Re: [Fis] Is information physical? OR Does the information exist without the carrier?
y people, especially, scientists that there is only physical > reality, which is studied by science. At the same time, people encounter > something that they call information. >When people receive a letter, they comprehend that it is information > because with the letter they receive information. The letter is physical, > i.e., a physical object. As a result, people start thinking that > information is physical. When people receive an e-mail, they comprehend > that it is information because with the e-mail they receive information. > The e-mail comes to the computer in the form of electromagnetic waves, > which are physical. As a result, people start thinking even more that > information is physical. >However, letters, electromagnetic waves and actually all physical > objects are only carriers or containers of information. >To understand this better, let us consider a textbook. Is possible to > say that this book is knowledge? Any reasonable person will tell that the > textbook contains knowledge but is not knowledge itself. In the same way, > the textbook contains information but is not information itself. The same > is true for letters, e-mails, electromagnetic waves and other physical > objects because all of them only contain information but are not > information. For instance, as we know, different letters can contain the > same information. Even if we make an identical copy of a letter or any > other text, then the letter and its copy will be different physical objects > (physical things) but they will contain the same information. >Information belongs to a different (non-physical) world of knowledge, > data and similar essences. In spite of this, information can act on > physical objects (physical bodies) and this action also misleads people who > think that information is physical. >One more misleading property of information is that people can measure > it. This brings an erroneous assumption that it is possible to measure only > physical essences. Naturally, this brings people to the erroneous > conclusion that information is physical. However, measuring information is > essentially different than measuring physical quantities, i.e., weight. > There are no “scales” that measure information. Only human intellect can do > this. >It is possible to find more explanations that information is not > physical in the general theory of information. > Sincerely, > Mark Burgin > > > On 4/24/2018 10:46 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: > > Dear FIS Colleagues, > > A very interesting discussion theme has been proposed by Mark Burgin --he > will post at his early convenience. > Thanks are due to Alberto for his "dataism" piece. Quite probably we will > need to revisit that theme, as it is gaining increasing momentum in present > "information societies", in science as well as in everyday life... > Thanks also to Sung for his interesting viewpoint and references. > > Best wishes to all, > --Pedro > > > - > Pedro C. Marijuán > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation > Grouppcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > - > > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > Libre > de virus. www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > ___ > Fis mailing > listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://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 > > > ___ > 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 > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?
; > became fundamentalists of Dataism? > > > > Best regards, > > > > AJ > > > > > > > > --- > > Alberto J. Schuhmacher, PhD. > > Head, Molecular Oncology Group > > > > Aragon Health Research Institute (IIS Aragón) > > Biomedical Research Center of Aragon (CIBA) > > Avda. Juan Bosco 13, 50009 Zaragoza (Spain) > > email: ajime...@iisaragon.es > > Phone:(+34) 637939901 > > > > ___ > > Fis mailing list > > Fis@listas.unizar.es > > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > -- > Dr. Mark William Johnson > Institute of Learning and Teaching > Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > University of Liverpool > > Phone: 07786 064505 > Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com > Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
command >> could happen to emerge without presuming such a chain in the beginning. >> Prerequisite to its emergence would be the well-being of each participant >> taken care of locally, as a replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of >> the origins of life. The impending agenda is on something general universal >> as an object, and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness >> resides within the concreteness down to the bottom. >> >> >> >>Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from >> computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter. >> Computation upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now >> points is not available to the local participants because of the lack of >> the physical means for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among >> themselves. >> >> >> >>Koichiro Matsuno >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Current Information Science, particularly that purveyed by Fis, is far too poverty stricken to tackle this problem Xueshan. Metaphor is a rich purveyor of meaning utlised by human consciousness, even in the earliest epics written by mankind, like the Valmiki Ramayana, simply because human awareness adopts 'forms' as its mode of information content, and not digits. The way that forms are encoded in experience is now well understood. A proof has even been given that 'ideas' and not 'digits' are the primary content of human awareness. Best wishes to all, Alex Hankey On 4 March 2018 at 06:47, Xueshan Yan wrote: > Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet, > > I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about > the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I > offer my responses as follows: > > Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals > the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and > source based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed > given the answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I > understand it right, we may have this conclusion from it: Information is > the carrier of meaning. Since we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier > of information, the task of our Information Science will immediately become > something like an intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and > Semantics (study of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. > For a long time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science > is so basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the > information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted of > axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates on > information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very > difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically > correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS > information." > > Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new > discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science > as well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to > review your opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I > don't know its content, same as I don't know what the content of > Biosemiotics is, but my view is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this > paradox. > > Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." > which are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will > lose its value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't > know how to answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an > information for B, while it has no information value for A. The difference > between the subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these > claims are the classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is > given by Mark Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a > lot of information for a mathematics student but no information for a > professional mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: > One should firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to define > their use of the term "information." I think this is effective and first > step toward to construct a general theory about information, if possible. > > For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted > information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree > with it kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell > accepts a sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic > information from paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission > has taken place, but is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be > aware that meaning only is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be > used in any other context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the > key we dissolve the paradox. > > In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so > far. > > > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > > > > *From:* Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedal...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM > *To:* Sungchul Ji > *Cc:* Terrence W. DEACON ; Xueshan Yan < > y...@pku.edu.cn>; FIS Group > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Paradox > > > > Dear All: > > If a non English speaking individual saw the new
Re: [Fis] there is no need to number every word
cannot be > transmitted. > >> It can only be produced and "interpreted" out of the specific difference > >> that a medium begets between itself and the forms that take shape from > it. A > >> medium can only be a source of noise to other mediums. Still, media can > >> couple among them. This means that media can selforganize in a > synergetic > >> manner, where they depend on each others outputs or complexity > reductions. > >> And this also mean that they do this by translating noise into > information. > >> For instance, language is coupled to writing, and language and writing > to > >> print. Still oral communication is noisy to written communication. Let > us > >> say that the gestures, emotions, entonations, that we make when talking > >> cannot be copied as such into writing. In a similar way, all the social > >> practices and habits made by handwriting were distorted by the > introduction > >> of print. From a technical point of view you can codify the same message > >> orally, by writing and by print. Still information and meaning are not > the > >> same. You can tell your girlfriend you love her. That interaction face > to > >> face where the lovers look into each others eye, where they can see if > the > >> other is nervous, is trembling or whatever. Meaning (declaring love and > what > >> that implies: marriage, children, and so on) and information (he is > being > >> sincere, she can see it in his eye; he brought her to a special place, > so he > >> planned it, and so on) take a very singular and untranslatable > >> configuration. If you write a letter you just can say "I love you". You > >> shall write a poem or a love letter. Your beloved would read it alone > in her > >> room and she would have to imagine everything you say. And imagination > >> makes information and meaning to articulate quite differently as in oral > >> communication. It is not the same if you buy a love card in the kiosk > and > >> send it to her. Maybe you compensate the simplicity of your message by > >> adding some chocolates and flowers. Again, information (jumm, lets see > what > >> he bought her) and meaning are not the same. I use examples of social > >> sciences because that is my research field, although I have the > intuition > >> that it could also work for natural sciences. > >> > >>Best, > >> > >>JJ > >> > >>El feb 7, 2018 10:47 AM, "Sungchul Ji" > > >> escribió: > >> > >> Hi FISers, > >> > >> > >> > >> On 10/8/2017, Terry wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> " 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. > >> > >> . . . . . . 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." > >> > >> > >> > >> I agree with Terry's concern about the often overused > linguistic > >> metaphor in defining "information". Although the linguistic metaphor > has > >> its limitations (as all metaphors do), it nevertheless offers a unique > >> advantage as well, for example, its well-established categories of > functions > >> (see the last column in Table 1.) > >> > >> > >> > >> The main purpose of this post is to suggest that all the varied > >> theories of information discussed on this list may be viewed as > belonging to > >> the same category of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) diagrammatically > >> represented as the 3-node closed network in the first column of Table 1. > >> > >> > >> > >>Table 1. The postulated universality of ITR (Irreducible > >> Tria
Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory
Sungchul-Ji, What about information theories that belong to different categories, i.e. other than the category of sets, and which, equally have different Omega Structures in their corresponding Topos? Best wishes, Alex On 7 February 2018 at 19:16, Sungchul Ji wrote: > Hi FISers, > > > On 10/8/2017, Terry wrote: > > > " 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. > . . . . . . 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." > > I agree with Terry's concern about the often overused linguistic metaphor > in defining "information". Although the linguistic metaphor has its > limitations (as all metaphors do), it nevertheless offers a unique > advantage as well, for example, its well-established categories of > functions (see the last column in *Table 1*.) > > The main purpose of this post is to suggest that all the varied theories > of information discussed on this list may be viewed as belonging to the > same category of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) diagrammatically > represented as the 3-node closed network in the first column of *Table 1*. > > *Table 1.* The postulated universality of ITR (Irreducible Triadic > Relation) as manifested in information theory, semiotics, cell language > theory, and linguistics. > > *Category Theory* > > > * fg* > > > > > * A -> B --> C | ^ > || |__| ** h* > > > > *ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation**)* > > *Deacon’s theory of information* > > *Shannon’s* > > *Theory of* > > *information* > > *Peirce’s theory of signs* > > *Cell language theory* > > > *Human language (Function)* > > A > > *Intrinsic *information > > Source > > Object > > Nucleotides*/ > Amion acids > > Letters > (Building blocks) > > B > > *Referential *information > > Message > > Sign > > Proteins > > Words > (Denotation) > > C > > *Normative *information > > Receiver > > Interpretant > > Metabolomes > (Totality of cell metabolism) > > Systems of words > (Decision making & Reasoning) > > f > > ? > > Encoding > > Sign production > > Physical laws > > Second articulation > > g > > ? > > Decoding > > Sign interpretation > > Evoutionary selection > > First and Third articulation > > h > > ? > > Information flow > > Information flow > > Inheritance > > Grounding/ > > Habit > *Scale* *Micro-Macro?* *Macro* *Macro* *Micro* *Macro* > > *There may be more than one genetic alphabet of 4 nucleotides. According > to the "multiple genetic alphabet hypothesis', there are n genetic > alphabets, each consisting of 4^n letters, each of which in turn > consisting of n nucleotides. In this view, the classical genetic > alphabet is just one example of the n alphabets, i.e., the one with n = 1. > When n = 3, for example, we have the so-called 3rd-order genetic alphabet > with 4^3 = 64 letters each consisting of 3 nucleotides, resulting in the > familiar codon table. Thus, the 64 genetic codons are not words as widely > thought (including myself until recently) but letters! It then follows > that proteins are words and metabolic pathways are sentences. Finally, > the transient network of metbolic pathways (referred to as > "hyperstructures" by V. Norris in 1999 and as "hypermetabolic pathways" by > me more recently) correspond to texts essential to represent > arguement/reasoning/computing. What is most exciting is the recent > discovery in my lab at Rutgers that the so-called "Planck-Shannon plots" of > mRNA levels in living cells can identify function-dependent "hypermetabolic > pathways" underlying breast cancer before and after drug > treatment (manuscript under review). > > Any comments, questions, or suggestions would be welcome. > > Sung > > > _
Re: [Fis] one can learn a lot from numbering every word
But the problem with this is that it does not apply to the way that
humans and animals communicate information
when they do it directly from Mind-to-Mind.
Very common with lots of examples.
This is accomplished through direct communication of ideas,
for which a sophisticated and well-defined theory now exists.
How do you number ideas? Maybe you can do it by numbering 'idea-grams-
by taking the Chinese symbols. But then how do you give every new molecule
that is identified, or synthesized an idea-gram?
This seems to me a thorny problem. BUT it is Essential to Tackle it,
because Ideas are the foundation of Human Cognition.
Alex Hankey
On 11 February 2018 at 19:26, Karl Javorszky
wrote:
> Dear Krassimir,
>
>
>
> Improvements are done if there is a need to do so, innovations come about
> as a result of creativity, not as answers to an existing need, but as
> voluntary exertions that satisfy curiosity.
>
> Taking your example of having enumerated all signals (phonemes, letters,
> words), the non-necessary innovation would be to create a parallel
> enumeration of all signals (say, in Hungarian, alongside your existing
> Bulgarian catalogue) and observe the priority (linear position) of the
> signal in the respective repertoire. (Say: {water, air, sun, mother, eat,
> …} are enumerated in (BG, HU) on positions {(3,6), (2,5), (7,7), (1,8),…}.)
>
> These ((3,6),(2,5),…) are x,y coordinates on a plane of which the axes
> are: Table: “Priorities of concepts in Bulgarian and Hungarian”, Axe x: BG,
> Axe y: HU. If one would play a few minutes with his or her computer, one
> would see the points of the plane.
