I'll probably go with as it appears on the invitation. Inga, we give the owners of Arching Down There is Larry and Diana is our third presenter today. And I'll wait till eleven shortly and then we can start. Hi. Welcome, everyone, to the third session in the Club of Ramy book reading series. And the book that we are reading is Evolutionary Dynamics of Dispersive Knowledge. We met already twice, this, one's in December and one is in January when we discussed chapter one, two and three. And today the focus is on chapter four, towards a Calculus of Redundancy. And we have four presenters today, Inga Ivanova, Larry Richard and Diana Lucio Arcia. And let us start immediately by giving.
Yes, that's correct. They already gave them to me. Okay. So let me go back to my spiel this today. It's about four. There will be three presentations each of 15 minutes, followed by an opportunity for clarifying questions. And now we have an hour of interactive discussion. And Inga, I'll give you the screen. Do you have any slides that you would like to share? I'm assuming.
Yes, I'm going to share my screen.
Right.
Can you see my presentation?
Yes, not yet, but in a minute.
And there it is.
Let's start today. I'm going to share the main details from the fourth chapter towards the Calculus of Redundancy, and also to share some ideas of how can we use this theoretical approach. I suppose that this theoretical base has the more potential for its further practical implementation. First of all, I would like to start with how to measure the effectiveness of the system of this model and I would propose to exploit Shannon based information theoretical approach to measure synergy and synergy is generated in the central overlapping area. But when we look at these two diagrams, double Helix model and triple Helix model, we can find the things that if based on the information theory proposed by Shannon, we have some problem. This problem is called sign change problem because for the double Helix model we have to subtract this overlap in area in order not to count it twice. But in triple Helix model we have to add this overlapping area and it means that we add additional uncertainty to the total uncertainty. And that's why we can't count with sharing type information and loot it configuration. But actually this although wasn't solved until the recent time and it was pretty much very big obstacle.
And then let's propose the way of how we can solve this problem by adding the positive interaction. And when we add the positive interaction we won't have problem. And this positive interaction was called redundancy and it's positive for all the cases for all type of systems with even number of actors and uneven number of actors. Actually by introducing this positive interaction we add excess information value and we could redundancy as additional information, additional options and additional opportunities. From the mathematical point of view, it's pretty much not easy to explain the logic, but we can explain this logic from the social perspective and some technical perspective as well. For example, if you look at this picture, this is light surface intensity and we can see it as a light source intensity for two cases for noncoherent light sources and coherent light sources, and land intensity for the coherent line services will be pretty much higher rather than light intensity for the non coherent light surgeries. We can make some bridge between this description and the skills that we have in nature. In order to make it more clear, I put this here on the slide and at the base a we can see how information is transmitted from the information to the destination according to the logic of Shannon Syria.
But we were considering this approach, added some minor editions, so called minor editions. He added semantic oil box and semantic receiver box. And at this level, at level B, the redundancy is generated actually and the meaning is conveyed. But at level C the received minion can affect behavior of the actors. So we can understand the same information in different ways according to our communication codes and each of us has our own communication codes. That's why the same information could be understood in different ways. It's like on this picture we have a plant and different animals and this different animal is considered plant in different ways. It depends on their own. All of them has its own. In Vincent they're totally different. In order to connect redundancy and minion I would like to talk about these technical things and consider better position. He noted that the concept of redundancy is partial synonym of meaning and Shannon defined information as probabilistic contract. Here on this picture we can see that there is maximum entropy and observed entropy. As we know from the second law of thermodynamics entropy is increasing over time and as a redundancy the difference between maximum entropy and observed entropy.
And it's crucial for the technical systems historically realized. But for social systems there are another obstacle, technological layer made feasible. What does it mean? It means that system is able to add new options without necessarily realizing them and we can keep options in mind and impossible options could be made possible because of cultural and technological evolutions similar to technological programs. That's why for social systems we can have a rather high redundancy measure for redundancy than for the tactical ones. And the speed of increasing redundancy for social systems is rather higher than the speed for increasing redundancy. For historical systems we can see the changes of redundancy increase here on this picture. This picture represents trade, so called trade closure and we can see different types of rotations, clockwise rotation and counter clockwise rotation. The first one is about traditional systems historically realized and the next one is for self organizing systems and redundancy is the difference in these two vectors. It's a scalar value. So I would like to sum up basically ideas. First of all, we have to pay attention to the Shannon model of communication was extended with Vivers level B and C.
And the second one is about redundancy that can be generated and interfaces in one set of relations which are structured by codes thanks to the different communication codes. And the third one is the extension of Shannon's information by the area of meaning and knowledge generation. Adding to this summary, I would like to share one idea that one can show that redundancy approach is cornerstone for the further development of the salary of minion. And here you can see on two graphs. The first one is the financial market price movement and the second one is called 19 Epidemic spread in Days for the United States starting from the first case and we can see that the approximation line received from the redundancy density function is pretty much closer to the real data. It gives us base that we can use theoretical approach further and develop it further and try to create to make critical experiment and to look at the data in some other different tiers here in order to be in time. I would like to finish my presentation. If you have any questions. I will be happy to discuss. Thank you.
I got a phone call about distracting. So we already done. Now are there any clarifying questions? No. So don't be ready for a presentation by Larry Richard. Larry, you have the screen? Yes.
Okay. Thanks. I was not planning to present any of the mathematics, so it was good that you did. Let's see here.
Could you do?
Yeah. Wow. This chapter has a lot in it, and I think any of us can only scratch the surface of the implications of it. I like to look at big questions, the overarching questions. For example, what is the meaning of meaning? I'll present just a few thoughts on that. And what is this all about and why? What is the motivation? I'm going to posit the motivation. It's not completely clear to me. This is a different world from what I'm used to. I'm trying to find ways to connect the ideas to things that I might be interested in. But I can see the value of coming up with this measure of redundancy, a measure of at least a surrogate measure of meaning. If you have a very large data set from interactions, you're analyzing it. These kinds of measures can be quite useful. So what is the meaning of meaning in this relates to other words in English in particular, that have been problematic in discussions and conversations I've had for many years. And I think others also, there's a particular world in which some of words have very specific meanings, and people that are in that world can use those words and understand what each other is talking about.
