Re: [Fis] : Reality of Information World?!!!

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Hello,

May I add a comment, Arne?

: Quite right - but the reality is not an actor engaged in acts of 
information

exchange.

Not an actor. But a huge network of actors engaged in information exchange.

Best regards,
Gordana


Arne Kjellman wrote:

Thank you for you reply Andrei:

So I would not like to consider fields as material structures, but as 
information structures.


: To me a structure (regardless what is the essence of it) is a 
model - something imposed on human experience by a mind.



The dichomoty REAL/UNREAL  -- yes!


: If I read you right I think we then are agreed then that "real" 
depends on a consensual definition - and that it is NOT up to 
experimental physics to decide in this matter. But then is also 
"reality" an outcome of a set of social decisions - a pure belief?  In 
case it then doesn't make sense to say that "reality" (or any object 
at all) is pre-given to man in his acts of observation.  That is to 
say to proceed from the assumption that there is a "unary world given 
to man" is highly misleading.  To my mind it would be nicer be able to 
show that the individual knower refers to his personal experience 
(priverse) when he says "universe" - and he has by years of training 
learnt to speak about (model) his priverse in a way that actually 
refers to some common behind-lying stability - even if we cannot know 
anything else but the feeling of this stability (i.e., cannot 
explicate this experience by the use of concepts).  In that view no 
"information" is passed over from reality but simply rises in the mind 
(by his acts of conceptualisation) of the thinker. THE BIT RISES IN 
THE MIND OF THE THINKER by means of his acts of conceptualisation and 
can be used in communication by other thinkers trained in a similar 
way of conceptualisation.


I also agree with Igor - but to my mind something is missing here:.


Please allow me to exercise my formal "Marxist" education.

The world out there does not know the word "matter". Matter is a primary
philosophical concept, our axiome that we introduce to deal (to 
model) the

real world. The concepts of "field", "particle" are derivatives of this
axiom, and space and time are also axioms. Therefore if we go down to 
the

basics, (deviating from the applied science which deals with matter
casually), we should always keep in mind that we may change the 
axioms if

necessary. The world will not change, only its description.

: I fully agree - but you forget to tell that the axioms in use must
indubitably defined. And they are not - neither "matter" nor "real" or
"information". This is so because uncertainty of definition causes
uncertainty of meaning and language. The point of my asking the 
question was
to show that the eventual definitions (that we are lacking of today) 
must be

based on scientific consensus, which these FIS-discussions clearly shows.


The world out there does not know the word "matter".
The world will not change, only its description.
: See how easy a slip of the tounge can accidentally set the stage 
of the
discussion - use of the conception of a "unary world" at the same time 
proposes the use of a
realist language. In the subject-oriented approach there are as many 
worlds

(priverses) as there are living beings - so confusion easily occurs..


One of the ways to do so is to introduce information as a primary
category, which therefore needs no explanation or proof.
: Of course even a primary category needs of an explanation - we 
need an

explanation how of how we should use the term so introduced.(its doesn't
explain the "reality" but on the other hand the model terms we use.) 
In order to answer a
question like "Is X an real?" we need an explicit definition of real 
--- or when asking "Is

Q information?" we need an explicit definition of information - otherwise
these questions are clearly undecidable - and unscientific - and can 
be the

subject of debate for ever.


If we think a bit, any interaction is in fact exchange of information.
: Quite right - but the reality is not an actor engaged in acts of 
information

exchange. See my reply to Andrei above

Best wishes
Arne



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] : Reality of Information World?!!!

[Gordana Dodig Crnkovic]

insight REALITY=STABILITY
does not come until you dare to leave the realist’s way of thinking
eventually by questioning its fundaments.  This
state of mature thinking is bound to happen even at a later stage in
life – however it seems most scientists do not even bother. 
  
  >The world is the same
during this short period of time we are here on earth. Otherwise, no
science, and no human communication would ever be possible without
>the existence of that fast point - constantly existing and
essentially stable physical world. I am realist, not unusual for a
physicist.
  : This sounds very dogmatic to me – an
attitude one often find among realists unfortunately. You have to dare
to question the basis of our own realistic thinking – and then you will
see the inconsistencies of this framework hopefully. Otherwise you have
to put your trust in Goedel. 
  