>
> Finding that some of the pairs are members of a cycle (that is a polygon
> of which the corners are the (x,y) coordinates of those elements that
> change places with each other in a general enumeration of concepts (BGHU or
> HUBG)) one would connect the corners of the polygons with lines,
> differently coloured lines for each cycle, and maybe find pleasure in
> discovering the concepts of consistent enumerations.
>
> Seduction happens when the person to be seduced sees *no need* to do that
> what the seducer wants him to do. The seducer must necessarily paint
> charming pictures about the future of the seducee, if only that would do
> that what the seducer invites him to do.
>
> My sweet honey learned and respected friends, you will all be very much
> entertained and gain many rewards and gratulations if you take the trouble
> and think this through, and get familiar with talking in terms of logical
> compromises (from tautology to instability) and discontinuities. This
> because it is actually so that the arithmetic rules of reordering impose
> threads and filaments in space, as simple implicit corollaries of *a+b=c*.
> If a collection can be ordered in different ways, it is reasonable to speak
> about the most probable intermediate state that collection is in. There is
> no need to do so, but ….
>
> Best
>
> Karl
>
>
> _______
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
--
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics
and Phenomenological Philosophy
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul
e%7C1%7C1%7C636513708497810284&sdata=bMlZ324OoEHA5XMQibKiEFsm75NhcpkfIcSRUJbQZNg%3D&reserved=0> > [2] Petoukhov, S. (2017). Genetic coding and united-hypercomplex > systems in the models of algebraic biology. *BioSystems* *158*: 31-46. > > > [3] Petoukhov, S. (2016). The system-resonance approach in modeling > genetic > structures. *BiosySystems* *139*:1-11. > >[4] Ji, S. (2017).*Neo-Semiotics*: Introducing Zeroness into Peircean > Semiotics May Bridge the Knowable and the Unknowable. *Prog. Biophys. > Mol. Biol*. *131*:387-401. PDF at http://www.sciencedirect. > com/science/article/pii/S0079610717300858?via%3Dihub >[5] Ji, S. (1997). Isomorphism between cell and human languages: > molecualr biological, bioinformatic and linguistic implications. > <http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Isomorphism1.pdf> > *BioSystems* 44:17-39. PDF at http://www.conformon.net/ > wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Isomorphism1.pdf > > [6] Ji, S. (2017). The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and > Matter. World Scientific, New Jersey. Chapter 5*. * > > > > > > > > > -- > *From:* Fis on behalf of Emanuel Diamant < > emanl@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 11:20 AM > *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es > *Subject:* [Fis] I salute to Sungchul > > > Dear FISers, > > > > I would like to express my pleasure with the current state of our > discourse – an evident attempt to reach a more common understanding about > information issues and to enrich preliminary given assessments. > > In this regard, I would like to add my comment to Sungchul’s post of > January 12, 2018. > > > > Sungchul proposes “to recognize two distinct types of information which, > for the lack of better terms, may be referred to as the "meaningless > information" or I(-) and "meaningful information" or I(+)”. > > That is exactly what I am trying to put forward for years, albeit under > more historically rooted names: Physical and Semantic information [1]. > Never mind, what is crucially important here is that the duality of > information becomes publicly recognized and accepted by FIS community. > > > > I salute to Sungchul’s suggestion! > > > > Best regards, Emanuel. > > > > [1] Emanuel Diamant, *The brain is processing information, not data. Does > anybody care?, *ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract. > http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciforum.net%2Fconference%2Fisis-summit-vienna-2015%2Fpaper%2F2842&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C89f81861ee684f05e46b08d559d86fe1%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636513708497810284&sdata=bMlZ324OoEHA5XMQibKiEFsm75NhcpkfIcSRUJbQZNg%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles
ntific works represent proved facts > (maybe by authors). However, who knows? We trust in authorities. > > Sometimes we have to doubt! > > That is why the background to modern science is in the wisdom of St. > Augustin (354-430): "Intelligo ut credam, credo ut intelligam!" [St. > Agustin], i.e. it is in the harmony and dialectical unity of the > scientific and beliefs’ approaches [K.Markov, 2008]. > > Materialism or Idealism > --- > Very important theme, raised from letter of Logan Streondj, is about > Idealism and Materialism. > Let note that both are religious approaches but not scientific. The first, > Idealism, is based on belief about existence of God, Free Information > without material base, Intelligent Creation of the World, Information Cube > which is transferred from one body to another, and etc. The second, > Materialism, is based on the opposite belief - all phenomena pointed above > do not exist. But both interconnect their reasoning to these phenomena. > > The scientific approach is absolutely different. Scientists do not assume > anything in advance and try to make reasoning based only on repeatable and > controlled experiments. > > I hope, the FIS List is a scientific forum and all posts nave to be based > on repeatable and controlled experiments! > > About 10 principles of Informatics > -- > Dear Pedro, > I highly appreciate your proposition of principles! > > I have no remarks about principles 6-10. > But the principles 1-5 are not clear for me. > My interpretation is given below marked by letter M (M1, M2, etc.). > These of Pedro are marked by letter P (P1, P2, etc.). > > In my practice these principles had been used many times to solve and > explain practical problems. > The primary concept I used is the concept of “entity” – there are many > examples of real entities. > Entities interact permanently and after each interaction some internal > changes in the entities may appear. > Such changes are called “reflections”. In Computer science the > corresponded concept is “Data”. > Further reasoning is given below: > > P1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy. > > M1. Information is a class of reflections in material entities. Not every > reflection is information. Only subjectively comprehended reflections are > information. > > > P2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or > flows. > > M2. Reflections may be comprehended as structures, patterns, messages, > flows, etc. > > > P3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed > (either computationally or non-computationally). > > M3. Reflections can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed > (either computationally or non-computationally). > > > P4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production > processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying > energy flows. > > M4. Reflection flows are essential organizers of life's self-production > processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying > energy flows. > > > P5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles > underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales. > > M5. Communication is based on special kind of reflections created by one > entity and reflected by a second one. This way, the reflections > comprehended as information by the first entity may be secondary > (transitively) reflected by the second one. Such exchanges among adaptive > life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all > scales. > > > Friendly greetings > Krassimir > > Bibliography > [St.Anselm] http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/middleages.html , > http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/hop30.htm > [Muentzer] http://www.thomas-muentzer.de/, > [St.Agustín]http://www.conoze.com/doc.php?doc=157 > [K.Markov, 2008]K. Markov, S. Poryazov, K. Ivanova, I. Mitov, V. > Markova. Culture Aspects of Inforaction. International Journal INFORMATION > TECHNOLOGIES & KNOWLEDGE, Volume 2, 2008, Number 4, pp. 335-342. > http://www.foibg.com/ijitk/ijitk-vol02/ijitk02-4-p06.pdf > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they are as fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass. Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those emphasized by complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe. Alex On 17 October 2017 at 04:53, Arthur Wist wrote: > Dear Krassimir, Dear FIS, > > I suspect one might find a way to answer this question about what > constitutes an agent in this paper by J.H. van Hateren: > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.8314 > > Entitled: "What does Maxwell's demon want from life? When information > becomes functional and physical" > > (which also provides an important distinction about 'information') > > However, I would propose that 'an agent' /as such/ cannot exist, in the > sense that it cannot exist as a fundamental, but that a system imbued with > quality of agency however, *can* exist. > > Yet, this, as does the paper, would seem to pose the question of what > endows a system with the quality of 'agency'. Perhaps one ought to use > Heinz von Förster's approximation of "Recursively Operating Non-Trivial > Machine", but replace "machine" with "system", and assume that this > consequently leads to that... > > Kind regards, > > > Arthur > > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, 09:46 Gyorgy Darvas, wrote: > >> Information exists at all levels of Agents. >> >> Good luck, >> Gyuri >> >> >> On 2017.10.15. 23:27, Krassimir Markov wrote: >> > Dear FIS Colleagues, >> > >> > After nice collaboration last weeks, a paper Called “Data versus >> > Information” is prepared in very beginning draft variant and already is >> > sent to authors for refining. >> > Many thanks for fruitful work! >> > >> > What we have till now is the understanding that the information is some >> > more than data. >> > In other words: >> > d = r >> > i = r + e >> > where: >> > d => data; >> > i => information; >> > r => reflection; >> > e => something Else, internal for the Agent (subject, interpreter, >> > etc.). >> > >> > Simple question: What is “Agent”? >> > >> > When an entity became an Agent? What is important to qualify the entity >> as >> > Agent or as an Intelligent Agent? What kind of agent is the cell? At the >> > end - does information exist for Agents or only for Intelligent Agents? >> > >> > Thesis: Information exists only for the Intelligent Agents. >> > >> > Antithesis: Information exists at all levels of Agents. >> > >> > Friendly greetings >> > Krassimir >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > 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 >> > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
Dear All, I particularly approve of theJose's comment that: " following D. Hofstadter, H. von Foerster, N. Luhmann and others we could think of a agent/observer as a self-referential loop." That is because I show that such loops occur at the locus of control of biological systems where the mind is situated. In complexity biology, the condition is known as 'criticality'. Maybe the idea of a 'perfectly self-observing loop', as a suitable self-referential structure could be inserted in the paper. I will suggest a suitable place, May I also draw your attention to the fact that Karen Barad has written extensively on the reality of the Agent. Her book, Agential Realism . is published by Routledge. No less a scientist than Brian Josephson at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge is deeply interested in her work and regards it as of fundamental importance. All best wishes to you all, Alex Hankey On 16 October 2017 at 05:04, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero < javierwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Krassimir, dear all, > > I have noticed that some descriptions of information make use of > anthropocentric metaphors and that might be misguiding (for instance, > subjective and objective information (Sung)). Agent is a concept that > retains some sort of action-theoretic background but at the same time > assumes the existence of nonhuman agents. Agency would be then a causal > relation wherein the agent "causes" some sort of effects. > > I don`t feel confortable with this concept. I prefer the the concept of > observer. But this one is problematic too, for the same reason: it is > supposed that a human is there watching, feeling, measuring, etc. > > I think we have to get rid of these humanistic assumptions in order to > gain insight into the issues we want to explore. > > Definitely I don`t think I have the answer, but following D. Hofstadter, > H. von Foerster, N. Luhmann and others we could think of a agent/observer > as a self-referential loop. Most of information processing devices consist > of a design of some sort of feedback loop. I don`t know if we could > translate this idea to all the kinds of systems we all deal with. But it > would be worth finding out. > > An operative loop enables the differentiation of system and environment. > The system acquires the capacity to control its own behavior. At some point > its internal states are so many that it biffucartes and grow complex. > Subsystems can differentiate by the same mechanism. So, that`s my point: > one have to look for self-referential loops in order to find the > observer/agent. > > An intelligent agent would be some kind of loop (strange loop, maybe). > It`s just a hypothesis anyway... > > Best regards, > El oct 15, 2017 6:29 PM, "Krassimir Markov" escribió: > >> Dear FIS Colleagues, >> >> After nice collaboration last weeks, a paper Called “Data versus >> Information” is prepared in very beginning draft variant and already is >> sent to authors for refining. >> Many thanks for fruitful work! >> >> What we have till now is the understanding that the information is some >> more than data. >> In other words: >> d = r >> i = r + e >> where: >> d => data; >> i => information; >> r => reflection; >> e => something Else, internal for the Agent (subject, interpreter, >> etc.). >> >> Simple question: What is “Agent”? >> >> When an entity became an Agent? What is important to qualify the entity as >> Agent or as an Intelligent Agent? What kind of agent is the cell? At the >> end - does information exist for Agents or only for Intelligent Agents? >> >> Thesis: Information exists only for the Intelligent Agents. >> >> Antithesis: Information exists at all levels of Agents. >> >> Friendly greetings >> Krassimir >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Heretic
Dear Professor Tozzi, Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list, as you evidently do not wish to participate in what the rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion. As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of 'information', and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally different mathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'. With all good wishes, Alex Hankey On 4 October 2017 at 02:30, wrote: > Dear FISers, > After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the > term "information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, > unique definition of information. > > Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just > one!) empirical testable prevision able to assess "information". > For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms? > Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian > sense. > > Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists. > Therefore, my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your > otherwise very valuable skills and efforts in other fields. > It is a waste of your precious time to focus yourself in something that > is so vague. It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is > information, if nobody knows what does it mean. > > -- > Inviato da Libero Mail per Android > > _______ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?
