In your discussion paper, you state that an interpretive process can only be 
adequately defined with respect to a process that is organized to maintain 
itself by repairing and reconstituting its essential form and dispositions - a 
teleodynamic process. I agree with this definition. Your model, further, is 
that of a theoretical two-component molecular system called an autogen that is 
capable of instantiating such, autogenic processes. The properties of the model 
molecules are stated to be those of real molecules – reciprocal autocatalysis 
and self-assembly and these processes are further stated to be self-organizing. 
The model, it is claimed, can analyze the relationships between the information 
medium properties, the work involved and the properties of the context, the 
environment or as you put it the system-extrinsic physical conditions.   

What I see as having been elided here is that in the real systems, but not in 
the model as described, one has the properties of the molecules that enable 
them to ‘self’-assemble in the first place. Unless these are taken into 
account, I claim that the models are incomplete. They require inclusion of the 
residual constraints (potentialities) at lower levels of molecular structure to 
avoid the danger of circularity. Further, there seems to be no place in this 
description of relationships for the non-algorithmic processes, for example 
qualitative signification (vs. the ‘amount’ of work saved), that are 
necessarily involved as soon as one leaves the level of abstraction of the 
model. These are well described on p. 10 as “the complex system of 
relationships” involving both human and social history. Wu Kun adds their 
potential states and calls the whole entity the informosome. This was the basis 
for the comment in my first note that I agreed with the mechanism but not the 

My comment about presence being a source of information as well as absence 
refers to your more complete treatment of information as an absential 
phenomenon in Incomplete Nature rather than to that in your discussion paper. 
In the latter, the concepts on p. 3 (inexistent properties) and on p. 10 
(information as being about an absent referent) should therefore be discussed 
in another thread.        I therefore look forward very much to a further round 
of discussion of real systems using the tools you have provided. 

In this, however, I think there will be agreement between our approaches to the 
necessary dualism of information, despite the differences in language. My line 
is to search for the overlap/dynamic interaction between the two sides of the 
relationship and the chains of intermediating processes (Wu again) involved.

