
of conceptual knowedge in the emergence of non-kinship based social groups.
It is interesting that Timo Honkela and Kohonen generalise these ideas and
describe processes that gives rise to conceptual knowledge in systems of
interacting agents. Do Alphabetic catalysts like DNA and Proteins play a
similar role as human language in the emergence of exchange networks at two
different levels? (see section 4.4., paper II in this kick off email).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>While many theoretical perspectives have been presented on the evolution of
such systems (Stanley Salthe- Evolving Hierarchial Systems, Ch 8, John Holland-
aggregate agents, Eric Chaission- growing energy rate density, and others) what
is most interesting here is that the CMOP provides opportunity to examine
processes that give rise to such organisation in much greater details. This
could provide more insights into the emergence and evolution of such
organisations. </DIV>
<DIV><BR>Given the diverse research interests and great depth in this group, I
would love to get your views on these questions. Your views are greatly
appreciated. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanking you,</DIV>
<DIV>Regards, </DIV>
<DIV>Nikhil Joshi</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Given the wide </DIV>
<DIV>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</DIV>
<DIV>Dear Nikhil,<BR><BR>I think it is a very interesting exercise to see how a
consensus might be reached on your work by both adding to and subtracting from
the different perspectives. Thus, I agree with Stan that we are looking at
instances of isomorphism at different levels, and this for me is entirely
logical (;-). Levels of reality exist and the rules that apply in them are not
identical, and this constitutes a discontinuity between them. Also, within a
given level involving three elements, even if they all influence one another, it
should be possible to decompose the interactions into those between A and B, the
resultant of which interacts with C. This is Pedro's comment in somewhat
different terms.<BR><BR>On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, the use
of the term 'self-organization' does not bring any additional knowledge. It
diverts attention from the dynamics of the different flows, which are also
affected by such a multitude of external factors, actual and potential, that the
process could equally well be called hetero-organization. Also, and I
really just ask this as a question, how does the concept of hierarchy affect the
analysis? If as you write there are different species involved in exchange
networks across ascending levels, what would be important to know are the
details of these exchanges. Here, the above discontinuity between levels seems
to be replaced by a degree of continuity. Your statement implies to me
interactions /between/ different levels, but are these interactions
bi-directional reactions? How would the rates of forward and back reactions be
related?<BR><BR>I look forward to your comments on the above which I assure you
is intended to be constructive.<BR><BR>Best wishes,<BR><BR>Joseph</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>