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] <mailto:[email protected]>
URL: www.simeio.org <http://www.simeio.org>
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi John, Hi Fis-people
On 11 Dec 2011, at 13:49, [email protected]
<mailto:[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/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf
<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/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/
<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
On Fri Dec 9 2:55 , [email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
-----------------------------------------------------------
On jue 08/12/11 06:25 , John Collier [email protected]
<mailto:[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/
<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc/>
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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor John
Collier
[email protected] <mailto:[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 <tel:%2B27%20%2831%29%20260%203031>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido.
Este mensaje ha sido verificado por el E-mail Protegido.
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
URL: www.simeio.org <http://www.simeio.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
