<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, EmojiFont, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", NotoColorEmoji, "Segoe UI Symbol", "Android Emoji", EmojiSymbols;" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#212121;
background:white;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-image: initial; background-">Dear
Terry and FISers,<br>
It looks indeed reasonable to position the term 'language' as ‘simply referring to the necessity of a shared medium of communication’. Keeping in mind that communications exist only because agents need to manage meanings for given purposes.<br>
And </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; background-image: initial; background-">the
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-image: initial; background-">concept of agent can be an entry point for a ‘general theory of information’ as it does not make distinctions.<br>
The Peircean triadic approach is also an available framework (but with, alas, a limited development of the Interpreter).<br>
I choose to use agents capable of meaning generation, having some compatibility with the Peircean approach and with the Biosemiotics Umwelt.(</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(33, 33, 33); background-image: initial; background-"><a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2" id="LPlnk882652" previewremoved="true"><span style="color:blue">https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2</span></a>)<br>
<br>
All the best<br>
Christophe<br>
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br>
<!--[endif]--></span><br style="mso-special-character:line-break">
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character:line-break">
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<br>
<p></p>
<br>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>De :</b> Fis <fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es> de la part de Terrence W. DEACON <deacon@berkeley.edu><br>
<b>Envoyé :</b> mardi 13 février 2018 06:33<br>
<b>À :</b> Sungchul Ji<br>
<b>Cc :</b> FIS Group; Jose Javier Blanco Rivero<br>
<b>Objet :</b> Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">To claim that:<br>
<br>
"without a language, no communication would be possible"<br>
<br>
one must be using the term "language" in a highly metaphoric sense.<br>
<br>
Is scent marking a language?<br>
Music?<br>
Sexual displays, like a peacock's tail?<br>
How about a smile or frown?<br>
Is the pattern of colors of a flower that attracts bees a language?<br>
Was the evolution of language in humans just more of the same, not<br>
something distinct from a dog's bark?<br>
When a person is depressed, their way of walking often communicates<br>
this fact to others; so is this slight modification of posture part of<br>
a language?<br>
If I get the hiccups after eating is this part of a language that<br>
communicates my indigestion?<br>
<br>
Is this usage of the term 'language' simply referring to the necessity<br>
of a shared medium of communication? Is it possible to develop a<br>
general theory of information by simply failing to make distinctions?<br>
<br>
— Terry<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/12/18, Sungchul Ji <sji@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> wrote:<br>
> Hi FISers,<br>
><br>
><br>
> (1) I think language and communication cannot be separated, since without a<br>
> language, no communication would be possible (see Figure 1).<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> f<br>
> g<br>
> Sender -------> Message<br>
> --------> Receiver<br>
> |<br>
> ^<br>
> |<br>
> |<br>
> |<br>
> |<br>
><br>
> |_____________________________|<br>
><br>
> h<br>
><br>
> “Language and communication are both irreducibly triadic; i.e., the three<br>
> nodes and three edges are essential for communication, given a language or<br>
> code understood by both the sender and receiver.” f = encoding; g =<br>
> decoding; h = information flow.<br>
><br>
> Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the irreducibly triadic nature<br>
> of communication and language.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> (2) I think it may be justified and useful to distinguish between<br>
> anthropomorphic language metaphor (ALM) and non-athropomorphic language<br>
> metaphor (NLM). I agree with many of the members of this list that we<br>
> should not apply ALM to biology uncritically, since such an approch to<br>
> biology may lead to unjustifiable anthropomorphisms.<br>
> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus" id="LPlnk983546" previewremoved="true">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus</a>) and the anthropocentric theory of
<div id="LPBorder_GT_15185266017650.4380907538236891" style="margin-bottom: 20px; overflow: auto; width: 100%; text-indent: 0px;">
<table id="LPContainer_15185266017460.014945017046686937" role="presentation" cellspacing="0" style="width: 90%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); position: relative; overflow: auto; padding-top: 20px; padding-bottom: 20px; margin-top: 20px; border-top: 1px dotted rgb(200, 200, 200); border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(200, 200, 200);">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top" style="border-spacing: 0px;">