  > What
I claim is that you don't even see without the help from
others. 
   
  :  Can the newly
born baby see or not? Of course I can see without the help of others –
don’t you think a bat sees? I claim I can even formulate thoughts as
newly born – well even explicate myself without the help of others. We
usually cry when we are newly born – we explicate a feeling (feel) –
don’t you think so? What I cannot do however is to COMMUNICATE WITH
OTHERS WITHOUT THEIR HELP – but this is quite a different matter. 
  
  
  >Do you remember the first labs in
microscopy? You have to find and "see" an object say an eye of a fly.
>But nearly everybody in the class finds whatever spurious picture
it might be there - a grain of dust, anything, until the teacher helps
us to see the right thing we are >supposed to see. The moral of this
story is: nothing like subjective relation of a person with a world is
possible, and even if it would be possible that single person
>without any relationship to the rest of humanity would be an
autist. 
  : It seem me as a rushed conclusion.  To me this story says that unless you have a theory
(the “right” theory?) you cannot perceive what you think your teacher
perceives. From where did the teacher get his theory? Does he has
access to the truth bu any means? Well to me this is a lesson in the
theory-laden-ness of perception – which is actually the fundamental
cause of human incapacity to decide what is real from unreal.  
  
>This summer I am writing my PhD thesis on information semantics
(which is characterized as computer science but is a mix with theory of
science and >philosophy) , which also includes some of my papers on
scientific methodology. (My first PhD was in theoretical physics, so
you can understand where my >philosophical orientations come from).
Soon I will have a readable version of my dissertation (& a book on
the same topic will be published afterwards) that I can >send to the
list for comments.
   
  
  >I think the
discussion was rewarding about quantum computing and measurement up to
now, and I join Arne in saying that Andrei is one of very few
physicists (or >scientists for that part) who dares to test his own
premises. 
  : Well at least something
we can agree upon – but I sincerely hope you dare to test you own
premises.
   
  Best wishes,
   Arne
   
  
  
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

To:
Andrei Khrennikov 
Cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent:
Thursday, July 20, 2006 6:59 AM
Subject:
Re: [Fis] : Reality of Information World?!!!


Dear Andrei and Arne,

I think it can be a new very productive paradigm now when one can
afford to treat those processes individually so and not anonymize them
making simplifying assumption that they in average are the same. We
might now start to be interested in what they do when they keep
individual behaviors and what is even more important individual
strategies - that might be especially relevant in biological systems.

To me, that is the way to most naturally integrate the observer.

I think that Arnes assumption that the observer somehow innocently on
her own approaches the world and thus gets her own personal impressions
or measurement results or sensory data from the world - that is totally
impossible!

As an individual you approach the world with the conglomerate of tools
and theories that are materialization of the collective enterprise.
So you are in the loop, where you may just contribute with n+1st
attempt to approach THE SAME WORLD. And that is very essential.
The world is the same during this short period of time we are here on
earth. Otherwise, no science, and no human communication would ever be
possible without the existence of that fast point - constantly existing
and essentially stable physical world. I am realist, not unusual for a
physicist.
What I claim is that you don't even see without the help
from others. 

Do you remember the first labs in microscopy? You have to find
and "see" an

[Fis] Investigations into Information Semantics and Ethics of Computing

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Collegues!
I use the opportunity given by Andrei to add a little bit of
information.
This summer, in several discussions, I referred to the book I was
writing (my PhD thesis in Computing and Philosophy):
Investigations into Information Semantics and Ethics of Computing, that
now is published under:

http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_mdh_diva-153-2__fulltext.pdf
( abstract:  http://www.diva-portal.org/mdh/abstract.xsql?dbid=153 )

You will find many reflections of FIS exchanges in it. 
I am thankful for your comments, opinions, criticism, etc.

Best regards,
Gordana

__
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Senior Lecturer
Mälardalen University,
Department of Computer Science and Electronics
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/
 


Andrei Khrennikov wrote:

  Dear Collegues!

During summer holidays we were involved in interesting debates on
Quantum and Classical Information Theories (which were tarnsformed
finally into a deep discussion on meaning of informartion and its reality).

