RE: RE: RE: [Fis] CONCLUDING THE SESSION

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Soeren Brier [mailto:sbr.lpf@cbs.dk]
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:10 AM
> To: Loet Leydesdorff
> Cc: Fis
> Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Fis] CONCLUDING THE SESSION
>
>
> Dear Loet
>
> 1. Meaning is an "update value"? Is that a social thing?

No, a property of a system. But not all systems can update. For example,
systems that are fixed in their information content by the engineering
cannot update neither can systems that are completely volatile.

>
> 2. At the same time you define it statistically as
> reduction of uncertainty? But this goes for physical systems too.
>
Yes.

> 3. Then add that this needs a selective system. Does that
> imply that only social systems are selective?
>
No. Any system which is able to select (using its structure).
These questions are not yet system-specific. The point is whether we can
define meaning more abstractly at the level of the mathematical theory
of communication. Additionally, one needs substantive theorizing at the
level of the system of reference (e.g., the living cell).

> 4. Unless you want to define the social from the concept
> of meaning, then it is not a reducing of the social to claim
> that all living systems work with meaning, and add that only
> language producing system make conscious meaning.

I agree, but language is not only an operator of the producing system,
but also of the produced one. The social system operates by
communicating both meaning and information. Language can be considered
as the evolutionary achievement that allows us to communicate using
these two channels at the same time.

>
> 5. Do you restrict "the social to humans? Chimpanzees then
> do not have social organization and interaction?

I am particularly interested in scientific communication, as you know.
Chimpanzees certainly have social organization and interaction, but
whether they can also communicate meaning is questionnable. In any case,
they do not seem to be able to communicate higher-order codifications of
information. Information is first coded by meaning, but some meanings
are more meaningful than others. Knowledge can be considered as a
meaning which makes a difference. Human minds and social systems seem
the ones which are able to generate and process these higher-order
codifications exclusively. (Computers?)

>
> 6. Luhmann says that meaning is a reduction of complexity.
> Is that not what all living system do?

Yes, but not only living systems can do so. Complexity can also be
reduced by means other than generating meaning (e.g., selection).

>
> 7. What are the non-living systems that produce meaning
> never the less??

Scientific communication, for example. Of course, the meaning is
initially generated by someone and the reproduction can also be
attributed to someone, but the dynamics of meaning (for example, inside
a paradigm) are not determined by the individual contributions.

For example, the conservation of momenta and energy in physics can be
attributed to Newton in the clear formulation. But the authors before
him (including Galilei) already had a notion of the conservation of
movement. One can also say that Newton only formalized these concepts.

>
> 8. Are your meaning concept based on Luhmann? Because I do
> not understand neither yours not Luhmann's concept of meaning.

I am sorry to hear that. It is quite simple: both the social system and
individual minds operate in terms of meaning generation and processing.
The two systems are structurally coupled (Maturana) in the processing,
but they have a non-linear dynamics which operates differently. For
example, human minds tend to develop individually, while the social can
be considered as a dividuum (a distribution).

>
> 9. Maybe it is because your theory is not able to think
> the living, but only either the dead physical-chemical or the
> social meaningful?

The living can not be thought only analytically, but it has also to be
studied empirically. In addition to formal theorizing (non-linear
dynamics and entropy statistics) one needs always substantive theorizing
in order to say something informed about a system of reference.
>
> 10. To be consistent you then have to put the biological
> system under the mechanical and let meaning appear by the
> creation of souls from the Divine in a thinking world or
> somehow emerge from the mechanical world?

That is Luhmann's position, but I try to ground meaning in a system's
operation.

>
> 11. But that is philosophy of course, not sociology - and
> it is my experience that those researchers, who like you
> define themselves as sociologist, do not feel obliged to
> answer those questions, because they are ontological.

I do my best to answer the questions. (I have a MA in philosophy, but
moved to sociology in the PhD because of my interest in substantive
theorizing.)

>
> 12. But FIS is about foundations, so I do think we need to
> address the foundations here.
>
Yes, I agree.

With kind regards, Loet

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Loet Leydesdorff <loet@leydesdorff.net>
> Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2003 8:59 pm
> Subject: RE: RE: [Fis] CONCLUDING THE SESSION
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Soeren Brier [ <')" >sbr.lpf@cbs.dk> sbr.lpf@cbs.dk]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 6:19 PM
> > > To: Loet Leydesdorff
> > > Subject: Re: RE: [Fis] CONCLUDING THE SESSION
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Loet
> > >
> > > To your answer's here. I cannot see how there can be any
> connection
> > > between neg-entropy and meaning. I agree that it is only living
> > > system that can attach meaning to information patterns.
> This is done
> > > because living systems are individuals with an interest in
> > > surviving. This is the first level of meaning. Peircer taks about
> > > signification when an organism get mening out of non-intensional
> > > signals and turn then into sign by giving them meaning in
> relation
> > > to it form of life.
> >
> > Meaning can be generated by any system that can provide the
> incoming
> > information with an update value. One can consider this as
> a -?H when
> > using the Shannon notation (Brillouin, 1964). This information
> > (negentropy) reduces the uncertainty prevailing in the system. The
> > probabilistic entropy is related to ("normalized in terms of") the
> > expected information content of the system updating
> (Brillouin, at p.
> > 11: "The knowledge of such additional information allows us
> > ...."). Some
> > uncertainty can then discarded as noise. However, this selection
> > presumes a selecting system. This system thus provides the
> information
> > with a first-order meaning. Meaning can be considered as
> implied when
> > the information is codified (by a system).
> >
> > It is not possible to reduce the meaning in social exchanges to the
> > living carriers of the communication because that would not
> > sufficientlyappreciate the interaction terms (as different from the
> > aggregation). Social systems process meaning, but are not
> necessarily
> > alive. (In my opinion, the distinction between human-centered
> > psychology and the studyof interpersonal communication is the major
> > achievement of
> > Luhmann'ssociology.) Social systems, for example, produce
> > situational meaning in
> > addition to the meaning perceived by each of the participants.
> > >
> > > Therefor I do not like to used the term ' pattern recognition" at
> > > the molecular level. I prefer 'pattern fitting*, becaue the
> > > operation do not demand an awareness with a memory.
> > >
> > > I thus see the information level as a straight
> physical-statistical
> > > level without meaning assumptions - and without a full theory of
> > > life.
> > >
> > I agree with this last conclusion. However, I appreciate the
> > informationtheoretical concepts because I wish to study non-living
> > systems that
> > process meaning nevertheless. I am not a biologist, but a social
> > scientist. Reducing social science to biology has been a recipee for
> > social and scientific disaster.
> >
> > With kind regards, Loet
> >
> >
>

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Oct 9 08:50:34 2003