Best wishes,


>----Message d'origine----
>De : dea...@berkeley.edu
>Date : 30/01/2015 - 12:43 (PST)
>À : joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
>Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es
>Objet : Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture?
>Thanks to Joseph for this spirited rejoinder, and to Krassimir for
>reminding us that convergence is perhaps more likely to succeed than
>any single-minded approach.
>With Krassimir, I am in agreement. I have probably overstated the
>priority of my own approach, even if I do believe it to be a best
>middle ground from which to begin formalization. This is a big
>challenge and I should celebrate the diversity of approaches more than
>I have. This is my path, and I have taken this opportunity to make my
>reasons for pursuing it clear. Like most of us, it is sent as a sort
>of mating call, in case others might find interesting insights there
>In response to Joseph, I would challenge you to specifically identify
>my homuncular assumptions, demonstrate where the autogenic model makes
>them, and deacribe in what ways you think that autogenesis is somehow
>not physically realizable. I admit to being blind to any of these, but
>I don't want to just convince you, I want to get it right. However, I
>am not willing to live with unresolved dualisms. And I don't quite get
>your comment about "dualisms that do exist in nature" and how you
>connect this with my presence/absence perspective. Perhaps this has to
>do with the fact that I am not satisfied that certain dualisms arising
>from quantum theories are fundamental, rather than the result of
>incomplete theory, and your own view which seems to embrace them. In
>which case we may need to agree to disagree.
>I am slightly perplexed and don't quite follow your implications
>regarding the specific proposal made in this piece. The dualisms I am
>hoping to resolve in this essay orbit around the difference between
>physicalistic and semiotic uses of the information concept, and about
>how this implicitly reifies Descartes' res cogitans / res extensa
>dualism, with reference and significance on the former side of this
>divide and Shannon information (and related uses in physics) on the
>latter. You can read my view as arguing that this dualism cannot
>merely be left as an unanalyzed assumption if we are seeking a
>complete theory of information.
>I anticipate that there is much unmentioned detail that remains to be
>unpacked and debated here. Pursuing some of these details could be
>very informative, even if it doesn't change entrenched positions.
>I think that it is interesting that so many responses have betrayed a
>sort of thinly veiled irritation and anger. To me it suggest that we
>are close to a nerve—i.e. some critical issues that are of central
>Thanks, Terry
>On 1/30/15, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>> Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,
>>      Terrence Deacon has made a passionate plea for the proper consideration 
>> of
>> his approach to information science that his contribution merits. But this
>> consideration is only possible if he is willing to accept that some of his
>> positions may be contaminated with assumptions in a way that he correctly
>> criticizes in others. As a specific example, we can all easily understand
>> and agree that the incorporation of ‘homunculi’, that is, unproven
>> mechanisms, as explanatory, should be avoided. In my view, however, Terry
>> has a small army of homunculi at work (sic!) who insure that his processes
>> of self-organization, self-reconstitution and ‘spontaneous’ self-assembly
>> can take place! The finality of using his simulated autogenic systems is “a
>> rigorous physical foundation upon which” future complex theories of
>> information may be based. If, as I contend, Terry’s approach has failed to
>> take into account the fundamentally dualistic physical properties of real
>> systems, it is hard to see how it could do so.
>> In his reply to Loet, regarding cognitive processes, Terry writes: “As I
>> have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all aspects of the
>> information concept, and certainly not at the level of human thought. I
>> merely propose to dissolve the implicit dualism in our current concepts at
>> the most basic level, so that for example it will be possible to develop a
>> scientifically grounded theory of molecular biosemiotics.” No-one can argue
>> with his first sentence, but the second has the implication that dualism at
>> the most basic level in concepts should be absent when it is present in
>> reality. Again, we can all reject the straw-man of mind-body dualism. But
>> the dualisms that do exist in nature must be reflected in concepts or the
>> latter are outside nature and outside science. The pair presence-absence is
>> one of these that I have offered, so far without comment, as one of these.
>> As a substitute for what is referred to as ‘the implicit dualism in our
>> current concepts’, Terry seems to offer a repeated reliance on the Peircean
>> categories as having explanatory power. I have discussed, accessibly, why
>> these categories amount to epistemic classifications, a position that is in
>> fact confirmed by a member of Terry’s group. Ontological approaches, which
>> if looked at closely differ from the ones Terry correctly criticizes, are
>> given a back of the hand dismissal that suggests that the writers may not be
>> familiar enough with them to make the distinction.
>> A point of agreement between Terry and me is that a concept of quantum
>> information should not be mixed with one of thermodynamic information. This
>> does not mean, however, that the some of the dual aspects of quantum
>> entities are not relevant for thermodynamic processes, including the
>> properties, production and transfer of information. Terry is absolutely
>> correct to question the so-called ‘it-from-bit’ theory of information in its
>> simplest form. Again, however, alternatives are available at the heart of
>> which is exactly the ‘overlap’ between physics and information that Pedro
>> calls for, e.g., those of Luhn and myself.
>> I think Krassimir has a good point in concluding that we have a problem of
>> civilization and that all our efforts, scientific and philosophical, should
>> be made with the common good at the center of our preoccupations. This is
>> the theme of the Vienna Summit 2015. Information offers the ground on which
>> standard physical and biological as well as social and psychological reality
>> can meet. It is from the most complex, interactive, recursive aspects of
>> these realities as well as from the simplest that we must learn. Thank you.
>> Best wishes,
>> Joseph
>>>----Message d'origine----
>>>De : dea...@berkeley.edu
>>>Date : 30/01/2015 - 09:31 (PST)
>>>À : lo...@physics.utoronto.ca
>>>Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>Objet : Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?
>>>Thanks to Pedro and Bob for these last few comments. Indeed, like
>>>Darwin in 1859 we are still just beginning to formulate "one long
>>>argument" that will need to be progressively refined in the decades to
>>>come. The question is where best to begin the task of synthesizing. I
>>>too find the metaphor of searching for lost keys quite apropos, but I
>>>would beg your indulgence while I add an elaboration to this metaphor
>>>that sheds light on the perspective I have offered.