es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > Dear FIS Colleagues, > > As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple > of previous comments may be in order. > First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was > motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea > of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory" > (posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information science seems > to be very different from other sciences, rather multifarious in > appearance and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What > could be the specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening > homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these information > principles would appear as a sort of "portals" that connect with essential > topics of other disciplines in the different organization layers, but at > the same time they should try to be consistent with each other and provide > a coherent vision of the information world. > And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too > optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first > glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very > interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier, > Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments / > criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and > Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival > end to this info principles discussion (both attended the Madrid bygone > FIS 1994 conference)... > But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and the > chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with the > only customary limitation of two messages per week. > > Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro > > > 10 PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE > > 1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy. > > 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or > flows. > > 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed > (either computationally or non-computationally). > > 4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production > processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying > energy flows. > > 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie > the complexity of biological organizations at all scales. > > 6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication > exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social > nature." > > 7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient > knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by > applying rigorous methodologies. > > 8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially > overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies." > > > 9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous > actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and > disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna. > > > 10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the information > and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with profound > consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social > governance. > > > > > > -- > John Collier > Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate > Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban > Collier web page > > > > > > > > ___ > 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 > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”
BUT, in common parlance, computers and mobile phones 'exchange information' (in the abstract, digital sense) all the time. Including this email. If you wish to cleanly restrict yourself to semantic content, the the form of information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only scientifically based,mathematical physics form of 'information' that I have personally seen in the scientific literature. Best wishes, Alex Hankey On 24 March 2017 at 15:25, Krassimir Markov wrote: > Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues, > Let me remember that: > The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could “exchange > information” leads to many principal theoretical as well as psychological > faults. > For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections ! > *Sorry for this n-th my remark ... * > Friendly greetings > Krassimir > > > > > *From:* tozziart...@libero.it > *Sent:* Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM > *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es > *Subject:* [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important? > > > > > Dear Lars-Göran, > I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last > FIS mail for the next days. > > First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a > material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other > objects. > In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a > set of objects or events are being measured. Speaking of an observer is > not specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing > events, but rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects > and events are to be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity > occur whether or not there is a "material object that can recieve and store > incoming energy from other objects" within the inertial reference frame to > witness them. > > Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a > cosmic zone close to the sun. The photon "detects" (and therefore can > interact with) a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we > humans on the Earth "detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun > surface. > Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the > humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same > sun, but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange > with the sun a different information content. > If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite, > fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange much more > information with the sun than we humans can. > > In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, > rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the > time of the "observer". > > > > *Arturo Tozzi* > > AA Professor Physics, University North Texas > > Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy > > Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba > > http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ > > > Messaggio originale > Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" > Data: 24/03/2017 14.50 > A: "tozziart...@libero.it" > Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important? > > > 24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev tozziart...@libero.it: > > Dear Fisers, > a big doubt... > > We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional to its 2D > horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations. > > However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light speed (who watches a > black hole at rest) detects a very large black hole horizon, due to > Einstein's equations. > Therefore, he detects more information from the black hole than an > observer at rest, who sees a smaller horizon… > > An observer is by definition a material object that can recieve and store > incoming energy from other objects. Since it requires infinite energy to > accelerate even a slighest object to the velocity of light, no observer can > travel at the speed of light. That means that your thought experiment is > based in inconsistent assumptions and no vaild conclusions from them can be > drawn. > Lars-Göran Johansson > > > In sum, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather just a > very subjective measure... > > *Arturo Tozzi* > > AA Professor Physics, University North Texas > > Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy > > Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba > > http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > Lars-Göran Johansson
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 33, Issue 41: On the relation between information and meaning
> does a name have meaning. >> >> Finally, with regards to the problems about information, I would add that >> Alfred Korzybski (and later Marshall McLuhan) once wrote that “the map is >> not the territory.” The map is merely a picture of something that it >> represents. Increasing the amount of information may reduce the >> granularity >> of the picture, but it remains a picture. This means that accumulation >> greater and greater amounts of information can never completely replace >> or >> represent the infinite complexity of any real-lilfe situation — and this >> is >> an insight that Wittgenstein realized only in his later philosophical >> work. >> >> Steve Bindeman >> >> >> On Dec 22, 2016, at 7:37 AM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote: >> >> Send Fis mailing list submissions to >> fis@listas.unizar.es >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: What is information? and What is life? (Dai Griffiths) >> >> >> -- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 12:44:59 + >> From: Dai Griffiths >> To: fis@listas.unizar.es >> Subject: Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life? >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >> >> Information is not ?something out there? which ?exists? otherwise >> >> than as our construct. >> >> I agree with this. And I wonder to what extent our problems in >> discussing information come from our desire to shoe-horn many different >> phenomena into the same construct. It would be possible to disaggregate >> the construct. It be possible to discuss the topics which we address on >> this list without using the word 'information'. We could discuss >> redundancy, variety, constraint, meaning, structural coupling, >> coordination, expectation, language, etc. >> >> In what ways would our explanations be weakened? >> >> In what ways might we gain in clarity? >> >> If we were to go down this road, we would face the danger that our >> discussions might become (even more) remote from everyday human >> experience. But many scientific discussions are remote from everyday >> human experience. >> >> Dai >> >> On 20/12/16 08:26, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A distribution contains uncertainty that can be measured in terms of >> bits of information. >> >> Alternatively: the expected information content /H /of a probability >> distribution is . >> >> /H/is further defined as probabilistic entropy using Gibb?s >> formulation of the entropy . >> >> This definition of information is an operational definition. In my >> opinion, we do not need an essentialistic definition by answering the >> question of ?what is information?? As the discussion on this list >> demonstrates, one does not easily agree on an essential answer; one >> can answer the question ?how is information defined?? Information is >> not ?something out there? which ?exists? otherwise than as our construct. >> >> Using essentialistic definitions, the discussion tends not to move >> forward. For example, Stuart Kauffman?s and Bob Logan?s (2007) >> definition of information ?as natural selection assembling the very >> constraints on the release of energy that then constitutes work and >> the propagation of organization.? I asked several times what this >> means and how one can measure this information. Hitherto, I only >> obtained the answer that colleagues who disagree with me will be >> cited. JAnother answer was that ?counting? may lead to populism. J >> >> Best, >> >> Loet >> >> >> >> Loet Leydesdorff >> >> Professor, University of Amsterdam >> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) >> >> l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>; >> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >>
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 33, Issue 41: On the relation between information and meaning
ctation, language, etc.
>>
>> In what ways would our explanations be weakened?
>>
>> In what ways might we gain in clarity?
>>
>> If we were to go down this road, we would face the danger that our
>> discussions might become (even more) remote from everyday human
>> experience. But many scientific discussions are remote from everyday
>> human experience.
>>
>> Dai
>>
>> On 20/12/16 08:26, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> A distribution contains uncertainty that can be measured in terms of
>> bits of information.
>>
>> Alternatively: the expected information content /H /of a probability
>> distribution is .
>>
>> /H/is further defined as probabilistic entropy using Gibb?s
>> formulation of the entropy .
>>
>> This definition of information is an operational definition. In my
>> opinion, we do not need an essentialistic definition by answering the
>> question of ?what is information?? As the discussion on this list
>> demonstrates, one does not easily agree on an essential answer; one
>> can answer the question ?how is information defined?? Information is
>> not ?something out there? which ?exists? otherwise than as our construct.
>>
>> Using essentialistic definitions, the discussion tends not to move
>> forward. For example, Stuart Kauffman?s and Bob Logan?s (2007)
>> definition of information ?as natural selection assembling the very
>> constraints on the release of energy that then constitutes work and
>> the propagation of organization.? I asked several times what this
>> means and how one can measure this information. Hitherto, I only
>> obtained the answer that colleagues who disagree with me will be
>> cited. JAnother answer was that ?counting? may lead to populism. J
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Loet
>>
>>
>>
>> Loet Leydesdorff
>>
>> Professor, University of Amsterdam
>> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>>
>> l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>;
>> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>> Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of
>> Sussex;
>>
>> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
>> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
>> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>>
>> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of
>> London;
>>
>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en
>>
>> *From:*Dick Stoute [mailto:dick.sto...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 19, 2016 12:48 PM
>> *To:* l...@leydesdorff.net
>> *Cc:* James Peters; u...@umces.edu; Alex Hankey; FIS Webinar
>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
>>
>> List,
>>
>> Please allow me to respond to Loet about the definition of information
>> stated below.
>>
>> 1. the definition of information as uncertainty is counter-intuitive
>> ("bizarre"); (p. 27)
>>
>> I agree. I struggled with this definition for a long time before
>> realising that Shannon was really discussing "amount of information"
>> or the number of bits needed to convey a message. He was looking for
>> a formula that would provide an accurate estimate of the number of
>> bits needed to convey a message and realised that the amount of
>> information (number of bits) needed to convey a message was dependent
>> on the "amount" of uncertainty that had to be eliminated and so he
>> equated these.
>>
>> It makes sense to do this, but we must distinguish between "amount of
>> information" and "information". For example, we can measure amount of
>> water in liters, but this does not tell us what water is and likewise
>> the measure we use for "amount of information" does not tell us what
>> information is. We can, for example equate the amount of water needed
>> to fill a container with the volume of the container, but we should
>> not think that water is therefore identical to an empty volume.
>> Similarly we should not think that information is identical to
>> uncertainty.
>>
>> By equating the number of bits needed to convey a message with the
>> "amount of uncertainty" that has to be eliminated Shannon, in effect,
>> equated opposites so that he could get an estimate of the number of
>> bits needed to eliminate the uncertainty. We shou
Re: [Fis] Season Greetings
And a Very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, Pedro, and to everyone else on the list. Alex On 23/12/2016, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: > Dear FIS Colleagues, > > As is customary in this list, let me wish all of you Merry Xmas and a > Happy New Year. > > Herewith a Nativity Scene taken from "El Pilar" Cathedral in Zaragozal. > > As is customary too, the NEW YEAR LECTURE will be announced in a few days. > > All the best--Pedro > > > > NATIVITY SCENE > > * > * > > -- > - > 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) > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > - > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fwd: What is life?
The problem below is with the definition of the word, 'information'. On an abstract level, a measurable quantity of what Shannon called digital information has been transmitted. Whether the receiver is then 'informed' by it is a question of his ability to interpret it, which depends on semantics. (I can understand the English emails far easier than the occasional Spanish ones - the Shannon information will be the same in both, but not what I get out of it. I thought this distinction between these had long ago been agreed upon in Fis discussions. Where do you stand on it Krassimir? Best wishes, Alex Hankey On 18 December 2016 at 02:53, Krassimir Markov wrote: > Dear Arturo, > Your mobile is NOT able to transmit and utilize INFORMATION but some > signals!!! > As well as the artificial limb walk with its owner but it is not a living > mater. > Firstly, we have to understand what is information! > After that ... > Friendly regards > Krassimir > > > > > From: tozziart...@libero.it > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 8:11 PM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: [Fis] What is life? > > > Dear > > > You write: "For living beings, we know that "Life is a tramission and > utilistion of information (not only by ADN, but by all the information > which is used by them, at all scales for survival)". > However, to make an example, also my mobile is able to transmit and > utilize information. > > I found (and I did not look very well, to be honest) at least EIGHT > different definitions of life in literature. > > Therefore, if I ask: "What is life?" I have, apart from yours, other SEVEN > different definitions of life. > > What does it mean? This means that we have no idea at all about what is > life. > > It is the same as if I asked: "What is love?": who knows? > > > > Arturo Tozzi > > AA Professor Physics, University North Texas > > Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy > > Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba > > http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ > > > > > > > > > ___ > 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 > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Who may prove that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???
