SV: Information and Natural Languages

Dear Koichiro and Raphael

I can't help pointing out that it is the position of second order
cybernetics to take the cognition of differences in the 'outside' by a
living system as the point of departure for a theory of information as a
"difference that makes a difference". The minimum requirement for this
process to appear is that we have an autopoietic system. So the whole
definition of information is tied to the notion of an 'observer'.
Therefore what we have 'outside' can only be 'potential information'.
This is one of the main reasons that I disagree with Tom Stonier in his
view of objective information and 'infons'.

Venlig hilsen/Best wishes

Assoc. Prof. Ph. D. Søren Brier
Royal School of Library and Information Science, Aalborg Branch
Langagervej 4, DK-9220 Aalborg Øst
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

> ----------
> Fra: koichiro matsuno/7129[SMTP:kmatsuno@vos.nagaokaut.ac.jp]
> Sendt: 9. december 1997 10:02
> Til: Multiple recipients of list
> Emne: Re: Information and Natural Languages
>
> Rafael Capurro's point
>
> >In other
> >words, the condition of possibility of saying something is 'out
> >there' is that the one who says 'out there' knows the difference (and
>
> >makes this difference explicit) between being 'out there' and being
> >'inside'.
>
> should be well taken by many. The activity of making the difference
> explicit must be primary more than anything else.
>
> >(Western) Philosophy has
> >been asking itself for centuries about the possibility of the 'out
> >there' and the question of a bridge (quaestio de ponte) between
> >'there' and 'here'.
>
> Ain't there still many adherents to this view?
>
> >The possibility of saying (!) something is 'out there' is a
> >possibility given to us through language, as far as we can say:
> >something 'is' (or 'is not'), and to broad-cast our 'casting'.
>
> This is exactly the point that has intrigued me. Our linguistic
> institution seems to underlie the issue of information, instead of
> simply that information be something to adequately be represented
> by a language.
>
> >As far as I can see, your question has also to
> >do with two interesting subject matters: what does it mean to
> >'broadcast' a message? We need, I think, something we could call a
> >theory of messages.
>
> Rafael, you seem to imply here that the descriptive author of
> any text on messages is willing to accept behavioral active agents
> surviving even within the text. Am I right?
>
> >And the second point is, what does it mean to
> >talk about information in the present tense and in the present
> >progressive tense. This last question concerns the relationship
> >between message transmission and time.
>
> How about the possibility that even time itself, whether global
> or local, might be a human construct especially in the context of
> talking about information?
>
> >When talking about information
> >without making the (human) difference between past, present and
> >future, we get a specific form of information (or message)
> >transmission.
>
> You may have some idea of time here. Could you explicate it
> a little bit more? Your view looks quite challenging.
>
> Regards,
> Koichiro
>
> Koichiro Matsuno
>
>
Received on Tue Dec 9 10:53:38 1997