Dear Kevin, Joe, FIS

What worried me in the recent exchanges was (possibly based on my 
misunderstanding) an implicit suggestion that information somehow can be 
unphysical when it becomes semantic.
Exactly as Joe says (and Deacon as well in his book), absentials are defined in 
relation to (regularities of) that which is present. Indeed there is the 
figure-background connection;
there are no absentials without “presentials” which are physical.

I will also now wait for FIS debate.
Best wishes,


From: []
Sent: den 17 mars 2012 05:54
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic;
Subject: AW: Re: [Fis] Physics of Computing

Dear Gordana,

There are for me many question marks in ascriptions of quantum properties to 
complex cognitive phenomena. The inversion of perspective I propose. using 
Deacon's term, is to see processes of superposition as common both to quantum 
phenomena as simplified projections of mental processes and to the mental 
processes themselves. This does not require, as many people seem rather 
desperately to want, that any given figure -ground event involve quanta at that 
higher level. In this case, your useful term "likened with a quantum mechanical 
superposition" can be replaced, usefully I suggest, by a weighting of the 
degrees of actuality and potentiality of the components of a evolving complex 
process. This is both where information is and what it is.

In this connection, I call all FIS'ers attention to the very pertinent concept 
of another Andrei, Andrei Igamberdiev, described in his book, of Internal 
Quantum States. The difference is, if I understand both sets of ideas 
correctly, is that Igamberdiev is talking about the foundations of theoretical 
biology. He does not require that Nature at higher levels actually instantiate 
quantum structures in any sense other than that, as Gordana says, there is 
nothing non-physical and quanta are involved a priori.


----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----
Datum: 16.03.2012 23:11
An: "Kevin Clark"<>, 
Kopie: ""<>
Betreff: Re: [Fis] Physics of Computing

@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face 
{font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face 
{font-family:Consolas; panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} p.MsoNormal, 
li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; 
font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} a:link, 
span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; 
text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} span.mark 
{mso-style-name:mark;} span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; 
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault 
{mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 
11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} 
-> [if gte mso 9]>[if gte mso 9]>
Dear Kevin and FIS,
Searching for Andrei’s articles, I found
and in the abstract there is a claim:
 “Therefore, mental states, during perception cognition of ambiguous figures, 
follow quantum mechanics.”

I am not an expert by any means but I find this claim very plausible from my 
personal experience as a cognitive agent in case of ambiguous figures.
When I cannot decide what an ambiguous figure actually is I keep number of 
plausible hypotheses actual in mind waiting for contextual clues to help me 
make disambiguation.
The state of mind about an ambiguous figure can be written as a superposition 
of possible states with corresponding weights and that superposition
can be likened with a quantum mechanical superposition of states.
It seems to me that there could be very natural mechanisms for this phenomenon, 
and really nothing non-physical.
Maybe Andrei can help elucidate the exact meaning of similar statistical forms 
found in several different fields, as the title of his book says:
“Ubiquitous quantum structure: from psychology to finance”.


Back to Pedro’s original reference to physical levels of information, Deacon 
made a useful distinction between three different levels of information.

Deacon’s three types of information parallel his three levels of emergent 
dynamics which in Salthe’s notation looks like:
[1. thermo- [2. morpho- [3. teleo-dynamics]]] with corresponding mechanisms

 [1. mass-energetic [2. self-organization [3. self-preservation (semiotic)]]] 
and corresponding Aristotle’s causes

 [1. efficient cause [ 2. formal cause [ 3. final cause]]]

In the above, thermodynamics and semiotic layers of organization are linked via 
intermediary layer of morphodynamics (spontaneous form-generating processes), 
and thus do not communicate directly (so it looks like mind communicating with 
matter via form).
Of course there is physics at the bottom.


From: [] On 
Behalf Of Kevin Clark
Sent: den 16 mars 2012 21:56
Subject: [Fis] Physics of Computing

Dear FISers:

Pedro and Plamen raise good and welcomed points regarding the nature of 
physics, information, and biology. Although I believe in a strong relationship 
between information and physics in biology, there are striking examples where 
direct correspondences between information, physics, and biology seem to 
depart. Scientists are only beginning to tease out these discrepancies which 
will undoubtedly give us a better understand of information.

For example, in the study of cognition by A. Khrennikov and colleagues and J. 
Busemyer and colleagues, decisional processes may conform to quantum statistics 
and computation without necessarily being mediated by quantum mechanical 
phenomena at a biological level of description. I found this to be true in 
ciliates as well, where social strategy search speeds and decision rates may 
produce quantum computational phases that obey quantum statistics. In such 
cases, a changing classical diffusion term of response regulator 
reaction-diffusion parsimoniously accounts for the transition from classical to 
quantum information processing. Thus, there is no direct correspondence between 
quantum physicochemistry and quantum computation. Because the particular 
reaction-diffusion biochemistry is not unique to ciliates (i.e., the same 
phenomena is observed in plants, animals, and possibly bacteria), this 
incongruity may be widespread across life.

Best regards,

Kevin Clark

fis mailing list

Reply via email to