Thank you, Bruno, John, Walter, Pedro, Gordana & FIS, I could not agree more with the said above. My only addendum to John’s argument to think about computation as "only one mode of information i.e. information AS cognitive process” is that computation should not be limited only to cognitive processes, but start earlier in biological development to and go all the way up to consciousness along the autopoietic tradition as shown in:
http://www.slideshare.net/PriMate_PaTagOn/francisco-varela-a-calculus-for-selfreference-1707403 Bruno’s approach is also very interesting. We just finished our White Paper, the outcome of an almost one year joint effort within the INBIOSA project with contributions of Koichiro Matsuno, Stanly Salthe, Marcin Schroeder and other colleagues, and I wish to ask Pedro if it were appropriate to distribute this document within the FIS circle as a discussion base about information and computation in biological context. Best wishes, Plamen ___ ___ ___ Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov landline: +49.30.38.10.11.25 fax/ums: +49.30.48.49.88.26.4 mobile: +44.12.23.96.85.69 email: [email protected] URL: www.simeio.org On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, Hi Fis-people > > > On 11 Dec 2011, at 13:49, [email protected] wrote: > > Thanks Walter, > > A useful snapshot of PC (Philosophy of Computing). It reminds me that the > origin of the word 'computing' is com-putare = to consider together, > suppose together, imagine together. This is surely what Steve Jobs was all > about. To reduce computation to algorithmic calculation or even Turing > machines is as restrictive as limiting information to data and documents, > messages and codes. After thirty years of phronesis wrestling with data > documents and computers it would be nice to know what computation and > information mean. > > > It might be restrictive at the epistemological level, but not necessarily > at the ontological level. All mathematical notions, like infinities, sets, > provability, definability, etc. can be diagonalized again. They cannot have > a universal representation. But computability and computations are immune > to diagonalization. This makes it the concept the most explanatively closed > we have ever found. I think. This gives a conceptual deep argument in favor > of Church thesis, and it leads also to the notion of universal machines. > > Those machines can not only compute the same class of all (partial or > total) computable functions, but can all simulate each other, computing > those functions in all possible different ways. > Actually, an interesting and vast class of universal machines (those who > knows, in some technical sense, that they are universal) can defeat any > theory concerning their own behavior (they can practice diagonalization), > making their epistemologies beyond any normative or effectively complete > theory. It makes computationalism (the doctrine that there exists a level > where we are Turing emulable) a vaccine against reductionist conception of > machine (and man). > > I am Bruno Marchal, mathematician, and I met Pedro and Plamen in Paris > some month ago. Although I am agnostic on the truth of the computationalist > hypothesis in the cognitive science, I am interested to study the mind body > problem in that frame. With the computationalist hypothesis, computer > science and mathematical logic becomes handy tools for formulating deep > questions. > > In fact I have a deductive argument that computationalism and weak > materialism (there exist an ontologically primary physical universe) are > incompatible. I have shown that computationalism reduces (in my french PhD > thesis in computer science) the mind body problem into a body appearance > (to universal numbers) problem in number theory. > > Physics would not be the fundamental science, and we might have to > backtrack to Plato, or even Pythagorus' conception of reality. Physical > reality becomes somehow the border of a universal mind (the possible > universal machine dreams, or the effective set of all computations seen > from inside. The "seen from inside" can be defined from the modal logic of > self-reference, which exploits that immunity for diagonalization, and the > fact that machines can be "aware" of that fact. > > The following two papers sum up the main results and questions needed to > solve to proceed: > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf > > Unfortunately the longer version of those works are in french (they can be > found from my URL below). > > This might perhaps put some light on the difficult question of what is > information. Like infinite, and like almost all in-# notions, that notion > might not have a definitive definition, especially *information* which > walked from syntactic definitions (Shannon) to semantical one (knowledge). > > > > Computation is only one mode of information i.e. information AS cognitive > process. Perhaps the only way out of our definitional impasse is to adopt > the third option of the Capurro trilemma - plurivocity. If we can stop > thinking linearly and start to think like a Dharma Wheel with all the > different emergent modes of information arranged as spokes (having their > expert spokespersons) each having equal validity with ignorance at the > fulcrum, then we can move towards a viable transdisciplinary model for info > which has hitherto evaded us. Nonlinear thinking has been the great driver > of the computing and Internet industries. > > > I agree. > > Best, > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > On Fri Dec 9 2:55 , [email protected] sent: > > Dear all, > > > It is possible find some useful ideas to build multi-inter-trans > disciplinary approaches in last “closing statement” of Ubiquity Symposium: > What is Computation? > > > What Have We Said About > Computation?