<td id="ImageCell_15185266017490.18713851760120215" colspan="1" style="width: 250px; position: relative; display: table-cell; padding-right: 20px;">
<div id="LPImageContainer_15185266017490.8449408231312754" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); height: 250px; position: relative; margin: auto; display: table; width: 161px;">
<a id="LPImageAnchor_15185266017500.9211761079899712" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus" target="_blank" style="display: table-cell; text-align: center;"><img id="LPThumbnailImageID_15185266017510.9008821215786722" style="display: inline-block; max-width: 250px; max-height: 250px; height: 250px; width: 161px; border-width: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;" width="161" height="250" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Alchemische_Vereinigung_aus_dem_Donum_Dei.jpg/1200px-Alchemische_Vereinigung_aus_dem_Donum_Dei.jpg"></a></div>
</td>
<td id="TextCell_15185266017540.6443353494233408" colspan="2" style="vertical-align: top; position: relative; padding: 0px; display: table-cell;">
<div id="LPRemovePreviewContainer_15185266017550.2790349179319085"></div>
<div id="LPTitle_15185266017550.3819452223342954" style="top: 0px; color: rgb(0, 120, 215); font-weight: 400; font-size: 21px; font-family: wf_segoe-ui_light, "Segoe UI Light", "Segoe WP Light", "Segoe UI", "Segoe WP", Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;">
<a id="LPUrlAnchor_15185266017580.4521412438272787" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Homunculus - Wikipedia</a></div>
<div id="LPMetadata_15185266017580.6731407766468367" style="margin: 10px 0px 16px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-weight: 400; font-family: wf_segoe-ui_normal, "Segoe UI", "Segoe WP", Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 14px;">
en.wikipedia.org</div>
<div id="LPDescription_15185266017610.9581738740061532" style="display: block; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-weight: 400; font-family: wf_segoe-ui_normal, "Segoe UI", "Segoe WP", Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; max-height: 100px; overflow: hidden;">
A homunculus (/ h oʊ ˈ m ʌ ŋ k j ʊ l ə s /; Latin for "little man") is a representation of a small human being. Popularized in sixteenth-century alchemy and ...</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br>
<br>
> creatiion.<br>
><br>
><br>
> (3) Table 1 below may represent one possible example of NLM. Although the<br>
> linguistic terms such as letters, words, sentences, etc. are used in this<br>
> table, they are matrially/ontologically different from their molecular<br>
> coutner parts; e.g., letters are different from nucleotides, protein<br>
> domians , etc.,and words are different from genes, proteins, etc., but<br>
> there are unmistakable common formal features among them.<br>
><br>
> Table 1. The formal and material aspects of the cell language (Cellese).<br>
><br>
> \ Material Aspect<br>
> \ (Function)<br>
> \<br>
> \<br>
> \<br>
> \<br>
> \<br>
> Formal Aspect \<br>
> (Function) \<br>
> \<br>
><br>
> DNA Language<br>
> (DNese;<br>
> Information transmission in time)<br>
><br>
> RNA Language<br>
> (RNese;<br>
> Information transmission in space, from DNA to proteins)<br>
><br>
> Protein Language<br>
> (Proteinese;<br>
> Energy transduction<br>
> from chemical to mechanical; i.e., conformon production)<br>
><br>
> Chemical Language<br>
> (Moleculese;<br>
> Source of free energy)<br>
><br>
> Letters*<br>
> (To build)<br>
><br>
> 4n nucleotides<br>
> n = 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .<br>
> Exons (?)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Protein domains<br>
><br>
> Partial chemical reactions<br>
><br>
> Words<br>
> (To denote)<br>
><br>
> Genes<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Proteins<br>
><br>
> Full chemical reactions<br>
><br>
> Sentences<br>
> (To decide)<br>
><br>
> cis-Genes (?)**<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Metabolic pathways<br>
><br>
> Chemical gradients<br>
><br>
> Texts<br>
> (To reason/compute)<br>
><br>
> trans-Genes (?)**<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ‘Hypermetabolic pathways’<br>
><br>
> Chemical waves (?)<br>
><br>
><br>
> *I recently proposed that there are n (with n = 1 ~103?) genetic alphabets,<br>
> each containing 4^n letters and each letter in turn consisting of n<br>
> nucleotides. In this view, the 64 codons are the so-called 3rd-order<br>
> letters , not words as widely assumed.<br>
> **cis-Genes are here defined as those genes covalently linked to each other<br>
> and hence being in the same chromosome, whereas trans-genes are defined as<br>
> those genes that are located in different chromos<br>
><br>
> (4) The terms, DNese, RNese, and proteinese were coined by a young American<br>
> biochemist from Mexico City whom I met at the International Workshop on the<br>
