Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky

[karl javorszky]

On the difference between natural numbers and theories:

The tool offered for use is based on natural numbers. It is devoid of any
interpretations aside the interpretation relating to common axes that are
rectangular. It is pleasing that Stan sees many ways to use the
interdependence among natural numbers to be relevant and applicable in
thermodynamics.

The accountant is satisfied after having found an accounting trick Nature
appears to use. That this accounting trick is used all over the manifold
activities of Nature is what the accountant says. Stan's remarks show that
the model does have practical relevance.

The inventor of triangulation by means of trigonometry may have been
ridiculed that he does not know the geography of England, although he may
have implied that this table can be useful in mapping England.

Let me restate: the Table offered shows additional ways of dealing with
summands, aside the old method of joining them. Sorting and resorting brings
forth two Euclid spaces connected by two planes. The natural unit of
transaction is a triplet, which is a logical-numerical statement about the
spatial coordinates of fragmentational states.

It is a pleasure to learn that the idea appears applicable to Stan to deal
with thermodynamic terms of reference in reformulating the concept.

Karl


2010/12/3 Stanley N Salthe 

> *Replying to Karl, who said:*
>
>
> one can use a stable model used by neurology and psychology to come closer
> to understanding how our brain works. This can help to formulate the
> thoughts Pedro mentioned being obscure.
>
> One pictures the brain as a quasi-meteorological model of an extended world
> containing among others swamp, savanna, arid zones. The dissipation of water
> above these regions causes clouds to form and storms to discharge the vapor
> within the clouds. The model observes the lightnings in the model and sets
> them as an allegory to thoughts (these being electrical discharges) as
> opposed to hormones (that are the fluids in the swamps). So there is an
> assumed independence between the rainfall, the humidity of the ground, cloud
> formation and lightnings. The real meteorologists would not agree with the
> simplification that the lightning is the central idea of a rainfall, but
> this is how the picture works (at present).
>
> Why I offer these idle thoughts from the biologic sciences to FIS is that
> it is now possible to make a model of these processes in an abstract,
> logical fashion. The colleaugues in Fis are scientists in the rational
> tradition and may find useful that a rational algorithm can be shown to
> allow simulating the little tricks Nature appears to use.
>
> Nature changes the form of the imbalance, once too many or too few
> lightnings, once too much or lacking water - relative to the other
> representation's stable state. There are TWO sets of reference. The
> deviation between the two sets of references is what Nature uses in its
> manifold activities.
>
>
>   This model looks at the physical equivalences in two realms by
> modeling in thermodynamics.  Today in thermodynamics we have an advancing
> perspective known as the ‘Maximum Entropy Production Principle’ (MEPP) for
> relatively simple systems like weather, or Maximum Energy Dispersal
> Principle’ (MEDP) for complicated material systems like the brain.  In both
> cases the dynamics are controlled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which
> imposes that the available energy gradients will be dissipated in the least
> possible time, taking the easiest routes available.  This becomes very
> interesting in the brain, where the flow of depolarizations would then be
> predicted to be biased in the direction of more habitual ‘thoughts’.  I
> think that this prediction seems to be born out in our own experiences of
> the frequent return of our attention to various insistent thoughts.  I
> recommend that Karl inquire into MEPP.  For this purpose I paste in some
> references.
>
>
> STAN
>
>
> MEPP related publications:
>
>
> Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2009.  Economies evolve by energy dispersal.
>  Entropy, 2009, 11: 606-633.
>
>
> Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010. Physical foundations of evolutionary
> theory. Journal on Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics 35: 301-321.
>
>
> Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010.  Cultural naturalism.  Entropy, 2010, 12:
> 1325-1352.
>
>
> Bejan, A. and S. Lorente, 2010.  The constructal law of design and
> evolution in nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B,
> 365: 1335-1347.
>
>
> Brooks, D.R. and E.O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy: Toward A Unified
> Theory Of Biology (2nd. ed.) Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
>
>
> Chaisson, E.J., 2008.  Long-term global heating from energy usage.  Eos,
> Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 89: 353-255.
>
>
> DeLong, J.P., J.G. Okie, M.E. Moses, R.M. Sibly and J.H. Brown, 2010.
> Shifts in metabolic scaling, production, and efficiency across major
> evolutionary transitions of life

Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky

[Robert Ulanowicz]

Dear All:

At the risk of being seen as the one who tries to throw a monkey  
wrench into the fine discussion you all are having, I would like to  
mention that the foregoing thread had focused entirely on alternatives  
among monist scenarios.

