On 23 Jun 2015, at 07:13, Emanuel Diamant wrote:
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 http://www.vidia-mant.info ).
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.
People should not confuse the computationalist thesis in cognitive
science, and the use of this or that type of machine as a metaphor to
understand the brain functioning.
In fact those two things oppose themselves. It can be shown that IF we
are machine, then we cannot know for sure which machine we are, nor
which computations support us. Information arise from our statistical
distribution in the infinitely many computations (already present in a
tiny segment of arithmetic). The math shows that he quantum
appearances are justified from that computationalist hypothesis.
In fact computationalism appears to be a vaccine against all
reductionistic metaphors. The ideally correct machine, like Peano
Arithmetic or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, already know that their
soul is not a machine, when translating Theaetetus definition of the
soul (the knower) with Gödel technic (as I did).
To believe in the negation of computationalism means to believe in
some magic or in some special actual infinities playing some rôle in
the brain.
Many people still believe that mechanism and materialism are
compatible, but there are not.
Choose your favorite poison, but it seems to me that the evidences we
have support much more mechanism than materialism.
Bruno
I apologize for the delayed response.
Best regards,
Emanuel.
From: howlbl...@aol.com [mailto:howlbl...@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 3:52 AM
To: emanl....@gmail.com; jerry_lr_chand...@me.com; pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es; witz...@sbg.at
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
Howardbloom.net
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, emanl....@gmail.com
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 [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
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 comments.
Cheers
jerry
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 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant)
to see my uploads from the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you
will find them interesting.
Best regards,
Emanuel Diamant.
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