> Linguistics of Biology and the Biology of Language held in Cuernavaca,<br>
> Mexico, in 1998, where I had presented the cell language ('cellese') theory,<br>
> prior to the young biochemist’s lecture which followed mine the next day.<br>
> In his lecture, he surprised me by announcing these neologisms, which I did<br>
> not quite know how to justify. But it took almost 20 years for me to<br>
> finally realize the utility of these terms for entirely different reasons, I<br>
> am sure, from those of the young biochemist from Mexico City. I am<br>
> responsible for the coinage of cellese and chemicalese in Table 1.<br>
><br>
> (5) If Table 1 is right, the cellese and its sub-languages, DNese, RNese,<br>
> proteinese and chemiclaese, are complemetary unions of form and matter.<br>
><br>
> If you have any questions or comments, pleae let me know.<br>
><br>
> All the best.<br>
><br>
> Sung<br>
> (My time is out. I am signing out in a hurry.)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
> From: Fis <fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Xueshan Yan<br>
> <yxs@pku.edu.cn><br>
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 6:31 AM<br>
> To: FIS Group<br>
> Cc: 'Jose Javier Blanco Rivero'<br>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on<br>
> the cateogry theory<br>
><br>
><br>
> Dear Javier and Dear Stan,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Javier:<br>
><br>
> 1. I very much agree with you as follows:<br>
><br>
> “I think that only signals can be transmitted, not information. Information<br>
> can only be gained by an observer (a self-referential system) that draws a<br>
> distinction.”<br>
><br>
> A Chinese scholar Dongsheng Miao’s argument is: There is no information can<br>
> exists without carrier, i.e. No naked can exists.<br>
><br>
> I think both of you two are expressing a principle of information science.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 2. According to Linguistics, the relationship between language and<br>
> communication is:<br>
><br>
> Language is a tool of communication about information.<br>
><br>
> Of course, this is only limited to the human atmosphere. So I think that all<br>
> (Human) Semiotics ((Human) Linguistics), (Human) Communication Study should<br>
> be the subdisciplines of Human Informatics.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ==========================================================<br>
><br>
> Dear Xueshan,<br>
><br>
> Thanks for sharing your interesting remarks and references. I think no one<br>
> really wants to deny the crucial role the language metaphor has played in<br>
> the thinking of communication and information models. But I believe the<br>
> crucial point is to distinguish between language and communication. Language<br>
> is for us humans the main communication medium, though not the only one. We<br>
> tend to describe other communication media in society and nature by mapping<br>
> the language-like characteristics they have. This has been useful and<br>
> sucessful so far. But pushing the language metaphor too far is showing its<br>
> analytical limits. I think we need to think of a transdisciplinary theory of<br>
> communication media. On the other hand, I agree with you that we need to<br>
> check the uses of the concepts of signal and information. I think that only<br>
> signals can be transmitted, not information. Information can only be gained<br>
> by an observer (a self-referential system) that draws a distinction.<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> Javier<br>
><br>
> ==============================================<br>
><br>
> Stan:<br>
><br>
> According to Peirce, language is only one of the systematic signs. Here we<br>
> consider sign, signal, symbol as the same thing. So, more precisely in my<br>
> opinion:<br>
><br>
> {signal {information}}, or {substrate {signal {information}}}<br>
><br>
> But not<br>
><br>
> {language {signal {information}}}<br>
><br>
> If you remember, in our previous discussions, I much appreciate the<br>
><br>
> The hierarchy idea is very important to our study which is initially<br>
> introduced by Pedro, Nikhil and you.<br>
><br>
> ===============================================================<br>
><br>
> Xueshan -- I think one can condense some of your insights hierarchically,<br>
> as:<br>
><br>
> In a system having language, information seemingly may be obtained in other<br>
> ways as well. It would be a conceptually broader category. Thus (using the<br>
> compositional hierarchy):<br>
><br>
> [information [language [signal]]]<br>
><br>
> Meaning that, when a system has language, all information will be understood<br>
> or construed by way of linguistic constructs.<br>
><br>
> (Here I am using ‘signal’ as being more specific than Peirce’s ‘sign’,<br>
> where:<br>
><br>
> [sign [information [...]]] )<br>
><br>
> Then, more dynamically (using the subsumptive hierarchy):<br>
><br>
> {language {signal {information}}}<br>
><br>
> Information in a languaged system is derived by way linguistic formations,<br>
> so that, even though it is an extremely broad category, information<br>
