Re: [Fis] 'Locale' Knowledge

Dear Loet, Pedro, Rafeal and All:

Please allow me to add a general comment to the course of the
discussion. It concerns the usage of language and the transport of
"information" among individuals from different disciplines. Although
Pedro, Rafeal and I have discussed this earlier, the current
discussion provide a crisp example of the challenges we face.

Can we agree that each academic discipline has developed, over
substantial durations, a vocabulary that is used by members of that
discipline? In all cases, the language of the discipline is derived
from natural language. Natural language serves as the source of
communication within the discipline; it is modified with special
definitions to meet the needs of the discipline. Of course, natural
language is not unique by itself. As the set of disciplinary
languages emerge in time, more definitions are added to the natural
language terms. Technically, we have what is known as linguistic
"polysema" or polysemic usage. The same term is used in multiple
meanings. When one enters a poly-disciplinary discussion such as
FIS, individuals from different disciplines often disagree because
each translates a term from natural language into a technical
language, perhaps generating two different meanings. Each meaning
may be correct in one discipline but incorrect in the other. The
"bijection" of normal discourse (the back and forth of normal
conversation) is lost. The association of symbols and meanings
generates two different "graphs" (patterns) in the two (or more)
individual minds.

For very broad examples, consider the semantics of four pairs of disciplines:

Mathematics and Physics
Mathematics and Chemistry
Chemistry and Biology
Biology and Medicine

In the first pair, physical terminology has co-evolved with
mathematical terminology such that communication is facile between
these two disciplines. Often, only the questions of logical rigor
and exactness separate the linguistic usages in these two tightly
coupled disciplines.

In the second pair, the technical language of mathematics and
chemistry share the natural numbers and little else. Symbols for
chemical elements were assigned and logical meaning attached to the
symbols (for example, to positions in the table of chemical
elements.) Chemical thinking evolved much later in history than the
foundations of mathematical thinking and hence it was necessary to
develop separate terminology for the unique character of chemical
experiments. Such experiments reveal that the nature of matter is
not simply represented in the precedence of mathematical terminology.
Instead, chemical terminology requires special names for each
chemical substance which represents a very special sort of
mathematical object related to a "graph" of relations. From my
personal experience, I conclude that it is virtually impossible to
communicate between these two disciplines.

In the third pair, chemical and biological terminology have grown
closer and closer during the past 100 years. Concepts of biology are
often best expressed in chemical (or biochemical) terminology.
Nevertheless, logically unique phenomenon in biology do not exist in
the logic of chemistry (for example, development and reproduction).
Often we can translate between chemistry and biology by carefully
specifying definitions. For example, the biological concept of
phermone is dependent on chemical definitions of substance / matter.

Biological and medical terminology have also grown close in the past
century. The enormous richness of medical terminology can often be
translated into terms of normal or abnormal function, based on an
understanding of biological anatomy and physiology.

How does one learn to navigate semantically among these
poly-disciplinary "Towers of Babel" as Alicia Juerraro refers to this
communications problem?

Very briefly, my approach has been to study the roots of terms in
their natural language source in order to seek to bridge the
polysema challenge. For English, the majority of our technical words
come from Latin or Greek roots. For example, the Latin root, "fer",
meaning to bear or to carry, consistently expresses itself in such
derivatives as confer, defer, infer, prefer, refer, and transfer. In
my technical usage of terminology, I seek to preserve the intent of
the original meaning of the root.

(On this list, I suspect that Rafeal also follows a similar approach to usage.)

Now, after this long "aside", I return to the original exchange with
Loet on the meaning of the term "local".

The term "Local" is derived from the same root as the term "locus" or
"loci" or locate or location. The concept is to put or to place.
When something is placed in a location it may be viewed as either
*independent* or *dependent* in its new location. In chemistry, when
we "put" a nitrogen atom adjacent to a oxygen atom in a molecule, the
two atoms not only become part of the same system, they also interact
and influence one another. Each suffers the loss of *independence*
and each contributes to the motion or behavior of the molecule as a
whole. Thus, I conclude that the global information / communication
potential of a molecule is created from the *dependence* on
components. It is not merely "local". A similar analysis of the
term "recognition" as related to "cognition" as related to our
concepts of "knowledge" fits this pattern of usage.

I suspect that similar lines of reasons will emerge in our next discussion.

It is probably wishful thinking to hope that this brief note
communicates deeply with the many disciplines represented on the FIS
list. Perhaps Rafeal can expand on his views of polysema.

Cheers

Jerry LR Chandler

>Dear Pedro,
>
>completely agree. The locality question concerns the context of discovery as
>well as the context of justification and their mutual relationship. What
>emerges as new paradigm is not deterministically predictable (Greek
>mathematics and metaphysics + Lull + Pascal + Leibniz + G�del + Turing +
>Quantum Physics +.... and then (!?) you get today's digital-informational
>view of reality. Amazing, isn't it?
>
>Rafael
>
>Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro
>FH Stuttgart, Hochschule der Medien (HdM) University of Applied Sciences,
>Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
>Universit�t Stuttgart, Institut f�r Philosophie, Dillmannstr. 15, 70049
>Stuttgart, Germany
>Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
>E-Mail: rafael@capurro.de; capurro@hdm-stuttgart.de
>Voice Stuttgart: + 49 - 711 - 25706 - 182
>Voice private: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 22
>Fax: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 21
>Homepage: www.capurro.de
>Homepage ICIE (International Center for Information Ethics):
>http://icie.zkm.de
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Pedro C. Mariju�n" <marijuan@unizar.es>
>To: "fis-listas.unizar.es" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:06 AM
>Subject: Re: [Fis] 'Locale' Knowledge
>
>
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > A very intriguing aspect of the current discussion concerns the
> > relationship between life and mechanics (dynamics). In my opinion, and
> > perhaps also following Rosen's authority, life goes beyond dynamics and is
> > "more universal". The living system couples to its boundary conditions in
> > a new 'active' way, roughly speaking an 'informational' one (which has
> > been called agency, autonomy, etc.). Its self-production will precisely
> > follow from the appropriate communication with the environmental
> > conditions. Then, this 'informational' mode of 'being in the world'
>creates
> > a fundamental breach in the systemic levels that were discussed
>recently...
> > It is a theme that dovetails with the discussion that Soeren will start
> > around next 22 nd on Autopiesis and Meaning --so I would wait for his
> > arguments.
> >
> > About 'locale knowledge' we tend to focus on the products of science
> > (theories, laws, concepts, etc.) arguing out from the idealized
> > characteristics usually implied, and then we completely disregard the
> > limitations of the scientific practitioners. However, the 'limited
> > prehension' of the scientific observer/practitioner could be a very basic
> > aspect in order to make sense of the circulatory dynamics of 'scientific
> > networks.'
> >
> > best regards
> >
> > Pedro
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > fis mailing list
> > fis@listas.unizar.es
> > http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>_______________________________________________
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Mon Jan 19 20:28:12 2004