Christophe -- Regarding:
>Social institutions clearly have final causes (a long and complex list..) but associating agency and teleology to elementary particles may be problematic as it introduces final causes in a material universe. This looks close to an "intelligent design" option that we prefer to avoid. Final cause (teleology) is an issue separate from agency. I believe that in the context of the Big Bang theory, and given the constitutive low energy efficiency of all work, the Second Law of thermodynamics can be viewed as a final cause of all energy usage whatever. STAN On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Christophe Menant < christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> wrote: > > Dear Gordana, > > Your proposal for elementary particles and social institutions as two > limit cases for agency is interesting as it also positions limit cases for > normative/teleological properties > > highlighted as implicit parts of agency by Terry. And it brings in > perspectives on your subject. > Social institutions clearly have final causes (a long and complex list..) > but associating agency and teleology to elementary particles may be > problematic as it introduces final causes in a material universe. This > looks close to an "intelligent design" option that we prefer to avoid. > Why not introduce a possible "trend to increasing complexity" (TIC) in > our universe, with steps since the big bang: > energy => elementary particles=> atoms=>molecules=> > life=>humans=>.... (perhaps pan-computationalism has a say there?). > Agency and normative/teleological properties can then be looked at > as emerging during the TIC at the molecules=>life transition (Terry's > morphodynamics). > Rather than being a limit case for agency, elementary particles are then > part of the thread leading to teleology/agency via the TIC. > How would you feel about such wording? > Best > Christophe > > > > ------------------------------ > *De :* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> de la part de Gordana > Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se> > *Envoyé :* vendredi 20 octobre 2017 11:02 > *À :* Terrence W. DEACON; 'Bob Logan'; l...@leydesdorff.net; 'fis' > *Objet :* Re: [Fis] What is ³Agent²? > > > Dear Terry, Bob, Loet > > Thank you for sharing those important thoughts about possible choices for > the definition of agency. > > I would like to add one more perspective that I find in Pedro’s article > which makes a distinction between matter-energy aspects and informational > aspects of the same physical reality. I believe that on the fundamental > level of information physics we have a good ND simplest example how those > two entangled aspects can be formally framed. > As far as I can tell, Terrys definition covers chemical and biological > agency. > Do we want to include apart from fundamental physics also full cognitive > and social agency which are very much dominated by informational aspects > (symbols and language)? > Obviously there is no information without physical implementation, but > when we think about epistemology and the ways we know the world, for us and > other biological agents *there is no physical interaction without > informational aspects*. > Can we somehow think in terms those two faces of agency? > Without matter/energy nothing will happen, nothing can act in the world > but that which happens and anyone registers it, has informational side to > it. > For human agency (given that matter/energy side is functioning) > information is what to a high degree drives agency. > > Do you think this would be a fruitful path to pursue, with “agency” of > elementary particles and agency of social institutions as two limit cases? > > All the best, > Gordana > > > > ______________________________________________ > Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > Chalmers University of Technology > School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University > http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ > <http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc> > Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc> > www.mrtc.mdh.se > GORDANA DODIG-CRNKOVIC Professor of Computer Science. > gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se. Mobile > MDH: +46 73 662 05 11 <+46%2073%20662%2005%2011> > > General Chair of is4si summit 2017 > http://is4si-2017.org > <http://is4si-2017.org/> > IS4SI-2017 - International Society for Information Studies > <http://is4si-2017.org/> > is4si-2017.org > IS4SI-2017 Summit - International Society for Information Studies - > DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY Embodied, Embedded, Networked, > Empowered... > > > > From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff < > l...@leydesdorff.net> > Organization: University of Amsterdam > Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net" <l...@leydesdorff.net> > Date: Friday, 20 October 2017 at 08:40 > To: 'Bob Logan' <lo...