Pedro, FISers:

Congratulations on a big step forward for FIS!

I am delighted to see this major philosophical step (from the term 
'information' to the term 'communication' for Pedro as the leader of FIS.

The progressive step
FROM the philosophy of information as a form of physics / number 
TO the recognition of communication as the basis purpose of "information"
 is warmly welcomed here at the Headwater House.

In my view, a new direction has been established for  FIS and I heartily 
welcome it!

The next step for FIS is,  in my opinion, to explore the relative.
In other words, what are the nature of the relatives in communication?

In this regard, I disagree strongly with Kassimir assertion that :
> Communication is a process of exchanging of "signals, messages" with 
> different degree of complexity (Shannon).
> Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific 
> only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio 
> molecules, cells, organs).

My rejection of Kassimir's assertion is at a foundational level with respect to 
communication and the role of encoding/decoding in communication.  I interpret 
Kassimir's paragraph as a excluding "genetic systems" from the category of 
"intelligent agents".

Living systems come into existence and persevere on the basis of information 
exchanges/information models. I assert this as a biological fact.

Simple reason for my assertions: The codes for mechanical "information models" 
are generated by living systems.

 In temporal logical terms, the generator must proceed the generated.  Human 
intelligence generates the mechanical "intelligent agents" used for engineering 
purposes. What is the basis of the conjecture that "intelligent agents" are 
anything other than products of human intelligence?

The encoding and decoding processes that are necessary for communication as a 
process are both representations expressible in terms of physical atomism. The 
distinction is the generative nature of the encoding and decoding processes 
viewed as either nomino-realism or as merely mechanical philosophy of Newtonian 
physics.

 (The term nomino-realism, is used as a philosophical category that describes 
the emergence of names.  I coined this logical term out of necessity. The 
philosophy of nominalism, as a separate concept is insufficient to generate 
biological codes (such as the genetic code.) The philosophy of realism, taken 
as a separate concept, is insufficient to generate biological codes (such as 
the genetic code.) Both philosophical concepts, taken in conjunction as 
indicated by the hyphen that binds the two terms, are necessary to provide the 
logic necessary to express the concept of a code.  The word "code" in this 
concept refers to reference symbols, rather similar to Shannon's notion of a 
code.)

Grammatically, nomino-realism expresses the concept comparable to Leibnetz's? 
notion that the object contains the subject. (My memory is that this was 
Leibnetz's view, but I do not have the immediate citation at hand.  Perhaps 
someone can either verify this point or correct it.)

In terms of John Collier's defense of "its from bits", I would argue that 
physical atomism is the ultimate source of both biological and mechanical codes 
necessary to generate communication between two independent but relative 
systems. 

Cheers

Jerry

(BTW, these conclusion come deductively from my on-going work on the logic of 
number as manifest in physical atomism.) 






On Dec 5, 2013, at 7:46 AM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:

