Dear Arturo and colleagues,
I think that relating information to free energy can be a good idea. I
am not sure whether the expressions derived from Gibbs free energy
(below) have sufficient generality; at least they work very well for
chemical reactions. And it is in the biomolecular (chemical) realm where
the big divide between "animate information" and "inanimate information"
occurs. In that sense, I include herein the scheme we have just
published of prokaryotic cells in their management of the "information
flow". In a next message I will make suggestions on how the mapping of
biological information may conduce to a more general approach that
includes the other varieties of information (anthropocentric, physical,
chemical, cosmological, etc). Biological information is the most
fundamental and radical track to unite the different approaches!
Best--Pedro
Pedro C. Marijuán, Jorge Navarro, Raquel del Moral.
*How prokaryotes ‘encode’ their environment: Systemic tools for
organizing the information flow.*
Biosystems <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03032647>.
October2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.10.002
*Abstract*
An important issue related to code biology concerns the cell’s
informational relationships with the environment. As an open
self-producing system, a great variety of inputs and outputs are
necessary for the living cell, not only consisting of matter and energy
but also involving information flows. The analysis here of the simplest
cells will involve two basic aspects. On the one side, the molecular
apparatuses of the prokaryotic signaling system, with all its variety of
environmental signals and component pathways (which have been called
1–2-3 Component Systems), including the role of a few second messengers
which have been pointed out in bacteria too. And in the other side, the
gene transcription system as depending not only on signaling inputs but
also on a diversity of factors. Amidst the continuum of energy, matter,
and information flows, there seems to be evidence for signaling codes,
mostly established around the arrangement of life-cycle stages, in large
metabolic changes, or in the relationships with conspecifics (quorum
sensing) and within microbial ecosystems. Additionally, and considering
the complexity growth of signaling systems from prokaryotes to
eukaryotes, four avenues or “roots” for the advancement of such
complexity would come out. A comparative will be established in between
the signaling strategies and organization of both kinds of cellular
systems. Finally, a new characterization of “informational
architectures” will be proposed in order to explain the coding spectrum
of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic signaling systems. Among other
evolutionary aspects, cellular strategies for the construction of novel
functional codes via the intermixing of informational architectures
could be related to the persistence of retro-elements with obvious viral
ancestry.
-------------------------------------------
El 10/10/2017 a las 11:14, [email protected] escribió:
Dear FISers,
a proposal: information might stand for free energy.
Indeed, we know that, for an engine:
enthalpy = free energy + entropy x temperature.
At a fixed temperature,
enthalpy = free energy +entropy
The information detected (from an environmental object) by an observer
is not the total possible one (the enthalpy encompassed in the
object), but just a part, i.e., the part that it is not uncertain for
him (the free energy). Hence, every observer, depending on his
peculiar features, detects a different amont of free energy and does
not detect the uncertain part (the entropy).
*Arturo Tozzi*
AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
----Messaggio originale----
Da: "Christophe Menant" <[email protected]>
Data: 10/10/2017 11.01
A: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
Ogg: [Fis] TR: Data - Reflection - Information
Thanks for these comments Terry.
We should indeed be careful not to focus too much on language
because 'meaning' is not limited to human communication. And also
because starting at basic life level allows to address 'meaning'
without the burden of complex performances like self-consciousness
or free will. (The existing bias on language may come
from analytic philosophy initially dealing with human performances).
Interestingly, a quite similar comment may apply to continental
philosophy where the 'aboutness' of a mental state was invented
for human consciousness. And this is of some importance for us
because 'intentionality' is close to 'meaning'. Happily enough
'bio-intentionality' is slowly becoming an acceptable entity
(https://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2).
Regarding Peirce, I'm a bit careful about using the triadic
approach in FIS because non human life was not a key subject for
him and also because the Interpreter which creates the meaning of
the sign (the Interpretant) does not seem that much explicited
or detailed.
The divisions you propose look interesting (intrinsic,
referential, normative). Would it be possible to read more on that
(sorry if I have missed some of your posts)?