<http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=1967046&type=pdf&ip=190.235.16.240> > > > > > If you are interested in all papers of this ACM Ubiquity Symposium: > > > http://ubiquity.acm.org/symposia.cfm > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > Walter Riofrio > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Walter Riofrio > Researcher; Complex Thought Institute Edgar Morin – University Ricardo > Palma, Lima-Peru > Chercheur Associé; Institut des Systèmes Complexes – Paris > Île-de-France(ISC-PIF) > > Theoretical and Evolutionary Biology > Email: [email protected] > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > On jue 08/12/11 06:25 , John Collier [email protected] sent: > > Good to see that fis perspectives are used in teaching. I use information > ideas fundamentally in our second year Cognitive Science course, and also > in some postgrad courses I teach. > > John > > > At 03:03 PM 2011/12/07, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: > > Thanks a lot, Gordana. It is a very good idea. Unfortunately I could not > participate in the opening of the session, well, at least I can say now > that I had the experience of teaching for Engineering graduate students two > neatly informational ("FIS") disciplines. One of them, Bioinformation: > informational analysis of living systems; and the other Science, > Technology and Society: an introduction to the informational history of > societies. Both of them in Spanish. They were very successful, > particularly the latter. The FIS perspective is ideal not only for breaking > down on "impossible topics" (our familiar demons) but also for promoting a > new, highly original way of analysis --of knolweldge recombination > processes-- on topics of our time and of the most contentious past. > > missing a lot the direct involvement in the discussions! > > yours, > > ---Pedro > > Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic escribió: > > Hi All, > > One way of looking at the question of curriculum would be from the point > of view of what already exists > of education in the Foundations of Information. > > Are there any courses which might be a part of such a curriculum? > > To start with I can tell about the course I have, which does not cover > much of Science of information, but there are several connections. > As I work at the computer science department, my perspective is > computational. > For me computing is information processing and information is that which > is processed, and that which is a result of processing. > Processing may be done by a machine or by an organism or anything else – > the whole of nature computes (processes information) in different ways. > > As info-computationalist, I believe that information is unthinkable > without computation. > So the course is on Computing and Philosophy but addresses Philosophy of > Information and Science of Information as well and topics on evolution of > life, intelligence (natural and artificial), consciousness, etc. > <http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil> > http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil > > I believe it would be good to have a course on the foundations of > information science for people in the computing. > Information and computation are completely entangled! And this gives also > an opportunity to introduce other fields into computing, to contribute to > building bridges and > facilitating inter-disciplinary/ cross-disciplinary/ trans-disciplinary > learning. > > This is not as ambitious as the original question, but can help > understanding where we are now and where we want to be. > > Best wishes, > Gordana > > > http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ > > > From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe > Sent: den 5 december 2011 20:53 > To: fis > Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education > > And it could feature in 'Science for Non-Majors' courses as well. > > STAN > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Guy A Hoelzer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I agree with those who are suggesting that Information Science makes sense > as a widely useful way to think about different scientific disciplines > even if we don't have a strong consensus on how to define 'information'. > I think there is enough coherence among views of 'information' to underpin > the unity and universality of the approach. Perhaps Information Science > is less a discipline of its own and more of a common approach to > understanding that can be applied across disciplines. While I can imagine > good courses focusing on Information Science, it might be most productive > to include a common framework for information-based models/viewpoints > across the curriculum. > > Guy Hoelzer > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > [email protected] > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > fis mailing list > [email protected] > > > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > [email protected] > > > <http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/>http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > > ------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > [email protected] > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > ------------------------------ > Professor John Collier > [email protected] > Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South > Africa > T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 > > ------------------------------ > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido. > Este mensaje ha sido verificado por el E-mail Protegido. > > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > [email protected] > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > [email protected] > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- ___ ___ ___ Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov landline: +49.30.38.10.11.25 fax/ums: +49.30.48.49.88.26.4 mobile: +44.12.23.96.85.69 email: [email protected] URL: www.simeio.org
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
