SV: SV: Foundations of Information Science

Dear Rafael

You write

"I think Luhmann's difference between
_Mitteilung_ (communication) and _Information_ (and _Verstehen_
understanding) is a useful paradigm. We have being dealing with with
problem of understanding (hermeneutics) of 'Information' but not being
much aware that there must be something like an offert (_Mitteilung_)
out of which the system can create a new understanding."

I agree that it is fruitful to say that a series of sign will have a
quantitative aspect(of information in Shannon's understanding), a
meaning aspect (phenomenological, hermeneutical) and a communicative
aspect (intentions). But they are always interrelated but often in new
and interesting ways. For instance if you repeat the same message, then
the information content is the same but the meaning may change and there
might be a different communicative intent behind.

You further write:

"This is the point where I see the concept of information understood as
the _causa formalis_. I think that modern science disregard this sort
of causality taking into account only the _causa efficiens_ . The _causa
formalis_ allows only a relative prognose, as I do not know exactly what
the effect of the 'in-formation' processes will be."

This is a very difficult question in science. David Bohm has worked with
the concept of informational field in his attempt to provide a new
foundation for the explanation of quantum entanglements. On semiotic
and linguistic level in living and social beings information no doubt
has causal effects also indirect as context/language game
(Wittgentstein)/ idealized cognitive model (Lakoff)/ground (Peirce). I
have discussed aspects of this in a paper forthcoming in Evolution and
Cognition (journal of the Konrad Lorenz inst.) which I will recommend
here.

You go on somewhere else, I think it was in the answer to Koichiro:

"Ancient Greek philosophy (Plato, Aristotle) considered forms
(eidos, idea) as the culmination (or realization, _energeia_) of
potential being (_dynamis_). The question is, as Heidegger in _Being and
Time_ states, whether potentiality is 'higher' than actuality. In this
case forms or not a culmination but a kind of horizon of possible
developments (not just, as Plato thought, a copy of an eternal
original)."
 
"we see now, under an evolutionary perspective, that there are no such a
priori structures and that 'forms' are perspectives of world
constructions (possibilities more than actualities)."

Again I must point out how close this is to C.S. Peirce's theory of
evolution and semiotics. Firstness - which can only be known through
secondness and thirdness - is seen as potentiality and qualities that
can turn into manifest habits such as regularities in nature and in
human understanding. I support this idea.

I think that this will be the end of the philosophical discussions on
this list for a while until Pedro opens a section of the conference on
this subject again later on as he has just promised. I want to thank
everybody. It was a great delight . I wish you all a merry Xmas and a
very happy new year.

Venlig hilsen/Best wishes

Assoc. Prof. Ph. D. S�ren Brier
Royal School of Library and Information Science, Aalborg Branch
Langagervej 4, DK-9220 Aalborg �st
Telephone: +45 98 157922 , Fax: +45 98 151042
Homepage: http://www.db.dk/dbaa/sbr/home_uk.htm
Ed. & Publisher of Cybernetics & Human Knowing
homepage: http://www.db.dk/dbaa/sbr/cyber.htm
Received on Tue Dec 23 19:28:01 1997