I see the world as dual, not in the sense of Descartes, but of  
Heraclitus. If I am correct, then any strategy predicated on a monist  
principle is destined to lead to disaster. (Stan and I have gone round  
and round on this. I see entropy as double-sided and not simply as  
disorder. [Ecological Modelling 220 (2009) 1886–1892].)

But I'm hardly the only one to warn against a monist view. Terry  
Deacon's model of self-organization, the "Autocell" acts similarly.  
The process starts by using up external gradients as quickly as  
possible, but gradually shuts down as the autocell nears  
self-completion. (Deacon, T.W. and J. Sherman. 2008. The Pattern Which  
Connects Pleroma to Creatura: The Autocell Bridge from Physics to  
Life. Biosemiotics 2:59-76.)

The best to all,
Bob

-
Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: +1-352-378-7355
Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory  |  FAX: +1-352-392-3704
Department of Biology  |  Emeritus, Chesapeake Biol. Lab
Bartram Hall 110   |  University of Maryland
University of Florida  |  Email 
Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA |  Web 
--


Quoting Stanley N Salthe :

> *Replying to Karl, who said:*
>
>
> one can use a stable model used by neurology and psychology to come closer
> to understanding how our brain works. This can help to formulate the
> thoughts Pedro mentioned being obscure.
>
> One pictures the brain as a quasi-meteorological model of an extended world
> containing among others swamp, savanna, arid zones. The dissipation of water
> above these regions causes clouds to form and storms to discharge the vapor
> within the clouds. The model observes the lightnings in the model and sets
> them as an allegory to thoughts (these being electrical discharges) as
> opposed to hormones (that are the fluids in the swamps). So there is an
> assumed independence between the rainfall, the humidity of the ground, cloud
> formation and lightnings. The real meteorologists would not agree with the
> simplification that the lightning is the central idea of a rainfall, but
> this is how the picture works (at present).
>
> Why I offer these idle thoughts from the biologic sciences to FIS is that it
> is now possible to make a model of these processes in an abstract, logical
> fashion. The colleaugues in Fis are scientists in the rational tradition and
> may find useful that a rational algorithm can be shown to allow simulating
> the little tricks Nature appears to use.
>
> Nature changes the form of the imbalance, once too many or too few
> lightnings, once too much or lacking water - relative to the other
> representation's stable state. There are TWO sets of reference. The
> deviation between the two sets of references is what Nature uses in its
> manifold activities.
>
>
>   This model looks at the physical equivalences in two realms by
> modeling in thermodynamics.  Today in thermodynamics we have an advancing
> perspective known as the `Maximum Entropy Production Principle´ (MEPP) for
> relatively simple systems like weather, or Maximum Energy Dispersal
> Principle´ (MEDP) for complicated material systems like the brain.  In both
> cases the dynamics are controlled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which
> imposes that the available energy gradients will be dissipated in the least
> possible time, taking the easiest routes available.  This becomes very
> interesting in the brain, where the flow of depolarizations would then be
> predicted to be biased in the direction of more habitual `thoughts´.  I
> think that this prediction seems to be born out in our own experiences of
> the frequent return of our attention to various insistent thoughts.  I
> recommend that Karl inquire into MEPP.  For this purpose I paste in some
> references.
>
>
> STAN
>
>
> MEPP related publications:
>
>
> Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2009.  Economies evolve by energy dispersal.
>  Entropy, 2009, 11: 606-633.
>
>
> Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010. Physical foundations of evolutionary
> theory. Journal on Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics 35: 301-321.
>
>
> Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010.  Cultural naturalism.  Entropy, 2010, 12:
> 1325-1352.
>
>
> Bejan, A. and S. Lorente, 2010.  The constructal law of design and evolution
> in nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 365:
> 1335-1347.
>
>
> Brooks, D.R. and E.O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy: Toward A Unified
> Theory Of Biology (2nd. ed.) Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
>
>
> Chaisson, E.J., 2008.  Long-term global heating from energy usage.  Eos,
> Transa

[Fis] reply to Javorsky

[Stanley N Salthe]

*Replying to Karl, who said:*


one can use a stable model used by neurology and psychology to come closer
to understanding how our brain works. This can help to formulate the
thoughts Pedro mentioned being obscure.

