Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture
I join Pedro in thanking all of the participants of the Deacon conversation - I enjoyed it and would love to receive more comments off line - Bob __ Robert K. Logan Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications On 2015-02-16, at 8:02 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear FIS Colleagues, February is well advanced, and it is time to put a definite end to the New Year Lecture. We have had a very interesting discussion time, though rather silent in these final days. It was nice counting with Terry chairmanship, he has had a very hard work with all those responses--thanks a lot to him. Thanks are also due to Bob Logan for his implication in organizing the Lecture and to the Pirates thought collective for their participation. In the next session, in ten days or so, we will approach the global phenomenon of intelligence: artificial and natural, rational and emotional, scientific and artistic, East and West... let us wait and see. Also, hearing from Ken Herold on Library Science and from Moises Andre on interaction between disciplines was sort of a nice surprise: the connection between the traditional approach and the new one becomes a highly strategic goal for information science. Maybe it is one of the topics we have to address in a specific discussion session. Moises, Ken--does it sound interesting? Best wishes to all --Pedro -- - 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 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 ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Concluding the Lecture
Dear FIS Colleagues, February is well advanced, and it is time to put a definite end to the New Year Lecture. We have had a very interesting discussion time, though rather silent in these final days. It was nice counting with Terry chairmanship, he has had a very hard work with all those responses--thanks a lot to him. Thanks are also due to Bob Logan for his implication in organizing the Lecture and to the Pirates thought collective for their participation. In the next session, in ten days or so, we will approach the global phenomenon of intelligence: artificial and natural, rational and emotional, scientific and artistic, East and West... let us wait and see. Also, hearing from Ken Herold on Library Science and from Moises Andre on interaction between disciplines was sort of a nice surprise: the connection between the traditional approach and the new one becomes a highly strategic goal for information science. Maybe it is one of the topics we have to address in a specific discussion session. Moises, Ken--does it sound interesting? Best wishes to all --Pedro -- - 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 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
Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? - In Praise of Teleodynamics
Dear FiSers - I am glad that Pedro has allowed this discussion to continue for a a couple of more days so I can share two items of my work that relate to Terry's teleodynamic-based project. 1. One item is a paper I co-authored with Stuart Kauffman and others entitled The Propagation of Organization: An Enquiry that posits a link between constraints and information. Here is the abstract of that paper. I would be happy to share it off line with any interested parties: Propagating Organization: An Enquiry - Stuart Kauffman, Robert K. Logan, Robert Este, Randy Goebel, David Hobill and Ilya Smulevich. 2007. Propagating Organization: An Inquiry. Published in Biology and Philosophy 23: 27-45. Abstract: Our aim in this article is to attempt to discuss propagating organization of process, a poorly articulated union of matter, energy, work, constraints and that vexed concept, “information”, which unite in far from equilibrium living physical systems. Our hope is to stimulate discussions by philosophers of biology and biologists to further clarify the concepts we discuss here. We place our discussion in the broad context of a “general biology”, properties that might well be found in life anywhere in the cosmos, freed from the specific examples of terrestrial life after 3.8 billion years of evolution. By placing the discussion in this wider, if still hypothetical, context, we also try to place in context some of the extant discussion of information as intimately related to DNA, RNA and protein transcription and translation processes. While characteristic of current terrestrial life, there are no compelling grounds to suppose the same mechanisms would be involved in any life form able to evolve by heritable variation and natural selection. In turn, this allows us to discuss at least briefly, the focus of much of the philosophy of biology on population genetics, which, of course, assumes DNA, RNA, proteins, and other features of terrestrial life. Presumably, evolution by natural selection – and perhaps self-organization - could occur on many worlds via different causal mechanisms. Here we seek a non-reductionist explanation for the synthesis, accumulation, and propagation of information, work, and constraint, which we hope will provide some insight into both the biotic and abiotic universe, in terms of both molecular self reproduction and the basic work energy cycle where work is the constrained release of energy into a few degrees of freedom. The typical requirement for work itself is to construct those very constraints on the release of energy that then constitute further work. Information creation, we argue, arises in two ways: first information as natural selection assembling the very constraints on the release of energy that then constitutes work and the propagation of organization. Second, information in a more extended sense is “semiotic”, that is about the world or internal state of the organism and requires appropriate response. The idea is to combine ideas from biology, physics, and computer science, to formulate explanatory hypotheses on how information can be captured and rendered in the expected physical manifestation, which can then participate in the propagation of the organization of process in the expected biological work cycles to create the diversity in our observable biosphere. Our conclusions, to date, of this enquiry suggest a foundation which views information as the construction of constraints, which, in their physical manifestation, partially underlie the processes of evolution to dynamically determine the fitness of organisms within the context of a biotic universe. A key line from the paper and one that Terry quotes in Incomplete Nature as private communication from Kauffman is: The first surprise is that it takes constraints on the release of energy to perform work, but it takes work to create constraints. The second surprise is that constraints are information and information is constraint. 