<div dir="ltr">Cari Xueshan, Stan e Tutti,<div>queste gerarchie comunicative sono tanto diverse da quelle che Vi ho proposto il 28 novembre scorso, senza ricevere alcun riscontro da parte vostra? Naturalmente, la mia non è una domanda polemica, ma essenzialmente retorica. Almeno, lo spero.</div><div>Un abbraccio.</div><div>Francesco.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-12-03 9:16 GMT+01:00 Xueshan Yan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yxs@pku.edu.cn" target="_blank">yxs@pku.edu.cn</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">Dear Stan，</div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">Generally speaking, we have two kinds of Information
Science, one is materialist, another is imformationist. Of course, what FIS
colleagues are discussing here is materialist one. As to the imformationist
information science, it sprang from John Wheeler and is becoming confirmative in
some frontiers of physics recently, for example, the string-net theory advocated
by some theoretical physicists of MIT.</div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">In materialistic information science, self-organization
and autopoiesis are two wonderful criteria, they can exclude those information
sciences based on information technology from real information science for their
hetero-organization and heteropoiesis. As to the information science based on
library science spread through the United States, whether it is a real
information science, undoubtedly, it is questionable.</div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">Let’s come back to our topic. Facing so many kinds of
information and disciplines of information theory/informatics/information
science, we urgently need a classification to handle them, and the hierarchy
consideration maybe is more fundamental. Which was activated by Pedro (He said
it is Fisher’s idea, really Pedro?) with Cell, Brain, Firm many years ago, and
advanced by Joshi these days.</div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">In fact, Joseph and I had some private communication
about this issue several weeks ago, the topic is something I named “From
Mechanism to Organicism” which was arisen when I predict the paradigm shift of
information studies in the next 10 years or more. In those mails, we have
touched this problem.</div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">According to your expression, we have several different
hierarchies:<br>1. [firm [brain [cell]]]: Pedro<br>2. [society [cell
[molecule]]]: Joshi <br>3. [social [organism [cell [molecular [microphysical
]]]]]: Stan<br>4. [organism [cell [molecule [fundamental particle]]]]:
Xueshan<br>5. [organism [cell [molecule]]]: Xueshan </div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">From its narrow sense, social character only belongs to
organism, so we can absorb “society” into “organism”. In the organism group, we
have animal and plant. In animal, we have man, chicken, dog, tiger, lion, etc.
Of course, our main object is man, just like medicine and physiology that claim
their object over all animals, but man is their main object. Man’s information
problem is our main aim here.</div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">From communication standpoint, that man (of course also
all organism), cell, molecule (at lest organic molecule) can communicate each
other are undoubtedly, so the information disciplines can emerge from this level
undoubtedly naturally. But question is: can communication take places between
two fundamental particles, such as two atoms? So, I am not sure if we can have a
physical informatics at last.</div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">It is very humorous, this will bring us to the FIS
discussion 13 year ago<span> again</span>: Is
informational existences still only start with the biological? Is it still a
huge black hole? (Gyorgy Darvas).</div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">Best wishes,</div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">Xueshan</div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">
<hr>
<b>From:</b> Stanley N Salthe [mailto:<a href="mailto:ssalthe@binghamton.edu" target="_blank">ssalthe@binghamton.edu</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b>
Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:01 AM<br><b>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:yxs@pku.edu.cn" target="_blank">yxs@pku.edu.cn</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel
research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1<br><br></div>
<div></div>
<div dir="ltr">Xueshan -- Your hierarchy</div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:微软雅黑;FONT-SIZE:large"></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:微软雅黑;FONT-SIZE:large"></span><font size="3"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:微软雅黑;FONT-SIZE:large">nformation
studies.</span><br style="FONT-FAMILY:微软雅黑;FONT-SIZE:large"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:微软雅黑;FONT-SIZE:large">Cellular (level2): It can indicate
the all cellular/biological information studies.</span><br style="FONT-FAMILY:微软雅黑;FONT-SIZE:large"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:微软雅黑;FONT-SIZE:large">Molecular (level1): It can indicate
the all molecular/chemical information studies.</span><br style="FONT-FAMILY:微软雅黑;FONT-SIZE:large"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:微软雅黑;FONT-SIZE:large">XXXXXXX (level0):
Particlate/physical information studies??</span><br></font></div>
<div dir="ltr">is OK, but, since it may be that not all organisms are social, to
be more general one could insert:</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">[social [organism [cell [molecular [microphysical ]]]]]</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">Of course, it could be argued that organisms are societies of
cells!</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">STAN</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Xueshan Yan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yxs@pku.edu.cn" target="_blank">yxs@pku.edu.cn</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;PADDING-LEFT:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><u></u>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span>Dear Joshi,</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span>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).</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span>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.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span>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??</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span>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.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span>With my best regards!</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span>Xueshan<br>Peking University</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left">
<hr>
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Nikhil
Joshi<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:35 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
>> <a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a><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><br></div>
<div></div>
<div>Dear Joseph and Stan,</div>
<div><span></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></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Fis
mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>