Dear Colleagues, The nature of the 'space of consciousness' was made implicitly clear in my presentation in April. But you have not defined whether you are talking of the space of 'consciousnesses' or only the space of their contents. Nor whether the contents are limited to facts, ideas, or understandings. None of these are digital and you need to specify in detail. I am happy to supply specific answers from my model on request. All good wishes, Alex On 27 November 2016 at 01:35, Joseph Brenner wrote: > Dear FISers, > > At the risk of attracting the anger of all the mathematicians in the > group, I will agree with Arturo, *contra *Krassimir. For a > non-mathematician like me, a description of complex dynamic processes such > as consciousness and information can be partly mathematical but need not > involve proofs and their reduced logic. > > The question I have is whether the field description is itself necessary > and sufficient and if incomplete, what is missing. Perhaps it is my > intuition that consciousness is both continuous and discontinuous, and so > is its opposite, unconsciousness, which still involves high-level nervous > functions. In my picture, antipodal points are of little relevance compared > to the non-Euclidean multi-dimensionality of this dynamic opposition, moving > between identity and diversity, presence and absence, clarity and > vagueness, symmetry and dissymetry, within the same high overall energy > level. In any case, perhaps we can agree that everything that is moving > here is information! > > Thank you and best wishes, > > Joseph > > - Original Message - > *From:* tozziart...@libero.it > *To:* fis > *Sent:* Saturday, November 26, 2016 7:06 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Who may prove that consciousness is an Euclidean > n-space ??? > > Dear Krassimir, > Thanks a lot for your question, now the discussion will become hotter! > > First of all, we never stated that consciousness lies either on a n-sphere > or on an Euclidean n-space. > Indeed, in our framework, consciousness IS the continuous function. > Such function stands for a gauge field that restores the brain symmetries, > broken by sensations. > Concerning brain and gauge fields, see my PLOS biology paper: > http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10. > 1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002400 > > When consciousness lacks, the inter-dimensional projections are broken, > and the nervous higher functions temporarily disappear. > > Concerning the question about which are the manifolds where brain > functions lie, it does not matter whether they are spheres, or circles, or > concave, or flat structures: we demonstrated that the BUT is valid not just > for convex manifolds, but for all the kinds of manifolds. > See our: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23720/ > abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= > > Therefore, even if you think that brain and biological functions are > trajectories moving on concave structures towards lesser energetic levels, > as suggested by, e.g., Fokker-Planck equations, it does not matter: you may > always find the antipodal points with matching description predicted by > BUT. > > Ciao! > > -- > Inviato da Libero Mail per Android > sabato, 26 novembre 2016, 06:23PM +01:00 da Krassimir Markov > mar...@foibg.com: > > Dear FIS colleagues, > > I think, it is needed to put discussion on mathematical foundation. Let me > remember that: > > > > The *Borsuk–Ulam theorem* (BUT), states that every *continuous function* > from an *n*-sphere into *Euclidean n-space* maps some pair of antipodal > points to the same point. > > Here, two points on a sphere are called antipodal if they are in exactly > opposite directions from the sphere's center. > > Formally: *if* f : *S n → R* n *is* *continuous* then there exists an x > ∈ S n such that: f ( − x ) = f ( x ). > > [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borsuk%E2%80%93Ulam_theorem ] > > > > Who may proof that consciousness is a *continuous function* from > reflected reality ??? > > Who may proof that consciousness is an *Euclidean n-space* ??? > > After proving these statements we may think further. > > > > Yes, discussion is interesting but, I am afraid, it is not so scientific. > > > > Friendly regards > > Krassimir > > > > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Fis@listas.unizar.es> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- > > ___ > Fis mailing list
Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues, Are you aware of Roy Frieden's 'Physics from Fisher Information'. His book was published in the 1990s. I consider it a very powerful statement. Ultimately everything we can detect at both macroscopic and microscopic levels depends on information production from a quantum level that forms Fisher Information. Frieden's points apply to quantum physics as well as classical physics. Best wishes, Alex Hankey On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > Dear Marcus, > > > > When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must > confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the > physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature. > > > > “Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires > interhuman communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or > the physical is metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider > (with Maturana) as a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a > semantic domain without being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50): > > > > “In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within > a second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer *as if* its > nervous system interacted with internal representations of the > circumstances of its interactions, and as if the changes of state of the > organism were determined by the semantic value of these representations. > Yet all that takes place in the operation of the nervous system is the > structure-determined dynamics of changing relations of relative neuronal > activity proper to a closed neuronal network.” > > > > Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory > gap. And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also > easily located . . . > > > > Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to > the phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with > an explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly specialized > language in which “mass” and “information” are provided with meanings > different from classical physics. > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Biological Organisation as the True Foundation of Reality
Dear Joseph, Re Low Temperature Nuclear Reactions (LTNR) - a.k.a. 'Cold Fusion' I beg to inform you that our university has one of many groups worldwide experimenting with a form of the Rossi reactor and we regularly see excess heat production of the order of 1kW - we have repeated it many times. Over five groups report the same thing, and off-the-shelf systems are now on sale, and can be used to obtain basic engineering data. One of our team was an editor of last year's special issue of 'Current Science', which thoroughly reviewed the whole field. I suggest you read it before making more comments. Its various articles explain how and why the experiments testing the original findings of Fleischman and Pons failed to do so, and did not acknowledge important aspects of their own findings. The whole episode is a shameful story of scientific prejudice of the kind that leads to the excesses of 'Scientism' - know-alls from top ten universities like my own alma matas who insist that science has already discovered everything of fundamental significance. Brian Josephson has excellent scientific horse sense and his bets always pan out. Please don't underrate him, as so many less visionary colleagues do. Kind regards, Alex Hankey P.S. As an Fis member you will have seen my own contributions, particularly in April/May. Could one ever have foreseen such extraordinary developments made possible by a new perspective on complexity biology?.Similarly for LTNR / CN. The world contains many possibilities the scientific mind has yet to fathom. On 12 July 2016 at 20:36, Joseph Brenner wrote: > Dear FIS Colleagues, > > As I have noted on other occasions, Brian Josephson deserves our respect > for his fundamental discoveries in solid-state physics (the Josephson > junction). Unfortunately, a subsequent foray into physics - his alleged > demonstration of cold nuclear fusion - was a fraud. > > Despite the prestigious venue of this current effort, in my opinion, it > faithfully reproduces every weakness and instance of circular reasoning and > binary thinking that is hampering progress in understanding reality, its > relations and the origin of meaning. I get incensed at the repetition that > it is algorithms that must be used to better understand biological systems. > I, as well as many others, have never believed that nature was meaningless > but that the process of meaning had to be defined carefully to avoid > hand-waving nonsense. > > Without the necessary grounding in physics, which Josephson's references > do not seem to provide (please correct me here), the term used by Josephson > of 'entangled intra-relating' is empty. To say that reality and image are > different but connected, a pipe and an image of a pipe, is not incorrect > but trivial. The connections are, exactly, *non-*interactive, without > energy exchange. > > If someone can point to a single new and valid statement that Josephson > has made that adds to our understanding of nature and biological > organization, perhaps he/she could point it out. > > Thank you and best wishes, > > Joseph > > > > > Original Message - > > *From:* Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov > *To:* fis > *Sent:* Sunday, July 10, 2016 4:20 PM > *Subject:* [Fis] Biological Organisation as the True Foundation of Reality > > > > Dear All, > > I would like to disseminate this lecture given by Brian Josephson at the > 2016 Lindau Nobel Laureates Meeting on June 29t: > > http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/2277379 > > Best wishes, > > Plamen > > > ___ ___ ___ > > Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov > mobile: +49.17.37.81.63.37 > landline: +49.30.83.21.20.70 > email:pla...@simeio.org > URL: www.simeio.org / LinkedIn <http://lnkd.in/aqn39k> > > > 2016 Foundations of Information Science Forum: Five Discussion Sessions on > Phenomenology and Life (February-May, 2016) > <http://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/> > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016) > > 2013 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Can Biology Create a > Profoundly New Mathematics and Computation? > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/113/1> > > 2012 Integral Biomathics: Tracing the Road to Reality > <http://www.springer.com/engineering/computational+intelligence+and+complexity/book/978-3-642-28110-5> > > 2011 INtegral BIOmathics Support Action (INBIOSA) <http://www.inbiosa.eu> > > > ___
Re: [Fis] Essential Core?
send >> to you a text in French which gives a demonstration of the convergence >> between that information and thermodynamical neguentropy. Since twenty >> years, I did not find an english review which was interested by this >> problem, because I am biologist and the biological reviews were not >> interested. >> >> *[John Collier] I agree. I have read only an English translation of >> Science and Information Theory. I read it as an undergrad, and it has >> strongly influenced my views. It is unfortunate, I think, that it hasn’t >> influenced English speaking scientists much. I have also seen some bad >> misreadings of what he was saying.* >> >> >> >> ___ >> Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> > > > -- > Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) > Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, > SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle > Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India > Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 > Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 > > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > > > ___ > Fis mailing > listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > -- > Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro > Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany > Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics > (http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org) > Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for Information > Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria, > South Africa. > Chair, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) (http://icie.zkm.de) > Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) > (http://www.i-r-i-e.net) > Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany > E-Mail: raf...@capurro.de > Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21) > Homepage: www.capurro.de > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Essential Core?
John, I read the English translation of Science and Information theory in 1976 and was profoundly influenced by it. I started doing so because I was trying to understand conscious awareness at that time, and it struck me that information theory was the closest thing to it in science at the time. (not being impressed much by S's cat etc.) So you see it took 40 years thought for me to get to where I am now. Even in 2008 when I had 90% of my present theory worked out, I was not formulating it as a new theory of information. Reading and re-rereading (!) Shear and Chalmers was central to that. And the fluid Reynolds number analogy which led me to see that I did indeed have a genuine 'Double Aspect' information theory of just the right kind. Alex On 8 July 2016 at 20:37, John Collier wrote: > Comment inserted below yours. > > > > John Collier > > Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate > > University of KwaZulu-Natal > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Michel > Godron > *Sent:* Friday, 08 July 2016 4:52 PM > *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es; l...@leydesdorff.net > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Essential Core? > > > > My responses are in red > > Bien reçu votre message. MERCI. Cordialement. M. Godron > > Le 08/07/2016 à 14:42, Pedro C. Marijuan a écrit : > > Dear FIS Colleagues, > > Some brief responses to the different parties: > > Marcus: there were several sessions dealing with info physics, where I > remember some historical connotations with mechanics emerged. Mostly 1998 > and 2002 chaired by Koichiro Matsuno and 2004 by Michel Petitjean. > Afterwards the theme has surfaced relatively often. About the present > possibilities for a UTI, my opinion is that strictly remaining within > Shannon's and anthropocentric discourse boundaries there is no way out. > > Yes, but it is not the same with Brillouin's information : I could send > to you a text in French which gives a demonstration of the convergence > between that information and thermodynamical neguentropy. Since twenty > years, I did not find an english review which was interested by this > problem, because I am biologist and the biological reviews were not > interested. > > *[John Collier] I agree. I have read only an English translation of > Science and Information Theory. I read it as an undergrad, and it has > strongly influenced my views. It is unfortunate, I think, that it hasn’t > influenced English speaking scientists much. I have also seen some bad > misreadings of what he was saying.* > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fwd: Re: Shannonian Mechanics?