2. The second item, which is highly speculative and for which I take sole responsibility, is my extension of Terry's notion of teleodynamics beyond the domain of biology to culture, language, organization, science, economics and technology. I share with you the abstract and would be happy to share the whole article off line with any interested parties. This paper was inspired from the following line in Incomplete Nature: Although [teleodynamics] is the distinguishing characteristic of living processes, it is not necessarily limited to the biological. – Deacon (2012, 275) The Teleodynamics of Culture, Language, Organization, Science, Economics and Technology (CLOSET) Published in Systema: connecting matter, life, culture and technology Vol. 2, Issue 3, 2014. Abstract: Logan (2007) in his book The Extended Mind developed the hypothesis that language, culture, and technology can be construed as organisms that evolve and reproduce
Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? - In Praise of Teleodynamics
No problem Bob, we can prolong the NY Lecture some extra days. My concern was the overload that these final messages ---more intense and argumentative-- could be causing on Terry's time budget. It is upon him whether he wants to continue responding in the current regime for instance until February the 15th (it means 12 extra days) or if he prefers to finalize right now and afterwards behave as a common participant, limited to two responding messages per week. We would start the next discussion session some weeks later, so there might be room for continuing the debate, but as an aftermath of the finalized Lecture. In my experience, putting limits to things clarifies the panorama and favors the debate. Very rarely we have had moderation conflicts in this list--what I personally thank to the general good mood of FISers. Nevertheless as a moderator I have to take care that we are not invaded by a cacophony of messages that block interesting exchanges, as happened in the first years of this list (18 years old!), and that our lecturing invitees do not get into unnecessary burdens... Navigating in between Scylla and Charibdis is not always easy! best--Pedro Bob Logan wrote: Dear Pedro, Terry and Fellow FISers - I was composing the email below when your email appeared asking us not to respond any further to Terry's final remarks. I disagree with this arbitrary cutoff as I was about to send out what follows below. It also seems an abridgement of free speech to ask us not to discuss an issue we might be interested in. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the ground rules of the FIS list but the other listservs I belong to have never attempted to cutoff a topic. There have been occasions where they have asked an individual who posts too often to not turn the list into their own bully pulpit. Anyway as the guy who suggested that we ask Terry to lead a FIS conversation I will exercise the perogative to share my thoughts one more time. I would also be prepared to accept your restriction if you had given us advanced notice with an exact deadline of shutting down this thread. Here is what I had written when you sounded the bell as a death knell to this discussion which is submitted with respect and the undertaking to abide by the referee's decision and not comment on Terry's final remarks although I would love to hear from my colleagues their final thoughts on Terry's teleodynamic approach - Bob In order to respect the only 2 per week constraint here are my comments to the flurry of recent posts in this thread. There is one caveat with which I wish to preface my remarks and it is this: I am a member of Terry research team and therefore I am biased, but I would like to share with my FIS colleagues why I believe the teleodynamic approach that Terry has developed is the best game in town for understanding the origin of life and the nature of information. Pedro wrote on Jan 30: At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be appreciated. Bob's reply: Since Pedro issued the above call for the end of the discussion of Terry's provocative paper there has been a flurry of activity. As The English author Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once wrote: Nothing so concentrates the mind as the hangman's noose! I hope we can carry on a week or two more as some of us are just warming up. The first of the year is a logical starting point for a new discussion thread but it also corresponds to the beginning of a new semester here in Canada and other places in North America. I for one was focussed on launching the new semester and my courses so I respectfully request that we keep the conversation going for awhile longer before we start a new one. Now I have a few comments to support Terry's teleodynamic approach which I present: Joe Brenner wrote later on Jan 30: we can all easily understand and agree that the incorporation of ‘homunculi’, that is, unproven mechanisms, as explanatory, should be avoided. In my view, however, Terry has a small army of homunculi at work (sic!) who insure that his processes of self-organization, self-reconstitution and ‘spontaneous’ self-assembly can take place! The finality of using his simulated autogenic systems is “a rigorous physical foundation upon which” future complex theories of information may be based. If, as I contend, Terry’s approach has failed to take into account the fundamentally dualistic physical properties of real systems, it is hard to see how it could do so. Bob's reply: As much as it pains me to disagree with my friend Joe who is in general in support of Deacon's approach I have to counter his accuasation that Terry has a small army of homunculi at work: There are no homunculi in the autogen model. According to Deacon's approach an incredible
[Fis] Concluding the Lecture!