But the word meaning to me and even semantics is sometimes a problem. And here are some of the other ideas or words that sometimes get interchanged with the word meaning. For example, there's the expression the meaning of life, and it gets entertained with the purpose of life. And certainly a sender or participants purpose or intent when they talk is a part of it goes into the meeting that they're trying convey sense making. Carl White used that term in organizations. When I think of the word meaning, think of significance. And often if I'm getting confused with the word meaning, I'll interchange it with the word significance. I'll try to show a little why I find that useful. There is this hierarchy of significance, if you will, in which various words are used in a relational way, each going above the other. So when I talk of data, talk about everything. Anything can be done to talk about, for example, a doctor and a patient, a medical doctor and a patient. They have huge amounts of initial data available to them, no significance at all, until the doctor decides to take some measurements, to ask some questions, to focus in on something of interest, something that might provide some clues.
And so we call that perhaps information, these words. This sequence, by the way, is from Russell Acoff primarily, but I've seen it elsewhere. I find it useful. So information some significance. I think this corresponds with the Shannon information, but we'll see then the doctor applies their knowledge, their expertise, what they know to really give some significance to the information that they have to the point where they may be, they can make a prescription, they can make a recommendation to the patient. And this is where the idea of meaning to me starts to take hold. Then we have understanding, understanding even more significance because now the doctor begins to see patterns, see patterns in one patient that he can apply to another patient sees patterns that maybe in one kind of disease that he can apply to another kind of disease that gets at really understanding what's going on beyond just having the expertise and the knowledge. And then, of course, finally this wisdom. So this is sort of a progressive idea of meaning from data to wisdom. Wisdom is where you can teach it. Wisdom is where you can make judgments. It's where ethics becomes of highest importance.
And this maps, I think, into those layers of communication, I call them. And we start at the bottom with information that's Shannon information. You have the diagram that Inger just showed with the Sentinel receiver encoding and decoding and channel communication. It's important to remember that Shannon called his book Shannon and Weaver called the book and Shannon called his theory the theory of the mathematical theory of communication. It's not the mathematical theory of information. It's the mathematical theory of communication. And so this is a form at that basic level. Then as Louis points out.
Weaver in particular said, now we need more it's one thing to have a transmission of information, reduction of some uncertainty. There's another to put that information into some context, to give us some significance. There's the intent, there's the patterns of relations. So we have relations at the informational level, patterns of relations or what Lord calls correlations. At the semantic layer of communication, then above that, you have patterns of communication that sell paradigms communication of communication. And so it's at this level, at that layer. And this is when we present these things, they are always presented in a hierarchical kind of way. But I think and Lord points this out, it's very important to recognize that these loop back and forth, they affect each other. They form a whole system together. Then redundance reminded me of this quote from Gretchen Stein. There is no such thing as repetition, only insistence. So the more assistance, the more significance. And this happens over time. It's important this happening over time. Repetition is over time, more insistence and more significance. And the more significance then the more meaning. Hence redundancy as a measure of the meaning in information theory, all redundancy is something to be avoided because it takes up channel capacity and it's inefficient.
But when you start to think about it, when there's redundancy in a message or communication and interchange. That's significant. That's a dynamic. That's part of the dynamics of what's going on, and that interchange between the people and therefore becomes of high importance. And I think the question for us maybe to discuss is whether it's sufficient as a measure of meaning or whether there may be other someone needs to mute, please. That's really the end of what I wanted to present. Again, there's so much there to talk about. I love the diagrams presented, those diagrams. There's a lot to dig into there. Again, I just want to get at some of the bigger questions about this all, but not just to this chapter, but to the entire book. Thanks.
All right, so any clarifying questions? And thank you, Larry, for that. How can I say you put it against the larger perspective. You said that the larger perspective for these questions. That will be a very exciting discussion later on. And now your presentation. Diana?
Thank you very much, Jamie and Mark, for inviting me to this space. Thank you for suggesting my name. After the difficulties I had last month, I haven't been able to attend the previous meetings, in part because I'm 6 hours behind. So these sessions are often intertwined with the chaotic dynamics of the administrative burdens of academic life, which I am not sure that they provide any meaning, but I'm sure they reduce uncertainty and that they can be very redundant. So fortunately, I have been able to follow most of the sessions asynchronously through the YouTube channel. So I hope that following Mark commenting on chapter one, I will redundantly go to the main contributions of the book, providing the disturbance of my particular interpretations in order to be able to participate in the dispersive construction of meaning around Loot's work that this space has allowed, in which I hope also help us a community around Luzbook to foresee all the possible empirical applications of his contributions. As Luke mentioned before, I had the chance to work under loose supervision more than ten years ago, and it's really rewarding to see some of the ideas that are echoed in my pieces in this book.
So I'm very grateful to be able to comment on some of these chapters. I was able to witness the maturation and rigorous reflection on many of the main points of this book in loose way, discursively, engaging with peers, incursively refining his work as a result of debate and other forms of interaction. Perhaps one of the most valuable experiences that I come again and again was one particular hard review we received with Luke. I wanted to forget about it, but very patiently as he's dealing with a frustrated teenager that recommended me to understand where the credit system was coming from its point of departure, the cost of communication on the line, the comments, and the possibility Horizons of meaning where we would have to position our submission and that would have to be clearly introduced and argued for the paper. And I have an extra task for Larry and his questioning what meaning in Spanish meaning is also produced as Santido, so I have always had the difficulty of thinking of meaning as something that is only significant, but it's also significant that is socially constructed, so something that perhaps we can talk about later. I was supposed to comment on chapter two and three chapters where I felt confidence and at ease.
Chapter four, The Calculus of Redundancy added to the philosophical richness of the previous chapters depends as suggested at the end of the section 4.5 for the less interested, although I would argue more challenge reader, I scanned section four six and went back to section four seven with them from expectation that was fulfilled that Inga would get into the more mathematical parts of the group. So thank you Slide. Mark the beginning of the formal presentation and we'll start by going back to Luke's line of argument at the end of chapter three where after proposing that the development of discursive knowledge could be operationalized so that applying channel information theory, meaning could be measured or at least approached. Notes invitation to relay the information processing calculus in channels. Mathematical theory of communication in Chinese mathematical theory of Communication two meaning based on Warren Beaver's perception of the bizarreness of mathematical definitions of information where definition of information where being it expresses uncertainty or availability of choice and options information was not informative. The end of chapter three goes on with the possibilities to breach meaning and information processing, building an illuminate social system and its applications and meaning as I read it as an emerging property of a social system, and Shannon's mathematical theory of communication not relies on her assignments contribution on horizontal and vertical possibilities of differentiation and complex systems as the foundations for Bridging Channel and Lumen, so that meaning could perhaps be subject to a mathematical formulation and therefore measurement.
