Dear Sungchul and Colleagues,
Let me join the harmonious and musical – as Francesco has put it – concert
among us, trying to understand and formalize our diverging concepts of what
is information.
Sungchul writes: “… DNA viewed as a set of linear sequences of genes …”.
This we all agree on. We will please also agree on the view “…. The living
organism is a set of commutative elements…”, as this cannot be denied (the
liver not being before or after the kidneys or the brain, but concurrently
with them). This is the small aspect I wish to draw your attention to.
The following points merit consideration:
a) Copying to and fro: size questions
The DNA and the organism exchange information (whatever that is in detail)
with each other. The information content of sequences is copied from the
products of the testicles and follicles to the organism while expanding
(unfolding, de-packaging). The information content of the organism is
copied unto the sperm or the egg, respectively while containing
(registering, storing, packaging). Therefore, two processes of copying take
place between source and target, where once the sequence is the source and
the commutative assembly the target, and once the commutative organism is
the source and the sequence is the target.
Now, a copying process implies by its nature that the target must have at
least such capacity (enumerable distinct states) as the source, otherwise
something would get lost. As the process goes both directions, we have a
copying problem, where the two targets must be at least as differentiated
(possessing distinguishable, enumerable states) as the other. Following
example may be used: we need two of such sacks into which the other sack’s
contents plus the sack must fit. There must obviously be some slack: maybe
this slack is a candidate to be called information.
b) Maximal efficiency, some accounting kind of solution needed
Assuming that Nature works at top efficiency and abhors vacui, one has to
find the back-door Nature uses to fit a bigger set into a smaller set, and
then back. This she does by using an interplay between the respective sizes
(capacities, number of enumerable distinguishable distinct states) of two
functions (for details, please look up OEIS/A242615).
The accounting trick is, that information lies in the eyes of the beholder.
If we see 66 objects as one commutative collection, the answering
information is related to “where are subgroups of these things?”, while
seeing the same objects as 11 sequences of 6 objects each, the answering
information is related to “what kind of thing happens /is contemporary/,
where and when?”. One may not like the numeric facts, but they are simply
there, and Nature uses them.
While being in full conformity of Sungchul’s point: “… communications …
must be mediated by messages (or signs) (i) … (ii) obeying a set of
syntactic rules…”, let me suggest that his idea of a wide range of
alternatives regarding the number of symbol-carrying tokens and
articulation pattern among the words of the logical language, that this
grammatical openness has been found to be restricted to 3 tokens in one
message and 4 varieties of tokes, in the ideal case, as dictated by the
numbers. Nature appears to follow the rules of elementary arithmetic. The 3
planes in succession, that generate a space, and the 4 possible readings of
a linear-sequential fact, on each of the planes represented in space, are
facts coming from the rules of counting. One needs 3 planes to construct a
space: this one can do, based on a sequence, but one arrives – as the cost
of the exercise – at 4 alternatives on each of 3 readings of the space.
Another candidate for the term “information”.
c) Forever changing, always the same
The interplay between what is in store and what is actually taking place
now can well be studied if one takes the time and sits down and reorders
the content of his office (in thoughts). One will find that the task is
rather complicated and will try to avoid the eye-opening work of figuring
out what the term “order” means. Would it be possible to make your office
maximally disordered? What would be where, in that case?
Yet, one will not be able to avoid (will surely be seduced into listening
to the sweet voice of adventure and discovery as the rosy-fingered maiden
of Reason will rise in the East of his/her brain) seeing cycles and
associations everywhere.
The great change in logic FIS is approximating, cycling and circling
around, refers to a concept of the “atomos”, “object”, “element”,
“thing-as-such”, “number as such”. In the new logic, these are never alone,
always together with others, in movement, being subsystems among other
subsystems.
Belonging to cycles confers powers of prediction to elements. (The DNA is a
prediction on the sequence of components’ assembly.) If *<such-and-such**>*
elements have passed, surely *<such-and-such> *will come next, because the
process is apparently *<this-or-that>*. The observation: “*{i,j,k} *have
passed, surely *{l,m,n,…} *are next” is a strong candidate to earn the
term “information”, as it is the basis of all learning, pointing out the
relation *<change> **→** <order behind change>*, and by agreeing to the
formal definition: Information is a description of that what is not the
case.
