RE: [Fis] Economic (& social) networks

RE: [Fis] Economic (& social) networks

From: Pedro Marijuan <[email protected]>
Date: Fri 13 May 2005 - 14:03:06 CEST

Dear John and colleagues,

>If economics is the 'dismal science' IS must be the 'abysmal science' - as
>we stare
>down the precipice into this terra incognita there are no
>interdisciplinary conceptual pitons
>we can use to grapple with the rock face (unlike 'value' 'growth'
>'competition' 'market' 'equilibrium' etc in economics).

There is a very rich diversity of opinions within fis on how information
(science) should be conceptualized or structured in order to apply it into
concrete fields. I tend to think close to the "nihilism" or minimalism of
the above paragraph (none of the existing schools or partial doctrines may
be taken as a solid nucleus ready to be extended and overextended).
However, the analysis of the problems faced by numerous info surrogates
(and the contradictions on how info itself is used in different fields) may
be a very valuable tool. So, informationally grappling with the
internalities of value, competition, markets, etc. may be an interesting
part of the current discussion too --I would advocate that we devote some
time to notions of "inclusive ascendancy" within heterogenous social
networks. Let me attempt a rough view: the way companies account, and the
way we get valued ourselves within social activities would be firmly rooted
in our averaged position in an amazing, volatile abstract cloud of
multidimensional network interactions (weak bonds) projected or "measured"
into a unified symbolic equivalent. One of the fis veterans, Gordon
Scarrott, had related that very idea to the emergence of power laws (we
published his posthumous paper in Soeren's Cybernetics, 1998).

>Arrow's concept of information is predicated on economic uncertainty
>rather than on the Shannon entropy. Paul M. Romer's 'new growth' theory
>and the separation of 'goods' and 'ideas' has been the controversial
>clarion of the knowledge economy.

Although in recent years several Nobel prizes have gone to studies on
information in markets, asymmetries, agents, etc., and all the boom of the
"knowledge engineering" paradigms in management practices, the coherence of
the infoeconomic doctrine looks far from been established. If would be nice
if Igor or other colleagues highlight the pros and cons of those basic
approaches and how they fare particularly regarding the possibilities of
the ecological economics school (how could human networks by means of their
inclusive economic-ascendancy internalize the information needed to
evaluate a "silent" ecological network?)

>I think non-Darwinian models such as these need to be taken into account
>when we
>consider the emergent bioeconomic networks you are suggesting.

Highlighting the cognizing limitations of human individuals in their social
elaboration and application of knowledge, in the economic realm and
elsewhere, would indeed contribute to dispel some of the surrogate clouds
and "neo-clouds". In my opinion, the lack of a central theory in
contemporary neuroscience casts a long shadow in a number of disciplines
(having a future fis session on neuroinformation would be quite desirable).

best

Pedro

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Mon May 16 10:56:43 2005


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Wed 15 Jun 2005 - 12:06:44 CEST