at closely differ from the ones Terry correctly criticizes, are given a back of the hand dismissal that suggests that the writers may not be familiar enough with them to make the distinction. A point of agreement between Terry and me is that a concept of quantum information should not be mixed with one of thermodynamic information. This does not mean, however, that the some of the dual aspects of quantum entities are not relevant for thermodynamic processes, including the properties, production and transfer of information. Terry is absolutely correct to question the so-called ‘it-from-bit’ theory of information in its simplest form. Again, however, alternatives are available at the heart of which is exactly the ‘overlap’ between physics and information that Pedro calls for, e.g., those of Luhn and myself. I think Krassimir has a good point in concluding that we have a problem of civilization and that all our efforts, scientific and philosophical, should be made with the common good at the center of our preoccupations. This is the theme of the Vienna Summit 2015. Information offers the ground on which standard physical and biological as well as social and psychological reality can meet. It is from the most complex, interactive, recursive aspects of these realities as well as from the simplest that we must learn. Thank you. Best wishes, Joseph Message d'origine De : dea...@berkeley.edu Date : 30/01/2015 - 09:31 (PST) À : lo...@physics.utoronto.ca Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? Thanks to Pedro and Bob for these last few comments. Indeed, like Darwin in 1859 we are still just beginning to formulate one long argument that will need to be progressively refined in the decades to come. The question is where best to begin the task of synthesizing. I too find the metaphor of searching for lost keys quite apropos, but I would beg your indulgence while I add an elaboration to this metaphor that sheds light on the perspective I have offered. Yes, we must at first search close to the light, even though there we will only find vague hints. But, importantly, as we cover more and more territory we will discover that the light progressively brightens. So long as we keep searching and don't walk out into the dark too quickly, skipping over important territory in between, the entire territory will become more and more thoroughly illuminated, searchable, and familiar to us. I believe that the light is brightest in the domain where we can see a clear relation between the two quite different concepts of entropy and the relationship of both to the concept of work. Admittedly, starting so minimally as I have in this essay seems remote from the interests of psychologists, anthropologists, economists and their kin, who demand an account of human-scale information processes, while at the same time appearing to introduce the messiness of semiotic concerns into the seemingly pristine world of information as a simple physical parameter. But of course the problem is to find the best illuminated middle ground between these two extremes, both still bathed in the darkness of simplifying assumptions that make them seem mutually exclusive— separated by darkness. This is what I am trying to accomplish. Though deceptively simple, I believe that the autogenic model system is just sufficiently complex to provide complete illumination of each of the critical defining features of the information concept—sign medium properties (entropies, uncertainty, constraint), reference (aboutness), significance (function, value, normativity), and interpretation (adaptation, intelligence)—while not artificially simplifying the issue by ignoring one or the other of these facets. Because of its simplicity none of these basic concepts are left in the dark as black boxes or excluded as taboo concepts. But of course, working at such a basic level means that the nature of more complex phenomena as thinking, subjectivity, language, and culture (to mention only a few) are not yet well illuminated by this light. This isn't to suggest that other pursuits in these other domains should be abandoned—for they at least clear away some of the underbrush creating paths that will help to ease the linkage between the different subterritories when finally the light brightens (to continue the metaphor). I just believe that this middle level is where the light best illuminates all the critical foundational issues. I don't expect agreement, but so far I haven't felt that the specific components of this proposal have been addressed in this thread. And in these closing days of discussion (as well as in future privately shared emails after this window closes) I hope to receive some suggestions and constructive criticisms pointing to where I might go next with this approach. Thanks
Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? - In Praise of Teleodynamics
Dear Pedro, Terry and Fellow FISers - I was composing the email below when your email appeared asking us not to respond any further to Terry's final remarks. I disagree with this arbitrary cutoff as I was about to send out what follows below. It also seems an abridgement of free speech to ask us not to discuss an issue we might be interested in. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the ground rules of the FIS list but the other listservs I belong to have never attempted to cutoff a topic. There have been occasions where they have asked an individual who posts too often to not turn the list into their own bully pulpit. Anyway as the guy who suggested that we ask Terry to lead a FIS conversation I will exercise the perogative to share my thoughts one more time. I would also be prepared to accept your restriction if you had given us advanced notice with an exact deadline of shutting down this thread. Here is what I had written when you sounded the bell as a death knell to this discussion which is submitted with respect and the undertaking to abide by the referee's decision and not comment on Terry's final remarks although I would love to hear from my colleagues their final thoughts on Terry's teleodynamic approach - Bob In order to respect the only 2 per week constraint here are my comments to the flurry of recent posts in this thread. There is one caveat with which I wish to preface my remarks and it is this: I am a member of Terry research team and therefore I am biased, but I would like to share with my FIS colleagues why I believe the teleodynamic approach that Terry has developed is the best game in town for understanding the origin of life and the nature of information. Pedro wrote on Jan 30: At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be