Best
Christophe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De :* Fis <[email protected]> de la part de Terrence
W. DEACON <[email protected]>
*Envoyé :* lundi 9 octobre 2017 02:30
*À :* Sungchul Ji
*Cc :* foundationofinformationscience
*Objet :* Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information
Against "meaning"
I think that there is a danger of allowing our anthropocentrism to
bias the discussion. I worry that the term 'meaning' carries too
much of a linguistic bias.
By this I mean that it is too attractive to use language as our
archtypical model when we talk about information.
Language is rather the special case, the most unusual
communicative adaptation to ever have evolved, and one that grows
out of and depends on informationa/semiotic capacities shared with
other species and with biology in general.
So I am happy to see efforts to bring in topics like music or
natural signs like thunderstorms and would also want to cast the
net well beyond humans to include animal calls, scent trails, and
molecular signaling by hormones. And it is why I am more attracted
to Peirce and worried about the use of Saussurean concepts.
Words and sentences can indeed provide meanings (as in Frege's
Sinn - "sense" - "intension") and may also provide reference
(Frege's Bedeutung - "reference" - "extension"), but I think that
it is important to recognize that not all signs fit this model.
Moreover,
A sneeze is often interpreted as evidence about someone's state of
health, and a clap of thunder may indicate an approaching storm.
These can also be interpreted differently by my dog, but it is
still information about something, even though I would not say
that they mean something to that interpreter. Both of these
phenomena can be said to provide reference to something other than
that sound itself, but when we use such phrases as "it means you
have a cold" or "that means that a storm is approaching" we are
using the term "means" somewhat metaphorically (most often in
place of the more accurate term "indicates").
And it is even more of a stretch to use this term with respect to
pictures or diagrams.
So no one would say the a specific feature like the ears in a
caricatured face mean something.
Though if the drawing is employed in a political cartoon e.g. with
exaggerated ears and the whole cartoon is assigned a meaning then
perhaps the exaggeration of this feature may become meaningful.
And yet we would probably agree that every line of the drawing
provides information contributing to that meaning.
So basically, I am advocating an effort to broaden our discussions
and recognize that the term information applies in diverse ways to
many different contexts. And because of this it is important to
indicate the framing, whether physical, formal, biological,
phenomenological, linguistic, etc.
For this reason, as I have suggested before, I would love to have
a conversation in which we try to agree about which different uses
of the information concept are appropriate for which contexts. The
classic syntax-semantics-pragmatics distinction introduced by
Charles Morris has often been cited in this respect, though it too
is in my opinion too limited to the linguistic paradigm, and may
be misleading when applied more broadly. I have suggested a
parallel, less linguistic (and nested in Stan's subsumption sense)
way of making the division: i.e. into intrinsic, referential, and
normative analyses/properties of information.
Thus you can analyze intrinsic properties of an informing medium
[e.g. Shannon etc etc] irrespective of these other properties, but
can't make sense of referential properties [e.g. what something is
about, conveys] without considering intrinsic sign vehicle
properties, and can't deal with normative properties [e.g. use
value, contribution to function, significance, accuracy, truth]
without also considering referential properties [e.g. what it is
about].
In this respect, I am also in agreement with those who have
pointed out that whenever we consider referential and normative
properties we must also recognize that these are not intrinsic and
are interpretation-relative. Nevertheless, these are legitimate
and not merely subjective or nonscientific properties, just not
physically intrinsic. I am sympathetic with those among us who
want to restrict analysis to intrinsic properties alone, and who
defend the unimpeachable value that we have derived from the
formal foundations that Shannon's original analysis initiated, but
this should not be used to deny the legitimacy of attempting to
develop a more general theory of information that also attempts to
discover formal principles underlying these higher level
properties implicit in the concept.
I take this to be the intent behind Pedro's list. And I think it
would be worth asking for each of his points: Which information
paradigm within this hoierarchy does it assume?
— Terry
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
--
-------------------------------------------------
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 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
[email protected]
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