> (informing) only emerges by way of linguistically informed transformations.<br>
><br>
> STAN<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Best wishes to all,<br>
><br>
> Xueshan<br>
><br>
> ===============================================================<br>
><br>
> El feb 10, 2018 5:23 AM, "Xueshan Yan"<br>
> <yxs@pku.edu.cn<mailto:yxs@pku.edu.cn>> escribió:<br>
><br>
> Dear Colleagues,<br>
><br>
> I have read the article "The languages of bacteria" which Gordana<br>
> recommended, and has gained a lot of inspiration from it. In combination<br>
> with Sung's comparative linguistics exploration on cell language and human<br>
> language, I have the following learning feelings to share with everyone:<br>
><br>
> In this article, the author recognized that bacteria have evolved multiple<br>
> languages for communicating within and between species. Intra- and<br>
> interspecies cell-cell communication allows bacteria to coordinate various<br>
> biological activities in order to behave like multicellular organisms. Such<br>
> as AI-2, it is a general language that bacteria use for intergenera<br>
> signaling.<br>
><br>
> I found an interesting phenomenon in this paper: the author use the concept<br>
> information 3 times but the concept signal (signal or signaling) 55 times,<br>
> so we have to review the history and application of “information” and<br>
> “signal” in biology and biochemistry, it is helpful for us to understand the<br>
> relationship between language, signal, and information.<br>
><br>
> The origin of the concept of signal (main the signal transduction) can be<br>
> traced back to the end of the 1970s. But until 1980, biochemist and<br>
> endocrinologist Martin Rodbell published an article titled: “The Role of<br>
> Hormone Receptors and GTP-Regulatory Proteins in Membrane Transduction" in<br>
> Nature, in this paper he used the "signal transduction" first time. Since<br>
> then, the research on signal transduction is popular in biology and<br>
> biochemistry.<br>
><br>
> As for any information transmission system, if we pay more attention to its<br>
> transmission carrier instead of its transmission content, we are used to<br>
> employing "signal transmission" instead of "signal transduction". From the<br>
> tradition of the early use of information concept, the signal transduction<br>
> study of cells is only equivalent to the level of telecommunications before<br>
> 1948. Outwardly, before the advent of Shannon's information theory, the<br>
> central issue of telecommunications is "signal" rather than "information".<br>
> After that, the central issue of telecommunications is "information" rather<br>
> than "signal".<br>
><br>
> According to the application history of information concept, nearly all the<br>
> essential problems behind the concepts of communication, messenger, signal<br>
> and so on may be information problems. Just as the language problem what we<br>
> are discussing here, our ultimate goal is to analyze the information.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> For the same reason, I recommend another two papers:<br>
><br>
> 1. Do Plants Think? (June 5, 2012, Scientific American)<br>
><br>
> (<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/#rd?sukey=fc78a68049a14bb24ce82efd8ef931e64057ce6142b1f2f7b919612d2b3f42c07f559f5be33be0881613ccfbf5b43c4b<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fdo-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz%2F%23rd%3Fsukey%3Dfc78a68049a14bb24ce82efd8ef931e64057ce6142b1f2f7b919612d2b3f42c07f559f5be33be0881613ccfbf5b43c4b&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd21bd1ad9ddf46d01a3e08d5720c681d%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636540320007030420&sdata=2buOZeZpeC9UCNIIuY6bVfAr%2B4yOET6l35UU6ZwMhdU%3D&reserved=0" id="LPlnk141491" previewremoved="true">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/#rd?sukey=fc78a68049a14bb24ce82efd8ef931e64057ce6142b1f2f7b919612d2b3f42c07f559f5be33be0881613ccfbf5b43c4b<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fdo-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz%2F%23rd%3Fsukey%3Dfc78a68049a14bb24ce82efd8ef931e64057ce6142b1f2f7b919612d2b3f42c07f559f5be33be0881613ccfbf5b43c4b&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd21bd1ad9ddf46d01a3e08d5720c681d%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636540320007030420&sdata=2buOZeZpeC9UCNIIuY6bVfAr%2B4yOET6l35UU6ZwMhdU%3D&reserved=0</a>>）<br>
><br>
> 2. Plants Can Think, Feel and Learn (December 3, 2014, New Scientist)<br>
><br>
> (<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429980-400-root-intelligence-plants-can-think-feel-and-learn<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2Fmg22429980-400-root-intelligence-plants-can-think-feel-and-learn&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd21bd1ad9ddf46d01a3e08d5720c681d%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636540320007030420&sdata=zfHmH3VG30OLHtjwoFmaVX2OVlwZRaxqdOXRIo69GMc%3D&reserved=0" id="LPlnk68538" previewremoved="true">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429980-400-root-intelligence-plants-can-think-feel-and-learn<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2Fmg22429980-400-root-intelligence-plants-can-think-feel-and-learn&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd21bd1ad9ddf46d01a3e08d5720c681d%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636540320007030420&sdata=zfHmH3VG30OLHtjwoFmaVX2OVlwZRaxqdOXRIo69GMc%3D&reserved=0</a>>)<br>
