Pragmatic Semiotic Information (Ψ)

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/08/21/pragmatic-semiotic-information-%cf%88/

Ontologists, Systers, Modelers,

I remember it was back in '76 when I began to notice a subtle shift of
focus in the computer science journals I was reading, from discussing X
to discussing Information About X, or X → Info(X) as I came to notate it.
I suppose this small arc of revolution had been building for years but it
struck me as crossing a threshold to a more explicit, self-conscious stage
about that time.

And thereby hangs a number of tales ...

Jon

--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

[Ken Lloyd]

When speaking of most things, say x, we are indirectly referencing all the meta-levels of x - meta signifying beyond which can include higher levels of abstraction as well as lower levels of realizations.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Aleksandar Malečić]

In your opinion, how (and why) will Kent Palmer's work on schemas (http://schematheory.net/) be remembered in some distant future? Or Len Troncale's Systems Processes Theory (http://lentroncale.com/?page_id=30)?

Aleksandar

[Jon Awbrey]

Ken,

Thanks for the comment. It made me realize that the notation Info(X) is
probably not the best. It tends to mislead us into thinking we already
have X in hand, in other words, that we already have perfect information
about X and are merely abstracting Info(X) as some derivative of it.
But that is not the sort of situation we are concerned with here.

It might be better to say that Info is all the information we have at
a given moment of investigation and X abstracts the portion of Info
that has to do with X. That might lead us to notate it as X(Info).
This brings to mind the way we speak of observables in physics,
as operators on the total state or wave function or whatever.

If I had to concoct an informal linguistic example — which I'd do solely by way
of rough analogy to the formal mathematical situations we'd have much hope of
resolving in our lifetimes — I'd say the sorts of X we're facing here are what
used to be called “definite descriptions” like “Desdemona's infidelity” or
“Manafort's guilt on the 10 mistried counts”.

In those sorts of situations, discussed to death in years gone by,
what a modicum of pragmatic-semiotic insight adds to the mix is that
all descriptions are indefinite to some degree, all syntax is lax to
some extent.

There are, as usual, clear foresights of that insight in Peirce.
And that is what I'll be getting around to prescently.

Regards,

Jon

[Lenard Troncale]

In my humble opinion (IMHO), neither has a distant future unless they write books and publish them.     Len

[George Mobus]

Exactly Len. And the IFSR book series with Springer is great venue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Mobus, PhD.
Associate Professor Emeritus, Institute of Technology
University of Washington Tacoma

Street mail: 1900 Commerce St. Tacoma, WA 98402-3100 Box 358426
Phone: 253.692.5894
E-mail: gmo...@uw.edu
Web site: http://faculty.washington.edu/gmobus

---

From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:25:21 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Pragmatic Semiotic Information (Ψ)

 

[Jack Ring]

Len’s SPT will bebremembered and applied widely because it leads to pathology detection and prevention.

Jack Ring

[Jack Ring]

Although books are effective, scripts for computer-based learning environments may be moreso. c.f., audio books and the Kahn Academy. 

Currently books have an advantage because they undergo a “proofreading and editing (second opinion)" phase. Perhaps the alternatives will learn to include a pathology prevention phase as well..

Jack

[Ken Lloyd]

WRT to Kent Palmer’s and Len Troncale’s work, I see these as some of the many dots in a very large pointillist painting from which a “picture” emerges.

 

Ken Lloyd

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Aleksandar Malecic

Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 2:21 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com

Virus-free. www.avg.com

[Ken Lloyd]

Hopefully, in whatever medium we find it, we can avoid the “Pablum” in the pabulum of knowledge. Adequate communication is hard task.

Virus-free. www.avg.com

[Lenard Troncale]

Jack,

Thank you for your suggestion in answer to Alex Malecic’s question. Re: that, I fully agree, and that is why perhaps INCOSE Foundation funded our group to produce an open source, computerized, online relational data base on Systems Processes Theory. We are building a website to introduce the SPT-RDB as well as one on Systems Pathology itself as well as one on Systems Processes Theory in overview (to join the four related websites we already have up).