> Send fis mailing list submissions to
>       fis@listas.unizar.es
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of fis digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. The Interaction Man (Krassimir Markov)
>   2. Stanford seminar "On The Origin Of Experience"
>      (Steven Ericsson-Zenith)
>   3. Re: The Interaction Man ( Xiaohong Wang??? )
> 
> From: "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com>
> Subject: [Fis] The Interaction Man
> Date: December 4, 2013 4:38:53 PM CST
> To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>, <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Reply-To: Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com>
> 
> 
> Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,
> This discussion is full with interesting ideas.
> What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts "communication" and 
> "information interaction" which reflect similar phenomena but at different 
> levels of live hierarchy.
> Communication is a process of exchanging of "signals, messages" with 
> different degree of complexity (Shannon).
> Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific 
> only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio 
> molecules, cells, organs).
> Main feature of intelligent agents is decision making based on information 
> models.
> Information interaction is impossible without communication.
> Friendly regards
> Krassimir
> 
> PS: Dear Pedro, Please resend this letter to FIS list if it is stopped by 
> spam filter.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Pedro C. Marijuan
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:30 PM
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] The Communication Man
> 
> Dear Loet, Bob, Joseph, and FIS colleagues,
> 
> There is a classical problem in the dialog between natural science and
> the humanities, also occurring in the present exchanges (maybe in a
> different way). I may agree or disagree respect the constructs presented
> by Bob, or my own points, but most of that stuff is closer to
> well-accepted conceptualizations of different disciplines and the
> discursive element is framed within the bounds of self-discipline. In my
> case, when I presented the 11 points, most of them could have a concrete
> label: "signaling science", "motor-centered approach", "ecological
> psychology", "social brain hypothesis", etc. I think the result was not
> a potpourri, but a conceptual body from which a careful reading might
> obtain a cogent meaning, hopefully. However, most of Loet's text is
> discursive, with ample freedom of construction, and the parts associated
> to scientific conceptualizations do not become very relevant --in my
> opinion they provide a loan of apparent rigor. Besides the topic of
> discussion in his message is slightly twisted: the initial
> "communication" and "life" becomes "scientific communication" and
> "biology"... I do not want to be negative, rather pointing that there is
> a different communication strategy at work. Well, finally the respective
> rigor is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Also, there was an idea by Joseph that I want to continue, when he says:
> "...the purport of metabolism is change, not only burning
> carbon-hydrogen bonds. But perhaps we might all prefer "communicating is
> life; life is communicating"..."
> The "semantic metabolism" theme was in the background (just in case I
> reproduce his message below).
> 
> Then, my suggestion: if most of our daily exchanges in social life occur
> for their own sake, just to continue with or to maintain our social
> bonds ahead (see Raquel's opening text), the parallelism takes an
> interesting turn. Most of semantic metabolism becomes the processing of
> our social bonds: degrading them, ascending them, interlinking them,
> slightly or deeply changing our inner mental structure of bonds. Dealing
> with chemical bonds is the playground for energetic metabolism; dealing
> with social bonds is the playground for semantic metabolism. In one case
> we use free energy when changing (filling in, depleting) the chemical
> bonds; in the other case we use communicative social information when
> similarly changing the social bonds. Every chemical reaction refers to
> the making and braking of bonds: could we similarly state (tongue in
> cheek) that every meaningful social interaction finally refers to the
> making and breaking of social bonds?
> 
> This is my second, and final, message of the week.
> 
> best
> 
> ---Pedro
> 
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
> <mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>> wrote:
> 
> Dear FISers,
> 
> There is here an important idea which I think is worth a note. The two
> elements (I say) are in a dynamic relation and a logical relation, as the
> mind moves between them. Alternately one or the other is predominant (more
> actualized)
> 
> Lupasco said: "experience is logic; logic is experience". Closer to home we
> have: "information is constraints and constraints are information" (Kauffman
> et al, 2008).
> 
> The purport of metabolism is change, not only burning carbon-hydrogen bonds.
> But perhaps we might all prefer "communicating is life; life is
> communicating".
> 
> Best,
> 
> Joseph
> Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Bob,
>> 
>> Thank you so much for this paper (that I had seen before). I agree
>> with many of the things written here, but my intellectual orientation