><br>
> From which we can judge whether or not a plants informatics can exists.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Best wishes,<br>
><br>
> Xueshan<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es><br>
> [<a href="mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es">mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es</a>>]<br>
> On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji<br>
> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:10 PM<br>
> To: Francesco Rizzo<br>
> <13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com<mailto:13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com>>; Terrence<br>
> W. DEACON <deacon@berkeley.edu<mailto:deacon@berkeley.edu>><br>
> Cc: Fis, <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>><br>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on<br>
> the cateogry theory<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Hi Terry, and FISers,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Can it be that "language metaphor" is akin to a (theoretical) knife that, in<br>
> the hands of a surgeon, can save lives but, in a wrong hand, can kill?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> All the best.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Sung<br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
><br>
> From: Francesco Rizzo<br>
> <13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com<mailto:13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com>><br>
> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 2:56:11 AM<br>
> To: Terrence W. DEACON<br>
> Cc: Fis,; Sungchul Ji<br>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on<br>
> the cateogry theory<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Caro Terry estensibile a tutti,<br>
><br>
> è sempre un piacere leggerTi e capirTi. La general theory of information è<br>
> preceduta da un sistema (o semiotica) di significazione e seguita da un<br>
> sistema (o semiotica ) di comunicazione. Tranne che quando si ha un processo<br>
> comunicativo come il passaggio di un Segnale (che non significa<br>
> necessariamente 'un segno') da una Fonte, attraverso un Trasmettitore,<br>
> lungo un Canale, a un Destinatario. In un processo tra macchina e macchina<br>
> il segnale non ha alcun potere 'significante'. In tal caso non si ha<br>
> significazione anche se si può dire che si ha passaggio di informazione.<br>
> Quando il destinatario è un essere umano (e non è necessario che la fonte<br>
> sia anch'essa un essere umano) si è in presenza di un processo di<br>
> significazione. Un sistema di significazione è una costruzione semiotica<br>
> autonoma, indipendente da ogni possibile atto di comunicazione che<br>
> l'attualizzi. Invece ogni processo di comunicazione tra esseri umani -- o<br>
> tra ogni tipo di apparato o struttura 'intelligente, sia meccanico che<br>
> biologico, -- presuppone un sistema di significazione come propria o<br>
> specifica condizione. In conclusione, è possibile avere una semiotica della<br>
> significazione indipendente da una semiotica della comunicazione; ma è<br>
> impossibile stabilire una semiotica della comunicazione indipendente da una<br>
> semiotica della significazione.<br>
><br>
> Ho appreso molto da Umberto Eco a cui ho dedicato il capitolo 10. Umberto<br>
> Eco e il processo di re-interpretazione e re-incantamento della scienza<br>
> economica (pp. 175-217) di "Valore e valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia o<br>
> l'economia della scienza" (FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1997). Nello mio stesso<br>
> libro si trovano:<br>
><br>
> - il capitolo 15. Semiotica economico-estimativa (pp. 327-361) che si<br>
> colloca nel quadro di una teoria globale di tutti i sistemi di<br>
> significazione e i processi di comunicazione;<br>
><br>
> - il sottoparagrafo 5.3.3 La psicologia genetica di Jean Piaget e la<br>
> neurobiologia di Humberto Maturana e Francesco Varela. una nuova<br>
> epistemologia sperimentale della qualità e dell'unicità (pp. 120-130).<br>
><br>
> Chiedo scusa a Tutti se Vi ho stancati o se ancora una volta il mio scrivere<br>
> in lingua italiana Vi crea qualche problema. Penso che il dono che mi fate<br>
> è, a proposito della QUALITA' e dell'UNICITA', molto più grande del<br>
> (per)dono che Vi chiedo. Grazie.<br>
><br>
> Un saluto affettuoso.<br>
><br>
> Francecso<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 2018-02-07 23:02 GMT+01:00 Terrence W. DEACON<br>
> <deacon@berkeley.edu<mailto:deacon@berkeley.edu>>:<br>
><br>
> Dear FISers,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> In previous posts I have disparaged using language as the base model for<br>