To summarize: We are approaching. Try figuring out the ideal order of
things in your office. How many different kinds of “ideal” are there? Is
there a predominance of some few ordering principles above others? How many
different ordering aspects rule the places of the contents of your office?
Best wishes
Karl
2018-01-14 7:23 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>:
> Cari Emanuel, Loet, Sung, Alex, Terry,
> tutti insieme costituite un bel coro. Siete un'armonia meravigliosa. La
> musica è il paradigma della scienza della vita o della vita della scienza.
> E' un vero piacere dell'anima leggerVi. Siete forti, chiari e
> incontrovertibili. Credo che il regista Pedro sia molto contento. Questa è
> la strada da seguire. Non bisogna inseguire chimere o illusioni. Tutto ciò
> che si conosce esiste e tutto ciò che esiste si conosce (lo dedico a
> Giuseppe Brenner). Grazie, grazie, grazie.
> Da parte di un economista della felicità.
> Un abbraccio affettuoso.
> Francesco
>
> 2018-01-14 4:37 GMT+01:00 Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>>
>> Thanks for raising the thought-provoking question.
>>
>>
>> According to the dual theory of information (i.e, the physical vs.
>> semantic information theory (PSIT)) [1] as I understand it, there is no
>> "Information
>> that you cannot put in a data set ". That is, all the information
>> discussed in natural and human sciences must be grounded in the physical
>> upon which the semanticity (or functionality) of any structure must arise.
>> For example, all heritable traits (including the kind of sensory
>> experiences you described) must be grounded in DNA structures as
>> clearly pointed out by Petoukhov [2, 3], for instance. Unlike the current
>> textbook version of DNA viewed as a set of linear sequences of genes
>> composed of just one alphabet of 4 letters, A, C. G and T, my
>> interpretation of the mathematical analyses of DNA-sequences (as summarized
>> in the concept of the tetra-groups of DNA sequences [4]) carried out by
>> Petoukhov [2, 3] indicates that DNA is a linear sequences of the 4
>> nucleotides structured (or partitioned) into n alphabets (or languages),
>> each consisting of 4^n letters, where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., of which we
>> may currently be aware of only the simplest alphabet with n = 1. The n = 5
>> alphabet (i.e., the n^th alphabet or the n^th cell language) should consist
>> of 4^5 = 1,024 letters, and the n = 6 alphabet should contain 4,096
>> letters, etc. Having these multiple alphabets or molecular languages may
>> have been beneficial for biological evolution, probably because they
>> increased the information storage and processing capacities of the cell.
>> I am not a computer scientist but it seems to me that the situation is
>> similar to computer scientists using two different alphabets -- one with 2
>> digits (i.e., o, 1) and the other with 2^3 = 8 digits (i.e., 00000000,
>> 10000000, 11000000, 11110011, . . .) in order to increase the
>> information storage and processing capacities of computers.
>>
>>
>> All biological communications including cell-cell, cell-organ,
>> cell-human, humnan-human communications must be mediated by messages (or
>> signs) (i) written in an alphabet with n letters, where n can be 2, 3, 4,
>> 5, 6, . . . .10^6?, thus having varying information storage and processing
>> capacities, and (ii) obeying a set of syntactic rules so that (iii) the
>> sender and the receiver can understand the messages using a common set (or
>> dictionary) of rules of interpretation.
>>
>>
>> In conlusion, my breif answer to Alex's question would be that human
>> brains have evolved to perform the kind of sensory functions you describe
>> based on "molecular data", not necessarily macroscopic physical or
>> linguistic data employed in macrosciences and engineering.
>>
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>>
>> Sung
>>
>>
>>
>> References:
>>
>> [1] Emanuel Diamant, *The brain is processing information, not data.
>> Does anybody care?, *ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract.