>>>Yes, we must at first search close to the light, even though there we
>>>will only find vague hints. But, importantly, as we cover more and
>>>more territory we will discover that the light progressively
>>>brightens. So long as we keep searching and don't walk out into the
>>>dark too quickly, skipping over important territory in between, the
>>>entire territory will become more and more thoroughly illuminated,
>>>searchable, and familiar to us.
>>>I believe that the light is brightest in the domain where we can see a
>>>clear relation between the two quite different concepts of entropy and
>>>the relationship of both to the concept of work. Admittedly, starting
>>>so minimally as I have in this essay seems remote from the interests
>>>of psychologists, anthropologists, economists and their kin, who
>>>demand an account of human-scale information processes, while at the
>>>same time appearing to introduce the messiness of semiotic concerns
>>>into the seemingly pristine world of information as a simple physical
>>>parameter. But of course the problem is to find the best illuminated
>>>middle ground between these two extremes, both still bathed in the
>>>darkness of simplifying assumptions that make them seem mutually
>>>exclusive— separated by darkness.
>>>This is what I am trying to accomplish. Though deceptively simple, I
>>>believe that the autogenic model system is just sufficiently complex
>>>to provide complete illumination of each of the critical defining
>>>features of the information concept—sign medium properties (entropies,
>>>uncertainty, constraint), reference (aboutness), significance
>>>(function, value, normativity), and interpretation (adaptation,
>>>intelligence)—while not artificially simplifying the issue by ignoring
>>>one or the other of these facets.
>>>Because of its simplicity none of these basic concepts are left in the
>>>dark as black boxes or excluded as taboo concepts. But of course,
>>>working at such a basic level means that the nature of more complex
>>>phenomena as thinking, subjectivity, language, and culture (to mention
>>>only a few) are not yet well illuminated by this light. This isn't to
>>>suggest that other pursuits in these other domains should be
>>>abandoned—for they at least clear away some of the underbrush creating
>>>paths that will help to ease the linkage between the different
>>>subterritories when finally the light brightens (to continue the
>>>metaphor). I just believe that this middle level is where the light
>>>best illuminates all the critical foundational issues.
>>>I don't expect agreement, but so far I haven't felt that the specific
>>>components of this proposal have been addressed in this thread. And in
>>>these closing days of discussion (as well as in future privately
>>>shared emails after this window closes) I hope to receive some
>>>suggestions and constructive criticisms pointing to where I might go
>>>next with this approach.
>>>Thanks for all your inputs.  Terry
>>>On 1/30/15, Bob Logan <lo...@physics.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>> Thanks Pedro for your remarks. We have not reached our destination as you
>>>> point out but the important thing is to enjoy the journey which I
>>>> certainly
>>>> have. It is inevitable that with such a slippery concept as information
>>>> that
>>>> there will be different destinations depending on the travellers but what
>>>> I
>>>> like about FIS in general and the dialogue that Terry prompted in
>>>> particular
>>>> is the interesting ideas and good company I encountered along the way. As
>>>> for your remark about searching where there is light I suggest that we
>>>> pack
>>>> a flashlight for the next journey to be led by our tour guide Zhao Chuan.
>>>> One common theme for understanding the importance of both information and
>>>> intelligence for me is interpretation and context (figure/ground or
>>>> pragmatics). Thanks to all especially Terry for a very pleasant journey.
>>>> -
>>>> Bob
>>>> ______________________
>>>> Robert K. Logan
>>>> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
>>>> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
>>>> http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
>>>> www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
>>>> www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
>>>> On 2015-01-30, at 8:25 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
>>>>> Dear Terry and colleagues,
>>>>> At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put
>>>>> an
>>>>> end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their
>>>>> late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will
>>>>> be appreciated.
>>>>> Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob
>>>>> and Terry, It is about the point which follows:  "...there was no thesis
>>>>> other than the word information is a descriptor for so many different
>>>>> situations and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a
>>>>> jaunt through the countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble."
>>>>> In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the
>>>>> microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case)
>>>>> which together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations
>>>>> of
>>>>> the whole field, or even of the whole "great domain of information." But
>>>>> could it be so? Is there such thing as a "unitary" foundation? My
>>>>> impression is that we are instinctively working "where the light is",
>>>>> reminding the trite story of the physicists who has lost the car keys
>>>>> and
>>>>> is looking closest to the street lamp.  The point I suggest is that the
>>>>> different informational realms are emergent in the strongest sense:
>>>>> almost
>>>>> no trace of the underlying information realms would surface. Each realm
>>>>> has to invent throughout its own engines of invention the different
>>>>> informational & organizational  principles that sustain its existence.
>>>>> It
>>>>> is no obligate that there will be a successful outcome.... In the extent
>>>>> to which this plurality of foundations is true, solving the
>>>>> microphysical
>>>>> part would be of little help to adumbrating the neuronal/psychological
>>>>> or
>>>>> the social information arena.
>>>>> The roadmap Bob suggests is an obligatory exploration to advance; we may
>>>>> disagree in the ways and means, but not in the overall goal. It is a
>>>>> mind
>>>>> boggling exercise as we have to confront quite different languages and
>>>>> styles of thinking. For instance, the next session we will have at FIS
>>>>> (in
>>>>> a few weeks) is an attempt of an excursion on "Intelligence Science".
>>>>> Presented by Zhao Chuan, the aim is of confronting the phenomenon of
>>>>> intelligence from a global perspective amalgamating science (artificial
>>>>> intelligence), emotions, and art (poetic and pictorial). Not easy, but
>>>>> we
>>>>> will try
>>>>> Anyhow,  Terry, we much appreciate your insights and the responses you
>>>>> have produced along the Lecture. It was a nice intellectual exercise.
>>>>> Best wishes to all---Pedro
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>Professor Terrence W. Deacon
>>>University of California, Berkeley
>>>Fis mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>Professor Terrence W. Deacon
>University of California, Berkeley

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to