We are also collaborating with the Monterey Phoenix group at Naval Postgraduate School and Odum’s ISAER groups to develop “mini-models” in EXTEND for each isomorphy of the SPT. We also hope to engage many in group or cloud research on using these. You should also go to

intsocsyspath.org

if you have not already done so, as it is the website shell for our effort to establish a new International Society for Systems Pathology (which was also partially funded by one of the first INCOSE Foundation grants)(and for which you were the FIRST Founding Member).

Of course, following my own advice I am now writing two books entitled:

Systems Processes Theory: The Other Theory of Everything,             and

Introduction to Systems Literacy: From Systems Thinking to Systems Science

and after being pushed by Wilby and Singers and Tuddenham, I am re-publishing my first book Nature’s Enduring Patterns from 1978 in the Lawson Systems Engineering series. Or at least I will offer it to them.

Of course, my friends and colleagues will also tell you I have been working on those titles for years and they will never come about interrupted by my passing.

If all or any of these come about, then we will have followed your suggestion and mine and Malecic to enable a legacy for SPT. And remember you were the beginning of it all by introducing me to INCOSE and setting up the first Webinars (for the Fellows and for the CAB).

Of course, I also should say that “these are the opinions of the author and not necessarily of the sponsor” to protect you from fallout.

Len

[Aleksandar Malečić]

I didn't mean to hijack the topic by mentioning Kent Palmer and Len Troncale. I think that pragmatic semiotic information ("contained" within or learned from natural and engineered entities) is the making or breaking point of their approaches, the place where they gain or lose their validity.

Aleksandar

[Jack Ring]

All good news. TKU.

Be aware, though, that I do not qualify as Sponsor. More like the guy who, according to General George S. Patton Jr., rides in the chariot behind the Conquerer and whispers in his ear a warning: that "all glory is fleeting"

I understand that ISSPath dues are $100 annually. Sending today. More for the Patho part tha SPT.

Onward.

Jack

[Jack Ring]

Which is interpreted in a variety of ways by various observers. The important issue is ‘how shall ‘we’ cohere?’

Jack Ring

[Jon Awbrey]

Systems Science, Structural Modeling,

Here's my blog rehash of a couple earlier comments on the Ontolog list that
may help to explain my use of the term "pragmatic semiotic information".
I forgot that I hadn't shared those comments here, so sorry about that.

Inquiry Driven Systems • Comment 5
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/08/19/inquiry-driven-systems-%e2%80%a2-comment-5/

Re: Ontolog Forum • Bruce Schuman
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/ontolog-forum/vo8CmL8jt30/2zAl5v_zDQAJ

I would call that the pragmatic-semiotic point of view
and not find anything shocking in it.

One can find earlier foreshadowings — Plato’s Cratylus and the Stoic lekton
are often mentioned in this connection — but the clearest precursor of the
pragmatic-semiotic perspective occurs in Aristotle’s recognition of the
triadic sign relation, most succinctly in his treatise On Interpretation.

Here’s the little essay Susan Awbrey and I wrote on that, tracing
the continuities of pragmatic semiotics from Aristotle up through
Peirce and Dewey and teasing out the intimate relationship between
the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry.

Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

Regards,

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Interesting section of your paper:

"We discuss the role of the interpreter in the activity of interpretation. 

Aristotle assumes that objects and impressions in the mind are constant across all interpreters. 

Confronting this assumption with the needs of hermeneutic and educational practice, we argue that a comparative 

and developmental understanding of interpreters is required. This in turn demands the more complete theory of 

signs envisioned by Peirce and Dewey, which continues to be developed in the semiotic and pragmatic traditions."

