On Jan 15, 3:54 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> On 14.01.2012 08:21 John Clark said the following:
>  > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012  Craig Weinberg<whatsons...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> …
>  > For heavens sake, I went into quite a lot of detail about how the
>  > code is executed so that protein gets made, and it could not be more
>  > clear that the cell factory contains digital machines.
>  >
>  >> They are not information.
>  >>
>  >
>  > According to you nothing is information and that is one reason it is
>  > becoming increasingly difficult to take anything you say seriously.
> I should say that I also have difficulty with the term information. A
> question would for example if information belongs to physics or not.
> Some physicists say that information is related to the entropy and as
> such it is a basic physical quantity. I personally do not buy it, as
> thermodynamics, as it has been designed, had nothing to do with
> information and information as such brings nothing to help to solve
> thermodynamics problem (more to this end in [1]).

Yes! The word information in my opinion only applies to an agent which
can be informed. Without such an agent, information cannot exist, even
as a potential. Once you have an agent that has experience, the
character of that experience can be modified by the agent being
'informed' by an experience which changes how that agent perceives,
responds, and acts in the future. Information is a process which
begins and ends with an agent's experience.

> Let us consider for example a conventional thermodynamic problem:
> improving efficiency of a motor. Is the information concept is helpful
> to solve this problem? If we look at modern motors, then we see that
> nowadays they are working together with controllers that allows us to
> drive the efficiency to the thermodynamic limit. The term information is
> helpful indeed to develop a controller but what about the thermodynamic
> limit of a motor? Does information helps here? In my view, not.
> In the Gray's book on consciousness (Consciousness: Creeping up on the
> Hard Problem.) there is an interesting statement on if physics is enough
> to explain biology. Gray's answer is yes provided we add cybernetics
> laws and evolution. Let me leave evolution aside and discuss the
> cybernetics laws only as this is exactly where, I think, information
> comes into play. A good short video from the Artificial Intelligence
> Class that I have recently attended would be a good introduction (an
> intelligent agent sensing external information and then acting):
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx3lV07w-XE

Nice. His concept of 'perception action cycle' is what I call
sensorimotivation. The problem is that he relies on third person
structure called a 'control policy'. While this control policy concept
that maps sensors to actuators is entirely appropriate for programming
mechanisms (since they can't program themselves unless they are made
of self-programming materials like living cells). I think that I
understand that the problem with this is that in neurological agents,
the sensor and the actuator is the same thing so that no control
policy is needed. In the case of a human nervous system, it functions
as a whole system with afferent and efferent nerves being organically
specialized divisions which make up the sensorimotive capacity of one
human being.

With a rock, you have a very low sensorimotive development. It knows
how to respond to it's environment in terms of heat and pressure,
velocity, fracture, etc. With a ballcock in a toilet you have separate
parts, each with a very low, rock-like sensorimotive capacity. If the
parts were literally parts of the same thing like our afferent and
efferent nerves are part of a nervous system, then you would have
something with slightly less primitive characteristics. Maybe on par
with a bubble of oil in water. The problem is that we overlook the
fact that the assembly inside the toilet is only our human reading of
these attached separate parts. The parts don't know that they are
attached. They handle doesn't know the reason that the ballcock is
moving it up and down. Not the case with a nervous system. It knows
what the body it is a part of is doing. It all came from one single
cell, not 12 different factories. It's a completely different thing in
reality, but our perception is hard to question so fundamentally. It's
like trying to not read these words as English.

> Thus, the question would be about the relationship between physics and
> cybernetics laws. When we consider the Equation of Everything, are the
> cybernetics laws already there or we still need to introduce them
> separately? One of possible answers would be that the cybernetics laws
> emerge or supervene on the physics laws. I however does not understand
> what this means. It probably has something to do with a transition
> between quantity and quality, but I do not understand how it happens
> either. For myself, it remains a magic.
> Let me repeat a series from physical objects discussed already recently
> (see also [2][3]):
> 1) A rock;
> 2) A ballcock in the toilet;
> 3) A self-driving car;
> 4) A living cell.

A self-driving car is the same as the ballcock. An assembly of dumb
parts which we program to simulate what seems like (trivial)
intelligence to us. In reality it has no more intelligence than
watching a cartoon of living cars. A living cell is nothing like any
of the other examples. A dead cell would be comparable to a rock, but
a living cell has a sensorimotive capacity which cannot be reduced
beneath the cellular level. It is a biological atom.

> Where do we have the cybernetics laws (information) and where not? Can
> physics describe these objects without the cybernetics laws? What
> emergence and superveniece mean along this series? Any idea?

We have cybernetics laws only where we can control the behavior of
matter. They aren't very useful for understanding our experience.
Physics can only describe the components of the objects, but the
function of the assemblies of objects are subject to interpretation
rather than physical law. A self-driving car is just electronic parts
that happen to be in a car which we understand to be driving 'itself',
but is actually just executing a program based on an abstract model of

Emergence is useful only in the context of self-evident models. A
triangle can emerge from three points, a square from four, but the
smell of cabbage cannot emerge from any quantity of points. Cybernetic
laws supervene on sensorimotive pattern recognition, not the other way
around. A toilet ballcock can only perceive the mechanical forces
being applied to it's various physical parts. It has no capacity to
recognize it's extended context and thus can't ever know if it's
broken or try to fix itself like a living cell can.


> Evgenii
> [1]http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/12/entropy-and-artificial-life.html
> [2]http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/01/perception-feedback-and-qualia.html
> [3]http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/02/rock-and-information.html

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to