Herbert Science model of complex systems argues for evolution as the triggering dynamics of complex heroes where subsystems behave as stepping stones that allow for the emergence of larger, more complex functional assistance. The intensity of the interactions motivates differentiation, but in a way that and I quote Simon, those loose horizontal coupling of the components of a hierarchical system permit each to operate dynamically in independence to the detail of the other. Only the input it requires and the output it produces are relevant for the larger aspects of system behavior. I will skip a bit relying on Ingnmark's commentaries because I wish to include in my commentaries and possibilities and empirical applications of these contributions based on the work we collaborated upon with you so many years ago, and that the reading of this book inspires me to dream on. So I will go directly to figure 4.4 in which you build on previously application made by Warren Deaver on the original model communication proposed by Claude Shannon. I borrowed 4.4 in Loose group to synthetize the different dynamics and Supra involving the communication. The original model, which you find in black, represents the communication of information from a sender to receiver.
Here again, information is defined as the uncertainty containing the probability distributions, respectively, of scientific discourse implies a selection of channel type information. Flexibility implies a selection of channel type information. When a scientist submits a contribution and when its knowledge claim is validated through the peer review operation of the first and second selection mechanisms, variation is introduced in the system. This variation can be expected to increase uncertainty in the system. The operation of the quotes of communication in an exporter dynamic potentially reduces this uncertainty by structuring the variation in terms of the cause of communication. This leads us to the mechanisms of growing change that are those driven by the discursiveness underlying this process of knowledge generation validation, reflective utilization in the prediction of new knowledge claims by citations. The historical origin of the variation may become less visible as a series of selections that rewrite the past as loose claims. In the book, we tried to see if perhaps we could work with this concept in our specific case of study when I did my PhD tests. I started my PhD in 2006 when some had been manifesting that the technology hike around the nanotechnological promise had reached its peak of inflated expectations and was in a long value of dissolution.
Yet as a scientific knowledge based innovation, we agreed that Nanoscience provide an interesting case to store these disturbances or interactions among three or two mutually disturbance of systems the system of scientific knowledge production, the economic systems, and perhaps a third system of policy making. But as my background, although I'm an economist, was more in bibliometrics, we concentrated on the system of scientific knowledge production and reflected on how we could operationalize this system to understand its discursiveness and how it could be understood as a system reproducing itself in the continuity of the communicative interactions in the incessant chattering of text, as Blaze Cloning put it, into something sex. And this relates again to the operation of the three levels of information meaning processing that I briefly illustrated into previous slides and that referred to the reflexivity of scientific discourse. A publication can be thought of as a manifestation of this variation at the present, but this publication provides variation referring to some Horizons of meaning codifying this variation in terms of citations in relation to other text, but it's also positioned as an event in relation to other publications around the time act it cooperates with other sources of variance in an academic journey.
And this publication can also be repositioned when knowledge content of the publication is interpreted and incorporated in new knowledge claims publication when it gets cited when it's reflexively selected to enforce the generation of new knowledge claims. We tested how this reflexive requisition of the publication could in fact reflect on the historical origins becoming overridden or less visible. And for this we use the concept of main path analysis from network period in Bibliometrics and Gentlemetrics. The main path has been regarded as a structural background of a field of research. The main path highlights those notes in this case papers that have the most relevant in terms of InLinks and outlets in terms of sighting and being sighted. We applied the concept of critical transitions as those in between points where information against channel type information distance was shortened. Complex systems evolved following paths determined by previous state of the system. However, an evolving system can also be expected to forget parts of its history. From the perspective of insight, we interpreted critical transition and indicator of these processes of forgotten rebriding and perhaps deportating facts. Sorry, this relates to Loot figure 4.3, where a three dimensional array of information can contain a trajectory, a four dimensional here hyperflip contains one more degree of freedom and does a variety of possible trajectory.
We did apply a configuration of information measure to 15, and yet the system levels could be indicated as a reduction of uncertainty between the distribution of cited references and title wars in publication years. At that moment, the notion of redundancy as an indicator and possibility of meaning processes underlying these distributions or these discursive interactions was still in mystery in this mind and I wanted to go home. It's funny how when you get eager to finish your PhD and really not prolonging some of the best years of your life. So we did test these distributions of title words that provided vibration with cited references that provided like those codification or codes of communication. And we did it for the case of Nanoscience, particularly Nanotubes and Pillarines. And we found that in nanotubes, that was a very dynamic research front. In 2006, we found that there was diminishing or reducing configuration information while inferiors. That was not as popular and that had lost this interest. There was again more noise, more Shannon type information. And I finished my presentation. I don't know if you can see me.
If you could stop sharing. Everyone will.
Yeah.
So we are now ready for the interactive discussion and Mark, you will be facilitated.
Yeah. Well, you'd like to kick it off once again. We've had three really contrasting and very interesting presentations. And I think, I mean, this chapter, it seems to me, is so crucial to the book that it's very important to see the mathematics as presented by Inga, particularly as she is one of the principal inventors of this. And then for Larry's questions to see some of the background work that Diana has done that reinforces some of these ideas as well. It's really fascinating. So who wants to start? You can use the hand the electronic hand, which you can see if you click on the reactions button, you'll see that there's a button that says raise hand there. So you can sort of indicate that you want to ask a question. Who would like to begin? Okay, Lucia, you may be muted this.
Way.
Yeah, we got you now.
Yeah. Okay. Maybe it was the headphones with problems. Okay, so I have a number of commands, actually. So just start with a couple of them. Provided I find very intriguing the idea of defined meanings in terms of patterns of relations in the communication matrix. And I think this is a really fruitful way to approach the issue. It opens, however, a lot of methodological and conceptual programs. Let me try with an example. Okay, let's get a communication matrix. First question is, who are the notes of this matrix? So who are the notes of this graph? Isomorph graph to the matrix? People. Individuals, probably. We can imagine that this is a way to face with the program. Okay, well, if this is the case that the nodes are individuals and the matrix is the matrix of communications between these individuals, when we are looking at the structural equivalents of these individuals, of these notes in the matrix, what do we find? We find that there are perhaps not necessarily, but likely there will be some subsets of people, some notes that have very similar patterns of communication with the other notes, with the other people. Okay. This is exactly the concept of structural.
Now, Besides the fact that it can be measured in different ways, not only in terms of correlations, but this is a more technical issue that maybe we can discuss later. My point is when we find that let's suppose there will be in a matrix of 100 people in a community, let's say four or five blocks of people with very similar structural equivalents of communication. Where does the meaning come from? How can we move? How can we jump from the similarity in communication patterns to the meaning of the communications that these people share? And this is one first point that I would like to discuss with you. At least I miss the logical connection between the structural equivalents, that is, the communication pattern similarity and the meaning. A second command, stealing to this example is that. Okay. We could also imagine that the notes were not individuals.
But were, for example.
