Caro Pedro e cari tutti, gli ingressi e le uscite delle cellule viventi con l'ambiente, non sono altro che materia, energia e informazione che entrano (INPUT) ed escono (OUTPUT) dando luogo al processo di TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE che ho elaborato nella Nuova Economia a proposito dei sistemi produttivi entropici (energia degradata o dis-informazione) e neg-entropici (energia libera o informazione) che hanno un carattere generale. Tanto è vero che circa 20 anni fa ho applicato e riferito alla cellula che stabilisce con l'ambiente (biologico-naturale) un rapporto simile a quello che l'intrapresa (azienda) stabilisce con l'ambiente (sociale-economico). In fondo la bio-chimica e l'economia risultano complementari nella vita degli uomini la cui esistenza e conoscenza possono ben comprendersi secondo la onto-logica empirica o concreta, altrimenti detta LIR, che la generosità di Joseph Brenner ha intravisto anche nella mia analisi scientifica. Purtroppo questa problematica, ben espressa e sintetizzata dal processo di TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE e più volte oggetto di confronto e discussione nel dibattito Fis, è poco conosciuta perchè si ritrova esposta in una ventina dei miei libri scritti in italiano. Comunque il TEMPO è (sempre galantuomo e fornisce) l'INFORMAZIONE giusta svolgendo la funzione della LINGUA delle LINGUE che tutti possono com-prendere, prima o poi. Grazie, per l'opportunità che mi date a partire da Pedro che ha il grande merito dell'iniziazione-mediazione in tal senso. Un abbraccio, Francesco Rizzo.
2017-10-11 14:30 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>: > 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>. > October 2017. 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, tozziart...@libero.it 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" <christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> > <christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> > Data: 10/10/2017 11.01 > A: "dea...@berkeley.edu" <dea...@berkeley.edu><dea...@berkeley.edu> > <dea...@berkeley.edu> > Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es" <fis@listas.unizar.es><fis@listas.unizar.es> > <fis@listas.unizar.es> > 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 <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> > de la part de Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> > <dea...@berkeley.edu> > *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 > listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://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 <+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (& > 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > ------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