@physics.utoronto.ca>, 'fis' <fis@listas.unizar.es> > Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”? > > Dear Bob and colleagues, > > > > I agree with the choice element. From a sociological perspective, agency > is usually defined in relation to structure. For example, in terms of > structure/actor contingencies. The structures provide the background that > bind us. Remarkably, Mark, we no longer define these communalities > philosophically, but sociologically (e.g., Merton, 1942, about the > institutional norms of science). An interesting extension is that we > nowadays not only perceive communality is our biological origins (as > species), but also in terms of communicative layers that we construct and > reproduce as inter-agency (interactions). > > > > The relation with the information issue is not obvious. I worked on this a > bit in the first half of the 90s: > > - "Structure"/"Action" Contingencies and the Model of Parallel > Distributed Processing, > <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jtsb93/index.htm>*Journal > for the Theory of Social Behaviour* 23 (1993) 47-77. > - The Production of Probabilistic Entropy in Structure/Action > Contingency Relations, > <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jses95/jses95.pdf>*Journal > of Social and Evolutionary Systems* 18 (1995) 339-56. > > Best, > > Loet > > > ------------------------------ > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of > Sussex; > > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, > Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; > > Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > > > > > > *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es > <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] *On Behalf Of *Bob Logan > *Sent:* Friday, October 20, 2017 6:11 AM > *To:* Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> > *Cc:* fis <Fis@listas.unizar.es> > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”? > > > > Dear Terry and FIS friends - I agree with all that Terry has said about > agency. I do wish to however to point out that an agent has choice and a > non-agent has no choice. I would suggest that the defining characteristic > of an agent is choice and therefore an agent must be a living organism and > all living organisms are agents. Agents/living organisms have choice or are > capable of choice or agency and they are the only things that have choice > or can interpret information. Abiotic non-agents do not have information > because they have no choice. We humans can have information about abiotic > objects but those objects themselves do not have that information as they > have no mind to be informed. That includes this email post, it is abiotic > an has no agency. It has information by virtue of you reading it because > you are able to interpret the visual signs with which I have recorded my > thoughts. Marshall McLuhan would add to my comments that “the user is the > content” as well as saying that Shannon’s work was not a theory of > information but a "theory of transportation”. I think of Shannon’s work in > a similar light. I also do not regard Shannon’s work as a theory of > information but it is a theory of signals. Shannon himself said his theory > was not about meaning and I say what is information without meaning and > that therefore Shannon only had a theory of signals. > > > > Another insight of McLuhan’s that of figure and ground is useful to > understand why we have so many different definitions of information. > McLuhan maintained that one could not understand a figure unless one > understood the ground in which it operates in. (McLuhan might have gotten > this idea from his professor at Cambridge, I. A. Richards, who said that in > order to communicate one needs to feedforward [he coined the term btw] the > context of what one is communicating.) The different definitions of > information we have considered are a result of the different contexts in > which the term information is used. We should also keep in mind that all > words are metaphors and metaphor literally means to carry across, derived > from the Greek meta (literally ‘across') and phorein (literally 'to > carry'). So the word information has been carried across from one domain or > area of interest to another. It entered the English language as the noun > associated with the verb 'to inform', i.e. to form the mind. Here is an > excerpt from my book *What Is Information? *(available for free at > demopublishing.com): > > *"Origins of the Concept of Information - *We begin our historic survey > of the development of the concept of information with its etymology. The > English word information according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) > first appears in the written record in 1386 by Chaucer: 'Whanne Melibee > hadde herd the grete skiles and resons of Dame Prudence, and hire wise > informacions and techynges.' The word is derived from Latin through French > by combining the word inform meaning giving a form to the mind with the > ending “ation” denoting a noun of action. This earliest definition refers > to an item of training or molding of the mind.” This is why abiotic objects > have no information as I claimed above because they have no mind that can > be informed. > > I hope that by informing you of the origin of the word information I have > shed some light on our confusion about what is information and why we have > so many definitions of it. It might even shed some light for that matter as > to what is an agent. Got the ticket? If so that makes me a ticket agent. I > hope you get the joke. all the best - Bob > > > > > ______________________ > > > > Robert K. Logan > > Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto > > Fellow University of St. Michael's College > > Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD > > http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan > > www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications > > https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/people/homepages/logan/ > > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> > wrote: > > > > AUTONOMOUS AGENCY: The definition I propose for autonomous agency It is > open to challenge. Of course, there are many ways that we use the term > 'agent' in more general and metaphoric ways. I am, however, interested in > the more fundamental conception that these derived uses stem from. I do not > claim that this definition is original, but rather that it is what we > implicitly understand by the concept. So if this is