Higher level aggregations. There is groups, for instance, or communities. So single nodes are not individuals, but our communities. And it's still very intriguing and interesting. But again, the question is once we find that some groups of individuals have more similar communication patterns, how can we draw from here after we go to meetings? Maybe I left. I missed some points. Some logical connection link in the vision.
Well, I was going to invite Inga and Larry and Diana to respond to that. I just wondered, though, Lucio, if your question is really focused on meaning as a property of agents or meaning as a property of communications. Which do you need of the matrix? So that may be a property of communications. But Ingha, do you want to respond to Lucio?
I can try, actually. Partially. I talked about it in my presentation as I understood how the meaning is generated. Actually, I told that redundancy is not observed and meaning it pretty much close to the redundancy. It could not be observed at the initial position as well, but it could exist. And people during their communication or actors communicating with each other. They communicate with some information and share the meaning observable or not observable. And using their own communication codes they translate the message of another actor to their own way of understanding. And in this way I suppose that they receive their own meaning for this information. The same information could provide different types of minimums for different activities.
Yeah, if I can say something. Okay. But there is a jump. Again, another jump. There is a logical missing link in my view from structural equivalents, which is very clear concept in network analysis and the calculus of redundancy. And this is double jump, let's say acrobatic jump because structural equivalence is a concept in network analysis referring to links, not to notes attributes. Conversely, in all the parts that it is discussing, redundancy in Luke's book and Ingas presentation is referring to attributes of the systems or attributes of the actors, which is not a relational concept. It's in another orthogonal dimension which is the dimension of attributes, while structural equivalence is in the dimension of relations of patterns. This was just exactly another of the comments and the question that I would like to talk with all of you. That is, there are these two perspectives that I found both interesting but not clear to me. How do they match into the discourse into the book? There is redundancy in terms of entropy and it is referred to attributes and redundancy or let's say structural equivalence and meaning as structural equivalence coming from the leaks. By the way, there is also a measure of redundancy in referred to links in network analysis, but it is rather different from the redundancy in terms of attributes, which is the typical Shendon like or the measures proposed into the book for redundancy.
These are two different dimensions. Dimensions, I mean ontological dimensions, because once ontological dimensions are relations and another ontological dimensions are attributes of notes, they are orthogonal. I mean independent one another, at least to some extent.
So I want to ask Larry, but just to be clear, what is a link? What do you see as a link?
Are you asking to me? Yeah, sorry. I understood.
Sorry.
Link. Exactly. And that's exactly one of the points to discuss. Let's make an example again. We have a community of people, of individuals and the relations between these people. These are the links. And we can imagine that these communications can be done orderly recently or whatever. That is just what one tells the other. One somehow communicate to the other. So the notes I can see very clearly the notes are the individuals and the links are the message that they send one another.
Okay.
Or can be a network of companies on another level of aggregation and the trades between them. Or international network when the loads are countries.
Right. I can see actually, Diana's got a hand up. So I'm going to go to Diana first, and then I'll ask Mary what he thinks about this.
Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Lucia. I think about the systems in terms of communication system. So for me, the notes are the communications and the relationships can be very different. It can be shared keywords or it can be shared cited references, or it can be sighting relations. So I see the notes as the communications. And this follows also Lumen, who says that I don't know if I'm saying it right, but it's not individuals that communicate, but it's the communication that communicates. So perhaps if we think about the notes above, the individual and the notes being the communications and the similarities or the links being some relations on those communications, perhaps it's easier. I don't know.
Yes.
So can you make an example of communications as generators, as let's say, ontological entities that communicate? Because the point is I can see pretty well how the many ways in which people communicate or companies communicate or organizations or countries communicate. But there is a generator of the communication which is an ontological object. Somehow communications that communicate. That is, let's say, the disembodied communication perspective just proposed by Luma leaves me rather perplexed. Let's say.
Perhaps you can think of the scientific paper text manifestation of this communication.
Papers do not communicate anything. Readers of papers. People reading the papers then can communicate something through some ways. But papers are just based on a computer or papers in the street to send. Papers do not communicate anything, in my opinion.
I want to bring in Larry because I think we're very close to Larry's territory here.
Okay. I'm not actually not sure what the real question is or why we're asking it. Perhaps. And I'm not sure. Maybe it's completely off topic. I think there is a question that needs to be raised about issues with measurement in general. I was trained by Claus Cryptendorf Lewis references, written a book on information theory. That's something I had to study with him. He extended it substantially as his lower I in my dissertation came up with a measure of disagreement using information. And the conclusion I came to was that all of these measurements are imperfect. All they are is a way to give you something that might be useful. It could also be misleading. At the same time, I remember quote from Deming, the quality management guy, who said, if you can measure it, it's trivial. Now that wasn't he wasn't advocating against measurement. In fact, much of what he was about was measurement. But what he was saying was that the things that are really important, the things that are really profound in our interactions with each other are not escape measurement. But that doesn't mean measurement is useful. And I think when you have a very large data set and you want to do something with it, you want to try to get some insight, you need some measurements.
And this measurement over done. It seems one possibility for doing that, but it can be misleading. And I think that's what Lucia was pointing to. But again, I'm not sure if this is on topic or not.
One of the things about the redundancy and this partly also comes out of the work of Robert Alanovitch, who obviously has influenced load is that it is a kind of way of trying to measure the Immeasurable, it's a kind of way of trying to get at the background. I mean, do you think, Larry, that that's possible talks about the imprint of meaning. When we measure we're doing these measurements, we're trying to get a grasp of the imprint of meaning. You can't see meaning itself.
Yeah. When I look at an interaction, I see two sides, I see the content side, what's being communicated or what's being said. But there's also the dynamics. And Shannon information theory completely ignores the dynamics. I think that's why you need the next layer, at least semantic level. But I think you could go in beyond that to the communication and communication. But the measurement is still useful. We use measurements all the time every day, and we come to depend on some more than others. But they're useful. I take my temperature. Take my temperature. It's useful, but it doesn't mean it can't be misleading. Also, I can draw conclusions that may be completely off base because it's just looking at one little thing. There's so much else that's going on at the same time.
Okay. I mean, I think this is really important. Anybody else got any questions whether continuation of this topic or something else that struck you?
Yes, I'd like to comment. It's Jerry Chandler.
Okay.