We are working on a paper that addresses different kinds of languages, each that have a 

different type of interpreter.  The augmented model-exchange isomorphism (AMEI) provides a

framework in which the semantics of a given natural language relationship may be evaluated and 

explored to identify a common isomorphic expression across all thee language types.

The ability to convert a informal language (natural language) into a formal language in an isomorphic

manner is very valuable for a number of reasons.

At this time we are addressing three natural language relationships that are at the heart of systems science and systems engineering.  These three natural language relationships are:

  1) Part-of  (Necessary to discuss a system with more than one part, part <=> whole)

  2) Precedes (Necessary to discuss a time based process, like creating a system)

  3) Influence (Necessary for the evaluation of system interaction.)

The plan is to have the paper up on Research Gate in a  few days and present the paper contents 

at the September 1st Structural Modeling Project video conference at 9 AM Pacific time.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Lenard Troncale]

Well, Jack,

as always IMHO, I do not have to worry about “glory” because I am still decidedly unknown, and a guru to no one (I hope). Still, it is always a very good thing to be advised that glory is fleeting qualified by the telling “all.” (thank you)

I do understand that you are interested mostly in the Systems Pathology application than the original Systems Processes Theory (SPT). Although I have to say that SysPath derives from SPT. It is the detailing of the “mechanisms” (processes) that have resulted in sustainable natural systems for billions of years that is the KEY. Once one has a detailed version of the “steps” in each isomorphic process from studying the science behind it, then it is easy to derive “mistakes” or “dysfunctions” in the process that lead to the many manifestations of human complex system problems I collected in the SE lists (n=151). And I didn’t even include the many cited in Gall’s opus because they require analysis and synthesis first. Great progress would be made, again IMHO, and power attained by associating the actual systems process CAUSES (etiologies) with identified systems dysfunctions (SYMPTOMS).

 I wonder if you will sign or agree with the Systems Manifesto? Let me send a draft to you first.

Len

[Jon Awbrey]

I've been following the discussion on the SysSci list that asks
the question, “What Is Systems Science?”. I haven't found the
free time to join in yet but it is very interesting to me on
account of the fact my work on Inquiry Driven Systems for the
last 30 years or so can be seen to ask the converse question,
“How Is Science A (Cybernetic or Dynamic) System?”.

The idea that the sciences operate as (some order of) cybernetic systems
is of course nothing new but there is a lot of work to do detailing that
insight and especially building intelligent software systems that assist
scientific research by availing themselves of that task and user model.

Regards,

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Many interesting view points and aspects associated with the methods, goals and artifacts associated with science.

Our next focus is the refactoring and refinement of the existing structural modeling software.

Things are moving along slowly, but moving in the right direction.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

[joseph simpson]

FYI ..

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John F Sowa <so...@bestweb.net>
Date: Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Pragmatic Semiotic Information (Ψ)
To: <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>

On 9/2/2018 9:54 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> I've been following the discussion on the SysSci list that asks
> the question, “What Is Systems Science?”.

Systems science, like every other science, is applied semiotic.
The primary difference between the sciences is the subject matter
to which they are applied.

The reason for differences in terminology is historical and
egotistical.  The names that are given to things depend on changing
circumstances, historical accidents, popular fads, and egotistical
desires by people who want to claim that they made a novel discovery.

For example, where are the boundary lines between psychiatry,
psychology, behavioral science, cognitive science, social science,
sociology, educational psychology, and anthropology?

Answer:  It all depends on which textbook you use.

However, there is one basic distinction:  all sciences, whether
the scientists know it or not, are versions of applied mathematics.

Fundamental reason:  Pure mathematics does not depend on any empirical
observation.  Every other subject, including so-called common sense,
use math (formal or informal) to analyze some observable phenomena.

See the attached cspsci.gif.  Note that formal logic and formal
semiotic are two names for the same branch of pure mathematics.
The distinction is whether you call logic a subset of semiotic or
semiotic a subset of logic -- if undecided, flip a coin.