appreciated. Bob's reply: Since Pedro issued the above call for the end of the discussion of Terry's provocative paper there has been a flurry of activity. As The English author Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once wrote: Nothing so concentrates the mind as the hangman's noose! I hope we can carry on a week or two more as some of us are just warming up. The first of the year is a logical starting point for a new discussion thread but it also corresponds to the beginning of a new semester here in Canada and other places in North America. I for one was focussed on launching the new semester and my courses so I respectfully request that we keep the conversation going for awhile longer before we start a new one. Now I have a few comments to support Terry's teleodynamic approach which I present: Joe Brenner wrote later on Jan 30: we can all easily understand and agree that the incorporation of ‘homunculi’, that is, unproven mechanisms, as explanatory, should be avoided. In my view, however, Terry has a small army of homunculi at work (sic!) who insure that his processes of self-organization, self-reconstitution and ‘spontaneous’ self-assembly can take place! The finality of using his simulated autogenic systems is “a rigorous physical foundation upon which” future complex theories of information may be based. If, as I contend, Terry’s approach has failed to take into account the fundamentally dualistic physical properties of real systems, it is hard to see how it could do so. Bob's reply: As much as it pains me to disagree with my friend Joe who is in general in support of Deacon's approach I have to counter his accuasation that Terry has a small army of homunculi at work: There are no homunculi in the autogen model. According to Deacon's approach an incredible co-incidence has occurred in which the two self organizing processes of auto-catalysis and the self assembly of the crystal-like membranes became self-supporting. It is only by a chance event that one can explain how an organization of molecules with properties so different from abiotic matter suddenly became alive, able to propagate its organization and emerge as a self that acts teleonomically in its own interest. That co-incidence is the one in a billion or more chance that the by product of a particular autocatalytic set were also the ingredients for the self assembly of a bi-lipid membrane that could encase the autocatalytic set in a protective membrane and that the by products of that self-assembly process provided the raw materials for the very same autocatalysis. This is not a homunucli but just plain dumb luck or to give it a fancy name an aleatoric event, a one in a trillion event, but given the billion year (or multi-trillion second) time scale it becomes inevitable that such a rare event will occur. The two self-organizing processes that combined to form the purported autogen are due to first order extrinsic constraints. That these two constraints could be mutually
Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?
Dear Bob (and colleagues), It seems to me that you drive the problem home by signaling that the use of the word information is very loose in many of our debates. Actually, you argue if I correctly understand that this is rich: words only obtain meaning within a sentence, and one can import information in differently phrased sentences. :) The concept that is missing in this context is codification. The word information cannot only be used loosely, but also as a reference to a concept with meaning from theoretical perspectives. I understood that in Chinese, one has two words for information: sjin sji and tsjin bao; the former being Shannon-type information, and the latter also meaning intelligence. It seems to that Terrys information concept in these discussions is rather Shannon-type. He adds the point that information is relative to maximum information (which can also be precisely defined using Shannon). The difference between maximum information and maximum information is redundancy. Weaver (1949) already noted that in addition to engineering noise, one may have semantic noise or equivalently semantic redundancy if, for example, the sources of noise are correlated; for example, in language. This refinement can go further in scholarly discourse where the use of language is restricted. Thus, I dont agree that the journey is the purpose in itself; the objective is to move information theory forward as a scientific enterprise. Wo Begriffe fehlen, fuegt zur rechten Zeit ein Wort sich ein. :) Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:07 PM To: Pedro C. Marijuan Cc: 'fis' Subject: Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? Thanks Pedro for your remarks. We have not reached our destination as you point out but the important thing is to enjoy the journey which I certainly have. It is inevitable that with such a slippery concept as information that there will be different destinations depending on the travellers but what I like about FIS in general and the dialogue that Terry prompted in particular is the interesting ideas and good company I encountered along the way. As for your remark about searching where there is light I suggest that we pack a flashlight for the next journey to be led by our tour guide Zhao Chuan. One common theme for understanding the importance of both information and intelligence for me is interpretation and context (figure/ground or pragmatics). Thanks to all especially Terry for a very pleasant journey. - Bob __ Robert K. Logan Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications On 2015-01-30, at 8:25 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be appreciated. Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob and Terry, It is about the point which follows: ...there was no thesis other than the word information is a descriptor for so many different situations and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a jaunt through the countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble. In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case) which together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations of the whole field, or even of the whole great domain of information. But could it be so? Is there such thing as a unitary foundation? My impression is that we are instinctively working where the light is, reminding the trite story of the physicists who has lost the car keys and is looking closest to the street lamp. The point I suggest is that the different informational realms are emergent in the strongest sense: almost no trace of the underlying
Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?