Pedro suggested that I send these comments to the whole group, so here they are -- Forwarded message -- From: "Alex Hankey" Date: 29 Jun 2016 21:20 Subject: Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics? To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 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" 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 dimensio
[Fis] Fwd: End of my Time
Dear Friends and Colleagues, It has been an enormous pleasure to present my thoughts on how to model information representing experience, and to see vast avenues of stimulating comments and discussion unfold. Thank you so much. I should like to conclude by asking two questions: 1. Does any object to my naming the new kinds of information states that I am proposing for critical instabilities, criticality in biological systems, "Experience Information". Any alternative suggestions? 2. What journal in the information sciences might be most appropriate for submitting a fundamental paper on this new kind of information - independent of its potential application to the world of experience and phenomenology. Best wishes to you all, Alex -- Forwarded message -- From: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ Date: 11 May 2016 at 01:09 Subject: RE: End of my Time To: Alex Hankey Alex, Maybe some brief "concluding comments" would be fine --Pedro ------ > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Gödel Discussion
Dear Colleagues, This discussion is continuing to be very enlightening, I feel, for those aware of, but not intimately familiar with, details of both Husserl's approach and Gödel’s statements / theorems. I suspect that part of the problem lies in the fact that we are dealing with a highly contrasting pair of intellectual discussions, about two entirely different universes of analysis (if that is the right term). I suspect that they may not be compatible, and that that is the real cause for the conflict of perspectives. Husserl was concerned with formulating a philosophically rigorous discussion of the world of experience, from within the world of experience, and set up his criteria on that basis. Gödel on the other hand was operating within the world of formal systems, and showed that if a set of axioms containing arithmetic was consistent, it had to be incomplete - valid statements could be made that are not derivable within the formal system. Although formal systems are designed to apply to concepts within the world of thought i.e. the world of (abstract) phenomenal experience, they are not intended to have semantic application, but only syntactical consistency. To judge their validity or invalidity from a semantic (or even semiotic) perspective of Husserlian phenomena - experience, therefore seems to me to be inappropriate. They are categorically different (linguistic?) structures. Or have I snafued? Alex -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fis Documents - Invitation to view
I've shared an item with you: Fis Documents https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B93Ht8r0miELZlFwczBhazhzZEU&usp=sharing&invite=COvZlLsI&ts=572f63fe It's not an attachment -- it's stored online. To open this item, just click the link above. This link is for FIS Webinar members to look at new ideas about complexity in medicine, biology and consciousness studies in more detail. I specially recommend the short paper concerning biology and medicine. ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fwd: _ Re: _ Gödel discussion
By the way, the argument below was sent to me by Lou Kauffman. On 4 May 2016 at 20:11, Alex Hankey wrote: > Dear Fis Colleagues, > > I received this comment on Lucas's argument that seems to me short and > sweet, > so I am posting it for our general edification. > > Best wishes, > > Alex > > -- Forwarded message -- > > “Proving” that we are not machines is somewhat quixotic from my point of > view, in that it should be obvious that we are not machines! > > But so many people imagine that we could be nothing more than mechanisms > that the Lucas-Godelian argument is helpful. > > But let us look at this argument. We start by assuming that I am a > consistent Turing machine (CTM) (consistency being needed to apply Godel’s > Theorem.) > > If I am a CTM, then I can be completely specified by at text T which I put > out on the table here in front of me. > > And I then apply the Godel argument to T, producing a Theorem G that T > cannot prove, but that I can prove. > > But I am identical with T. SO this is a contradiction. > We have contradicted that I am a CTM. > Therefore I am not a CTM. > > I cannot be a Consistent Turing Machine. > If I am consistent then I am not a Turing machine. > Otherwise I might be an inconsistent Turing machine. > > The argument shows that I must be consistent in order to conclude that I > am not a Turing machine. > > I believe that I am consistent. > I conclude that I am not a consistent Turing machine. > And being consistent, I am not an inconsistent Turing machine. > > Therefore, I am not a Turing machine. > > (P.S. Another champion of the Lucas viewpoint is Roger Penrose in his > books > “The Emperor’s New Mind” and “Shadows of the Mind”.) > > -- > Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) > Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, > SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle > Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India > Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 > Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 > > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fwd: _ Re: _ Gödel discussion
Dear Fis Colleagues, I received this comment on Lucas's argument that seems to me short and sweet, so I am posting it for our general edification. Best wishes, Alex -- Forwarded message -- “Proving” that we are not machines is somewhat quixotic from my point of view, in that it should be obvious that we are not machines! But so many people imagine that we could be nothing more than mechanisms that the Lucas-Godelian argument is helpful. But let us look at this argument. We start by assuming that I am a consistent Turing machine (CTM) (consistency being needed to apply Godel’s Theorem.) If I am a CTM, then I can be completely specified by at text T which I put out on the table here in front of me. And I then apply the Godel argument to T, producing a Theorem G that T cannot prove, but that I can prove. But I am identical with T. SO this is a contradiction. We have contradicted that I am a CTM. Therefore I am not a CTM. I cannot be a Consistent Turing Machine. If I am consistent then I am not a Turing machine. Otherwise I might be an inconsistent Turing machine. The argument shows that I must be consistent in order to conclude that I am not a Turing machine. I believe that I am consistent. I conclude that I am not a consistent Turing machine. And being consistent, I am not an inconsistent Turing machine. Therefore, I am not a Turing machine. (P.S. Another champion of the Lucas viewpoint is Roger Penrose in his books “The Emperor’s New Mind” and “Shadows of the Mind”.) -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] _ Re: _ Gödel discussion
be amiss >>> here. In fact, what is wrong is the statement in question is not a >>> statement at all; it is a pseudo-statement, something that looks like a >>> statement but is incomplete or vacuous. Like the pseudo-statement that >>> merely says of itself that it is true, it says nothing. Since such >>> self-referential truth-evaluations say nothing, they are neither true nor >>> false. Indeed, the predicates ‘true’ and ‘false’ can only be meaningfully >>> applied to what is already a meaningful whole, one that already says >>> something. The so-called Strengthened Liar Paradox features a >>> pseudo-statement that says of itself that it is neither true nor false. It >>> is paradoxical in that it apparently says something that is true while >>> saying that what it says it is not true. However, the paradox dissolves >>> when one realizes that it says something that is apparently true only >>> because it is neither true nor false. However, if it is neither true nor >>> false, it is consequently not a statement, and hence it says nothing. Since >>> it says nothing, it cannot say something that is true. The reason why it >>> appears to say something true is that one and the same string of words may >>> be used to make either of two declarations, one a pseudo-statement, the >>> other a true statement, depending on how the words refer. Consider the >>> following example. Suppose we give the name ‘Joe’ to what I am saying, and >>> what I am saying is that Joe is neither true nor false. When I say it, it >>> is a pseudo-statement that is neither true nor false; when you say it, it >>> is a statement that is true. The sentence leads a double life, as it were, >>> in that it may be used to make two different statements depending on who >>> says it. A similar situation can also arise with a Liar sentence: if the >>> liar says that what he says is false, then he is saying nothing; if I say >>> that what he says is false, then I am making a false statement about his >>> pseudo-statement. This may look like a silly peculiarity of spoken >>> language, one best ignored in formal logic, but it is ultimately what is >>> wrong with the Gödel sentence that plays a key role in Gödel’s >>> Incompleteness Theorem. That sentence is a string of symbols deemed >>> well-formed according to the formation rules of the system used by Gödel, >>> but which, on the intended interpretation of the system, is ambiguous: the >>> sentence has two different interpretations, a self-referential >>> truth-evaluation that is neither true nor false or a true statement about >>> that self-referential statement. In such a system, Gödel’s conclusion >>> holds. However, it is a mistake to conclude that no possible formalization >>> of Arithmetic can be complete. In a formal system that distinguishes >>> between the two possible readings of the Gödel sentence (an operation that >>> would considerably complicate the system), such would no longer be the case. >>> Cheers, Maxine ___ >>> Fis mailing listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi- >>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> >>> bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Professor Terrence W. Deacon >> University of California, Berkeley >> ___ >> Fis mailing listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi- >> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> >> bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> >> >> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Fis mailing listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi- >> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> >> bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> >> >> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> >> >> > > ___ > Fis mailing listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi- > <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> > bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> > > <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] FIS Discussion (No Vol #)
Dear Bruno, You have brought up a vitally important question. Thank you so very much. Best wishes Alex RE Bruno: How could the quantum correlations existence be definite if nothing is objective? ME: It does not really matter what the nature of the reality is, either strongly objective (denied by quantum theory), or D'Espagnat's 'Veiled Reality', the title of his book in which he discusses a not-strongly-objective reality. Quantum correlations will have the same level of existence as the wave function and everything built out of mixtures of wave-functions, wave-packets, and / or quantum fields. Quantum correlations exist as 'definitely' (or indefinitely) as everything else. (See the discussion(s) under Steve Bindeman's response(s) earlier today.) ALSO: The problem with 'Interpreting Quantum Theory' is that if your basic assumption about the nature of reality is not consistent with the implications of quantum theory, then quantum theory will inevitably be impossible to interpret, because its implications will deny your underlying assumptions. (I REGARD THIS AS OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE) Quantum theory popularizer, Heinz Pagels (late husband of Elaine Pagels), posed the question: "What is quantum theory trying to tell us about existence / our universe?" I fell that D'Espagnat's theorem says it all - or at least a great deal of it. My Proposed Resolution of the problem is to make sure that the macroscopic reality you choose as the context for your interpretation of quantum theory is not inconsistent with the theory. Then quantum theory turns out to be relatively (sic!) easy to interpret. But such realities are not popular as an underlying metaphysics in western thought, though they do occur in South Asian schools of thought, and in Whitehead's Process Philosophy. That is why I promote a 'Vedic' interpretation of quantum theory which starts with the idea of information and information generation as being primary, and matter and energy as being secondary. The *processes* of information generation (wave packet reduction), information transmission (free states of wave functions), and information storage (bound states) then become fundamental, along with the non-quantum states at critical instabilities, where phenomenal experience becomes possible via <*O* . The primary source of information in the universe is then the symmetry breaking process at the origin of the inflationary process in quantum cosmology, a singularity in which I can locate information states of the kind that I am proposing in this webinar as the foundation for phenomenology / experience, since their <*O* structure can support both the sense of self', in *O*, and integrated information supporting gestalt cognition in <. Interestingly and as I have already emphasized, this makes both the 'self' a process, <*O*, and objects of perception, weakly objective entities supported / manifested by sequences of information production processes. I confess that I am a slightly unwilling Whiteheadian! (There is much to learn!) On 2 May 2016 at 09:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 02 May 2016, at 08:30, Alex Hankey wrote: > > RE Bruno Marchal: It is easier to explain the illusion of matter to > something conscious than to explain the illusion of consciousness to > something material. > > ME: At the Consciousness Conference I found it extraordinary that at least > one plenary presentation was centered round treating the wave function as a > real entity in the (strongly) objective sense. > > I was under the impression that Bernard D'Espagnat's work for which he > received the Templeton Prize had definitively shown that nothing is > 'objectively real' in the strongly objective sense. The definite existence > of quantum correlations destroys all that. > > > Is that not self-defeating? How could the quantum correlations existence > be definite if nothing is objective? > With Digital Mechanism we need to accept that the existence of the > universal machine and the computations is as real/true as the facts of > elementary arithmetic, on which everyone agree(*). Then we can explain why > machines develop a belief in a physical reality, and why that beliefs can > last and can be sharable among many individuals, like with the quanta, and > why some part of those beliefs are not sharable, yet undoubtable, like the > qualia. > > (*) I like to define Arithmetical Realism by the action of not withdrawing > your kids from school when they learn the table of addition and > multiplication. It is mainly the belief that 2+2=5 is not correct. > > > Once this is accepted, the enquirer is faced with the question of what to > accept as fundamental. I have always considered 'information' in the s
Re: [Fis] FIS Discussion (No Vol #)
RE Bruno Marchal: Gödel's theorem implies that machines which are looking at themselves (in a precise technical sense) develop a series of distinct phenomenologies (arguably corresponding to justifiable, knowable, observable, sensible). ME: I find this a fascinating observation in that you are making a phenomenological association with a self-referential kind of machine. However, from the perspective of my proposal, surely your classes of machine are not operating from a critical instability where the information states themselves have the self-referential property embedded within them. Or are they? Or some of them? The question then arises whether such a machine could exhibit a capacity to "reason about" a problem, which it had been posed, and so tackle the problem as one of a member of.a class of similar problems? It is certainly true in mathematics that the human mind possesses such abilities to an outstanding extent: not only the ability to comprehend a problem, and secondly the ability to see the problem as a member of (in the context of) a class of similar problems, but also the ability to *generalize *a problem, and so *create* a class of similar problems as a context within which more general reasoning processes can be applied to solve the problem in question. An example of such an approach is given by the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture, "Each Elliptical Function is equivalent to a particular Modular Form", one step of the path followed by Andrew Wiles to prove Fermat's last theorem between 1986 and 1994. Does this not also illustrate aspects of the discussion of Godel's theorem, where Maxine has extensively quoted semantic objections to Godel's statement on the grounds (as I understand her) that it could not be construed as a direct product of phenomenological experience. May I say that I would not regard my paraphrase of Maxine's reason as a valid objection because I do not expect statements in mathematics to conform to requirements for statements to be considered phenomenological. The sentential calculus is constructed within the category of sets, and Frege and Russell and Whitehead were operating within that framework, as was Godel. I personally do not regard the category of sets as a valid framework for phenomenology. My construction of a new information theory appropriate to describe phenomenological experience specifically denies it. The sentential calculus of Frege & co has no bite - it is superficial and not the enamel required to start up the mind's intellectual digestion and absorption processes. -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] _ Re: : Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self