John

--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[joseph simpson]

Aleksandar:

You wrote:

"Aren't all sciences versions of applied Knowledge Representation Ontology also known as the Sowa Diamond? http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.html"

Great question.

Sowa wrote:

"However, there is one basic distinction:  all sciences, whether
the scientists know it or not, are versions of applied mathematics.

Fundamental reason:  Pure mathematics does not depend on any empirical
observation.  Every other subject, including so-called common sense,
use math (formal or informal) to analyze some observable phenomena."

It seems that there needs to be some empirical observation somewhere in the mix.

Take care and have fun,

Joe

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:17 AM Aleksandar Malečić <ljma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Aren't all sciences versions of applied Knowledge Representation Ontology also known as the Sowa Diamond? http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/toplevel.htm

Aleksandar

[Jon Awbrey]

Ontologists, Systems Scientists, Structural Modelers,

What I find lacking in these ontological bat-capping games is the
dynamic, functional, transformational side of scientific inquiry,
the process that produces the product. If sciences are bodies
of organized knowledge, what is the physiology of those bodies?
That is the variety of systems theory I learned in my schools,
focusing on the states of systems and how they change over time.

When we apply that systems perspective to information systems,
knowledge systems, systems of belief, received opinion, whatever,
the state under investigation is a state of information, knowledge,
and so on, and the question becomes, “What influences and operations
actually do and optimally ought to update that state of info over time?”

For ease of reference, here is my blog rehash of my last post,
seeing as how the main point of it somehow got snipped out:

Pragmatic Semiotic Information • Discussion 2
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/09/02/pragmatic-semiotic-information-%e2%80%a2-discussion-2/

Regards,

Jon

>>>> I've been following the discussion on the SysSci list that asks
>>>> the question, “What Is Systems Science?”.
>>>

>>> Systems science, like every other science, is applied semiotic.
>>> The primary difference between the sciences is the subject matter
>>> to which they are applied.
>>>
>>> The reason for differences in terminology is historical and
>>> egotistical. The names that are given to things depend on changing
>>> circumstances, historical accidents, popular fads, and egotistical
>>> desires by people who want to claim that they made a novel discovery.
>>>
>>> For example, where are the boundary lines between psychiatry,
>>> psychology, behavioral science, cognitive science, social science,
>>> sociology, educational psychology, and anthropology?
>>>
>>> Answer: It all depends on which textbook you use.
>>>
>>> However, there is one basic distinction: all sciences, whether
>>> the scientists know it or not, are versions of applied mathematics.
>>>
>>> Fundamental reason: Pure mathematics does not depend on any empirical
>>> observation. Every other subject, including so-called common sense,
>>> use math (formal or informal) to analyze some observable phenomena.
>>>
>>> See the attached cspsci.gif. Note that formal logic and formal
>>> semiotic are two names for the same branch of pure mathematics.
>>> The distinction is whether you call logic a subset of semiotic or
>>> semiotic a subset of logic -- if undecided, flip a coin.
>>>
>>> John
>>>

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Interesting point of view and approach.

Another interesting approach was taken by John Warfield.

John's approach explored the minimal, necessary context needed to support the activity of science.  The necessary contextual, environmental components are:

 1) Human beings (more than one)

 2) Language

 3) Reasoning through relationships

 4) Archival representation of artifacts.

These four components are given as the "Universal Priors to Science," in Chapter 2 of "A Science of Generic Design."

The ability of a given group of human beings to clearly communicate and reason has a significant impact on the development of any type of science.