One pictures the brain as a quasi-meteorological model of an extended world
containing among others swamp, savanna, arid zones. The dissipation of water
above these regions causes clouds to form and storms to discharge the vapor
within the clouds. The model observes the lightnings in the model and sets
them as an allegory to thoughts (these being electrical discharges) as
opposed to hormones (that are the fluids in the swamps). So there is an
assumed independence between the rainfall, the humidity of the ground, cloud
formation and lightnings. The real meteorologists would not agree with the
simplification that the lightning is the central idea of a rainfall, but
this is how the picture works (at present).

Why I offer these idle thoughts from the biologic sciences to FIS is that it
is now possible to make a model of these processes in an abstract, logical
fashion. The colleaugues in Fis are scientists in the rational tradition and
may find useful that a rational algorithm can be shown to allow simulating
the little tricks Nature appears to use.

Nature changes the form of the imbalance, once too many or too few
lightnings, once too much or lacking water - relative to the other
representation's stable state. There are TWO sets of reference. The
deviation between the two sets of references is what Nature uses in its
manifold activities.


  This model looks at the physical equivalences in two realms by
modeling in thermodynamics.  Today in thermodynamics we have an advancing
perspective known as the ‘Maximum Entropy Production Principle’ (MEPP) for
relatively simple systems like weather, or Maximum Energy Dispersal
Principle’ (MEDP) for complicated material systems like the brain.  In both
cases the dynamics are controlled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which
imposes that the available energy gradients will be dissipated in the least
possible time, taking the easiest routes available.  This becomes very
interesting in the brain, where the flow of depolarizations would then be
predicted to be biased in the direction of more habitual ‘thoughts’.  I
think that this prediction seems to be born out in our own experiences of
the frequent return of our attention to various insistent thoughts.  I
recommend that Karl inquire into MEPP.  For this purpose I paste in some
references.


STAN


MEPP related publications:


Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2009.  Economies evolve by energy dispersal.
 Entropy, 2009, 11: 606-633.


Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010. Physical foundations of evolutionary
theory. Journal on Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics 35: 301-321.


Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010.  Cultural naturalism.  Entropy, 2010, 12:
1325-1352.


Bejan, A. and S. Lorente, 2010.  The constructal law of design and evolution
in nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 365:
1335-1347.


Brooks, D.R. and E.O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy: Toward A Unified
Theory Of Biology (2nd. ed.) Chicago. University of Chicago Press.


Chaisson, E.J., 2008.  Long-term global heating from energy usage.  Eos,
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 89: 353-255.


DeLong, J.P., J.G. Okie, M.E. Moses, R.M. Sibly and J.H. Brown, 2010. Shifts
in metabolic scaling, production, and efficiency across major evolutionary
transitions of life. Proceedings of the Natiional Academy of Sciences. Early
EDition


Dewar, R. C., 2003.  Information theory explanation of the fluctuation
theorem, maximum entropy production, and self-organized criticality in
non-equilibrium stationary states.  Journal of Physics, A  Mathematics and
General 36: L631-L641.


Dewar, R.C., 2005.  Maximum entropy production and the fluctuation theorem.
 Journal of Physics A Mathematics and General 38: L371-L381.


Dewar, R.C., 2009.  Maximum entropy production as an inference algorithm
that translates physical assumptions into macroscopic predictions: Don't
shoot the messenger.  Entropy 2009. 11: 931-944.


Dewar. R.C. and A. Porté, 2008.  Statistical mechanics unifies different
ecological patterns. Journal of Theoretical Biology 251:389-403.


Dyke, J. and A. Kleidon. 2010. The maximum entropy production principle: its
theoretical foundations and applications to the Earth system.  Entropy 2010,
12:613-630.


Herrmann-Pillath, C., 2010.  Entropy, function and evolution: naturalizing
Peircean semiosis.  Entropy 2010, 12: 197-242.


Kleidon, A. (2009): Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and Maximum Entropy
Production in the Earth System: Applications and Implications,
Naturwissenschaften 96: 653-677.


Kleidon, A. (2010): Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, Maximum Entropy
Production and Earth-system evolution, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society A, 368: 181-196.


