List:

> Your claim that information is SPECIES SPECIFIC is completely at variance 
> with the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that I presented in my 3 week session that the 
> minds of different animal species have used the same encoding of gestalt 
> forms for the past 400 million years since the evolution of the amniotes.
> 

Pedro’s assertion that biological information is species specific is amply 
supported by massive amounts of molecular biological evidence.
One of the critical “differences that make a difference” between species is 
that each member of a specific species  has a DNA sequence that is compatible 
with reproduction within the species. (Even though the concept of a species is 
that of homology of individuals, not homogeneity of individuals.)

From a molecular biological perspective, the assertion of “same encoding” of 
information is contrary to fact.

Cheers

jerry



> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Pedro suggested that I send these comments to the whole group, so here they 
> are
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Alex Hankey" <alexhan...@gmail.com <mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com>>
> Date: 29 Jun 2016 21:20
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics?
> To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es 
> <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
> Cc: 
> 
> Dear Pedro,
> 
> Your claim that information is SPECIES SPECIFIC is completely at variance 
> with the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that I presented in my 3 week session that the 
> minds of different animal species have used the same encoding of gestalt 
> forms for the past 400 million years since the evolution of the amniotes.
> 
> Study of response of plants to human intentions has simlar implications 
> related to Rupert Sheldrake's 'Sense of being stared at'. These WELL 
> authenticated phenomena have hugely important implications for our 
> understanding of information in Experience - the topic of my presentation. 
> Best wishes, 
> Alex Hankey
> 
> On 29 Jun 2016 4:24 pm, "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es 
> <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:
> Dear Marcus, Loet, Bob... and All,
> 
> Again very briefly, your exchanges make clear the limits of the received 
> Shannonian approach and the (narrow?) corridors left for advancement. I find 
> this situation highly reminiscent of what happened with Mechanics long ago: 
> an excellent theory (but of limited scope) was overstretched and used as a 
> paradigm of what All science should be... it contributed well to technology 
> and to some other natural science disciplines, but was far from useful 
> --nefarious?-- for humanities and for the future of psychological and social 
> science studies. 
> 
> The figure from Weaver in Loet's excellent posting leaves a few aspects 
> outside. The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other aspects of 
> the information phenomenon do not enter. By doing that we have streamlined 
> the phenomenon... and have left it ready for applying a highly successful 
> theory, in the technological and in many other realms (linguistics, artif. 
> intelligence, neurodynamics, molec. networks, ecol. networks, applied soc. 
> metrics, etc). Pretty big and impressive, but is it enough? Shouldn't we try 
> to go beyond?
> 
> I wonder whether a far wider "phenomenology of information" is needed 
> (reminding what Maxine argued months ago about the whole contemplation of our 
> own movement, or Plamen about the "war on cancer"?). If that inquiry is 
> successful we could find for instance that:
> 
> 1. There are UNIVERSALS of information. Not only in the transmission or in 
> the encoding used, well captured by the present theory, but also in the 
> generation, in the "purpose", the "meaning", the targeted subject/s, in the 
> duration, the cost, the value, the fitness or adaptive "intelligence", etc.
> 
> 2. Those UNIVERSALS are SPECIES' SPECIFIC.
> 
> 3. Those UNIVERSALS would be organized, wrapped, around an ESSENTIAL CORE. It 
> would consist in the tight ingraining of self-production and communication 
> (almost inseparable, and both information based!). In the human special case, 
> it is the whole advancement of our own lives what propels us to engage in 
> endless communication --about the universals of our own species-- but with 
> the terrific advantage of an open-ended communication system, language.
> 
> 4. Those UNIVERSALS would have been streamlined in very different ways and 
> taken as "principles" or starting points for a number of 
> disciplines--remembering the discussion about the four Great Domains of 
> Science. A renewed Information Science should nucleate one of those domains. 