t; in the first place, are all highly problematic in the sense that they are > but imperfect manifestations of true reality. But on the other hand, they > are all necessary steps in a process. This perspective, voiced in the 2nd > century by Nagarjuna, closely anticipates Wittgenstein’s propositions at > the close of his *Tractatus*: > > 6.54 My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone > who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has > used them — as steps — to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw > away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) > > 7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. > > > I find Nagarjuna’s reasoning to be reductive because he demonstrates how, > whether you begin with a belief in the truth of either identity or > difference, in either case you are led by implication to an untenable > position. Since both notions are thus "empty of self-essence;” they can > exist only together and not separately. > > Steve Bindeman > > On May 2, 2016, at 4:34 AM, Alex Hankey wrote: > > It is good to note that Reductionism is not appropriate, > not in this particular context, maybe not in any context. > > Most of the oriental philosophers were not aware of any > reductionist approach, since their teachers were purely > concerned with integrated and holistic approaches to > understanding and solving any problem. > > Hence their attitudes to understanding experience" > the question of reductionism does not enter. > Thank you. > > On 30 April 2016 at 22:15, Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Search Alex e Stan, Search Tutti, >> I fully share the epistemological philosophical-scientific approach of >> Alex and logical-mathematical set theory and / or the "hierarchy of >> subsumption evolving" Stan. However, reductionism does not satisfy >> neither pays. >> A collective embrace the FIS network. >> Francesco >> >> 2016-05-01 0:38 GMT+02:00 Alex Hankey : >> >>> It is good to see the discussion developing into deep considerations of >>> the history (histories?) of the metaphysical understanding of the nature of >>> the self, the soul, and the world(s) of experience, including the material >>> universe in which it finds itself. >>> >>> I do not claim to have any great expertise in understanding Nagarjuna's >>> approach, but we have to realise that both he and the great exponent of >>> Vedanta, Adishankara, also known as Shankaracharya (meaning teacher of >>> liberation), are said to have used almost identical formulations, albeit >>> with a different emphasis. While Nagarjuna used the concept of emptiness as >>> the foundation, Adishankara stayed within the traditional Vedic scheme >>> where 'fullness' or completeness / wholeness is regarded as fundamental. >>> >>> While it is certainly true that to experience the 'self' clearly, all >>> mental content has to allowed to settle down and fade away (one aspect of >>> 'Chitta Vritti Nirodha', a definition of Yoga) the condition for >>> maintaining that stably is that the subtle energy, prana (life-breath), >>> should be enlivened fully, which is why the enlivenment (ayama) of prana >>> i.e. pranaayama (normal spelling pranayama, in which the long 'a' is not >>> explicitly emphasised) is a fundamental Yoga exercise, usually practised >>> before meditation (Dhyana) practices in which the mind moves to its empty >>> state (samadhi). As can be seen, increasing the prana (life-energy) to a >>> state of fullness is thus an integral part of attaining a stable state of >>> pure consciousness (samadhi). >>> >>> It is the fullness of the state of prana that stabilizes the mind from >>> influences that might bring it out of samadhi. In particular, various >>> emotions can block the flows of subtle energies (several websites explain >>> this in detail e.g. Google on acupuncture meridians - emotions). Fullness >>> of prana is thus considered equivalent to emotional stability, which >>> requires balanced positive emotions and feelings. >>> >>> Both Nagarjuna and Adishankara are then concerned with how it is that >>> all-that-exists emerges from the original absolute. Nagarjuna evidently >>> shows that all things including all sentient beings have a 'dependent' >>> existence - they do not exist in and of themselves. Adishankara on the >>> other hand uses Vedic physics and metaphysics to trace how they
[Fis] _ Re:: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self
It is good to note that Reductionism is not appropriate, not in this particular context, maybe not in any context. Most of the oriental philosophers were not aware of any reductionist approach, since their teachers were purely concerned with integrated and holistic approaches to understanding and solving any problem. Hence their attitudes to understanding experience" the question of reductionism does not enter. Thank you. On 30 April 2016 at 22:15, Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Search Alex e Stan, Search Tutti, > I fully share the epistemological philosophical-scientific approach of > Alex and logical-mathematical set theory and / or the "hierarchy of > subsumption evolving" Stan. However, reductionism does not satisfy > neither pays. > A collective embrace the FIS network. > Francesco > > 2016-05-01 0:38 GMT+02:00 Alex Hankey : > >> It is good to see the discussion developing into deep considerations of >> the history (histories?) of the metaphysical understanding of the nature of >> the self, the soul, and the world(s) of experience, including the material >> universe in which it finds itself. >> >> I do not claim to have any great expertise in understanding Nagarjuna's >> approach, but we have to realise that both he and the great exponent of >> Vedanta, Adishankara, also known as Shankaracharya (meaning teacher of >> liberation), are said to have used almost identical formulations, albeit >> with a different emphasis. While Nagarjuna used the concept of emptiness as >> the foundation, Adishankara stayed within the traditional Vedic scheme >> where 'fullness' or completeness / wholeness is regarded as fundamental. >> >> While it is certainly true that to experience the 'self' clearly, all >> mental content has to allowed to settle down and fade away (one aspect of >> 'Chitta Vritti Nirodha', a definition of Yoga) the condition for >> maintaining that stably is that the subtle energy, prana (life-breath), >> should be enlivened fully, which is why the enlivenment (ayama) of prana >> i.e. pranaayama (normal spelling pranayama, in which the long 'a' is not >> explicitly emphasised) is a fundamental Yoga exercise, usually practised >> before meditation (Dhyana) practices in which the mind moves to its empty >> state (samadhi). As can be seen, increasing the prana (life-energy) to a >> state of fullness is thus an integral part of attaining a stable state of >> pure consciousness (samadhi). >> >> It is the fullness of the state of prana that stabilizes the mind from >> influences that might bring it out of samadhi. In particular, various >> emotions can block the flows of subtle energies (several websites explain >> this in detail e.g. Google on acupuncture meridians - emotions). Fullness >> of prana is thus considered equivalent to emotional stability, which >> requires balanced positive emotions and feelings. >> >> Both Nagarjuna and Adishankara are then concerned with how it is that >> all-that-exists emerges from the original absolute. Nagarjuna evidently >> shows that all things including all sentient beings have a 'dependent' >> existence - they do not exist in and of themselves. Adishankara on the >> other hand uses Vedic physics and metaphysics to trace how they emerge at >> various levels of perception. The essence of his argument is to show how >> the mental sensory apparatus came from the original source / Absolute, and >> thus how all objects of sensation can be traced back there. >> >> In modern terms, all things we have ever experientially encountered are >> quantum fields, and all quantum fields seem to have emerged from the Big >> Bang via the process of symmetry breaking at its source - the inflationary >> process. But symmetry breaking is an instability, and when one inspects the >> information states that that instability supports, they turn out to have a >> similar structure to O===>, the one proposed in the material that was >> distributed. >> >> I feel that the role and significance of instabilities in the physical >> world, particularly life processes, has not been adequately expounded and >> that we may only be beginning to understand them. >> >> I hope this helps. >> >> Alex >> >> On 30 April 2016 at 08:18, steven bindeman wrote: >> >>> I hope the following passage I’ve written on Nagarjuna will be of use >>> for this discussion on the nature of self. The passage is from a manuscript >>> I’ve just completed on silence and postmodernism. >>> >>> Naga
[Fis] FIS Discussion (No Vol #)
RE Bruno Marchal: It is easier to explain the illusion of matter to something conscious than to explain the illusion of consciousness to something material. ME: At the Consciousness Conference I found it extraordinary that at least one plenary presentation was centered round treating the wave function as a real entity in the (strongly) objective sense. I was under the impression that Bernard D'Espagnat's work for which he received the Templeton Prize had definitively shown that nothing is 'objectively real' in the strongly objective sense. The definite existence of quantum correlations destroys all that. Once this is accepted, the enquirer is faced with the question of what to accept as fundamental. I have always considered 'information' in the sense of the process or flow that connects the observed to the observer as a satisfactory alternative. The process of information flow creates the observer-observed relationship and (the illusion of??) their separation. Sequences of information production made possible by lack of equilibrium, both mechanical and thermodynamic, create pictures of particle tracks at the microscopic level, and pictures of objects at the macroscopic level. Everything is made consistent by the existence of quantum correlations in mathematical ways use by Everett in the book on the Many Worlds interpretation by Bryce De Witt (note that I use the mathematics, but do not concur with the interpretation). In my approach, the universe continuously makes choices, and selects among its own futures. I had a lengthy conversation with Henry Stapp two days ago at the conference after his talk, and checked that he still approves of this approach. My best to all, Alex P.S. Thanks to all for making this such a rich and interesting discussion. -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] _ Re: _ FIS discusion
heories and > beliefs about X, and then, > finely detailed descriptions of those observations. Just such untethered > observations and > meticulous descriptions are the cornerstone of any life science. One is > not out there trying to > make others as you want them to be, but attempting to know them as they > are. The task is precisely > a challenge since it is a matter of achieving knowledge about living > bodies that are different from, > yet evolutionarily connected to, your living body. Jane Goodall's years of > dedicated study set > the original gold standard, so to speak, for such research, the > foundations of "good life science." > As I earlier wrote (and documented by way of a publication), descriptive > foundations undergird > phenomenological analyses, studies in evolutionary biology, and ecological > literature. > > Cheers, > Maxine > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] _ Re: _ Fwd: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self
ither the abstract idea nor the concrete thing as having a > separate reality — both instead are characterized as “‘thought > constructions’ founded on experience.’ As such, they are not absolutely > real or absolutely unreal. …This middle path could thus be adopted in > understanding all forms of experience, whether they be linguistic, social, > political, moral, or religious.” > > Another way of approaching an understanding of the middle way has to do > with recognizing it as constituting a resolution of the identity/difference > problem. According to standard Buddhist doctrine the most dangerous false > view possible is the belief in a permanent, independent self (also commonly > referred to as the concept of identity). This notion of self is symptomatic > of our deepest fears, concerning things like death and the possibility of > our personal nonexistence. The concept of difference, which is the other > side of the problem, is the belief that nothing is real; it also asserts > the absence of all identities. This position would lead to the most mundane > things becoming unintelligible. Nagarjuna’s solution to this problem is his > assertion that neither identity nor difference is real. Both notions, when > seen properly, are “empty” of self-essence. They can exist only together > and not separately. Nagarjuna’s way of resolving this problem, by > pointing to the interdependency of identity and difference, is remarkably > similar to the one proposed by Merleau-Ponty many years later. > > Steve Bindeman > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The phenomenology of life
ncoming / outgoing information flows--the > "social info loops" around. In most human organizations, the ratio is in > between 3 and 4. It means that you and me are ordered by upper levels in > around 80 % of our exchanges, while what we send upwards becomes a meager > 20 %. It is from a statistics on business communication metrics. The > generalization is far from direct, but maybe it would occur in the cells > too--amazingly there is very little literature on cellular "signal > emission". > > Anyhow, how the whole ascending and descending info flows give raise to > all the varieties of organizational complexity is a fascinating problem, > > All the best--Pedro > > > > > > > > *Figure 6: Prototypical signaling pathways of multicellularity.* From > left to right, a stimulus in the intercellular space binds to a > transmembrane receptor (sensor) on its extracellular domain. Upon binding, > the receptor undergoes a transient modification of its cytoplasmic domain; > this effect triggers a transient modification of a series of proteins in > the cell, each one acting as an intermediate in the signal transduction > pathway (signal processing), with characteristic hierarchies of protein > kinases and second messengers. The last components are actuators or > effectors that activate or inhibit proteins and channels that control > several cellular functions, notably gene expression by means of > transcriptional switches that may interact with several coactivator > partners. The whole biochemical changes produced in the cell represent the > response to the received signal —its *molecular meaning*. > > > > El 26/04/2016 a las 10:10, Alex Hankey escribió: > > Dear Pedro, > > Thank you for the comments on my presentation, and particularly for > reminding us all that life transmits information of many different kinds by > very specific and selective processes in chemical signally molecules. > > I must confess that I had assumed that such kinds of signals could be > considered special cases of digital information analogous to the codes > transmitted by a digital signalling tower in a mobile telephone network, > where the initial code has to name the device that the rest of that message > section is meant to receive. > > In mobile phone systems, individual devices are sent information by > identifiers. If we have a nervous system working with several > neurotransmitters, or a cell signalling system working with a number of > cytokines, each with a specific regulatory influence / purpose, are these > individual items not performing in ways that are covered by the usual > combination of Wiener and Shannon, and therefore in principle understood, > and AS YOU SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT, with no particular "experience" > component. > > I wonder whether the material I transmitted made the following point > succinctly / precisely enough: > David Chalmers specifically hypothesized that 'experience information' (my > terminology) mst have a double aspect, and that the 'loop' arising from > criticality specifically fulfils his hypothesis in a new and potent way. > (The material contains so many points that this, to my mind, really > significant one may have got buried.) > > Thank you also for appreciating the amplification of Tononi's contribution > (Tononi, I personally regard as of real significance). The internal loop > creates > the internal coherence that is required to form the 'integrated > information'. > > I have a suspicion that the following propositions are probably correct: > a. any information structure that is truly 'non-reductive' > (Chalmers requirement 3) must possess long range coherence. > b. any information structure with long-range coherence will be a form of > integrated information. > c. Hence Chalmers requirement 3 in fact specifies integrative information. > This sequence a, b, c simplifies what those writing in the 1990's were > saying: > they were in fact setting equivalent requirements on the form of > 'experience information' > (though Tononi undoubtedly thought he was saying something different, as > did those who followed up on his work, and Chalmers did not realize that > Tononi's proposal was equivaent to the point that he had proposed. > > Anyone's thoughts on this would be very much appreciated, > All best wishes, > > Alex > > -- > - > 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 > Tf
