<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html>
head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"></head><body><div dir="ltr"><p>Dear Colleagues,</p><p>
</p><p>I am reluctant to discuss the information matters related
to our language as they too easily mess things up. But Eric Werner
short paper (2010, Science 329, 629-630) makes a very adequate remark
in the context of Shannon's theory and biologic information that may
also apply to language use: "The meaning of a message is determined by
how it affects the informational and intentional state of the agent.
Agents coordinate their actions by using communication to adjust their
respective strategies so that they cohere to achieve their
interlocking goals."</p><p>The point on "interlocking goals" by Werner
brings me to the centrality of life cycles (synchronization of lives),
in all quarters pertaining to the biological and to the social, and
also in our languages. But they are not still recognized as a central
concern to ponder. They are like the water for the fish, that
invisible stuff which permeates our societies. </p><p>Finally, let me
return to Joseph's interpretation of meta-observers below, which
I concur. In actuality, the full world of disciplines with all their
institutional collective bodies, Institutes, Departments, Journals,
Reviewers, Meetings, formal and informal gatherings, etc. constitute a
thought collective well beyond the individual. In our case, the "meta"
complexity is well credited, as the problems around information cross
along some of the deepest conundrums: from a new evolutionary/cellular
theory to the absence of an efficient central theory of neurosciences
(&consciousness); from quantum information
(&measurement&coherence interpretations) to cosmology; from
the relationship with entropy to the information society, and of
course including the new "dataism" to be discussed soon.</p><p>And
this is my second cent of the week. </p><p>Best--Pedro</p><p>
</p><p> </p><p>On Sat, 3 Mar 2018 02:58:28 +0100 (CET)
"joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" wrote:</p><blockquote><p>Dear Pedro and All,
</p><p> </p><p>If I go back to Pedro's original note, I see a
further aspect which might be worked into its discussion. There are no
ideal meta-observers; we are all, to a certain extent, both
meta-observers of the discussion and participants in it. This is not a
simple vertical hierarchy. We move between these two roles, switching
from actualizing one to the other. Recognition of both should help
accomplish what I have tried to propose, namely, that we force
ourselves to emphasize someone else's work in our proposals, rather
than our own.</p><p> </p><p>Best regards,</p><p> </p><p>
Joseph</p><blockquote>----Message d'origine----<br>De :
pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es<br>Date : 28/02/2018 - 05:34 (PST)<br>À :
fis@listas.unizar.es<br>Objet : [Fis] Meta-observer?<br><br><p>
</p><p> </p><p>head></p><p dir="ltr"></p><p>Dear FISers,</p><p>
</p><p>Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think that</p>
p>expostulating one's general framework is going to facilitate the</p>
p>discussions. Perhaps opposite, as it will introduce a trend towards
</p><p>generalization that fortifies the perspectival differences and
makes</p><p>the rhetorics less adjusted to the concrete. The problem
basically</p><p>resides in the persistent immaturity of the
"information synthesis" so</p><p>to speak. Defenders of each approach
advocate a different "observer",</p><p>charged in each case with their
favorite conceptualizations. Taking</p><p>into account the apparent
multitude of dimensions of information, and</p><p>its almost
unfathomable reach, a "battery" of those observers has to</p><p>be in
place. And an agile switching among the observers has to be</p><p>
established. A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious</p><p>
displacements of the focus... helas, this means a meta-observer
</p><p>or an observer-in-command.</p><p>But what sort of reference may
such a</p><p>metaobserver arbitrate? There is no conceivable book of
rules about</p><p>the switching between heterogeneous disciplinary
bodies.</p><p>I see</p><p>only one way, imitating the central goal of
nervous systems: the</p><p>metaobserver should finally care about our
collective social life. It</p><p>was Whitehead, as far as I remember,
who put it: "to live, to live</p><p>better." In each level of
organization it is the life cycle of the</p><p>concerned entities and
the aggregates built upon them what</p><p>matters. </p><p>
Information is not only about logic-formal</p><p>aspects. It is the
bread and butter of complexity, that which allows</p><p>contemporary
social life. </p><p>So, in the coming session about</p><p>
"dataism" we can also explore these themes.</p><p> </p><p>
Best--Pedro</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
/blockquote><p> </p></blockquote><p> </p></div></body></html>