It may be that expending effort on refining and developing these contextual components will have a great impact on the quality and quantity of science produced.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Lenard Troncale]

Joe and Teams,

I think your summary of Warfield’s “minimal, necessary context for support of the activity of science” 4 components indicates why John and I had so many disagreements about systems science in our day. Please note that all 4 are on the human level ONLY. There is nothing there about experiments, applying the scientific method, hypotheses, past results, falsifiability, measuring & empirical approaches, or arranging nature to tell us how SHE works and not how WE HUMANS work. Missing these might explain the human role in trying to do science, but it does not explicate in any way the essentials of doing science IMHO. And so his tools might be great for helping humans begin to recognize how their human problems are really systems-level problems, but they do little to harvest and apply the “way nature has settled down to work” or its prescriptions to our newly developing human systems.

Len

[Jon Awbrey]

Ontologists, Systems Scientists, Structural Modelers,

A question arising on another blog, perhaps incidentally, perhaps of the essence,
bought to mind recent discussions in these forums regarding the nature of systems,
variables, and the measurements that give systematic state variables their values.
My current focus being what it is, I couched my answer in pragmatic semiotic terms.

⁂

Measurement is an extension of perception.
Measurement gives us data about an object
system the way perception gives us percepts,
which we may consider just a species of data.

If we ask when we first became self-conscious about this
whole process of perception and measurement, I don't know,
but Aristotle broke ground in a very articulate way with his
treatise “On Interpretation”. Sense data are “impressions”
on the mind and they have their consensual, communicable
derivatives in spoken and written “signs”. This triple
interaction among objects, ideas, and signs is the
cornerstone of our contemporary theories of signs,
collectively known as “semiotics”.

⁂

Regards,

[Jon Awbrey]

Azamat, All,

Of course it's not that simple. I called it a cornerstone
not a whole building but it gives us a starting point and
a first approach to a pragmatic semiotic architecture
still being built as we speak.

There is more detail and a trace of semiotic's later development in this paper:

• Awbrey and Awbrey (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

We began by quoting the founding paragraph from Aristotle:

<QUOTE>

Words spoken are symbols or signs (symbola) of affections or impressions (pathemata) of
the soul (psyche); written words are the signs of words spoken. As writing, so also is
speech not the same for all races of men. But the mental affections themselves, of which
these words are primarily signs (semeia), are the same for the whole of mankind, as are also
the objects (pragmata) of which those affections are representations or likenesses, images,
copies (homoiomata). (Aristotle, De Interp. i. 16a4).

</QUOTE>

We used the following Figure to highlight the structure of the triadic
relation among objects (pragmata), affections or impressions (pathemata),
and symbols or signs (symbola, semeia) as given in Aristotle's account:

• Figure 1. The Sign Relation in Aristotle
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-1995-figure-1.png

The triadic nexus marked “R” in the Figure is what graph theorists
would call a node or point of degree 3 and it provides a graphical
picture of a relational triple that can be taken in any convenient
order so long as we keep it constant throughout a given discussion.
For example, we could take Aristotle's object, sign or symbol, and
impression in the order (o, s, i), mostly just because I find that
convenient in later developments.

Diagrams of that sort, whether triangular or tri-radial in form, have long been
in common use for conveying the properties of triadic sign relations. But the
intervening years have taught me to my dismay that people tend to be led astray
by pictures like that, often getting stuck on square one, or rather triangle one.
That is, they get stuck on single triples of sign relations rather than grasping
them as they should, as prototypical examples of a whole class of ordered triples.

Regards,

Jon

On 9/10/2018 3:23 AM, Azamat Abdoullaev wrote:
> It is not so simple.
> There are generally two kinds of signs: conventional and natural.
> Mental ideas and images are also signs, natural signs, being themselves
> meanings and intentions, or "mental words".
> Natural signs are causally related.
> Natural signs are the source of meaning for conventional signs.
> Thus the mind is the medium through which words signify things.