>> http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciforum.net%2Fconference%2Fisis-summit-vienna-2015%2Fpaper%2F2842&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C89f81861ee684f05e46b08d559d86fe1%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636513708497810284&sdata=bMlZ324OoEHA5XMQibKiEFsm75NhcpkfIcSRUJbQZNg%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciforum.net%2Fconference%2Fisis-summit-vienna-2015%2Fpaper%2F2842&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C89f81861ee684f05e46b08d559d86fe1%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636513708497810284&sdata=bMlZ324OoEHA5XMQibKiEFsm75NhcpkfIcSRUJbQZNg%3D&reserved=0>
>> [2] Petoukhov, S. (2017). Genetic coding and united-hypercomplex systems
>> in the models of algebraic biology.*BioSystems* *158*: 31-46.
>> [3] Petoukhov, S. (2016). The system-resonance approach in
>> modeling genetic structures. *BiosySystems* *139*:1-11.
>> [4] Petoukhov, S. (2018). The rules of long DNA-sequences and
>> tetra-groups of oligonucleotides. arXiv:1709.04943v4 [q-bio.OT]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciforum.net%2Fconference%2Fisis-summit-vienna-2015%2Fpaper%2F2842&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C89f81861ee684f05e46b08d559d86fe1%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636513708497810284&sdata=bMlZ324OoEHA5XMQibKiEFsm75NhcpkfIcSRUJbQZNg%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>> [4] Ji, S. (2017).*Neo-Semiotics*: Introducing Zeroness into Peircean
>> Semiotics May Bridge the Knowable and the Unknowable. *Prog. Biophys.
>> Mol. Biol*. *131*:387-401. PDF at http://www.sciencedirect.co
>> m/science/article/pii/S0079610717300858?via%3Dihub
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS0079610717300858%3Fvia%253Dihub&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd3662883d79442bc279b08d55a45ef3e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636514178788801408&sdata=afKjg3GrB3JRHkESNqHxOOhhjn9C%2F9%2FuJAFx6OX7%2FVs%3D&reserved=0>
>> [5] Ji, S. (1997). Isomorphism between cell and human languages:
>> molecualr biological, bioinformatic and linguistic implications.
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conformon.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FIsomorphism1.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd3662883d79442bc279b08d55a45ef3e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636514178788801408&sdata=RaGj9cNFqT4nLwPh%2BllpEgryPeou9Dm%2F6MZGEOXqA18%3D&reserved=0>
>> *BioSystems* 44:17-39. PDF at http://www.conformon.net/wp
>> -content/uploads/2012/05/Isomorphism1.pdf
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conformon.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FIsomorphism1.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd3662883d79442bc279b08d55a45ef3e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636514178788801408&sdata=RaGj9cNFqT4nLwPh%2BllpEgryPeou9Dm%2F6MZGEOXqA18%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> [6] Ji, S. (2017). The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and
>> Matter. World Scientific, New Jersey. Chapter 5*. *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 13, 2018 12:24 AM
>> *To:* Sungchul Ji
>> *Cc:* Emanuel Diamant; fis@listas.unizar.es
>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul
>>
>> And what about the Kinds of Information that you cannot put in a data
>> set?
>> The information that makes you turn your head and meet the gaze of
>> someone staring at you.
>> No one could do that, which we humans and all animals do constantly,
>> unless we had received such information at a subliminal level in the
>> brain.
>> We all have that capacity, it is vital for survival in the wild. All
>> animals do it.
>> The 'Sense of Being Stared At' is a common experience for most animals,
>> how far down the tree of life no one yet knows.
>>
>> Whatever triggers it is definitely 'A Difference that Makes a
>> Difference',
>> so fits in your definition of 'Meaningful Information' - it has to!
>> BUT IT CANNOT BE DIGITAL INFORMATION.
>> Please Face Up to This Fact.
>>
>> All best wishes,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> On 13 January 2018 at 07:30, Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Emmanuel and FISers,
>>
>>
>> Thank you, Emmanuel, for your generous remarks. It is heartening to know
>> that our ideas converge, although we carried out our research independently
>> of each other, a clear example of consilience.