Re: [Fis] The next round on physics and phenomenology
Dear Plamen, Thank you for the encouragement in the spirit of 'Fare Thee Well', rather than 'Adieu, Dear Friend, A..', I suspect. I am attaching my presentation with the qualification that: The first half of the presentation explicitly constructs a new information theory applying at the apex of biological control systems, showing how it conforms to properties of experience postulated by Kant, Husserl, Chalmers and others; the second half applies the information structure to human-animal mind-to-mind communications from recent decades. I hope that everyone will find this novel approach pertinent. All good wishes, Alex Hankey On 23 April 2016 at 13:45, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Pedro, Alex and Colleagues, > > thank you for this introduction of the next round on physics and > phenomenology with Alex' challenging theory. I’d like to share with you a > curious blog by Phillip Ball which a friend dropped me earlier this > morning: > http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/why-physics-is-not-a-discipline. > > Farewell, Alex! > > Plamen > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> Phenomenology of Life Presentation 16.04.20.docx Description: MS-Word 2007 document ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fis 25 / 9
RE: The organization of bodies of knowledge in the sciences takes place at another level than the integration of cognition in the body of an individual. One cannot reduce the one level to the other, in my opinion. Which research program of these two has priority? How do they relate ? potentially differently ? to information? ME: My Cambridge colleague, Madan Thangavelu, holds that the structure of knowledge in both human brains (and human organizations), and in' bodies of knowledge' in the sciences, is fractal. It is certainly true that the structure of creative ideas and new projects emerging from individuals and corporations has a fractal kind of distribution, and as a consequence, has to be assessed using a Herfyndahl index rather that the mean and standard deviation of a normal distribution, or their analogues for experimentally encountered non-normal data distributions. (Better the square root of the Herfyndaho index, since this can be additive when combining distributions.) -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Ulanowicz
RE: How can a concept of information help us to think in tune with nature, rather than against it?" ME: Possibly by being the kind of information that we ourselves use, and can use to communicate with directly to other minds, as my presentation will show for both humans and animals. It also appears to be the kind of information used in 'intuition' and may therefore be more widely considered some kind of 'language of nature'. -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fis: 25/7
RE: I am not sure that QT is the ultimate theory of all things, but I think the effort is worth doing it, since we hardly have anything else to step on now.I invite all those interested in this endeavor to join hands! ME: Speaking as a theoretical physicist with 45 years experience and deep interests in the foundations of physics and the origins of quantum theory, I should like to comment that to really understand quantum theory so as to see how to patch up its faults is not easy, and requires many years study in many different subfields. It requires deep knowledge and understanding of all of the following subfields; 1. The Copenhagen interpretation as fully expressed by Henry Stapp. 2. John Von Neumann's formulation, together with its limitations. 3. The Many Worlds (Princeton) interpretation as most recently promoted by Tegmark. 4. Einstein's objections as expressed in the EPR paradox, and 5. David Bohm's program of hidden variables to support Einstein, and 6. Bell's Theorem to experimentally distinguish Bohr;s and Bohm's approaches. 7. Aspect's experiments (and Clauser's preceding it) showing that Bohr was right. 8. Bernard D'Espagnat's important contributions, especially the Theorem for which he received the Templeton prize - physical reality is not 'strongly objective' on either macroscopic or microscopic levels. 9. All the debate initiated by Gell-Man and others on how wave-functions collapse. and what happens to quantum correlations that are generated. 10. David Deutsch's theory of quantum information. 11. Anton Zeilinger's use of quantum fluctuations for 'quantum teleportation' 12. The quantum theory of open systems by ECG (George) Sudarshan and others, the inherent limitations of their approach and its possible resolution. 13. The debates on the relationship between quantum theory and classical physics, the shortcomings of Bohr's Correspondence Principle and how to overcome them. I should hate to say that this is a field for specialists, because I truly believe that non-experts can often cut through the Gordian knot in the middle of a field, simply because they have not adopted the world view of the experts in following the debates for decades up to that point, and are therefore not indoctrinated with a paradigm that in fact needs updating - often not obvious to those in the field itself. But like most advanced scientific fields there is a lot to digest! (And my own views are radical, and almost as violent as the victor's approach to the Gordian Knot itself!) -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Vol 25 Issue 2
RE Soren Brier: Meaning is a way of making ?sense? of things for the individual in the world perceived. It is a non-mathematical existential feeling aspect of life related to reflection past, present and future of existence in the surrounding environment, in humans enhanced by language, writings, pictures, music through culture. ME: In teaching my students about my completely new theory of information, I start by telling them not to expect to understand it first time through, and not to worry if they don't. All cognition is recognition, and it will inevitably take a number of repetitions for them to *recognize* aspects of the course, and therefore to begin to cognize them. Later, when I have derived my theory of gestalt cognition, I suggest that cognition involves matching with something in one's internal library of gestalts i.e. generating meaning from the information received. In support of this, I tell the story of what happened when UFOs were first seen. Nobody knew what they were, so they were named Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), the name explicitly admitting ignorance of their nature. Then some wit called them 'Flying Saucers', and pretty soon any one could recognize what they had seen - "I saw a Flying Saucer in the park this morning!", without bothering to acknowledge that in fact they were none the wiser. A related tale was told by Columbus. When he had arrived in the West Indies, he slowly made friends with the local natives. After they had learned to trust each other, he gave the chief and others a tour of his ships. What they then said was entirely fascinating. It was to the effect that, 'When your ships first came into our bay, WE COULD NOT SEE THEM'. Well of course they could 'see' them. They had noticed that some UFO (= Unidentified Floating Object) had entered their bay. But being unidentified and unnamed, they had no idea what they were looking at. So they could not 'recognize' them. There was no recognition, and in that sense, no cognition. Their lovely statement, 'We could not see them', describes the situation pretty well. I conclude these pathetic tales in agreement with Brier. Meaning is a primary aspect of life, so any theory of human or animal communication, i.e. information exchange, had better be able to incorporate it to be relevant / meaningful. -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] _ Re: Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 39
ary or even tertiary ?memory? of something > >>> underlying deeper below the microbiological surface. It is at least > worth > >>> thinking in this direction. I do not mean necessarily the role of the > >>> number concept and Platonic origin of the universe, but something > probably > >>> much more ?physical? or at least staying at the edge between > >>> physical/material and immaterial such as David Deutsch?s constructor > theory > >>> (http://constructortheory.org/) and Brian Josephson?s > >>> ?structural/circular theory? ( > >>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.02429.pdf; > >>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1506/1506.06774.pdf; > >>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4860.pdf) searching for the theories > >>> underpinning the foundations of the physical laws (and following > Wheeler?s > >>> definition for a ?Law without Law?. > >>> > >>> Some of you may say that QT and Gravitation Theory are responsible for > >>> such kind of strange effects, but I would rather leave the brackets > open, > >>> because the recent discussion about potentialities and actualities in > QM > >>> brings up the idea that there are still different ways of looking at > those > >>> concepts (although they are strictly defined in their core domains). > This > >>> was actually also the lesson from the last special issue on integral > >>> biomathics (2015) dedicated to phenomenology, with the different > opinions > >>> of scientists and philosophers on obviously clear matters in their > domains. > >>> This is why also the question of what we define as science needs to be > >>> probably revised in future to include also such issues that are ?felt? > >>> rather than ?reasoned?, even if we do not have the ?proofs? yet, > because > >>> the proofs also emerge as subjective (or perhaps ?suggested?! ? ask the > >>> psychologists for that aspect) thoughts in the minds of the > mathematicians. > >>> I am really glad that we began such a phenomenological discussion on > this > >>> aspect such as Hipolito?s paper ( > >>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715000899) > >>> that was widely commented in the reviewer?s circle. In many cases when > we > >>> have a ?fuzzy? intuition about a certain relationship or analogy we > miss > >>> the correct definitions and concepts, and so in a creative act to hold > down > >>> the flying thought we move to using examples, metaphors, pictures. > Pedro > >>> correctly addressed the explanatory problem of science which > presupposes a > >>> certain causative and predicative ?workflow? to derive a conclusion > from > >>> the facts, and this is the way in which also proofs are (selectively) > made. > >>> As a young scholar I often wondered how artificially people like Gauss, > >>> Cauchy and Weierstrass design their proofs, but then I got used to > >>> that style. It was a question of overall convention. I am thankful to > Lou > >>> for his response on my question about using adequate ?resonant? > methods to > >>> model developmental biology, because this is also an important aspect > of > >>> the biology (and physics as well) including the > >>> phenomenological/first-person view of an ?observer-participant? (to use > >>> Vrobel?s term) which is crucial for understanding the process of > >>> self-reflection/recursion/cycle in science, which is usually led by > what?: > >>> the intuition, also well recognized by such giants like Poincare and > >>> Einstein. Isn?t not ?resonance? in the core of detecting such vibration > >>> between the observer and the observed? Because logic, backtracing and > proof > >>> come later. > >>> > >>> > >>> And finally, when looking at the clear simple mathematical abstractions > >>> of numbers, vectors, directions, sets, algebras, geometries, etc. used > by > >>> many without scrutinizing when developing system (biological) models > of yet > >>> another kind of mechanics/automation/machinery of the physical > reality, I > >>> am asking myself which are the premises for using such tools to > describe a > >>> model: the parameters, or the idea behind? It is probably not a > commonly > >>> known fact (even for those who are engaged with such exciting > disciplines > >>> as algebraic geometry and geometrical algebra, now considered to be > very > >>> close to what we wish to express in biology) that William Hamilton, the > >>> inventor of the quaternions did not simply use the already known > concept of > >>> ?vector? in his method. Instead he used ?step? with ?direction? to > express > >>> a duration of time (or ?duree? as Husserl called it from the other > side of > >>> the phenomenological divide) and action (to move from A to B): two very > >>> biology-related concepts at that time (although they may be considered > as > >>> physical or computational today). He actually stated that if there is > >>> geometry as a pure science of space, then algebra must be the pure > science > >>> of time [1]. What did we actually gain for biology from merging space > and > >>> time in physics? And if we apply a specific mathematical-computational > >>> technique what is the key idea/intuition behind it?. Because, as a > >>> colleague pathologist told me this morning about the model correctness > when > >>> predicting the development of tumors: the model can be assumed for > being > >>> correct based on the interpretation of some (limited) set of data, but > >>> Ptolemy's system was also considered to be correct in its rather > complex > >>> way of predicting the movement of the celestial bodies. Where is the > >>> difference? I am curious about your opinion. > >>> > >>> > >>> *Reference:* > >>> > >>> [1] W. R. Hamilton, 1835. Theory of Conjugate Functions, or Algebraic > >>> Couples; with a Preliminary or Elementary Essay on Algebra as the > Science > >>> of Pure Time. *Trans. Royal Irish Acad*., Vol. XVII, Part II. 292-422. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> > >>> Plamen > >>> __ > >>> > >>> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > >>> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy > >>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > >>> (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016) > >>> > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> 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 > > > > > > > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160330/4878398c/attachment.html > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > -- > > End of Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 39 > *** > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 32