So I understand the confusion about why Lucio's question is being danced around, shall we say, or not being directly approached. And I think it has to do primarily with the metal languages that are being employed by the different speakers. The metal languages are using a different base vocabulary from which they are drawing their assertions and conclusions. And Lucille's point, I think, is very clear that the links in mathematics, the links are the relations and the domain and the range are what are connected by the links. And this notion, then whether you use the term communication as a node, which I think is Lucia's point, and he can correct me if I'm wrong here, node is the concept of communication as opposed to the concept of the message being the important thing. So the domain could be either the communications or the message. The relation depends on which of those you choose. And if you choose, the message has been the most important, and the communication concept is being secondary assertion, shall we say, outside the consequence relation, then you're speaking two different metal languages. So it really comes back to the logic in my view. I mean, I'm just spouting off here, in my view, the question of what is the nature of the consequence relation here in terms of the mathematical model that was presented?
Sorry, can you just. I'm not sure I understand that.
Okay.
That may be just me.
Very abstract concept that Lucy is presenting, and it's a very rigorous mathematical concept as I interpret his words. And if you're using different metal languages, you have a tough time drawing the same consequence relations. I run into this routinely in the distinction between consequences drawn from molecular biological considerations and consequences drawn by physicians who use that same information and draw a consequence about diseases.
Okay.
There are two different consequences of relations.
I understand. Jamie, you've got your hand up. Can you respond to Jerry?
Actually, I am responding to Jerry because he said we're turning around the pot and he wanted to be more specific what it was about. And I think he can even be more specific. It's actually not abstract. It's all very practical. It's about distinctions. And that gets us back to George Spencer Brown. And so the system that I hear Jerry talking about is different systems or schemas of distinction, and we call them metal languages or molecular systems or biology. It is about the system of distinctions. And Lut's work. We were talking a little earlier about the salute. He wants to avoid the problem of solitism, but it was really about the psychology or field of psychology. Is it all happening in our heads or is it actually something or fantasy life? Is it corresponding to the reality? So the way we address that question is by the distinctions we make in our models on paper. And so the paper or the artifact or the triple Helix as they exist, that is something that's outside our body everyone can look at, and that signifies a model of distinctions. And so I credit George Spencer Brown with alerting me to it, but also by confusing it because he gives impression there is zero one distinction.
I can explain the entire universe. And Lumen kind of follows him, while there is also the triangle of reference and triadic semiotics. The way Pears is talking about it very he really develops a much more systematic system of distinctions. And so I think Valucio is actually pointing out we have a system of distinctions where we kind of forget that it is a human being who creates and is part of this conversation. And the real issue is two human beings communicating with one another without killing one another. And so here I read my comments.
Okay.
May I ask?
Yes, go ahead.
Even if we accept the disembodiment perspective of luminous, there is communication disembodied from human beings, the problem remains. Okay, let's suppose a network, a matrix of papers. So where the notes are papers. Okay, let's accept it. We can calculate structural equivalents of papers referring to similar to the same papers, which is just exactly the concept of structural equivalence. Now again, my question is how do we go from a measure of structural equivalents? It is blocks of papers who are referring to the same papers into the matrix of papers communication. How can we go from there, from structural equivalents to meanings? I'm still missing this logic.
Okay, so Where's the problem here? Okay, so here's an open question. Is it to do with our understanding of networks? Because we have an understanding of networks where there are nodes and arcs or nodes and connections. We know that you can't have a node without an arc, they're codependent. And that understanding of networks came from biology, early 20th century or late 19th century. People saw neural structures and so on, and that fed into cybernetics. But there was something that I don't know. The processes of those biological network formation, those processes which I think are very much what lot is interested in it's the conditions within which connections are formed. Those processes were somewhat overlooked, I think. And so we've ended up with this kind of ossified network and it doesn't quite fit.
I'm not contending, I said, as premise that I find this approach intriguing and fruitful. I'm just asking for your help to fill in a gap, at least in my mind, from the measure. I mean, this is a very methodological but also conceptual issue. It is very clear to me. I use it almost every day in my research. The concept of structural equivalents. Okay, I can do it, no problem. Now my point is how can I do from structural equivalents to meaning, which is exactly the point that is into Lewis book at the beginning of the chapter. That is, let's see, he proposes correlation, which is one of the measures of structural equivalents. And it's okay with others, but it's very clear. So blocks of notes who have similar patterns, direct or indirect patterns of communication, of relations with the other notes. But the point still is in. So how can we draw from structural equivalents to meaning? Let me give you a practical example in my research field, which is just, let's call it industrial economics or something like that. Let's say an industry with many hundreds of companies. I can calculate the structural equivalence of the network between these companies in, let's say, trade network and find that some of these companies are very structurally equivalent, while others are not good.
In my research, I would say these companies structurally equivalent, probably they share the same strategies or the same approach to the market or the same something. And it's very clear the use of the concept of structural equivalents. Now I would like some support to understand when I move from a trade network to a communication network to understand how can I move from structurally equivalent nodes to mini?
Okay.
So would those companies have similar amounts of variety if they're structurally equivalent variety.
But variety is in the ontological dimension of links. Look at the relations between notes regardless of the attributes of the notes. The ontological dimension of attributes, which is the Shenlon's perspective, looks at the attributes and the notes of the nodes and is measuring actually how many times the same trade, let's say the same characteristic, the same feature is repeating into the set and calculate the entropy with very well known formula. But that's looking at attributes, not looking at leads. That's what I'm trying to emphasize in this discussion. We are mixing two ontological dimensions of reality, relations and notes. Maybe it's possible to do it, but how? At least it's not clear to me how to move from one to the other. And by the way, again, there are measures of redundancy refer to links. Why don't you use those measures instead of Shannon's measure?
Well, look, if I can reflect on my experience of listening to you, I have the feeling that you're saying something important which I don't fully understand but which I need to go away and think about. So I don't know if anybody else has a similar experience to me at the moment, but I mean, the only reason why I mentioned the variety of those organizations which have similar structures is that if they have similar variety, then presumably you would expect some sort of mutual redundancy between them, wouldn't you?
Redundancy in terms of what?
Redundancy in terms of their unrealized communicative options or their unrealized options for. Well, yes, unrealized options for communication.
Okay. There is a connection. I proposed this to discussion which is somehow evoked at the end of the chapter of Loot Spook while talking about free disclosure. And the connection is about what the network analysis in social network work analysis called homophilimophilip means that if some notes are similar in terms of attributes, that is exactly the ontological dimension of attributes, individual attributes. If they are similar in terms of attributes, most likely they will connect with the same other notes into the network. So that is the basic assumption of the homophobia hypothesis assumption. And actually in social networks, often it is found this. So if we are similar, probably we connect, we have similar patterns. This is actually an intriguing leak between the ontological dimension of attributes and the ontological dimension of relations. So I think that the passage, the connection could be done also in the perspective of Luke's proposal, theoretically conceptual proposal. I'm trying to develop it with you and that's just what I'm offering to the discussion.
