Caro Francesco,

Ho letto la tua lettera con grande attenzione e comprensione. Io accettare 
completamente la sorveglianza, che l'informazione è diversa in sistemi diversi. 

Questo è esattamente l'essenza della teoria di riflessione, che descrive i 
molti livelli di riflessione - fisici, chimici, meccanici, biologici, 
psicologici, sociali ... 

Quindi a volte c'è fraintendimento del concetto di "riflessione". 

Tutto apposto. Pensiamo allo stesso modo.

Distinti saluti


Dear Francesco,

I read your letter with great care and understanding. I accept fully the 
surveillance, that the information is different in different systems. 

This is exactly the essence of the theory of reflection, which describes many 
levels of reflection - physical, chemical, mechanical, biological, 
psychological, social ... 

So, sometimes there is misunderstanding of the concept of "reflection".  

Alright. We think the same way!

With best regards

Dear Bob,

Thank you for your remark and especially – for the book!

It is very interesting. 

The answer of you remark is just in my answer to Francesco – in reality there 
are many different kinds of reflection. 

Because of this we have many different kinds (types) of information.

But the common is that the reflection became information only in the 
consciousness of recipient and only in the context which is already stored in 
his/her memory. 

In other words, the Information is a reflection for which the recipient can 
recognize what the reflection reflects.

Kind regards


From: Francesco Rizzo 
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:20 PM
To: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ Closing lecture

Caro Krassimir, 
come ho scritto altre volte l'informazione ha un solo contenuto-dare o prendere 
forma- che può essere oggetto di definizioni diverse:
- in termodinamica questa forma consiste del gradiente termico o differenza tra 
molecole calde e veloci da un lato e fredde e lente dall'altro lato;
- in matematica o cibernetica corrisponde al numero delle alternative 
possibili, misurabili in bit di entropia: quello che in termodinamica è 
dis-informazione (entropia), in matematica è informazione;
- nella teoria della comunicazione è improbabilità o incertezza: la ricchezza 
dell'informazione matematica si riduce quando si sovrappone su di essa un 
s-codice per avere una significato semantico;
- in biologia è la sequela DNA-RNA-proteine che consente la comunicazione 
dell'informazione genetica;
-in economia il contenuto-informazione conferisce il valore ai beni o servizi: 
da qui la forma del valore o il valore della forma; etc.
Il discorso potrebbe continuare chiamando in causa la logica "fuzzy", ma non 
credo che sia il caso.
Una cosa è certa: l'informazione, comunque definita, è preceduta dalla 
significazione e seguita dalla comunicazione. La comunicazione, non è una 
trasmissione di segnali, ma un dialogo di segni che implica il codice di chi 
trasmette e il codice di chi riceve.
Sempre, con molta umiltà, un abbraccio.

2016-02-02 12:44 GMT+01:00 Krassimir Markov <>:

  Dear Howard,

  Thank you very much for your great effort and nice explanation!
  I like it!

  Only what I needed to see is a concrete answer to the question “what it the 
  You absolutely clearly described it and I totally agree with your 
  Only what is needed is to conclude with a short definition.
  I think it may be the next:

  The Information is a reflection which may be interpreted by its receiver in 
the context the receiver has in his/her memory.

  From this definition many consequences follow. In future we may discuss them.

  Friendly regards

  Dear FIS Colleagues,

  1. At the ITHEA web side, the conferences for year 2016 have been announced.
  One of them is the XIV-th International Conference on “General Information 
  Please visit link:
  Welcome in Varna, Bulgaria !

  2. May be it will be interesting to read the paper, published in our 
  International Journal “Information Theories and Applications” ( ) :
  Formal Theory of Semantic and Pragmatic Information - a Technocratic Approach
  by Venco Bojilov
  Please send your remarks to the author to e-mail: 


  Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:46 AM
  Subject: [Fis] _ Closing lecture

  First, a few responses.  I agree with Hans von Baeyer.  Pedro’s kindness is 

  I agree with Gyorgy Darvas that quarks communicate.

  I also agree with Jerry Chandler.  Brute force is not the major mover of 
history.  Values and virtues count.  A lot.  In fact, a culture organizes 
itself by calling one way of doing things evil—brute force—and another way of 
doing things a value  and a virtue.  Our way is the value and the virtue.  The 
ways of others are brute force and evil.  We see cooperation  and warmth among 
us.  But only enmity  and destruction among them.  

  The  brute force is not within groups, where values, virtues, and compassion 
prevail.  It’s between groups.  It’s in the pecking order battles between 

  Which means, in answer to Marcus Abundis, yes, groups struggle for position 
in inter-group hierarchies like chickens in a barnyard.  For example, America 
and China are vying right now for top position in the barnyard of nations.  
Russia’s in that battle, too.  On a lower level, so are Saudi Arabia and Iran, 
whose proxy war in Syria for pecking order dominance has cost a quarter of a 
million lives.  That’s brute force.  Between groups whose citizens are often 
lovely and loving to each other.  Whose citizens are proud of their values and 

  Now for a final statement.