>>
>>
>> (*1*) I like and agree with the Kolomogorov quote you cited in [1]:
>>
>>
>> "*Information is a linguistic description of structures in a given data
>> set.*"
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that there are 4 key concepts embedded in the above quote,
>> which we may view as the definition of what may be called the "Komogorov
>> information" or the "Kolmogorov-Bateson information" for the
>> convenience of reference:
>>
>> *i*) data set (e.g., ACAGTCAACGGTCCAA)
>> *ii*) linguistic description (e.g., Threonine, Valine, Asparagine,
>> Glycine)
>> *iii*) structure (e.g., 16 mononucdotide, 8 dinucldotides, 5
>> trinucleotides plus 1)
>> *iv*) mathematical description (e.g., tensor product of two 2x2 matrices
>> of 4 nucleotides) [2, 3].
>>
>> The first three elements are obvious, but the 4th is not so obvious but
>> justified in view of the recent work of Petoukhov [2, 3].
>>
>> (*2*) Based on these ideas, I have constructed *Table 1* below of the
>> various names applied to the two kinds of information which I described as
>> I(-) and I(+) in my previous post.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Table 1. *The *arbitrariness* of the signs referring to ‘information’.
>> It doesn’t matter what you call it, as long as your chosen label refers to
>> the right reality, thing, process, mechanisms, etc.
>>
>> 1
>>
>> Type I Information
>>
>> Type II information
>>
>> 2
>>
>> Physical Information
>>
>> Sematic information
>>
>> 3
>>
>> Shannon information
>>
>> Kolmogorov information, or
>>
>> Kolmogorov-Bateson information
>>
>> 4
>>
>> ‘Meaningless’ information
>>
>> ‘Meaningful’ information
>>
>> 5
>>
>> I(-) information, or simply I(-)
>>
>> I(+) information, or simply I(+)
>>
>> 6
>>
>> Quantitative information
>>
>> Qualitative information
>>
>> 7
>>
>> Mathematical information
>>
>> Linguistic information (see Statement (1))
>>
>> 8
>>
>> Formal information
>>
>> Phenomenological information
>>
>> 9
>>
>> Interpretant-less sign [4]
>>
>> Triadic sign [4]
>>
>>
>>
>> (*3*) One practical application of the *dual theory of information *under
>> discussion is in deducing the structure of cell language, or the
>> structure of the linguistics of DNA, in a much more rigorous manner than
>> was possible in 1997 [5].
>> It is the common practice in biology to use the terms "letters",
>> "words", "sentences", and "texts" without any rigorous definitions. The
>> general rule is to follow the rules of concatenations used in linguistics
>> literally and say that
>>
>> *i*) just as 26 letters in the English alphabet are combined to form
>> words (the process being called the second articulation [5]), so the 4
>> letters of the genetic alphabets, A, C, G and T/U, combine in triplets to
>> form genetic codons. Similarly, just as words form sentences and sentences
>> form texts by the same concatenation procedure (or tensor multiplication,
>> mathematically speaking , i.e, linearly arranging words and sentences,
>> respectively (see the second column in Table 2), so the 64
>> nucleotide triplets combine to form proteins and proteins combine to form
>> metabolic pathways by continuing the concatenation process, or the tensor
>> multiplication of matrices of larger and larger sizes (see the
>> fourth column, which is based on the physical theory of information, i.e.,
>> without any involvement of* semantics* or the first articulation).
>>
>> *ii*) In contrast to the fourth column just described, we can justify
>> an alternative structural assignments based on the semantic theory of
>> information as shown in the fifth column of *Table 2*. Here the letters
>> of the cell language alphabet are not always mononucloetoides but thought
>> to be n-nucleotides, such as dinucleotides (when n = 2), trinucleotides
>> (when n =3), tetranucleotides (when n = 4), penta-nucelotides (when n = 5),
>> etc. That is, unlike in human language where the letters of an alphabet
>> usually consist of one symbol, e.g., A, B, C, D, E, . . . , *I am
>> claiming that in cell language, the letters can be mononucloetides
>> (i.e., A, G, C, T/U), dinucloeotides (i.e., AG, AC, . . . .) ,
>> trinucleotides (i.e., ACT, GTA, . . . ), tetranucleotides (i.e., ACTG,
>> CCGT, . . . .), pentanucleotides (i.e., ACCTG, TCGAT, . . .) and, up to
>> n-nucleotides (also called n-plets [2, 3]), where n is an unknown number
>> whose upper limit is not yet known (at least to me). * If this
>> conjecture turns out to be true, then the size of the cell language
>> alphabet can be much larger (10^3 - 10^9 ?) than the size of a typical
>> human linguistic alphabet which is usually less than 10^2, probably due to
>> the limitation of the memory capacity of the human brain.