Yeah. Nervous is great. Well, does anyone have anything to add to this or any other questions. But I think that there's something very important to sort of bookmark here, it seems.
I know we haven't been doing this, but I'd be interested in loads.
Maybe now is the time to ask for this load.
I have to admute myself. Yeah. I would try to respond to Rudshow in terms of first order and second order dynamics. So at the first order of dynamics, I would completely agree with your distinction between attributes and relations. And then in the second order, I would say what are the attributes which you can attribute to relations? Following up on what Diana was making at the point that the communications are the agents and the attributes then again can be related. And then we have the notion of eigenvectors in the background. Or you can also use your example of the templates that structures of communication begin to operate on, feedback emerging first and then feedback on the underlying what I would call first order. So it's all the time both and in parallel. Is this answering so much?
Can you give an example, please?
Yeah. The easiest example and the most close for me is following up on Deanna again, scientific communication. So there you have agents talking to each other. Then there can be codification in what is being talked about. And that what is. Then the code of the communication closes off the possibilities for agents to talk. So you cannot say some things you can't say and other things you can say. And that's not regulated at the level of the relations, but at the level of the what I know called the eigenvectors of the Eigen dynamics. I think these are important concepts that you are familiar with.
Yeah. Very well. By the way, I would suggest that what you referee it is more what is called regular equivalence than structural equivalence. Just because you yourself undermine that what matters is not necessarily direct connections but also indirect connections. That is just the logic of the Eigenvector, and that is called in network analysis, usually regular equivalents. There is we are similar not necessarily because we connect exactly to the same other notes, but because we play the same role into the network. So exactly as you say in the book, we can even don't have any direct contact direct link one another. But we can be regularly equivalent. We can be equivalent because we are connected in the same way in the same patterns to the rest of the network. This is more what is called regular equivalents. And actually it fits much more into your even technicalities there is point that is centered in using correlations because actually regular equivalence usually is measured in terms of recursive correlations, which is just an eigenvector of correlations.
This is exactly the let me quickly respond and shut up again. So perhaps trained in different semantics than you because structural equivalence is also used as factor analytic concept and I'm not so much familiar with that regular equivalent. I have never seen and not seen defined yet, but okay, I'll look into that.
Okay, better.
The point is that the network is built up in terms of relations and then it ends up to have an architecture and this architecture feeds back on the religious that architecture is a structure of eigenvectors.
I totally agree on this. Absolutely. I share your general approach to the issue and the logic of trajectories regimes. We will talk in the next meeting and it's something very familiar to my work. The point again is a question of how to extract meanings and calculate redundancy. But I think it's too boring maybe for the group to insist on this point. Maybe we can discuss separate.
We have the eminent scholar Inga even over present. I think we should turn to her.
Dinghy.
Look, could you clarify the question, please?
Look, can you clarify the question that you feel?
How does it relate to redundancy? So you have this double looping, you have the looping in the first dynamic in the first cycle and the looping of the results of the first into the second order.
Actually we deal with information as a first step and information, but redundancy would be connected with meaning and it decreased our level of uncertainty. And we can make some calculation where the calculation of entropy measure using the probability factors. Suppose this is. So pay attention to the probability. We can measure how to which level the level of our uncertainty is decreasing. The more we know, the more information we have, the more information we have, the more opportunities we have to deal with this information to understand it.
If I can add something. Mark, you are the moderator.
No, go ahead.
Okay. So my suggestion is to leave Shannon's measure, which in my view is not consistent with the rest of the approach into the chatter, which is in terms of networks and use appropriate measures of redundancy, refer to links. So links redundancy and not attributes of the notes attributes redundancy. This is also some operative suggestion. So why don't keep consistent with the network relational approach and measure appropriately redundancy in the right way, which is, for instance, one of the measures is the number of cycles, linearly independent cycles into the network. That's exactly the measure of redundancy and it totally fits into the logic of cybernetics and second order cybernetics because the concept of self organization is exactly this concept of cycles. So if a network is a tree, for instance, it has no cycles and there is no self organization. Self organization occurs only when there are cycles. So recursive there are loops into the network. And there is one passage of the book in which loops underline the points, just referring to Klaus Krippenoff in that point. And I think my suggestion is to follow exactly that part of developing the discourse in consistent logic in terms of relations redundant relations.
That redundancy is opening the space for different multiple future meetings, which is exactly the second part of the chapter.
So, Lucio, are you thinking of Crypondorf's constraint analysis? You know those funny diagrams that he drew? I have to find the reference. Do you know the ones I mean?
No, actually.
I think you should receive for a new paper.
Well, there we are. That's the best outcome of this kind of discussion.
I think.
Anybody else wants to change the subject. I do have a question about Brooks and Wiley if nobody else wants to say something. Okay, so I'm going to ask my question about Brooks and Wiley Inger presented. The chapter four is brilliant because of the diagrams, I think. And one of the most impressive diagrams is the one that developed from the Brooks and Wiley graph illustrating the difference between maximum entropy and observed entropy. And Lot explains how technology increases the maximum entropy, which seems very sensible, obvious to me. But what puzzles me, and just from practical experience of working in a field of technology and education, is that the assumption that the observed entropy continues to rise as the maximum entropy rises due to technology doesn't seem entirely to fit our experience. Actually, sometimes it seems entirely possible that the maximum entropy, particularly as a result of technology, could rise. And actually the observed entropy within our systems, our social systems might fall. And I wonder if we've seen this in social media. There's been some fascinating revisiting. Heinz Von Fister had this. He made a conjecture that said the more you turn people into trivial machines, the more overwhelmed they become of the complexity of the system that they're in.
So I just want to know, Ing, I don't know if you can say a little bit more about the Brooks and Wiley diagram.
Yes, you're right, Mark. The observed entropy is increasing over time, and the maximum entropy is also increasing over time. So the difference between the observed entropy and the maximum entropy could increase as well. It could increase and decrease. It's our redundancy measure and the speed of it's increasing rather high for social communical systems that deal with self organization factors, self organization techniques, or how to say rather than for technical systems. So the speed is higher.
Okay, but is that what we see? I think that's my question. Or do we actually see a reduction in observed entropy, particularly within our institutions, as the maximum entropy produced by technology increases?
We cannot mention it by our mind, but we can observe it and keep in mind without any understanding. But then, thanks to technological progress and some other features that we have in our modern life, we can understand and use it in our future even without understanding. We can use it without understanding as well. It's called technological refusal.
It's called technological. I post a link into this paper I've been reading about social media because it's absolutely fascinating in terms of the suggestion is in this paper that it may be that we're seeing the observed entropy in our technosocial systems falling.