proofs? yet, because > the proofs also emerge as subjective (or perhaps ?suggested?! ? ask the > psychologists for that aspect) thoughts in the minds of the mathematicians. > I am really glad that we began such a phenomenological discussion on this > aspect such as Hipolito?s paper ( > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715000899) that > was widely commented in the reviewer?s circle. In many cases when we have a > ?fuzzy? intuition about a certain relationship or analogy we miss the > correct definitions and concepts, and so in a creative act to hold down the > flying thought we move to using examples, metaphors, pictures. Pedro > correctly addressed the explanatory problem of science which presupposes a > certain causative and predicative ?workflow? to derive a conclusion from > the facts, and this is the way in which also proofs are (selectively) made. > As a young scholar I often wondered how artificially people like Gauss, > Cauchy and Weierstrass design their proofs, but then I got used to that > style. It was a question of overall convention. I am thankful to Lou for > his response on my question about using adequate ?resonant? methods to > model developmental biology, because this is also an important aspect of > the biology (and physics as well) including the > phenomenological/first-person view of an ?observer-participant? (to use > Vrobel?s term) which is crucial for understanding the process of > self-reflection/recursion/cycle in science, which is usually led by what?: > the intuition, also well recognized by such giants like Poincare and > Einstein. Isn?t not ?resonance? in the core of detecting such vibration > between the observer and the observed? Because logic, backtracing and proof > come later. > > > And finally, when looking at the clear simple mathematical abstractions of > numbers, vectors, directions, sets, algebras, geometries, etc. used by many > without scrutinizing when developing system (biological) models of yet > another kind of mechanics/automation/machinery of the physical reality, I > am asking myself which are the premises for using such tools to describe a > model: the parameters, or the idea behind? It is probably not a commonly > known fact (even for those who are engaged with such exciting disciplines > as algebraic geometry and geometrical algebra, now considered to be very > close to what we wish to express in biology) that William Hamilton, the > inventor of the quaternions did not simply use the already known concept of > ?vector? in his method. Instead he used ?step? with ?direction? to express > a duration of time (or ?duree? as Husserl called it from the other side of > the phenomenological divide) and action (to move from A to B): two very > biology-related concepts at that time (although they may be considered as > physical or computational today). He actually stated that if there is > geometry as a pure science of space, then algebra must be the pure science > of time [1]. What did we actually gain for biology from merging space and > time in physics? And if we apply a specific mathematical-computational > technique what is the key idea/intuition behind it?. Because, as a > colleague pathologist told me this morning about the model correctness when > predicting the development of tumors: the model can be assumed for being > correct based on the interpretation of some (limited) set of data, but > Ptolemy's system was also considered to be correct in its rather complex > way of predicting the movement of the celestial bodies. Where is the > difference? I am curious about your opinion. > > > *Reference:* > > [1] W. R. Hamilton, 1835. Theory of Conjugate Functions, or Algebraic > Couples; with a Preliminary or Elementary Essay on Algebra as the Science > of Pure Time. *Trans. Royal Irish Acad*., Vol. XVII, Part II. 292-422. > > > > Best, > > > > Plamen > __ > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics > and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016) > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160329/e450dedd/attachment.html > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > -- > > End of Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 32 > *** > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 20
t; > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Louis H Kauffman <mailto:lou...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Dear Plamen, > > I do not know why Gel-Mann supported this. It is interesting to me > anyway. It is primarily an artistic endeavor but is based on some ideas of > visual development of complex forms from simpler forms. > > Some of these stories may have a grain of truth. The sort of thing I do > and others do is much more conservative (even what D?Arcy Thompson did is > much more conservative). We look for simple patterns that definitely seem > to occur in complex situations and we abstract them and work with them on > their own grounds, and with regard to how these patterns work in a complex > system. An artistic approach can be very fruitful. > > Best, > > Lou > > > >> On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < > plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com <mailto:plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Dear Lou, Pedro and Colleagues, > >> > >> I have another somewhat provoking question about the "constructive" > role of topology in morphogenesis. What do you think about the somewhat > artistic, but scientifically VERY controversial theory about the origin and > development of life forms based on physical forces from classical mechanics > and topology only, thus ignoring all of genetics, Darwinism and Creationism: > >> > >> http://www.ilasol.org.il/ILASOL/uploads/files/Pivar_ILASOL-2010.pdf < > http://www.ilasol.org.il/ILASOL/uploads/files/Pivar_ILASOL-2010.pdf> > >> > >> What part of this can be regarded as science at all, and If there is > something missing what is it? Why did a person like Murray Gel-Mann support > this? > >> > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Plamen > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan < > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote: > >> Louis, a very simple question: in your model of self-replication, when > you enter the environment, could it mean something else than just providing > the raw stuff for reproduction? It would be great if related to successive > cycles one could include emergent topological (say geometrical-mechanical) > properties. For instance, once you have divided three times the initial > egg-cell, you would encounter three symmetry axes that would co-define the > future axes of animal development--dorsal/ventral, anterior/posterior, > lateral/medial. Another matter would be about the timing of complexity, > whether mere repetition of cycles could generate or not sufficient > functional diversity such as Plamen was inquiring in the case of molecular > clocks (nope in my opinion). best--Pedro > >> > >> > >> -- > >> - > >> Pedro C. Mariju?n > >> Grupo de Bioinformaci?n / Bioinformation Group > >> Instituto Aragon?s de Ciencias de la Salud > >> Centro de Investigaci?n Biom?dica de Arag?n (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> > >> > > > > > > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160324/50242f07/attachment.html > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > -- > > End of Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 20 > *** > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 15
n your contributions about the > >> mystic of mathematics in the 2015 JPBMB special issue. Therefore I ask > >> here, if we all feel that there is some grain of imaginative truth in > the > >> works of Pivar and team, what piece of mathematics does it needs to > become > >> a serious theory. Spencer-Brown did also have similar flashy insights in > >> the beginning, but he needed 20+ years to abstract them into a > substantial > >> book and theory. This is what also other mathematicians do. They are > >> providing complete works. Modern artists and futurists are shooting fast > >> and then moving to the next ?inspiration?, often without ?marketing? the > >> earlier idea. And then they are often disappointed that they were not > >> understood by their contemporaries. The lack of They are often arrogant > and > >> do not care about the opinion of others like we do in our FIS forum. But > >> they often have some ?oracle? messages. So, my question to you and the > >> others here is: Is there a way that we, scientists, can build a solid > >> theory on the base of others' artistic insights? Do you think you can > help > >> here as an expert in topology and logic to fill the formalisation gaps > in > >> Pivar?s approach and develop something foundational. All this would take > >> time and I am not sure if such artists like Pivar would be ready to > >> participate a scientific-humanitarian discourse, because we know that > most > >> of these talents as extremely egocentric and ignorant and we cannot > change > >> this. What do you think? > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Plamen > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Louis H Kauffman > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Dear Plamen, > >>> I do not know why Gel-Mann supported this. It is interesting to me > >>> anyway. It is primarily an artistic endeavor but is based on some > ideas of > >>> visual development of complex forms from simpler forms. > >>> Some of these stories may have a grain of truth. The sort of thing I do > >>> and others do is much more conservative (even what D?Arcy Thompson did > is > >>> much more conservative). We look for simple patterns that definitely > seem > >>> to occur in complex situations and we abstract them and work with them > on > >>> their own grounds, and with regard to how these patterns work in a > complex > >>> system. An artistic approach can be very fruitful. > >>> Best, > >>> Lou > >>> > >>> On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < > >>> plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Lou, Pedro and Colleagues, > >>> > >>> I have another somewhat provoking question about the "constructive" > role > >>> of topology in morphogenesis. What do you think about the somewhat > >>> artistic, but scientifically VERY controversial theory about the > origin and > >>> development of life forms based on physical forces from classical > mechanics > >>> and topology only, thus ignoring all of genetics, Darwinism and > Creationism: > >>> > >>> http://www.ilasol.org.il/ILASOL/uploads/files/Pivar_ILASOL-2010.pdf > >>> > >>> What part of this can be regarded as science at all, and If there is > >>> something missing what is it? Why did a person like Murray Gel-Mann > support > >>> this? > >>> > >>> > >>> Best > >>> > >>> Plamen > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan < > >>> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Louis, a very simple question: in your model of self-replication, when > >>>> you enter the environment, could it mean something else than just > providing > >>>> the raw stuff for reproduction? It would be great if related to > successive > >>>> cycles one could include emergent topological (say > geometrical-mechanical) > >>>> properties. For instance, once you have divided three times the > initial > >>>> egg-cell, you would encounter three symmetry axes that would > co-define the > >>>> future axes of animal development--dorsal/ventral, anterior/posterior, > >>>> lateral/medial. Another matter would be about the timing of > complexity, > >>>> whether mere repetition of cycles could generate or not sufficient > >>>> functional diversity such as Plamen was inquiring in the case of > molecular > >>>> clocks (nope in my opinion). best--Pedro > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> - > >>>> Pedro C. Mariju?n > >>>> Grupo de Bioinformaci?n / Bioinformation Group > >>>> Instituto Aragon?s de Ciencias de la Salud > >>>> Centro de Investigaci?n Biom?dica de Arag?n (CIBA) > >>>> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X > >>>> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > >>>> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) > >>>> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > >>>> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > >>>> - > >>>> > >>>> ___ > >>>> Fis mailing list > >>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es > >>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160317/e791d268/attachment.html > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > -- > > End of Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 15 > *** > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fwd: FIS
>From Mark on Maxine: "What do we do when we describe something?" Thoughts: 1. we give another person a chance to recognize the same object / experience, or a related one. (Objective) 2. We may offer an account of what it feels like, or felt like, to look at that object / be in that experience. (Subjective) -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 2
> Yes, this makes perfect sense and (I think) falls in line with the *a > priori* notion that Loet alludes to in his post. I would term this as "a > beginners mind" needed to discern a pure (uncolored) and detailed view of > the topic. Further, an *a prior* vista seems critical to developing an > essential three-fold model pointed to by Mark. > > > In short, in turning ?to the things themselves,? we distinguish noesis > and noema: consciousness and the object as meant. < > This of course echoes "das ding an sich" and noumena . . . but then this is > not what you mean, no? This leaves me wondering: exactly "how far does the > penny fall" in the phenomenological approach you advocate? > > > Each of these aspects of [Husserlian] meaning warrants study. < > The whole matter of "meaning" seems to be a recurrently open, HOT and > unresolved matter within this group. Loet's post points to a social aspect, > others (Collier?) will point to a material aspect, and I stand somewhere > in-between. In any case, all can convey meaning but of quite different > types. Do you have a specific view you are advocating here, beyond your > general allusion to Husserlian meaning? > > > What is wanted in a phenomenological analysis of information . . . > full-blown uncovering of the nature . . .< > As Mark's post suggests, there are many in this group likely to agree with > this, I certainly do! Still, it feels like you are more advocating for a > particular approach (phenomenological) rather than presenting a actual > phenomenological analysis. I apologize if I sound a bit dense here, but I > wish to be clear and make sure I do not overlook something. > > Thanks for your thoughts! > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160302/3dd1506a/attachment.html > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > -- > > End of Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 2 > ** > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 35
Science of Information Science Information Information > Science > Subject: Re: [Fis] Response to Salthe > Message-ID: > < > caayxa7tf35yvv-o8rmw5orvsnxjy_owun3z-5mowrgtb36r...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Darwin's observations were challenged by the American geologist Clarence > King in his "Catastrophe and Evolution" (King 1877), an argument much > admired and supported by Charles Peirce. He argues that it is not natural > selection by incremental mutation, while indubitable in some minor cases, > but the catastrophic evolutionary pressure that produces the significant > diversity of species. > > Steven > > ? > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160224/c13169bc/attachment-0001.html > > > > -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:46:23 -0800 > From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith > To: Foundations of Information Science of Information Science > Information Information Science > Cc: Maxine Sheets-Johnstone > Subject: Re: [Fis] Response to Salthe > Message-ID: > < > caayxa7spfcogyt5tafpjphxu3rs-rbiaac7oxpdxmqaxtqz...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > For reference you can find a copy of Clarence King's "Catastrophe And > Evolution" in the folder "King" here: > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-c2CVg9ZQsAY2NZcU1mNGVrbFU/view?usp=sharing > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith > wrote: > > > Darwin's observations were challenged by the American geologist Clarence > > King in his "Catastrophe and Evolution" (King 1877), an argument much > > admired and supported by Charles Peirce. He argues that it is not natural > > selection by incremental mutation, while indubitable in some minor cases, > > but the catastrophic evolutionary pressure that produces the significant > > diversity of species. > > > > Steven > > > > ? > > > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160224/d9b327f0/attachment.html > > > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > -- > > End of Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 35 > *** > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Maxine
RE: Professor Maxine Streets-Johnstone's Summary Since my own summary to be presented later in this Webinar will concern a radically new theoretical information model of gestalt cognition, I am curious to know if you regard conceptions of movements that are put into action as 'gestalts' i.e. conceived and executed as wholes. It would seem to follow from your discussion of movement in lines and curves, but you do not say so explicitly. >From my perspective as a former sports person who represented my college at Cambridge in two sports, and led university teams at two more, I know I was very aware of the need to play strokes at Tennis and Squash with a totally different 'feeling' about the way strokes at different sports were conceived and executed. i.e. Different strokes at different sports require different 'classes of gestalt'. Similarly when I watch Federer or Djokovic or any of the other greats in Lawn Tennis execute their shots, I get the feeling that each shot is conceived and executed as an integral whole, and not as a series of digitized procedures. Otherwise it could not be an instantaneous response to the opponent's challenge. I know this is different from dance. But surely a Balanchine or Nureyev conceived their movements as integral wholes before they executed them with the kind of outstanding athleticism that made them such great partners and performers. In animals, this should also be the same. Watching monkeys leap around dangerous walls of temples here in India, or documentaries of lemurs bounding from tree to tree (or even from cactus to cactus) in Madagascar, one feels that they could not execute each movement with such brilliance and precision, were it not conceived as a whole - as a gestalt. Should 'gestalt cognition' (and recognition) of incoming information, and 'gestalt conception' of outgoing information controlling actions, not be regarded as fundamental to the Phenomenology of Life? Of how we all consciously control our actions, and regulate them in detail? -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