>> is another one, namely one that does not consider biology, philosophy
>> of biology, or the definition of life as a fruitful starting point for
>> the analysis of cultural phenomena such as scientific communication.
>> 
>> Discursive knowledge does not emerge as autonomous agency in molecular
>> processes, but at a next level in terms of exchanges among human
>> (reflexive!) agents. The interactions exhibit a non-linear dynamics of
>> expectations and meanings. Shannon-type information-theory excludes
>> this dynamics right from the beginning, but more recently we have
>> begun to understand more about the possible measurement of the options
>> generated in terms of redundancies. See for a recent summary and
>> introduction: Loet Leydesdorff, Inga Ivanova, and Mark Johnson, The
>> Communication of Expectations and Individual Understanding: Redundancy
>> as Reduction of Uncertainty, and the Processing of Meaning
>> <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2358791>. I take the liberty to attach this
>> draft.
>> 
>> As you don’t wish to reduce the biological domain to the physical, we
>> don’t wish to reduce the cultural to the biological. The biological
>> offers organization and constraints, whereas the cultural offers
>> self-organization of the communication and new opportunities. This is
>> particularly important since in a knowledge-based economy, science and
>> technology-based innovations have become endogenous. The ideational
>> model in this case does the work. The model – shaped in discourses –
>> makes future states available in the present as new options that could
>> be realized and thus lift current constraints.
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us>
> Subject: [Fis] Stanford seminar "On The Origin Of Experience"
> Date: December 5, 2013 1:47:13 AM CST
> To: "peirc...@list.iupui.edu" <peirc...@list.iupui.edu>, 
> biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee, Foundations of Information Science of Information 
> Science Information Information Science <fis@listas.unizar.es>, 
> "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-fo...@ontolog.cim3.net>
> 
> 
> Please forgive my cross-posting.
> 
> The video of my Nov. 13th lecture is now available on YouTube,
> 
> http://youtu.be/zF5Bp_YsZ3M
> 
> it includes the first chapter of my forthcoming book. The full
> transcript is now also available as a book preview here.
> 
> https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1137409
> 
> In a follow up lecture on January 15th I will speak about the life and
> work of Charles Sanders Peirce. In this lecture I will place Charles
> in the broader context of intellectual developments in and around the
> formation of Harvard University.
> 
> Best regards,
> Steven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Xiaohong Wang王小红" <amanda...@sina.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
> Date: December 5, 2013 7:46:07 AM CST
> To: "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com>, "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
> <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>, "fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Reply-To: amanda...@sina.com
> 
> 
> Dear Pedro, Krassimir and all FIS members,
>  
> Recently, the ideas you are talking are increasingly interesting.
> Here I like to response to Krassimir as follows:
> What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts "communication" and 
> "information interaction" which reflect similar phenomena but at different 
> levels of live hierarchy.
> Communication is a process of exchanging of "signals, messages" with 
> different degree of complexity (Shannon).
> Yes, I agree.
> Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific 
> only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio 
> molecules, cells, organs).Main feature of intelligent agents is decision 
> making based on information models. Information interaction is impossible 
> without communication.
> Why decision making is the main feature of intelligent agents, could you give 
> more explanation about what is the main feature of decision making based on 
> information models as well as?
>  
> Thanks for all of very interesting ideas from all of you.
> Xiaohong
> 
> 
>  
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
>  
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com>
> To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>, <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Subject: [Fis] The Interaction Man
> Date: 2013-12-05 06:38
> 
> Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,
> This discussion is full with interesting ideas.
> What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts "communication" and 
> "information interaction" which reflect similar phenomena but at different 
> levels of live hierarchy.
> Communication is a process of exchanging of "signals, messages" with 
> different degree of complexity (Shannon).
> Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific 
> only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio 
> molecules, cells, organs).
> Main feature of intelligent agents is decision making based on information 
> models.
> Information interaction is impossible without communication.
> Friendly regards
> Krassimir
> PS: Dear Pedro, Please resend this letter to FIS list if it is stopped by 
> spam filter.
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Pedro C. Marijuan
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:30 PM