I would like to present some concluding remarks. After this I propose
that everybody who is interested can send his own concluding remarks and
after that (may be in one--two weeks) session will be closed. I recall
my viewpoint: 

We all work with models of reality. We cannot <>,
but only describe it by using this or that model. The most advanced way
of modeling of reality is mathematical modeling. Sometimes reality is
even identified with a mathematical model. This happened with the modern
picture of space-time reality which is based on using of real continuum.
I pointed out that there were attempts to propose alternative models of
reality even for space-time, e.g., p-adic models. 


There are two main mathematical models of information:


a). Classical thermodynamical model in that information is defined from
entropy and the latter is based on the Kolmogorov measure-theoretic
definition of probability.

b). Quantum information model in that information is defined by using
linear algebra (operator theory).


Mathematical structures of models are different. In particular, QI is
noncommutative theory. The natural question arises: 

<>


The conventional point of view is that there are two extremely different 
domains of physics, quantum and classical. The first one is about
microworld and the second is about macroworld. This is the Copenhagen
viewpoint: there are microscopic systems and macroscopic observers.
It induces many problems and paradoxes, but nevertheless it is
convenient in applications and it dominates in physics. One of the main
problems is the boundary between the quantum and classical domains. 

In the quantum domain a system can be in a superposition of a few
different states. This is precisely why quantum computers should work
quicker than classical ones. In classical it could not. For example, as
was pointed by Roger Penrose, a single neuron could not be at the same
time in the superposition of two states: firing and nonfiring. 

The famous Schrodinger cat was created by Schrrodinger to show
absurdness of Copenhagen interpretation. This example was proposed in
his letter to Einstein and it was a modification of an example from one
of Einsteins letters about pistolet and bomb. The main idea was that if
one assumes superposition of states for microscopic systems one would be
always able to lift this superposition to macroscopic systems.


My point was that two information theories are based on two probability
theories: classical Kolmogorov measure-theoretic probability and quantum 
von Neumann Hilbert space probability. In the second case we operate not
directly with probabilities but with complex probability amplitudes.

Some people think that quantum probability is more complicated than the
classical one. I do not think so. Theory of Lebesgues integral is
essentially deeper and more complicated from the mathematical viewpoint
than linear algebra, especially in finite dimensional spaces which are
used in quantum information theory.


I am trying to sell the idea that the whole quantum enterprise is about
simplification of description of extremely complex physical phenomena. 
I developed models in that the quantum probabilistic model appears as a
projection of more complex classical statistical model. 

Then I proceed: Wau! In such a case it seems that quantum probability
theory and quantum information could be used everywhere where we could
not provide the complete description of phenomena and we just try to
create a simplified representation in complex Hilbert space. 

So one can apply quantum information theory everywhere, from financial
mathematics to genetics.

Finally, about the last part of discussion about reality of information.
I understood that my rather restricted philosophic basis was not
sufficient to debate this problem on the same level as opponents of
non--reality of information. But I stay on my position: information is
not less re

Re: [Fis] FW: fis post acknowledgement

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Works?


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christophe Menant [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 12:07 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] FW: fis post acknowledgement

It works

> Subject: fis post acknowledgement
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:46:25 +0200
>
> Your message entitled
>
> FW: fis-spam-problem
>
> was successfully received by the fis mailing list.
>
> List info page: https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> Your preferences: 
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/options/fis/christophe.menant%40hotmail.fr


Centralisez tous vos comptes mails dans Hotmail ! Créez un compte Hotmail, 
c'est gratuit !
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] The Fascination of Art

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear colleagues,

I wonder if you can recommend me sources - articles, books, 
presentations/iPods/videos
of your own or otherwise that we could have as resource in the following course:
http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil/ in Computing and Philosophy (where 
computing is understood as information processing)-
anything in Pphilosophy of information and computing would be interesting.

Best wishes,
Gordana
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/



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

[Fis] EUROPEAN COMPUTING AND PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE, BARCELONA 2009

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Colleagues,



July 2nd - 4th, 2009 European Congress on Philosophy & Computing, ECAP09 will 
be held at UA Barcelona.

Several of you have already been involved with previous European CAP 
conferences, and all of you are most welcome
to take part and spread the word widely.