>>
>> (*iii*) From linguistics, we learn that there are at least 4 levels of
>> organization, each level characterized by a unique function (see the second
>> column). Without presenting any detailed argument, I just wish to suggest
>> that the linguistic structures deduced based on the semantic information
>> theory (i.e., the fifth column) agree with the human linguistic structures
>> (i.e., the second column) better than does the linguistic structures based
>> on the physical/mathematical/quantitative information theory (i.e., the
>> fourth column), when the functional hierarchy given in the third column is
>> taken into account.
>>
>>
>> *Table 2. *Two versions of the linguistics of DNA based on (i) the
>> physical information theory, and (ii) the semantic information theory [1].
>> M stands for a 2x2 matrix whose elements are the 4 genetic nucleotides, A,
>> C, G and T/U, i.e., M = [C A; T G] (see Figure 16 in [2]). The symbol, (x),
>> indicates tensor multiplication [2, 3]. The I to II transition is known in
>> linguistics as the second articulation; the II to III transition as the first
>> articulation [4]; the III to IV transition was referred to as the third
>> articulation [5].
>>
>> Organization level
>>
>> *Human Language*
>>
>> *Cell Language*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Structure*
>>
>> *Function/Semantics*
>>
>> *Structure based on the Physical Information Theory (PIT) *[1]
>>
>> *Structure based on the Semantic Information Theory (SIT) *[1]
>>
>> I
>>
>> Letters
>>
>> Basic building
>>
>> blocks or basic physical signals
>>
>> 4 Nucleotides (A, C, G, T/U);
>>
>> M = [C A;T G]*
>>
>> mono-, di-, trinucleotides, 4-plets, 5-plets, . . . , n-plets of
>> nucleotides, . . .
>>
>> II
>>
>> Words
>>
>> To denote
>>
>> 16 dinucleotides;
>>
>> M(x)M or M^2
>>
>> Any combinations of the n-plets/ genes/proteins
>>
>> III
>>
>> Sentences
>>
>> To decide
>>
>> 64 trinucleotides /amino acids;
>> M(x)M(x)M or M^3
>>
>>
>>
>> Assembly of genes/proteins; or metabolic pathways (MP)
>>
>> IV
>>
>> Texts
>>
>> To argue/compute/
>>
>> reason (e.g., syllogism)
>>
>> 254 tetranucleotides;
>>
>> Metabolic pathways (?); M(x)M(x)M(x)M or M^4
>>
>> Networks of MP’s
>>
>> characterized by a unique function (see the second column). Without
>> presenting any detailed argument, I would like to suggest that the
>> linguistic structures deduced based on the semantic information theory
>> (i.e., the fifth column) agree with the human linguistic structures
>> (i.e., the second column) better than does the linguistic structures
>> based on the physical/mathematical/quantitative information theory
>> (i.e., the fourth column).
>> In other words, the structure of cell language deduced based on the
>> semantic information theory agrees better, functionally, with that of the
>> human language than the structure of cell language deduced based on the
>> physical information theory, thus further supporting the 1997 postulate
>> that cell and human languages are isomorphic [5, 6].
>>
>> If you have any questions or suggestions for improvements on the above
>> tables, I would appreciate hearing from you.
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>> References:
>> [1] Emanuel Diamant, *The brain is processing information, not data.
>> Does anybody care?, *ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract.