not your understanding > I am open to suggestions for modification. > > > > I should add that it has been a recent goal of my work to describe an > empirically testable simplest model system that satisfies this definition. > Those of you who are familiar with my work will recognize that this is what > I call an autogenic or teleodynamic system. In this context, however, it is > only the adequacy of the definition that I am interested in exploring. As > in many of the remarks of others on this topic it is characterized by > strange-loop recursivity, self-reference, and physicality. And it may be > worth while describing how this concept is defined by e.g. Hofstadter, von > Foerster, Luhmann, Moreno, Kauffman, Barad, and others, to be sure that we > have covered the critical features and haven't snuck in any "demons". In my > definition, I have attempted to avoid any cryptic appeal to observers or > unexamined teleological properties, because my purpose is instead to > provide a constructive definition of what these properties entail and why > they are essential to a full conception of information. > > > > CENTRALITY OF NORMATIVE PROPERTIES: A critical factor when discussing > agency is that it is typically defined with respect to "satisfaction > conditions" or "functions" or "goals" or other NORMATIVE properties. > Normative properties are all implicitly teleological. They are irrelevant > to chemistry and physics. The concept of an "artificial agent" may not > require intrinsic teleology (e.g. consider thermostats or guidance systems > - often described as teleonomic systems) but the agentive properties of > such artifacts are then implicitly parasitic on imposed teleology provided > by some extrinsic agency. This is of course implicit also in the concepts > of 'signal' and 'noise' which are central to most information concepts. > These are not intrinsic properties of information, but are extrinsically > imposed distinctions (e.g. noise as signal to the repair person). So I > consider the analysis of agency and its implicit normativity to be a > fundamental issue to be resolved in our analysis of information. Though we > can still bracket any consideration of agency from many analyses my simply > assuming it (e.g. assumed users, interpreters, organisms and > their functions, etc.), but this explicitly leaves a critical defining > criterion outside the analysis. In these cases, we should just be clear > that in doing so we have imported unexplained boundary conditions into the > analysis by fiat. Depending on the goal of the analysis (also a > teleological factor) this may be unimportant. But the nature and origin of > agency and normativity remain foundational questions for any full theory of > information. > > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu > > wrote: > > Here is an interesting recent treatment of autonomy. > > > > Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio: Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical > > and Theoretical Enquiry (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life > Sciences 12); > > Springer, Dordrecht, 2015, xxxiv + 221 pp., $129 hbk, ISBN > 978-94-017-9836-5 > > > > STAN > > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> > wrote: > > AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT IS A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM ORGANIZED TO BE CAPABLE OF > INITIATING PHYSICAL WORK TO FURTHER PRESERVE THIS SAME CAPACITY IN THE > CONTEXT OF INCESSANT EXTRINSIC AND/OR INTRINSIC TENDENCIES FOR THIS SYSTEM > CAPACITY TO DEGRADE. > > > > THIS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE WORK THAT IS SPECIFICALLY CONTRAGRADE > TO THE FORM OF THIS DEGRADATIONAL INFLUENCE, AND THUS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO > BE INFORMED BY THE EFFECTS OF THAT INFLUENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENT’S > CRITICAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS. > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Koichiro Matsuno <cxq02...@nifty.com> w > rote: > > On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote: > > > > the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe. > > > > This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem > (2006). If (a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise > their free will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and > molecules lack their share of the similar capacity. For our bodies > eventually consist of those atoms and molecules. > > > > Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent > atoms and molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob > Ulanowicz at long last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case > would have to forcibly be dismissed. > > > > This has been my second post this week. > > > > Koichiro Matsuno > > > > > > > > *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Alex > Hankey > *Sent:* Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42 AM > *To:* Arthur Wist <arthur.w...@gmail.com>; FIS Webinar < > Fis@listas.unizar.es> > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”? > > > > David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they > are as fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass. > > > > Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those > emphasized by complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be > non-reducible and fundamental to our universe. > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > -- > > Professor Terrence W. Deacon > University of California, Berkeley > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > > > -- > > Professor Terrence W. Deacon > University of California, Berkeley > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