All the details about ECAP09 may be found at:

http://ia-cap.org/e-cap09/programme.htm



With best wishes,

Gordana






Dr Dr Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Associate Professor
Mälardalen University
Sweden
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering<http://www.mdh.se/idt/>
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/


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

Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Pedro,

Happy New Year to you too.
Thank you very much for this interesting reference.
Fascinating how many fields converge nowadays!

Based on your mail and without having read the book yet,
I have one thought.

You say:
"3.  Thereafter, the coordination dynamics deals with "informational
quantities" that transcend the medium through which the parts
communicate. The "binding" or coupling is mediated by information and
not by conventional forces (or not only)"

But isn't that exchange of information carrier the way physical forces
conventionally are - exchange forces?
Particles that are exchanged in particle physics are information carriers
(or "messages" if one so will).

Best regards,
Gordana




________
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Associate Professor
Mälardalen University
Sweden
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc



-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: den 15 januari 2009 14:20
To: fis
Subject: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?

Dear FIS colleagues,

Notwithstanding the delay, Happy New Year to All!

Although the year has not started terrificly (there have been negative
news regarding the planned conference in Vienna, and also other
organizing initiatives seem to be in stand by), it does not mean that
things will go necessarily in the wrongway... Well, having a glance on a
relatively recent book (2004) about "Coordination Dynamics" edited by
V.K. Jirsa and Scott Kelso, it was a surprise finding a short and dense
Preface synthesizing the basic tenets of the proposed new field: most
contents were related to information (rather than a "science of
coordination" one wonders whether they were attempting a new science of
Information). I summarize their eight "main ideas" presented in a dense,
three pages text:

--
0. The goal of Coordination Dynamics, the science of coordination, is to
describe, explain and predict how patterns of coordination form, adapt,
persist and change in natural systems ultimately how things come
together in space and time, and how they split apart.

1. The basic patterns of coordination relate to self-organization
processes.

2. Those self-organization processes can be captured by coordination or
collective variables that evolve in time: patterns dynamics capable of
generating a rich repertoire of behaviors.

3.  Thereafter, the coordination dynamics deals with "informational
quantities" that transcend the medium through which the parts
communicate. The "binding" or coupling is mediated by information and
not by conventional forces (or not only)

4. Coordination Dynamics offers an explanation for the origin of
meaningful information, beyond the binary digits (bits),  by coordinated
states, metastability regimes, and coexisting tendencies.

5. It also provide foundations for explaining the biological origins of
agency and consciousness: information once created and "stored" can
direct, guide and modify  the existing coordination dynamics.

6. Information plays a specific and dual role: it may stabilize
coordination states under conditions in which they are unstable and
susceptible to global change; and it can also destabilize such states in
order to fit the need of the organism or the current demands of the
situation.

7. Coordination Dynamics offers a way to connect levels of organizations
out from the lawful coupling among components: it advocates a philosophy
of "constructive reductionism".

8. Ubiquity of Coordination Dynamics: between genes and proteins, within
and between different regions of the brain, between an organism and its
environment, socially, etc. It offers the intriguing possibility that
what we learn about the Coordination Dynamics in one realm may aid in
understanding another.
-

One can easily disagree with some points, write them differently, or
change the focus; but the emerging synthesis looks brave, and has some
merit. At least, the impact it is achieving looks remarkable (previous
decades of synergetics and other similar fields help a bit). At FIS we
have rarely attempted the discussion of a succinct synthesis, and of
course not have appended a whole book with related works... it is not a
bad idea to keep in mind, maybe just as a New Year proposal.

best wishes

Pedro


Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50.009 Zaragoza. España
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.

Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Loet,

I agree with you.
The goal is not to reduce everything to physics and to stay at elementary 
particle level.
But the good thing is to be able to go down to elementary particle level with 
the same principle.
How to build up understanding of the whole architecture of existing things, 
physical objects (including biological ones),
minds, societies - is a question of complex systems and those all seem to be 
organized via exchange of information.
Best regards,
Gordana




From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 16 januari 2009 19:47
To: 'Pedro C. Marijuan'; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?

Dear Gordana, Pedro, and colleagues,

That would be unfortunate because a reduction of the information-theoretical 
approach to physics unnecessarily sacrifices explanatory power. (As would by 
the way, a reduction to biology or any other substantive theory.) At issue is 
--as you correctly note-- the autopoiesis model itself which allows for 
coordination at different systems level. The formalisms allow us to move from 
one level to another heuristically, and thus to specify if necessary 
counter-intuitively.