> building a general theory of information.<br>
><br>
> Though I realize that this may seem almost heretical, it is not a claim that<br>
> all those who use linguistic analogies are wrong, only that it can be<br>
> causally misleading.<br>
><br>
> I came to this view decades back in my research into the neurology and<br>
> evolution of the human language capacity.<br>
><br>
> And it became an orgnizing theme in my 1997 book The Symbolic Species.<br>
><br>
> Early in the book I describe what I (and now other evolutionary biologists)<br>
> have come to refer to as a "porcupine fallacy" in evolutionary thinking.<br>
><br>
> Though I use it to critique a misleading evolutionary taxonomizing tendency,<br>
> I think it also applies to biosemiotic and information theoretic thinking as<br>
> well.<br>
><br>
> So to exemplify my reasoning (with apologies for quoting myself) I append<br>
> the following excerpt from the book.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> "But there is a serious problem with using language as the model for<br>
> analyzing other<br>
><br>
> species’ communication in hindsight. It leads us to treat every other form<br>
> of communication as<br>
><br>
> exceptions to a rule based on the one most exceptional and divergent case.<br>
> No analytic method<br>
><br>
> could be more perverse. Social communication has been around for as long as<br>
> animals have<br>
><br>
> interacted and reproduced sexually. Vocal communication has been around at<br>
> least as long as frogs<br>
><br>
> have croaked out their mating calls in the night air. Linguistic<br>
> communication was an afterthought,<br>
><br>
> so to speak, a very recent and very idiosyncratic deviation from an ancient<br>
> and well-established<br>
><br>
> mode of communicating. It cannot possibly provide an appropriate model<br>
> against which to assess<br>
><br>
> other forms of communication. It is the rare exception, not the rule, and a<br>
> quite anomalous<br>
><br>
> exception at that. It is a bit like categorizing birds’ wings with respect<br>
> to the extent they possess or<br>
><br>
> lack the characteristics of penguins’ wings, or like analyzing the types of<br>
> hair on different mammals<br>
><br>
> with respect to their degree of resemblance to porcupine quills. It is an<br>
> understandable<br>
><br>
> anthropocentric bias—perhaps if we were penguins or porcupines we might see<br>
> more typical wings<br>
><br>
> and hair as primitive stages compared to our own more advanced<br>
> adaptations—but it does more to<br>
><br>
> obfuscate than clarify. Language is a derived characteristic and so should<br>
> be analyzed as an<br>
><br>
> exception to a more general rule, not vice versa."<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Of course there will be analogies to linguistic forms.<br>
><br>
> This is inevitable, since language emerged from and is supported by a vast<br>
> nonlinguistic semiotic infrastructure.<br>
><br>
> So of course it will inherit much from less elaborated more fundamental<br>
> precursors.<br>
><br>
> And our familiarity with language will naturally lead us to draw insight<br>
> from this more familiar realm.<br>
><br>
> I just worry that it provides an elaborate procrustean model that assumes<br>
> what it endeavors to explain.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Regards to all, Terry<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero<br>
> <javierweiss@gmail.com<mailto:javierweiss@gmail.com>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> In principle I agree with Terry. I have been thinking of this, though I am<br>
> still not able to make a sound formulation of the idea. Still I am afraid<br>
> that if I miss the chance to make at least a brief formulation of it I will<br>
> lose the opportunity to make a brainstorming with you. So, here it comes:<br>
><br>
> I have been thinking that a proper way to distinguish the contexts in which<br>
> the concept of information acquires a fixed meaning or the many contexts on<br>
> which information can be somehow observed, is to make use of the distinction<br>
> between medium and form as developed by N. Luhmann, D. Baecker and E.<br>
> Esposito. I have already expressed my opinion in this group that what<br>
> information is depends on the system we are talking about. But the concept<br>
> of medium is more especific since a complex system ussualy has many sources<br>
> and types of information.<br>
> So the authors just mentioned, a medium can be broadly defined as a set of<br>
> loosely coupled elements. No matter what they are. While a Form is a<br>
> temporary fixed coupling of a limited configuration of those elements.<br>
> Accordingly, we can be talking about DNA sequences which are selected by RNA<br>
> to form proteins or to codify a especific instruction to a determinate cell.<br>
> We can think of atoms forming a specific kind of matter and a specific kind<br>
> of molecular structure. We can also think of a vocabulary or a set of<br>
> linguistic conventions making possible a meaningful utterance or discourse.<br>
