Guy -- This is a key idea. 'Mediation' refers to the transformation /
transduction of signals at a boundary (in general it refers to no direct
transfer across boundaries). In the case before us, that boundary is
between systems that exist / function at different scales. Note, then, that
a photon impact upon a rhodopsin molecule in a retina is not, AS SUCH,
information to the owner of the retina, but many simultaneous photon impacts
would be transformed into neuron depolarizations, which, in the aggregate,
can activate an awareness of brightness, color, whatever, in the brain. This
creates meaning by / for the larger organization. All of this depends upon
the organization of the system. In a simpler example, photons can have
unmediated action upon, say, minerals in a rock, with no immediate effect
upon the general shape of the rock at a larger scale, or on its part in a
landscape at a still larger scale. The photon 'information' did not get
mediated to those levels.
So, yes, information -- transformed at every boundary -- can "percolate
across levels", but it is not SAME information, AS information, at the upper
level that it might be at the lower. Each level creates its own version of
the original signal. You could say that each level has its own 'language'.
(For examples, organisms can't do what we call 'evolve', species cannot do
what we call 'develop'.) In the case in point, rhodopsin can change
conformation, but it cannot have increased blood flow (as in the brain).
This is important because it shows the necessity for such transformations to
be constructed in order for evolution to create higher level -- here larger
scale -- entities that are still in contact with the world in general, as
represented in {physicomaterial world {biological world}}. Biology, and
even molecular biology, exists at a larger scale than fermion <-> boson
transformations.
As you can see, there is nothing 'new' here, except sensitivity to the
details of system organization. Acknowledging the discontinuities in a
system can only give our models greater verity.
STAN
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Guy A Hoelzer <hoel...@unr.edu> wrote:
Hi Stan,
I don’t understand your notion of “mediated” information flow across levels
of organization. What do you mean by mediation, and what difference does it
make in the current context? Isn’t the important thing that information
often does percolate across levels?
Regards,
Guy
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Guy A Hoelzer <hoel...@unr.edu> wrote:
> Hi Stan,
>
> I don’t understand your notion of “mediated” information flow across levels
> of organization. What do you mean by mediation, and what difference does it
> make in the current context? Isn’t the important thing that information
> often does percolate across levels?
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy
>
>
> On 10/1/10 1:23 PM, "Stanley N. Salthe" <ssal...@binghamton.edu> wrote:
>
> Replying to Kevin --
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Kevin Kirby <ki...@nku.edu <mailto:
> ki...@nku.edu> > wrote:
>
>
>
> -snip-
>
>
>
> On flows across scales, this itself need not be mysterious. Take a single
> photon hitting a rhodopsin molecule in the retina of a vertebrate then
> [...long chain here...] triggering a fight-or-flight response. Is that a
> flow across scales? Sure.
>
>
>
> No! Are you asserting that a brain will respond to a single tickled
> rhodopsin molecule? The retina needs to be regaled with more than that in
> order to trigger a biological response. The rhodopsin molecule exists at
> the chemical level in nature's hierarchy, and at that level electrons /
> photons (IN plural) can have effects because of the chemical organization,
> and so, these are not direct, unmediated effects. Biological synthesis
> mediates between these effects and consciousness. Put otherwise, a single
> photon carries no information for biology. The statement I defend is that
> ‘no information transits unmediated across scales’. The hierarchy in this
> case can be viewed either as [cell [rhodopsin [photonS]]] or as {energy flow
> {chemical reaction { biological organization}}}. Curiously, I am getting
> the feeling that hierarchy, after being ignored for decades, is now being
> taken as 'ho-hum' -- old hat!
>
>
>
> Replying to Joe --
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Joseph Brenner
> <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch<mailto:
> joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> > wrote:
>
> Dear Gordana and All,
>
>
>
> -snip-
>
>
>
> 2. This judgment is confirmed :-) by the citations: a) One can agree (I do)
> with Floridi's interpretation of reality as the totality of structures
> interacting with one another, but we still do not know what a structure is,
> ontologically, and there is a caesura with the implication for information;
> b) Referring to "physicists who say that reality is fundamentally
> informational" is begging the question at issue.
>
>
>
> 3. It is not quite accurate to say that Floridi's Levels of Organization
> (LoOs) give access to an "ontological side" that will enable us to see an
> informational reality for two reasons: a) we have not established that
> reality is primarily informational nor what this might mean (see above); b)
> LoOs, to quote Floridi do "support an ontological approach, according to
> which systems for analysis (my emphasis) are supposed to have a structure in
> themselves de re, which is allegedly captured and uncovered by its
> description. For example, levels of communication, of decision processing
> and of information flow can all be presented as specific instances that can
> be analyzed in terms of LoOs." However, I submit that we are still dealing,
> here, with epistemological constructions.
>
>
>
> S: LoOs are hierarchical structures, are in fact compositional
> hierarchies (the ones that interdict unmediated information flow across
> levels separated by scale). Hierarchies are conceptual tools, allowing us
> to simplify our models of the world -- levels of OBSERVATION are obviously
> epistemological tools (he also uses "levels of abstraction"). No one can
> assert that the world itself has this kind of structure (though it does seem
> to in many aspects).
>
>
>
> -snip-
>
>
>
> 5. On the question of "it 'or' bit", I suggest that bits are the simplest,
> most abstract elements of information, constitutive of its lowest semantic
> level. Its are something more, for example, as Kevin Kirby said, fluctuons
> can perfectly well be looked at as "its", given their apparent interactive
> characteristics. Understanding the relationship (one or more ?) between
> information and matter/energy may be easier if we consider that we might be
> talking about the same thing from two perspectives.
>
>
>
> S: From a developmental point of view, 'bits', being crisp and
> digital, would be end points of material evolution, which could be modeled
> thus (using a subsumptive hierarchy): {vagueness -> {fuzziness ->
> {crispness}}} One could say that only some parts of the world could be
> modeled as fuzzy, and even fewer as crisp.
>
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