>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:55 AM Jon Awbrey <jaw...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Ontologists,
>>

>> A question arising on another blog, perhaps incidentally, perhaps of the essence,

>> brought to mind recent discussions in these forums regarding the nature of systems,

>> variables, and the measurements that give systematic state variables their values.
>> My current focus being what it is, I couched my answer in pragmatic semiotic terms.
>>
>> ⁂
>>
>> Measurement is an extension of perception.
>> Measurement gives us data about an object
>> system the way perception gives us percepts,
>> which we may consider just a species of data.
>>
>> If we ask when we first became self-conscious about this
>> whole process of perception and measurement, I don't know,
>> but Aristotle broke ground in a very articulate way with his
>> treatise “On Interpretation”. Sense data are “impressions”
>> on the mind and they have their consensual, communicable
>> derivatives in spoken and written “signs”. This triple
>> interaction among objects, ideas, and signs is the
>> cornerstone of our contemporary theories of signs,
>> collectively known as “semiotics”.
>>
>> ⁂
>>
>> Regards,
>>

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Interesting collection of concepts and insights.

It appears to me that it is very difficult to fully grasp the fundamental issues associated with pragmatic semiotic information when the natural language of the individual conducting the inquiry is the main object of study.

I find that the analysis of the languages supported by the "Talking Drums" of Africa help me understand the signaling process at a deeper level.

John Carrington produced some work in this area in the 1940's.

See:

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bq/36-8_396.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Carrington

A key feature of these "sign exchanges" or "communication events" is the use of redundant signs or "signal phrases" to eliminate the uncertainty associated with the information exchange.

The physical medium of communication (drum, impact vibration, air pressure) is different between human speech and drum speech.

Human speech has much greater pitch control and tonal variability than "drum speech."  The information loss associated with the restricted drum mechanics is compensated for by repeating many phrases that only make logical sense if they are interrupted in a specific manner.

For example, assume drum speech can not make a clear distinction between the words baby and tree.  

If the drummer wanted to communicate about a tree then there would be statements like, 'Go climb high in the XXX' or 'The fruit is on the XXX."

If the drummer wanted to communicate about a baby the there would be statements like, 'Feed the XXX' or 'The XXX is little and smart."

This type of redundant sign transmission may be used to achieve the semantic goals of the communication. 

However, the redundant sign transmission is just preparing the state of the interpreter.

There are interesting connections between Shannon's information theory and Carrington's analysis of the talking drums.

It would be interesting to map these different views of information exchange to the components of your Figure 1 - The Sign Relation in Aristotle.  Another task to add to the very long "to do" list.

Given the structure of your Theme One Program, you may have already given this type of approach some consideration.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[joseph simpson]

This section above:

"The information loss associated with the restricted drum mechanics is compensated for by repeating many phrases that only make logical sense if they are interrupted in a specific manner."

Should read:

"The information loss associated with the restricted drum mechanics is compensated for by repeating many phrases that only make logical sense if they are interpreted in a specific manner.

[H]

Len

I could not agree more. 

Hillary

Sent from my iPhone

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.

[Jon Awbrey]

Joe, All,

The subject of natural languages and their relation to formal languages,
for example, logical calculi, logical graphs, and programming languages,
has come up periodically in our discussions and I've been struggling to
arrive at something both cogent and coherent to say about it. But what
the heck, here's a few thoughts off the cuff.

We naturally use our mother tongues as metalanguages to talk among ourselves
in fora like these, not only about well-formalized object languages but also
about the object domains that supply them with semantic substance, in a word,
“meaning”. Nothing about that makes “the natural language of the individual
conducting the inquiry ... the main object of study”. At least, that is not
how I'd personally understand the main task at hand.

I started using the run-on formula “pragmatic-semiotic point of view” during
a few exchanges with Bruce Schuman and John Sowa as a way of alluding to the
line of thinking about signs stretching from Aristotle to Peirce, Dewey, and
pragmatists of that stripe. Here's a link to my blog rehash of that episode:

• Inquiry Driven Systems • Comment 5
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/08/19/inquiry-driven-systems-%e2%80%a2-comment-5/

Have to break here ... to be continued ...

Jon