Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics? - Species specific?

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Jerry, 

 

At the risk of being jailed by Pedro, let me point to the beauty of the example:

 

>From a molecular biological perspective, the assertion of “same encoding” of 
>information is contrary to fact.

 

OK: the coding of the information is species specific; both theoretically and 
empirically. I fully agree. 

But this argument cannot carry the inference that the information (to be coded) 
is species specific. 

 

If one wishes to define information as “a difference which makes a difference”, 
reference systems for both differences have to be specified. Differences(1) can 
make a difference(2) for a system of reference (receiver). The latter system 
can receive the information and code it, or the information can be discarded as 
noise. 

 

Noise or probabilistic entropy can be defined as  differences(1) without 
difference(2). A set of differences(1) can be considered as a probability 
distribution which is yet meaningless; that is, Shannon-type information. 

 

Distinguishing between the coding (= diff2 operating on diff1) and the coded 
differences(1) is a condition for analytical clarity. Otherwise, one uses the 
same word for two different concepts and confusion is expected to prevail. The 
idea that one can reconcile two analytical different concept in a “universal” 
theory is mistaken.

 

Best,

Loet 

 

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics? - Species specific?

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List:

> 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.
> 

Pedro’s assertion that biological information is species specific is amply 
supported by massive amounts of molecular biological evidence.
One of the critical “differences that make a difference” between species is 
that each member of a specific species  has a DNA sequence that is compatible 
with reproduction within the species. (Even though the concept of a species is 
that of homology of individuals, not homogeneity of individuals.)

From a molecular biological perspective, the assertion of “same encoding” of 
information is contrary to fact.

Cheers

jerry



> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Alex Hankey  wrote:
> 
> 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