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] The Communication Man
> Dear Loet, Bob, Joseph, and FIS colleagues,
> There is a classical problem in the dialog between natural science and
> the humanities, also occurring in the present exchanges (maybe in a
> different way). I may agree or disagree respect the constructs presented
> by Bob, or my own points, but most of that stuff is closer to
> well-accepted conceptualizations of different disciplines and the
> discursive element is framed within the bounds of self-discipline. In my
> case, when I presented the 11 points, most of them could have a concrete
> label: "signaling science", "motor-centered approach", "ecological
> psychology", "social brain hypothesis", etc. I think the result was not
> a potpourri, but a conceptual body from which a careful reading might
> obtain a cogent meaning, hopefully. However, most of Loet's text is
> discursive, with ample freedom of construction, and the parts associated
> to scientific conceptualizations do not become very relevant --in my
> opinion they provide a loan of apparent rigor. Besides the topic of
> discussion in his message is slightly twisted: the initial
> "communication" and "life" becomes "scientific communication" and
> "biology"... I do not want to be negative, rather pointing that there is
> a different communication strategy at work. Well, finally the respective
> rigor is in the eye of the beholder.
> Also, there was an idea by Joseph that I want to continue, when he says:
> "...the purport of metabolism is change, not only burning
> carbon-hydrogen bonds. But perhaps we might all prefer "communicating is
> life; life is communicating"..."
> The "semantic metabolism" theme was in the background (just in case I
> reproduce his message below).
> Then, my suggestion: if most of our daily exchanges in social life occur
> for their own sake, just to continue with or to maintain our social
> bonds ahead (see Raquel's opening text), the parallelism takes an
> interesting turn. Most of semantic metabolism becomes the processing of
> our social bonds: degrading them, ascending them, interlinking them,
> slightly or deeply changing our inner mental structure of bonds. Dealing
> with chemical bonds is the playground for energetic metabolism; dealing
> with social bonds is the playground for semantic metabolism. In one case
> we use free energy when changing (filling in, depleting) the chemical
> bonds; in the other case we use communicative social information when
> similarly changing the social bonds. Every chemical reaction refers to
> the making and braking of bonds: could we similarly state (tongue in
> cheek) that every meaningful social interaction finally refers to the
> making and breaking of social bonds?
> This is my second, and final, message of the week.
> best
> ---Pedro
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
> <mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>> wrote:
> Dear FISers,
> There is here an important idea which I think is worth a note. The two
> elements (I say) are in a dynamic relation and a logical relation, as the
> mind moves between them. Alternately one or the other is predominant (more
> actualized)
> Lupasco said: "experience is logic; logic is experience". Closer to home we
> have: "information is constraints and constraints are information" (Kauffman
> et al, 2008).
> The purport of metabolism is change, not only burning carbon-hydrogen bonds.
> But perhaps we might all prefer "communicating is life; life is
> communicating".
> Best,
> Joseph
> Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
> >
> > Dear Bob,
> >
> > Thank you so much for this paper (that I had seen before). I agree
> > with many of the things written here, but my intellectual orientation
> > is another one, namely one that does not consider biology, philosophy
> > of biology, or the definition of life as a fruitful starting point for
> > the analysis of cultural phenomena such as scientific communication.
> >
> > Discursive knowledge does not emerge as autonomous agency in molecular
> > processes, but at a next level in terms of exchanges among human
> > (reflexive!) agents. The interactions exhibit a non-linear dynamics of
> > expectations and meanings. Shannon-type information-theory excludes
> > this dynamics right from the beginning, but more recently we have
> > begun to understand more about the possible measurement of the options
> > generated in terms of redundancies. See for a recent summary and
> > introduction: Loet Leydesdorff, Inga Ivanova, and Mark Johnson, The
> > Communication of Expectations and Individual Understanding: Redundancy
> > as Reduction of Uncertainty, and the Processing of Meaning
> > <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2358791>. I take the liberty to attach this
> > draft.
> >
> > As you don’t wish to reduce the biological domain to the physical, we
> > don’t wish to reduce the cultural to the biological. The biological
> > offers organization and constraints, whereas the cultural offers
> > self-organization of the communication and new opportunities. This is
> > particularly important since in a knowledge-based economy, science and
> > technology-based innovations have become endogenous. The ideational
> > model in this case does the work. The model – shaped in discourses –
> > makes future states available in the present as new options that could
> > be realized and thus lift current constraints.
> >
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to