> The idea is that the medium conditions what can be treated as information.<br>
> Or even better, each type of medium produces information of its own kind.<br>
> According to this point of view, information cannot be transmitted. It can<br>
> only be produced and "interpreted" out of the specific difference that a<br>
> medium begets between itself and the forms that take shape from it. A medium<br>
> can only be a source of noise to other mediums. Still, media can couple<br>
> among them. This means that media can selforganize in a synergetic manner,<br>
> where they depend on each others outputs or complexity reductions. And this<br>
> also mean that they do this by translating noise into information. For<br>
> instance, language is coupled to writing, and language and writing to print.<br>
> Still oral communication is noisy to written communication. Let us say that<br>
> the gestures, emotions, entonations, that we make when talking cannot be<br>
> copied as such into writing. In a similar way, all the social practices and<br>
> habits made by handwriting were distorted by the introduction of print. From<br>
> a technical point of view you can codify the same message orally, by writing<br>
> and by print. Still information and meaning are not the same. You can tell<br>
> your girlfriend you love her. That interaction face to face where the lovers<br>
> look into each others eye, where they can see if the other is nervous, is<br>
> trembling or whatever. Meaning (declaring love and what that implies:<br>
> marriage, children, and so on) and information (he is being sincere, she can<br>
> see it in his eye; he brought her to a special place, so he planned it, and<br>
> so on) take a very singular and untranslatable configuration. If you write a<br>
> letter you just can say "I love you". You shall write a poem or a love<br>
> letter. Your beloved would read it alone in her room and she would have to<br>
> imagine everything you say. And imagination makes information and meaning<br>
> to articulate quite differently as in oral communication. It is not the same<br>
> if you buy a love card in the kiosk and send it to her. Maybe you compensate<br>
> the simplicity of your message by adding some chocolates and flowers. Again,<br>
> information (jumm, lets see what he bought her) and meaning are not the<br>
> same. I use examples of social sciences because that is my research field,<br>
> although I have the intuition that it could also work for natural sciences.<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> JJ<br>
><br>
> El feb 7, 2018 10:47 AM, "Sungchul Ji"<br>
> <sji@pharmacy.rutgers.edu<mailto:sji@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>> escribió:<br>
><br>
> Hi FISers,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 10/8/2017, Terry wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> " So basically, I am advocating an effort to broaden our discussions and<br>
> recognize that the term information applies in diverse ways to many<br>
> different contexts. And because of this it is important to indicate the<br>
> framing, whether physical, formal, biological, phenomenological, linguistic,<br>
> etc.<br>
><br>
> . . . . . . The classic syntax-semantics-pragmatics distinction introduced<br>
> by Charles Morris has often been cited in this respect, though it too is in<br>
> my opinion too limited to the linguistic paradigm, and may be misleading<br>
> when applied more broadly. I have suggested a parallel, less linguistic (and<br>
> nested in Stan's subsumption sense) way of making the division: i.e. into<br>
> intrinsic, referential, and normative analyses/properties of information."<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I agree with Terry's concern about the often overused linguistic metaphor in<br>
> defining "information". Although the linguistic metaphor has its<br>
> limitations (as all metaphors do), it nevertheless offers a unique advantage<br>
> as well, for example, its well-established categories of functions (see the<br>
> last column in Table 1.)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> The main purpose of this post is to suggest that all the varied theories of<br>
> information discussed on this list may be viewed as belonging to the same<br>
> category of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) diagrammatically represented<br>
> as the 3-node closed network in the first column of Table 1.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Table 1. The postulated universality of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation)<br>
> as manifested in information theory, semiotics, cell language theory, and<br>
> linguistics.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Category Theory<br>
><br>
> f g<br>
> A -----> B ------> C<br>
> | ^<br>
> | |<br>
> |______________|<br>
> h<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation)<br>
><br>
><br>
> Deacon’s theory of information<br>
><br>
><br>
> Shannon’s<br>
><br>
> Theory of<br>
><br>
> information<br>
><br>
><br>
> Peirce’s theory of signs<br>
><br>
><br>