> 
> Best regards to all, 
> (and particular greetings to the new parties joined for this discussion)
> --Pedro
>    
> 
> El 27/06/2016 a las 12:43, Marcus Abundis escribió:
>> 
>> Dear Loet,
>> 
>>     I hoped to reply to your posts sooner as of all the voices on FIS I 
>> often sense a general kinship with your views. But I also confess I have 
>> difficulty in precisely grasping your views – the reason for my delay.
>> 
>> >[while Shannon’s] concept of information (uncertainty) <
>> > is counter-intuitive. It enables us among other things <
>> > to distinguish between "information" and "meaningful <
>> > information". <
>> • Easily agreed; *how* to distinguish a presumed meaning (or 
>> meaningless-ness) then becomes the remaining issue.
>> 
>> > Providing . . . meaning presumes the specification <
>> > of a system of reference; for example, an observer.< 
>> • It is telling for me (in viewing our differences and likenesses) that you 
>> suggest an observer. My “system of relating“ accommodates but does not 
>> require an observer (okay – observer, defined how?), as shown immediately 
>> below.
>> 
>> >Different[ly] . . . expected information is dimensionless<
>> > ("a priori"). <
>> • I suggest the act of “expectation“ already infers minimal dimensions – for 
>> example, who/what/how is doing the expecting? Thus, in my view, this is not 
>> truly a priori. A “readiness“ or a compelling functional need innate to any 
>> “system of relating“ has bearing. For example, a single Oxygen atom has a 
>> compelling/innate need to react with other elements, just as any agent is 
>> compelled to react to “nutrients.“ Both imply dimensional expectations, no? 
>> (obviously – of different orders/types).
>> 
>> > In my opinion, a "real theory of meaning" should enable <
>> > us to specify/measure meaning as redundancy / reduction <
>> > of uncertainty given . . . I took this further in . . . <
>> > The Self-Organization of Meaning and the Reflexive . . .<
>> • My weak grasp of the concepts in this paper leads me to think you are 
>> actually modeling the “processing of meaning,“ related-to-but-distinct-from 
>> “generating meaning“ that I target. I also vaguely recall(?) in an offline 
>> exchange I asked you if you saw this paper as presenting a “theory of 
>> meaning“ and you answered “No.“ 
>> 
>> • In your later response to Pedro, I found your citation matrix a 
>> interesting example of your thinking, but still too “high-order“ for my 
>> reductive-but-meaningful aim. Your matrix (for me) presents an essential 
>> complexity of high-order views, but in itself it is too simple to detail 
>> *how* a citation is *meaningfully used.* Still, an intriguing concept that 
>> might be meaningfully expanded? Perhaps there are more useful details in the 
>> additional papers you list, which I have not had a chance to explore.
>> 
>> • Your last post then reinforces my sense you are actually exploring the 
>> processing of meaning, rather than the generation of meaning. Diverse 
>> “systems of relating“ you name seem to be “on point“ and 
>> > can be considered as a semantic domain (Maturana,1978)<
>> But I find this unsatisfying as exactly *what(s)* is being related, and 
>> exactly *how* it is being related, does not seem to be covered. It is in 
>> precisely naming those “whats“ and “hows“ that true a priori models become 
>> possible. For example, a *system of relating* between “a hominid and a rock“ 
>> affords certain types of meaning, equally a *system of relating* between 
>> “the same rock and an ant“ affords wholly different types of meaning – all 
>> in regards to an identical (autonomous) rock.
>> > the same information is delineated differently and <
>> > considered from a different perspective <
>> arguing for essential subjectivity? This seems to point to my use of delta O 
>> and delta S in the video.
>> 
>> • I am unsure if we are in: radical agreement, radical disagreement, or if 
>> we just name subtle differences. . . but I thought I should at least attempt 
>> a reply to your posts and see what ensues. 
>> > In my opinion, the task is to specify mechanisms which <
>> > generate redundancy <
>> This leads me to believe we essentially agree but focus on different levels 
>> of operation and complexity. Any thoughts you have to share are appreciated.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Marcus
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------
> 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 <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ 
> <http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/>
> -------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
> <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

Reply via email to