Dear Pedro, Dear Colleagues, Pedro has suggested a very open framework for Varna next Summer which I think we should all try to adapt for our own needs. What I mean by this is not to follow it exactly but state explicitly what sort of form, of the kinds that Pedro proposes, one is using in one's approach.
As to Deacon's work, I feel a little odd at having to defend it, but I see the role he gives to thermodynamics is primarily as the necessary underlying process. The focus of his book is on the further generation of form (morphodynamics) and the characterization of living systems (teleodynamics) in a rigorous manner. However, as in Logic in Reality, there are properties of energy and aspects of absence which have been largely ignored, and it exactly these that provide a further approach to the origin of life, evolution and the information related to them. I do not think it is possible, from now on, to talk about information without a minimum reference to the necessity of its being defined in part negatively, by constraint, "what is missing" or the "informative power of absence". People who insist on total proofs of a theory will not find them in Deacon's work. What he has provided, in his own words, are "proofs of principle" that should nevertheless lead one to rethink many of one's assumptions based on standard notions of causality, emergence, signal and noise, etc. Especially, Deacon insists on seeing the reciprocal complementarity of critical processes at the chemical and biological level as a necessary, non-trivial feature of evolution. He has built on the work of people we know (or should know) - Kauffman, Collier, Salthe and others. For an initial exposure to his approach, one can try his 2010 article "The Emergence of Self" available on-line (open access). Best wishes, Joseph ----- Original Message ----- From: Pedro C. Marijuan To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Information as form conveyed by data--Jamie Rose Dear Joseph and colleagues, Many thanks for the further reflections, which I share almost entirely --though only partially regarding Deacon's approach. I have to read his new book, of course, but a previous chapter in David & Gregersen book made me think that he has not really exploited the constructive possibilities and opportunities of the "apophatic". Playing with "absences" is the bread and butter of biological communication, and becomes quite a significant path to follow, but in a new way, starting from it and without paying the thermodyn detour. My contention (at least until I read the new book) is that rather than foundations for new thought on information he has returned the thread to the thermodynamic periphery. If we are explaining computers dynamisms for practical application we should not enter into explaining the solid state physics of transistors; obviously we can... but the backpack for the intellectual trip becomes full of useless, boring stones. What kind of "definitory" info consensus could we attempt this summer or in a next FIS conference? My view on the usual multidisciplinary info discussions is as follows: we (eg, physicists) start from some X background, establish some kinds of formal (or qualitative) relations M, and then conclude that Info is A. Other disciplinary parties start from Y, apply relationships N, and conclude that info is B. Further up, starting from Z, and applying relationships P, info becomes C. Then some parties try to directly interrelate A, B, and C (say, interconnecting the different "info "forms"); or more formally oriented people attempt a pan-theorization on M,N,P (general theory); while the reflection on the X,Y,Z commonalities and differences is scant. Actually in the current discussion we are in one of the crucial points, chemical Y, say in the frontier between the physical X and the biological Z. I would persist in it at the time being, getting deeper than what we have trodden. In general, my view about an overall strategy would be fixing the Z (bio) as the central paradigm, and subordinating X and Y. Yes, "naturalizing" info at the center, and extending it to the other realms with opportune modifications. I have to leave Jamie's 2nd posting for next week (I have depleted my two shots). It connects in my opinion with a very interesting message from Plamen days ago that we have left undiscussed, on the complexity limits of biological models. It dovetails with Rosen's and Conrad's works... best wishes ---Pedro Joseph Brenner escribió: Dear Colleagues, Taken together, the postings of Jamie and Pedro indicate a healthy dissatisfaction with generally available conceptions of information and point to the need for new ones. Their proposals here are certainly necessary but to my mind not sufficient, at least as expressed. Thus, in my opinion, applications of standards and norms for a definition of information, involving a better use of mathematics, will be useful, but other approaches should, I think, be made based on views of information that do not depend on the abstract logic of communication theory. For me, Jamie's most significant sentence is the following: "Material/energy systems engage and process 'information' ... (that are) ongoing and self-pertinent and self-functional according to the nature and extent and capability of construction themselves." This intuition, namely, that there is a recursive aspect involved in the dynamic properties of complex, meaningful information processes has been explored in detail in Terrence Deacon's new book, "Incomplete Nature" and in his prior publications. Jamie's statement, I think, would correspond to Deacon's notion of Darwinian constraints required for self-maintaining, far-from-equilibrium, end-directed dynamics that supervene on other energetic processes involving constraints of signal probability (Shannon) and constraints of the dynamics of signal generation (Boltzmann). Loet, also, has examined recursivity (and incursivity) of information systems from his analytical standpoint, and Stan's hierarchies capture the key formal relationships. My own suggestion is the need for a more dynamic, processual view of "forms" themselves. Accordingly, development of (at least) two lines of thought in parallel seems essential at this juncture. Best wishes, Joseph -- ------------------------------------------------- Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