  Information exists in a context.  That’s not at all surprising.  Information 
is all about context.  As the writings of Guenther Witzany hint.  And as Ludwig 
Wittgenstein also suggested.  Information is relational.  Information does not 
exist in a vacuum.  It connects participants.  And it makes things happen.  
When it’s not connecting participants, it’s not information

  FIS gets fired up to a high energy level when discussing the definition of 
information and its relationship to Shannon’s entropic information equation.  
Alas, these discussions tend  to remove the context.  And context is what gives 
information its indispensable ingredient, meaning.

  There are two basic approaches in science:  

  ·        the abstract mathematical; 

  ·        and the observational empirical.  

  Mathematical abstractionists dwell on definitions and equations.  Empirical 
observers gather facts.  Darwin was an observational empiricist. I’d like to 
see more of Darwin’s kind of science in the world of information theory.

  One of Darwin’s most important contributions was not the concept of natural 
selection.  It was an approach that Darwin got from Kant and from his 
grandfather Erasmus.  That approach?  Lay out the history of the cosmos on a 
timeline and piece together its story.  In chronological order.  Piece together 
the saga of how this cosmos has created itself.  Including the self-motivated, 
self-creation of life.

  Communication plays a vital role in this story.  It appears in the first 
10(-32) of a second of the cosmos’ existence, when quarks communicated using 
attraction and repulsion cues.  OK, it’s not quite right to call the cues 
attraction and repulsion cues.  When two quarks sized each other up, they 
interpreted the signals of the strong force differently.  If you were a quark, 
another quark might size you up and promptly speed away.  But a quark of a 
different variety might detect the same signals, find them wildly attractive, 
and speed in your direction.  One quark’s meat was another’s poison, even in 
that first form of communication in the cosmos.  

  Information is not a stand-alone.  Again, it’s contextual.  It’s ruled by 
what Guenther Witzany calls syntax, semantics, and, most important of all, 
pragmatics.  Its meaning comes from where it fits in a bigger picture.

  Were the signals quarks exchanged information?  Not according to many of the 
definitions in FIS.  Some of those definitions say that to be regarded as 
information, a sender must deliberately signify something symbolically.  She 
must, for example, want to warn you about a poisoned apple.  She must put that 
message in symbols, like the words “poisoned apple,” then convey that signal to 
a receiver.  If she doesn’t want to see you poisoned, she might text you, 
“watch out for poisoned apples.”  I’m not sure whether the definitions extant 
in FIS demand that you look at her text or not.  Much less whether you act on 

  In my latest book, The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates, I propose a 
different definition of information.  Information is anything a receiver can 
decode, anything he can decipher.  How do you know a receiver has decoded a 
message?  Through the decoder’s actions.  If you are a quark and you detect my 
strong force, you either scoot away or you rush over and join me.  You act.  If 
you are a neurosurgeon looking at an mri, you make internal decisions, mental 
decisions.  You don’t move physically.  Not at first.  But you move mentally.  
You imagine your scalpel poised over a different spot than you might have 
picked before seeing the mri.  

  Information is anything a receiver can decode.  So starlight reaching planet 
earth 4.5 billion years ago, nearly half a billion years before the appearance 
of the first life, was not information.  There was no one or no thing that 
interpreted it, translated it, or acted on it.  But starlight in the age of the 
Babylonians 2,600 years ago was highly informational.  Entire teams of scribes 
and priests spent their lives observing it and interpreting it.  Many of their 
interpretations were detailed bullet points of political and personal advice to 
the ruler.  Was there motion in response to starlight?  You bet.  Starlight 
literally moved the troops and policies of empires.

  And today, when there are tens of thousands of professional astronomers and 
millions of amateurs with telescopes, all churning out data and emails  to each 
other, the amount of information in starlight has skyrocketed.  But, in fact, 
the actual starlight has not increased.  Not a bit.  It’s the number of 
interpreters that’s shot up.  And with the interpreters, something else has 
mushroomed: the information, the interpretation, and the theories along with 
their supporting or opposing “facts.”

  The timeline of communication from quarks to empires is crucial.  It’s the 
natural history we need to see the evolution of information.  No matter what we 
define information to be.  The timeline of the cosmos is context on the biggest 
scale.  It can make new meaning of facts we scarcely see.  It can make more 
phenomena we experience every day but do not see into, guess what?  Information.

  That’s a timeline I’m working on.

  Thanks for having me in your group.  And thanks for giving me a chance to 
share thoughts with you.

  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, Space Development 
Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad; 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; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space Philosophy; Board 
member and member of Board of Governors, National Space Society.

  In a message dated 2/1/2016 8:46:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, writes:
    Thanks Howard. Please, at your convenience send the concluding comments to 
the fis list. 

  Fis mailing list

  This email has been protected by YAC (Yet Another Cleaner)

  Fis mailing list

This email has been protected by YAC (Yet Another Cleaner)
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to