Kleidon, A. and R. Lorenz (eds) Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics an

[Fis] [Fwd: Gerald O'Grady on McLuhan]

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Great posting received from Bob Logan, about the Centennial of Marshal 
McLuhan. No doubt that in the human realm McLuhan has been one of the 
most advanced thinkers on "information" and "intelligence"; indeed the 
great pioneer in "social information science." ---Pedro


 Mensaje original 
Asunto: Gerald O'Grady on McLuhan
Fecha:  Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:28:32 -0500
De: Bob Logan 
Responder a:centenary-celeb-c...@googlegroups.com
Para:   centenary-celeb-c...@googlegroups.com


Dear Centenarians - I discovered this essay  from 1981   by Gerald  
O’Grady online that I wanted to share with the group. Bob




THROWING A SNOWBALL WITH A ROCK IN IT – Momentum Mori for Marshall
McLuhan

By Gerald O’Grady

(Marshall McLuhan, Director of the Center for Culture and Technology
at the University of Toronto, died on December 31, 1980. Gerald
O'Grady, who remembers him here, is President of Media Study/
Buffalo.)

"Is it what's in the jigger that makes them bigger?" - Marshall
McLuhan, commenting on the Lord Calvert's whiskey “Men of Distinction”
ad.


There is not a moment to be lost in dumping another generation of
readers into the drink, the stormy seas of Marshall McLuhan's mind.
His major books created a cultural thunderstorm throughout the 1960's.
Every literary man of distinction - Benjamin DeMott, Dwight Macdonald,
George Steiner, Jonathan Miller, Harold Rosenberg, Tom Wolfe, Richard
Schickel, Michael Arlen and scores of others - attempted to navigate
his waters.

By the end of the decade, their various essays were gathered in three
critical anthologies, all titled "McLuhan" and subtitled "Hot and
Cool," "Pro and Con" and "Sense and Nonsense." All had got caught in
his maelstrom and drowned. We have had another decade to think why
that happened.

Their attention was almost entirely spent on misunderstanding McLuhan
as a popular medium rather than understanding his work. They spent so
much effort in falsely charging him with believing that human culture
was determined by technology that they missed the human-motivated
trajectory of his lifelong project. It went unnoticed that the
leitmotif of his three major books was the "man" of their subtitles,
and that each approached media from a different perspective.

"The Mechanical Bride: Folklore of Mechanical Man" (1951) attempted to
understand the NEW MYTHOLOGY created by newspapers, magazines and
advertising.

"The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man" (1962) was
HISTORICAL and juxtaposed a mosaic of meditations on the cultural
interactions arising from the invention of the printing press.

"Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man" (1964) was FORMAL,
treating the media as models and structures shaping our physical
environment by extending our senses. For McLuhan, every man was a
center for understanding media.

His critics seemed obsessed with deriving a theory from his writings,
coming to them with the academic expectancy for the definitive
treatment of a field called communications. They never grasped that
his meaning was merged with his method, and that the method rested
entirely and completely on metaphor, that every word, sentence and
paragraph he wrote was part of a process to generate insight, not to
establish classifications. He would create new words like
colloidoscope by jamming together colloid and kaleidoscope. He would
force new identifications in sentences like “The medium is the
message" or "The user is the content.” His books worked the same way.
"The Gutenberg Galaxy" begins by considering a sixteenth century
English play, "King Lear," and then, a few pages later, thrusts it up
against Kikuyu love magic ceremonies in twentieth century Africa. He
loved to make things collide.

We traded definitions of the symbol. He liked the one I found by the
American architect Louis Sullivan, "a snowball with a rock in it,"
delighting all the more because Sullivan was unaware that the Greek
word "sym-ballein" literally meant "to throw with,"… "to throw
(things) together." He was even happier when he found Marilyn Monroe's
reply to an interviewer who asked if she were a sex symbol: "You mean
those things that bands bang together?" He was himself highly
sensitive to such sound effects and later defined symbolism as "a kind
of witty jazz." Jazz is characterized by improvisation and by special
features peculiar to the individual interpretation of a player. When
he wrote that "Heidegger surf-boards along on the electronic wave as
triumphantly as Descartes rode the mechanical wave," he was clearly
asking to be apprehended as a poet, but his critics would not allow
it. He understood that the plowshares of the agricultural field had
been beaten into the television antennas of the electronic field, but
they didn't, even though the slang term of being on someone's
"wavelength" (to understand) had already entered the language many
years before. No one, for example, ever saw that "Understanding Media"
was a poetic book, a magical numb