> Cell language theory<br>
><br>
><br>
> Human language<br>
> (Function)<br>
><br>
><br>
> A<br>
><br>
><br>
> Intrinsic information<br>
><br>
><br>
> Source<br>
><br>
><br>
> Object<br>
><br>
><br>
> Nucleotides*/<br>
> Amion acids<br>
><br>
><br>
> Letters<br>
> (Building blocks)<br>
><br>
><br>
> B<br>
><br>
><br>
> Referential information<br>
><br>
><br>
> Message<br>
><br>
><br>
> Sign<br>
><br>
><br>
> Proteins<br>
><br>
><br>
> Words<br>
> (Denotation)<br>
><br>
><br>
> C<br>
><br>
><br>
> Normative information<br>
><br>
><br>
> Receiver<br>
><br>
><br>
> Interpretant<br>
><br>
><br>
> Metabolomes<br>
> (Totality of cell metabolism)<br>
><br>
><br>
> Systems of words<br>
> (Decision making & Reasoning)<br>
><br>
><br>
> f<br>
><br>
><br>
> ?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Encoding<br>
><br>
><br>
> Sign production<br>
><br>
><br>
> Physical laws<br>
><br>
><br>
> Second articulation<br>
><br>
><br>
> g<br>
><br>
><br>
> ?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Decoding<br>
><br>
><br>
> Sign interpretation<br>
><br>
><br>
> Evoutionary selection<br>
><br>
><br>
> First and Third articulation<br>
><br>
><br>
> h<br>
><br>
><br>
> ?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Information flow<br>
><br>
><br>
> Information flow<br>
><br>
><br>
> Inheritance<br>
><br>
><br>
> Grounding/<br>
><br>
> Habit<br>
><br>
><br>
> Scale<br>
><br>
><br>
> Micro-Macro?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Macro<br>
><br>
><br>
> Macro<br>
><br>
><br>
> Micro<br>
><br>
><br>
> Macro<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *There may be more than one genetic alphabet of 4 nucleotides. According to<br>
> the "multiple genetic alphabet hypothesis', there are n genetic alphabets,<br>
> each consisting of 4^n letters, each of which in turn consisting of n<br>
> nucleotides. In this view, the classical genetic alphabet is just one<br>
> example of the n alphabets, i.e., the one with n = 1. When n = 3, for<br>
> example, we have the so-called 3rd-order genetic alphabet with 4^3 = 64<br>
> letters each consisting of 3 nucleotides, resulting in the familiar codon<br>
> table. Thus, the 64 genetic codons are not words as widely thought<br>
> (including myself until recently) but letters! It then follows that<br>
> proteins are words and metabolic pathways are sentences. Finally, the<br>
> transient network of metbolic pathways (referred to as "hyperstructures" by<br>
> V. Norris in 1999 and as "hypermetabolic pathways" by me more recently)<br>
> correspond to texts essential to represent arguement/reasoning/computing.<br>
> What is most exciting is the recent discovery in my lab at Rutgers that the<br>
> so-called "Planck-Shannon plots" of mRNA levels in living cells can identify<br>
> function-dependent "hypermetabolic pathways" underlying breast cancer before<br>
> and after drug treatment (manuscript under review).<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Any comments, questions, or suggestions would be welcome.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Sung<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Fis mailing list<br>
> Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es><br>
> <a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c28458">
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c28458</a>4fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Fis mailing list<br>
> Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es><br>
> <a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c284584fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0">
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c284584fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> Professor Terrence W. Deacon<br>
> University of California, Berkeley<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Fis mailing list<br>
> Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es><br>
> <a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c284584fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0">
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cca4905ddbcb943df537b08d56ec96c4c%7C927347c284584fde99b9ca9ba94d96e0%7C1%7C0%7C636536733755726637&sdata=ir%2FcgnTkNiV8YXWkbn3T4FULEtrqVHFhg%2FFFVuDc9IA%3D&reserved=0</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Fis mailing list<br>
> Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es><br>
> <a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd21bd1ad9ddf46d01a3e08d5720c681d%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636540320007030420&sdata=JTnL%2BthMsdQUEzTx%2F9UKr5xzKQom6%2FINA8VkaDyPI80%3D&reserved=0">
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd21bd1ad9ddf46d01a3e08d5720c681d%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636540320007030420&sdata=JTnL%2BthMsdQUEzTx%2F9UKr5xzKQom6%2FINA8VkaDyPI80%3D&reserved=0</a>><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Professor Terrence W. Deacon<br>
University of California, Berkeley<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
Fis@listas.unizar.es<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>