Hi Loet, I love your comment about the two Chinese terms, but I hope you haven't come away with the impression that I have remained in the realm of Shannon information. I have merely tried to take a small cautious step away from “sjin sji” and toward “tsjin bao” -- recognizing that there is much more work to do. — Terry On 1/31/15, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear Bob (and colleagues), It seems to me that you drive the problem home by signaling that the use of the word “information” is very loose in many of our debates. Actually, you argue – if I correctly understand – that this is rich: words only obtain meaning within a sentence, and one can import “information” in differently phrased sentences. :) The concept that is missing in this context is “codification”. The word “information” cannot only be used loosely, but also as a reference to a concept with meaning from theoretical perspectives. I understood that in Chinese, one has two words for information: “sjin sji” and “tsjin bao”; the former being Shannon-type information, and the latter also meaning intelligence. It seems to that Terry’s information concept in these discussions is rather Shannon-type. He adds the point that information is relative to maximum information (which can also be precisely defined using Shannon). The difference between maximum information and maximum information is redundancy. Weaver (1949) already noted that in addition to engineering noise, one may have semantic noise or – equivalently – semantic redundancy if, for example, the sources of noise are correlated; for example, in language. This refinement can go further in scholarly discourse where the use of language is restricted. Thus, I don’t agree that the journey is the purpose in itself; the objective is to move information theory forward as a scientific enterprise. “Wo Begriffe fehlen, fuegt zur rechten Zeit ein Wort sich ein.” :) Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:07 PM To: Pedro C. Marijuan Cc: 'fis' Subject: Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? Thanks Pedro for your remarks. We have not reached our destination as you point out but the important thing is to enjoy the journey which I certainly have. It is inevitable that with such a slippery concept as information that there will be different destinations depending on the travellers but what I like about FIS in general and the dialogue that Terry prompted in particular is the interesting ideas and good company I encountered along the way. As for your remark about searching where there is light I suggest that we pack a flashlight for the next journey to be led by our tour guide Zhao Chuan. One common theme for understanding the importance of both information and intelligence for me is interpretation and context (figure/ground or pragmatics). Thanks to all especially Terry for a very pleasant journey. - Bob __ Robert K. Logan Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications On 2015-01-30, at 8:25 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be appreciated. Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob and Terry, It is about the point which follows: ...there was no thesis other than the word information is a descriptor for so many different situations and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a jaunt through the countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble. In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case) which together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations of the whole field
[Fis] Concluding the Lecture?
Dear Terry and colleagues, At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be appreciated. Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob and Terry, It is about the point which follows: ...there was no thesis other than the word information is a descriptor for so many different situations and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a jaunt through the countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble. In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case) which together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations of the whole field, or even of the whole great domain of information. But could it be so? Is there such thing as a unitary foundation? My impression is that we are instinctively working where the light is, reminding the trite story of the physicists who has lost the car keys and is looking closest to the street lamp. The point I suggest is that the different informational realms are emergent in the strongest sense: almost no trace of the underlying information realms would surface. Each realm has to invent throughout its own engines of invention the different informational organizational principles that sustain its existence. It is no obligate that there will be a successful outcome In the extent to which this plurality of foundations is true, solving the microphysical part would be of little help to adumbrating the neuronal/psychological or the social information arena. The roadmap Bob suggests is an obligatory exploration to advance; we may disagree in the ways and means, but not in the overall goal. It is a mind boggling exercise as we have to confront quite different languages and styles of thinking. For instance, the next session we will have at FIS (in a few weeks) is an attempt of an excursion on Intelligence Science. Presented by Zhao Chuan, the aim is of confronting the phenomenon of intelligence from a global perspective amalgamating science (artificial intelligence), emotions, and art (poetic and pictorial). Not easy, but we will try Anyhow, Terry, we much appreciate your insights and the responses you have produced along the Lecture. It was a nice intellectual exercise. Best wishes to all---Pedro - 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 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