If I may coin, we should ask Deanna also to contribute because are you still there, Diana?
Yes, but I got a little bit lost. I'm sorry.
Yeah.
Perhaps Mark and ask the question again.
Okay.
The Brooks and Wiley diagram in chapter four is fascinating, and it does suggest that technology massively increases the maximum entropy of the system, which is a sensible proposition. But it also suggests that as that happens, the observed entropy in the system also increases. And I've been wondering about this, whether it might be actually the case that as the maximum entropy of the sociotechnical system increases, it may be the case that through various complex feedback mechanisms, the observed entropy in our social system actually decreases.
And I'm making the reference to you, Deanna, because your paperwork is relevant to this correction.
Thank you, Luke. Yeah. I would think that it would provide more options, but also like more structure so that the observed redundancy would decrease. That would be my interpretation. But I don't know if that was what you had in mind.
I'm mean, if you think about what's happened in the political discourse, particularly, there seems to be less variety, and we seem to have created a situation where things become polarized and there's less nuance in the debate. And we need to understand this if that's what's happening and if that's what's partly a result of the increase in maximum entropy, what are the mechanisms and what do we do about it?
But it's not only that there is less new things. I understand that's what you say that there is less disturbance. Right. There are also like differentiated communication channels for this disturbance to go on. So it's no longer something we all get but particular groups. So the codes are more codified and appropriated by the individuals. Right answer.
Well, I agree. That's my thinking. Well, having spent a long time sort of thinking about universities and what's happening to universities in the light of technology, we haven't done anything to address the sort of although there's lots of talk about trans disciplinary work, it's still extremely hard to get this off the ground in universities. People want their specialisms. They want to have very narrow fields of discourse.
But here I would go to Luther point that perhaps the organizational system is orthogonal to the communication system. So perhaps we as researchers want to do more interdisciplinary research, but we're still faced to faculties and departments and research instruments that are given points to the faculty that has them. So I don't know if it's something to do with that, with the coupling of the systems of the way we organize our life at the universities and the way research gets self organized because it's a continuing discursive communicative interaction.
Larry, I don't know if you got any thoughts on this. I mean, what is happening to our social systems in the light of this increasing, apparently increasing maximum entropy in our technical environment or socio technical environment.
Well, my perspective is that when you experience increase in variety someplace, you've lost it someplace else. And the overall some this is completely speculative, but I think cybernetic is we lose we lose variety over time, variety decays. So if I'm observing what you're observing, my first question is what are we losing in terms of direct response or not? But that's what comes up.
Or how are we losing it?
Yeah, that's another question. I look at technology. I'm an engineer by training. I look at technology. It both enables and constraints. We hope that what it enables is worth what it constrains. I'm not sure that's always the case. There are so many possible answers to your question, but among them, I think we're losing personal contact with each other in ways that we may not even be aware. We just take the technology without using it like we are right here today and assume that this is the same thing or sufficient or better or at least it's better than nothing. But I think once we get familiar with this and comfortable with this, we start forgetting that when we're in person, we have so much more that we can interact with and for.
All right. Yeah. Thank you. That's very much. In the spirit of the paper that I've just sent. So this is Heinzwon first as conjecture that the more agents are turned into trivial machines, so the more that their communications are trivialized, the more that they will feel overwhelmed by the complexity of the system that they inhabit. But Additionally, the more that those who are in a privileged position to observe that system that they are in feel able to control that system. And I think the person who's this paper is a couple of years old. The original work on Von First conjecture was obviously done a long time ago, but it's very relevant, it seems to me. And maybe there's something to think about here.
Time to ask here when he has a reflection.
So perhaps I would like to introduce metaphors because Heims is doing his using a metaphor. So the machine metaphor, and we have a choice which machine we use. So he's actually, I think deep down trying to or maybe he's not. Maybe we are the ones who need to wake up and say this is a metaphor. How are we treating our metaphors? And so may be a question to all the presenters of today. Have you considered that there are metaphors at work in your presentation, and how do you deal with that? How does one deal with that in general?
Okay.
Metaphor, you mean some crucial idea of the presentation?
Metaphor is when I say wanting to say something else, like Lucio was using structural equivalents and with structural equivalence as a word, you try to say, okay, those things are similar, but actually they're not. And of course, when I talk about something unobservable like they did in the 17th century, so they replaced the first idea that there was a creator with a bunch of humans who were like in charge of everything. And then they replaced the metaphor of a machine and they say, no, there are these causal processes of the machine and they're invisible, but they're like those of a machine.
Okay. So my metaphor will be what is absent matter. I think it's very interesting point, and actually it's not mine. It was proposed in Deacon's book and Complete Nature. But I totally support his idea that the things that we don't know or don't understand actually has its own data and we can analyze and realize this since in the future. I pretty much like this idea. What does that matter?
I know there are people here who've been to the other sessions. So Richard Stasher, anybody else got anything to add to what you've heard so far today?
No, thank you. But this was really fascinating.
What did you find fascinating?
Particularly?
I think I observed this more so I'm not an ethnographer.
I'm more a quantitative person. So I don't know.
I observe this as a very fascinating example of interdisciplinary discourse and how it goes.
I know it's off the topic.
But.
It was just the interactions between the people and the issue of coming at topics from very different epistemological enthalpical viewpoints and how using different terms really in a way I'm not saying prevents but makes conversations.
Sometimes protagonal, as Diana has said.
So I don't know how useful that comment is, but that was what was fascinating to me.
Yeah. There's been something very constructive about the discussion today.
I think it was constructive.
But also it's a fascinating case if one would like this could have been a really fascinating case to write how things can evolve in the discourse of this type.
Yeah. Diana, I think your comment about metaphors is very important, actually, as variety attenuators effectively.
Yes. Mark, I was just looking at this paper of LUT with another colleague in which they talk of scientific metaphors as a way to reduce variety in the scientific discourse, but also as a way to bring the scientific discourse to the general public. So that was one of these kind of implications of the metaphors in the scientific discourse.
So how do you see them? Do you see them as a kind of sign of a metaphor stands as a symbol that represents a concept that repeats so effectively a redundancy. Is this a sign for a generation of redundancy?
Yeah, I would think so. I remember that when we were trying to try different concepts in which we could apply these measures, we did come with a paradigm as a scientific concept that has been used in different disciplines. And precisely was that it's so interdisciplinary that it can also help as a code of communication as something agreed upon in the community.
Yes, someone like Gregory Basin would help explain that. Gerard, who needs one?
Yes, I am there.