>> http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciforum.net%2Fconference%2Fisis-summit-vienna-2015%2Fpaper%2F2842&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C89f81861ee684f05e46b08d559d86fe1%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636513708497810284&sdata=bMlZ324OoEHA5XMQibKiEFsm75NhcpkfIcSRUJbQZNg%3D&reserved=0>
>> [2] Petoukhov, S. (2017). Genetic coding and united-hypercomplex
>> systems in the models of algebraic biology. *BioSystems* *158*: 31-46.
>>
>>
>> [3] Petoukhov, S. (2016). The system-resonance approach in modeling
>> genetic
>> structures. *BiosySystems* *139*:1-11.
>>
>> [4] Ji, S. (2017).*Neo-Semiotics*: Introducing Zeroness into Peircean
>> Semiotics May Bridge the Knowable and the Unknowable. *Prog. Biophys.
>> Mol. Biol*. *131*:387-401. PDF at http://www.sciencedirect.co
>> m/science/article/pii/S0079610717300858?via%3Dihub
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS0079610717300858%3Fvia%253Dihub&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd3662883d79442bc279b08d55a45ef3e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636514178788801408&sdata=afKjg3GrB3JRHkESNqHxOOhhjn9C%2F9%2FuJAFx6OX7%2FVs%3D&reserved=0>
>> [5] Ji, S. (1997). Isomorphism between cell and human languages:
>> molecualr biological, bioinformatic and linguistic implications.
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conformon.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FIsomorphism1.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd3662883d79442bc279b08d55a45ef3e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636514178788801408&sdata=RaGj9cNFqT4nLwPh%2BllpEgryPeou9Dm%2F6MZGEOXqA18%3D&reserved=0>
>> *BioSystems* 44:17-39. PDF at http://www.conformon.net/wp
>> -content/uploads/2012/05/Isomorphism1.pdf
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conformon.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FIsomorphism1.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd3662883d79442bc279b08d55a45ef3e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636514178788801408&sdata=RaGj9cNFqT4nLwPh%2BllpEgryPeou9Dm%2F6MZGEOXqA18%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> [6] Ji, S. (2017). The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and
>> Matter. World Scientific, New Jersey. Chapter 5*. *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Emanuel Diamant <
>> emanl....@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 11:20 AM
>> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
>> *Subject:* [Fis] I salute to Sungchul
>>
>>
>> Dear FISers,
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to express my pleasure with the current state of our
>> discourse – an evident attempt to reach a more common understanding about
>> information issues and to enrich preliminary given assessments.
>>
>> In this regard, I would like to add my comment to Sungchul’s post of
>> January 12, 2018.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sungchul proposes “to recognize two distinct types of information which,
>> for the lack of better terms, may be referred to as the "meaningless
>> information" or I(-) and "meaningful information" or I(+)”.
>>
>> That is exactly what I am trying to put forward for years, albeit under
>> more historically rooted names: Physical and Semantic information [1].
>> Never mind, what is crucially important here is that the duality of
>> information becomes publicly recognized and accepted by FIS community.
>>
>>
>>
>> I salute to Sungchul’s suggestion!
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards, Emanuel.
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] Emanuel Diamant, *The brain is processing information, not data.
>> Does anybody care?, *ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract.
>> http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciforum.net%2Fconference%2Fisis-summit-vienna-2015%2Fpaper%2F2842&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C89f81861ee684f05e46b08d559d86fe1%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636513708497810284&sdata=bMlZ324OoEHA5XMQibKiEFsm75NhcpkfIcSRUJbQZNg%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd3662883d79442bc279b08d55a45ef3e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636514178788801408&sdata=9TXxywUWuFuqtzvz2QaY4jS%2BVGnz7xHdJ9NvdpydsWY%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
>> Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
>> SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
>> Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
>> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 <+44%207710%20534195>
>> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 <+91%2090080%2008789>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
>> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Fjournal%2F00796107%2F119%2F3&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cd3662883d79442bc279b08d55a45ef3e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636514178788801408&sdata=y1BDOh%2BTf6EG%2FqiyF1%2FmAEeC0Qh%2B1UWgz%2Fz4D8V3Yrc%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
