Dear Pedro, Thank you for your surprisingly shameless and preemptive session closing. This spares you a need to explain “freewheeling speculation” and to convey actual intellectual content. I hoped for a better show of your intellectual bravura, or perhaps, that was it?
Still, failure to incite my FIS colleagues to a worthy study of a “theory of meaning” is *my* responsibility. Thus, I see Pedro’s post as inviting me to make my closing notes. I now head toward into we may *actually* call freewheeling speculation. In my 13 July post, I note four items in Josephson’s talk. First is a dual-material aspect. A dual aspect is so plain to me in developing my model that I easily assert: models without a clearly named/unified dual-material aspect must be ignored. They cannot answer Chalmers’s Hard Problem or a data/symbol grounding problem – this is a “no brainer.” Life is too short to spend time with lesser views. But I do not go as far as Hector’s 29 June post: > Shannon entropy should not even be mentioned any longer in serious < > discussions about information, we moved on a long time ago (unfortunately < > not even many physicists have done) < This assertion is equally naive. Gains from Shannon’s quantitative model cannot be lost. The question is NOW more of how do we extend Shannon’s view to *qualitative* roles? (Jerry’s undefined “punctuation”?) Still, to Hector’s point, the 1920’s Cultural Legacy Shannon (1949) left us (“disappointing and bizarre”) must be reduced to ash! The use of “information” in any Shannon context must be replaced with “data.” Again, life is too short to waste *more* time debating the issue – any striving to impishly aggrandize one’s work by further fomenting false (disappointing and bizarre) informational views must be TORCHED! We occupy the 21st century, and only “forward thinking” will offer new gains (insert tired Einstein quote). Josephson, even if crudely stated, correctly sees the matter as a “theory of meaning” will define the 21st century! Anyone failing to see this is too myopic to ponder “meaning,” unequal to the challenge, or an intellectual coward . . . where we define ourselves by our deeds. But JUST a *dual aspect* helps little as it has no generative value. It does not *even* reach to the level of a Hegelian dialectic, it cannot explain evolution. And, if a “model of meaning” cannot improve dialectic adaptivity it is surely meaningless! My model thus entails a dualistic-triune view for *minimal* creative/evolutionary roles. Again, “modeled meaning” that fails to frame creativity or evolution in *some* way must be ignored. It is DOA (dead on arrival) with no explanatory power. I have seen enough false leads here that I have no more patience or interest. Josephson’s third point “that a new way of thinking is needed” should be plain to any thoughtful individual (tired Einstein quote). But “new thinking” that is not to be “new age” requires firm organizing principles, rather than airy posturing. As noted before, “exclaiming a problem” does not “answer the problem.” The hard truth is many poseurs, of all stripe, reactively seek some “glimmer of glory,” while actually muddying the critical thinking needed to realize a project; witness Brenner’s long-defeated (dating to Hegel) and oft-repeated LIR plea. This concerns a crass Cultural Legacy – Max Planck, asked about later acceptance of his theory, is quoted to say “the theory was not accepted, its critics merely died.” This is reframed as “Science advances one funeral at a time.“ All Cultural Legacies creep to their death by dint of true mortality. But without a true supportive/creative “womb,” acute gains then come only if we seek fertile ground elsewhere . . . otherwise, we must resign humanity to merely finding an inevitable evolutionary terminus. Josephson’s third point that “a theory of meaning will likely displace quantum mechanics (QM), as QM displaced Newtonian mechanics” is an intriguing and difficult claim. I prefer a more watchful position, even if I too see the potential. It is this disruptive role that *may* define the 21st century. Still, I have two reactions here. Foremost of what keeps me from “jumping in” is that I am unsure of my own dualistic-triune view, as it feels unfinished. There are many-but-limited ways to show a dualistic-triune organizing principle. This speaks to basic “connections and topology” that Josephson also notes, although he offers no model. Can that topology be shown within an UTI? I am unsure, but many indicators suggest the answer is “Yes!” Finding that answer lies at the heart of what I see as a likely research project. My “start” at this research is entailed in paper #4 – I hoped to see some worthy collaborators here, but none seem evident? Per Michel – Alas! The second part of my “watchful view” is whether a theory of meaning can transcend quantum mechanics. I have looked closely (not exhaustively) at quantum mechanics and quantum computing, and I feel easier about this claim. Even if a “theory of meaning” is not cast within an UTI, I think we will soon see (per Josephson) that “quantum mechanics is not quite so mysterious once you see things in this way.” In this respect I follow Scott Aaronson (there is little true quantum mystery), which ALSO means I follow his skepticism on a “quantum superior” computing device surpassing classic digital computers. I hope to be wrong here, but the closer I look the more skeptical I am. For example, a Riemann sphere, Hilbert space, or what ever you wish to call it, is basic to all quantum computing models I have seen. It shows (roughly speaking) a probabilistic quantum distribution of “elements,” defined by the Schrödinger equation. But then the fist thing quantum computer modelers seem to do is “arbitrarily”? divide that natural mass of potential into a “1” and a “0” – this seems to commit an acute anthropic error *from the start,* in fact inscribing a bit process, even if it holds *some* non-specific uncertainty. Well, this is probably enough for my closing note, so I stop here. As final “bizarre entertainment,” below I show the rejection received from Brenner for a proposal for *this* session’s work, but submitted for IS4IS 2015. Again, it marks a senior member able to see the import of the work, but when forced to confront their own intellectual impotence, they become hide-bound to obstruct the work’s presentation. This seems a good “book end” to match “freewheeling speculation.” As always, I sincerely thank you for your attention. That’s all folks! Hope you enjoyed the show! Marcus ==== 2015-02-27 11:47:17 Editor → Rejected If the statements of the author are taken at face value, his approach resolves all of the outstanding problems of information. His bioinformatic view and General Information Theory, about which this reviewer hears for the first time, deserves a major place in the emerging fields of Information Science and Philosophy. This is clear from the authors website, which I have consulted. However, has the author read Marc Burgin's General Information Theory? Has the author looked at papers from the 4th Foundations of Information Science Conference in Beijing or the 1st International Conference on the Philosophy of Information in Xi’An. Unfortunately, I have to ask the question of why this work has not been published with peer review, discussed or referenced not only not by me but by none of my colleagues who are even more involved than I in the field. There are other problems with this author's position. For example, this is not a conference about strong artificial intelligence. The formula 'ensuing events then bring about, etc.' needs some hard science to back it up. If the author can respond to the above, his Abstract can be considered further, without commitment to its acceptance.
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