To me, a metaphor is a much more dynamic thing. So when do we use a metaphor? In science? We use it when we want to structure our experience in a certain way, so there is an intention to it. So I would like to emphasize the fact that in the discussion the notion of intentions and objectives has disappeared to some extent for an obvious reason. It is not part of the scientific method. So my feeling is that when you introduce the possibility of an objective immediately a lot of meaning gets a very different meaning because you are looking for something that you are not predicting, that you are constraining in such a way that within the constraint something new may emerge. Not immediately clear?
No, it just has to sink in, that's all.
I would like to follow up on Gerard's ComEd. It seems to me that he has hit the very same idea that I've been thinking about over the last few minutes in the sense of that the nature of the mathematics employed brings a sense of closure to meaning. And I think that's part of what Gerard was talking about. The second part, which is obscured by the way he uses the language, which I would translate into biological languages. And that is that communication itself in its normal routine functioning, is creative. It's a generative capacity that is part of being in the interrelationships between the individuals or the corporations or whoever. So it's the Genesis or biogenesis or symbiolonesis of meaning, not of meaning but of interactions that is lost when you bring closer to the communications closure to, for example, the entropy function or other forms of mathematical closure. I think Gerard has had a very critical issue here that I very strongly endorse.
So I would like them to point to a subtle wrinkle in it, that it really all depends on how we define signs. What I hear in there are these emphasis on prediction or predictability. But there is also another way of thinking of size. And I say it needs to be reproducible. Whatever is being said, it needs to be said in such a way that anyone else can repeat the experiment and reproduce the same results. And so that it is that we kind of forget a little bit in order to make something reproducible, you really need to think intentional about will other people understand me and will they think about the unobservable in the same way as I do? And that's where metaphors come in, because if we say that every human being is a machine that's easy to understand and everyone will think similarly about the human being. But do we actually capture what it is about a human being that makes him a human being? And I think that is really the question that is put to the test today in the way the world works or the world is dealing with conflict. So, Jr, what do you mean when you talk about science?
Where does your understanding of your definition of your training, philosophy of science, who inspired you or stimulated your thinking?
Well, I cannot be classified in terms of what I think about science because I am a professor of research methods. So I refer to everything that is possible. And in that capacity, of course, I meet a lot of people who cannot do the type of research that they are expected to do. I have a lot of PhDs and they always get into difficulties. So I think I would like to come back to Jerry Chandler. What I'm talking about is suppose I ask you your name, that means I put you in an experimental setup. And I expect you to respond to my question in such a way that I get a name. But in many situations the experimental setup can be set up in this way that you actually require people to respond in such way that the answer is unpredictable. So instead of claiming that things have to be reproducible, I am saying there are ways of dealing with human responses such that the answers are not reproducible and they are still relevant because that is and if you say who is your inspiration? People like Feynman, for example, is my inspiration, people who are actually creative in the sense that they step out of the traditional boundaries.
So what is the difference between in your mind being predictable and being reproducible? And I'm here mentioning a philosophy of science issue that came up in the latest survey. There's ten years, the surveys they do every year that people stop believing in the idea of invariance or that this kind of 50 50%. There is a belief that science is about finding invariance as opposed to maybe we should get rid of that idea and that's actually blocking or understanding. And that applies, of course, also to cybernetics and discourse.
There's no reason to deny anything, but there is quite a bit of a reason to explore where the boundaries are, what constraints are imposed by metaphors, the metaphor of scientific research.
I would add to that the issue of reproducibility, which is sort of standard preaching logic. We use the notion of in this country and certain religious leaders who take a very profound view of what's right and wrong and establish a set of ethics that is the boundary for behavior among that group. And the scientific community has been the victim of the same sort of logic coming now from the mathematical physicist who absolutely insists on the role of group theory and symmetry as being the basis of knowledge and science and everything. And this is very bothersome to me, very bothersome to me because it leads to destruction of the human spirit in the ultimate metaphysical sense that man should be creative man should be generative, generative in multiple ways, not just in bed. And so this notion of containing everything within certain set of mathematical symbols or beliefs about mathematical symbols, I think it's deadening to the human spirit.
Well, on the topic of being deadening to the human spirit, I wonder if we should think about stopping. I want to just pass the last word onto our three contributors. So Inga, Diana and Larry Inga.
Do you want to go first?
Just a quick summary of what you think you might have gained by this today.
Actually, I want to thank you for the grateful book and brilliant future and publication doing it.
I think we all Echo that. And it's been great to have your contribution today. Actually. I know we've broken the rule, but it's been good, Diana.
Thank you, Mark. I didn't know there was a rule that you couldn't contribute.
It was sort of self imposed.
Ready, I imagine. No, it's been a very good space. I still go back to Lucius and we have also the last name, the first name. It could be related. I go back into his comments and I think I didn't quite perhaps brought the issue of expectations that perhaps could also help. So I'm going to work on that. I'm going to reread the book and rethink about what you said and perhaps I can come with a feasible solution. Thank you. Thank you for the space.
It's been very constructive, Larry.
Also thank Lord for the book been a good source for learning some new stuff. If I take some link here to the next question that I'll be thinking about, it has to do with the word conversation. We talk about communication and conversation is another type of interaction. I claim Gordon Pass said conversation is not about communication and it's the converse of control. How does that all fit into all of this? I'm sure there's many answers and that's why I'm thinking about next.
Yeah, I completely agree with you about conversation. I have to say, thank you ever so much. It really has been a very rewarding session. Certainly from my perspective, it's really great to really dig into this stuff and look at it in some critical depth. This is an ongoing conversation, it seems to me, and that's what we're doing now. So what's next, Jamie?
The next one is the Wednesday of March, March 16. And we will be done discussing chapter five of Louis book. And I need to look if someone else has it in front of them, I don't have it with me here right now. Let me go for it. I'm not immediately finding it. So if someone else has it.
No, I can't find it either.
Sorry.
What are you looking for?
The last I'm getting there. But we will have chapter five, actually, Luther Beguero and will be talking and it's about evolutionary and institutional triple hailings models. And so we have two presenters in other words. If any of you know of someone who would like to comment perhaps a PhD student that is in the middle of reading book and would like to give a presentation so please share the word because we still want slots for a presenter for the next book chapter and if any of you feel inspired to give a presentation that I have not signed up yet for instance Cheryl or Jerry for her mother is here an opportunity.
All right thank you ever so much everybody. Jamie if you can send me the recording because I won't have it on my computer all right sorry Gerard, you're right.
You're already listed for July. I was wrong here. Yes you are definitely listed all right. No I'm looking forward to that. So Lucio we look forward to your presentation next month and this March I'm going to give you 30 okay well thank you.
See you next time.
All right, thank you Mark.