> Incidentally, this was what I was trying to lead Loet to a
> while back when I argued that no new information arises from
> sociality alone. This is just one of many difficult cases.
> Many physicists will say (as they have to me) that the phase
> space of the system is a given, and thus all of the
> information in the system is given in advance by that
> structure of that phase space, so new information is
> impossible. I say that if we have dissipation of the same
> order as that of a central property of the system (especially
> its cohesion, or dynamical individuating property -- see,
> e.g. Collier and Hooker, "Complexly Organised Dynamical
> Systems", Open Systems and Information Dynamics , 6 (1999):
> 241-302), then new information can appear, in the sense that
> a) it cannot be computed from the original system, as long as
> its properties are localized, and b) nothing can control the
> system to select one attractor over another (unless it uses
> high power and substantially changes the phase space itself).
>
> What I was trying to lead Loet to was the requirement of
> additional conditions on mere sociality, but he cleverly
> blocked my attempt to illuminate him.
Dear John and colleagues,
I understood the argument which you made in Behavioral and Brain Sciences
27(5), 2004, 629-630, but I did not understand why this would preclude the
possibility of another circulation process--generating probabilistic entropy
in another dimension--at the level of the emergent system.
The argument was about whether meaning could circulate at the level of the
social system in addition to and possibly in interaction with the processing
of information (uncertainty in the distributions) in this system. Note that
the communication of meaning is not observable, but one can entertain the
hypothesis that meaning is communicated in social and psychological systems
(Husserl). For example, a statement can be expected to contain information
and to be provided with meaning both by individuals and in discourses. The
two (analytically distinguished) communication processes mutually inform
each other. This mutual information would be equal to the meaningful
information which is selected from the circulation of the uncertainty.
If I correctly remember your point was that this emerging system of meaning
circulation would not contain information, but it seems to me that this
depends on the operationalization. For example, in the economy one might
argue that the circulation of goods is valued (and in this sense provided
with meaning) by the circulation of prices. The circulation of goods and
prices can be measured independently. When more than two levels can thus be
distinguished, mutual information in three dimensions can even be negative.
Thus, the next-order system may locally reduce the uncertainty.
Perhaps, I still miss out what I seem to have blocked. :-) Thus, the above
provide sufficient material for the further illumination?
With best wishes,
Loet
_______________________________________
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-20-525 3681
[email protected]
; http://www.leydesdorff.net
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Jan 27 10:15:57 2006
