My dear FIS-friends,


I apologize for not withstanding the pace of our discussion – you are already 
busy with the problem of “meaning” (Steven) and I am still preparing to answer 
Howard’s letter about linguistic biology…


Dear Howard, 


Thank you for your suggestion to “add yet one more approach to the list: 
linguistic biology”. Unfortunately, I cannot accept it – because it is 
redundant and tautological. 


My definition of information is Information is a linguistic description of 
structures observable in a given data set. (I apologize for non-providing any 
arguments for justifying this statement. Interested people have to go to my old 
papers in arXiv, Research Gate or on my web site  <> ).


For the reasons provided just above (and elsewhere), any use of the term 
“Cognitive” implies the use of the term “information” (information processing) 
and, thus, already contains linguistic descriptions of data structures in a 
given data set (in a given object). Therefore, strengthening Cognitive biology 
with Linguistic biology is simply a tautology.


I also cannot accept the allusion to the Guenther Witzany’s work (as an attempt 
to justify the backup of Linguistic biology). Meanwhile, Witzany himself 
illuminate the issue in his response to Jerry Chandler (20.06.2015). I myself 
was enlightened about the subject by a 2004 paper of Eshel Ben-Jacob (et al) 
“Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence”, Trends in 
Microbiology, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 366-372, August 2004. I have cited it in my 
2009 paper “Some considerations on how the human brain must be arranged in 
order to make its replication in a thinking machine possible”, (. 
<> arXiv:1002.0184 [ 
<> pdf]). I do not want to spend much more time 
on this issue and to draw our discussion farther in this direction.


Finally, I do not agree either with your statement that “each approach uses a 
helpful metaphor”. Brain as a computer metaphor (dominating in the past 
century) has exhausted its life cycle, “Computational” approach today is a 
harmful and a dangerous relict. It would be wise not to galvanize it again.


I apologize for the delayed response. 


Best regards,




From: [] 
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 3:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer


re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.


may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list: linguistic 
biology.  per the work of Guenther Witzany.  also reflected in my book The God 
Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.


each approach uses a helpful metaphor.  no one approach sees the elephant in 
its entirety. so please let us use all three.


with oomph--howard


Howard Bloom
Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of 
History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), 
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century 
("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker), 
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A tremendously 
enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic), 
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates("Bloom's argument will rock your 
world." Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” Timothy 
Leary), and 
The Mohammed Code (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” David 
Swindle, PJ Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting 
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project. Founder: The Group Selection 
Squad; Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Board Member and Member 
Of Board Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding Board Member: Epic of 
Evolution Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project. Founder: The Big 
Bang Tango Media Lab. Member: New York Academy of Sciences, American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, 
Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 
International Society for Human Ethology. Scientific Advisory Board Member, 
Lifeboat Foundation. Advisory Board Member, The Buffalo Film Festival. 
Editorial board member, The Journal of Space Philosophy. 


In a message dated 6/19/2015 9:22:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, <>  writes:


Dear Jerry, 


Thank you for responding to my post.

Thank you very much for an attempt to read and to understand my Vienna 
Symposium related publications.


I apologize for a delay in my response – I was trying to read and to understand 
your papers (“Algebraic Biology” and “ 
 Physical Foundations of Organic Mathematics”). Unfortunately, I did not 
understand much of what you are talking there (about biological computations).

 Never mind, it is my fault, not yours. To my shame, I often also do not 
understand what other people on the forum are writing too.     


As to me, I think (and write) that the era of a computational approach to 
science and nature studies is over and we are gradually replacing it with a 
cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology, 
Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry, 
Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational 
linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology, Cognitive 
ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive endocrinology, 
Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even Cognitive computing).


By definition, computational approaches imply intensive data processing, while 
Cognitive approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is the 
difference? Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue. 


I was pleased to hear from Prof. Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna) that 
“By means of the reformation, all scientific and philosophical domains are 
facing an integrative trend of paradigm reform, which I name as 
“informationalization of science”, (The quotation is from one of his 
presentation slides). 


As you can see, my assertions are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims, but 
far from what you (and other mainstream FIS contributors) obey and adhere to. 


I am a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others’ temple. But 
Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy of Information. 
Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement with his postulates. 


Best regards,

Emanuel Diamant.









From: Jerry LR Chandler [] 
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer


Dear Emanuel:


Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.


Interesting perspective, but...  the essence of biology / biological 
computation are empirical observations that are highly irregular in nature. One 
must separate the concepts of structures from functions in the languages of 
chemistry and biology.


You may wish to look at the concepts of languages from your perspectives.


Several of my online available papers will provide more substance for these 







On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Emanuel Diamant wrote:


Dear FISlists,


I am a newcomer to the FIS discussion table. The debate that is going on in 
your list-exchange is very interesting to me, but frankly, for the most of the 
time, I only guess about what you are talking – my vocabulary and my notions of 
Information are quite different from yours. Nevertheless, I would like to add 
my voice to the ongoing discourse – I would like to direct you to my page on 
the Research Gate ( <> to see my uploads from 
the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you will find them interesting.


Best regards,

Emanuel Diamant.


Fis mailing list


Fis mailing list <>

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to