For example, the market can be considered as a social coordination system with 
its own dynamics. The coordination with other coordination mechanisms by 
various forms of couplings can also be studied using the 
information-theoretical approach because the expected information content of a 
distribution is yet content-free. The specification of a system of reference 
provides the (Shannon-type) information with meaning. For example, when H is 
multiplied with the Boltzmann constant, the entropy is expressed in 
Joule/Kelvin and physics is the system of reference. However, this is a special 
case. Joule and degrees have no clear meaning in the case of the operation of 
the market as a coordination mechanism.

Best wishes,


Loet




Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
l...@leydesdorff.net  ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/



From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 2:46 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?
Dear Gordana and Loet,

This is what the editors of the book literally say:

"The third main idea is that Coordination Dynamics deals with informational 
quantities that transcend the medium through which the parts communicate. 
Evidence shows that things may be coupled by mechanical forces, by light, by 
sound, by smell, by touch and by intention. In Coordination Dynamics, "binding" 
or coupling is mediated by information, not --or not only-- by conventional 
forces. Such information may not only be of a material but also of a structural 
or topological nature. It may cause qualitative changes in the dynamics of the 
coordinating parts and new states to emerge. Hence, "bound" coordinative states 
in Coordination Dynamics are informational, and information that changes bound 
states is "meaningful" to the system." (Preface, p. IX)


I agree with Gordana that it may support a pan-physicalist approach to 
information, and vice versa, a pan-informationalist approach to physics too. 
Besides, the ongoing conceptualization of meaning looks rather meager. From my 
view, another important objection to the "8 main ideas" is the absence of any 
reference to self-production (very different from self-organization!); the 
life-cycle notion is also missing...

Linking with the discussion that Michel started weeks ago, rather than 
situating a similar recollection of main ideas about the term "information", it 
could be  more interesting putting into question what it means "being 
informational". Say, the adjective as more holistic than the name. The whole 
process around the message (generation & needs, coding, emission, transmission, 
reception, decoding, interpretation, action...) becomes the natural universe of 
information science, rather than the focus on any single conceptual item 
(wherever we may be willing to situate "information"). Curiously, 
"informational" in English & in Spanish does not exist (only "informative", I 
think, but it means something completely different). What "informational" would 
be indicating, roughly, is that an entity self-constructs itself through the 
coupling of inner and environmental signals... as happens with cells, 
organisms, enterprises, etc.

best regards

Pedro



"3.  Thereafter, the coordination dynamics deals with "informational

quantities" that transcend the medium through which the parts

communicate. The "binding" or coupling is mediated by information and

not by conventional forces (or not only)"



But isn't that exchange of information carrier the way physical for

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear all,

Regarding the very interesting discussion of "it" from "bit" and vice versa.

Usually each level of information processing (semantic, algorithmic, 
implementational) presupposes some "it" in which "bit" is implemented. In 
computing, recursions must have a bottom.

Could it be the case that on the very fundamental level, "it" and "bit" cannot 
be distinguished at all?
They simply are an "it-bit" like in Informational Structural Realism of Floridi 
who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an informational 
structure.

Fluctuons being quantum-mechanical phenomena have already dual wave-particle 
nature.
Why cannot they be "it-bit" as well?

Best,
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 25 september 2010 10:48
To: 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

Dear Joe,

Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are "its", that is, 
energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is 
certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the 
same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a 
non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where 
something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the 
material-energetic and non-material aspects of information.

Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon's concept of 
information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, the 
Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality.

One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with the 
biologically inspired concept of information as "a difference which makes a 
difference" (Bateson). This is observed information by a system which can 
provide meaning to the information.

I would not call this "anti-realist", but "anti-positivist". The specification 
in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as different from res 
extensa). All of physics also has this epistemological status. All other 
science, too, but sometimes positivism is ideologically prevailing.

Best wishes,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net  ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/


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

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Rafael,


Ø  Otherwise bits turns into digital metaphysics



Not necessarily if we take that dual nature seriously. They are both waves and 
particles.

I have also written in that sense several times, among others in

http://mdh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:120541/FULLTEXT01


Dear Loet,



Ø  The it-part is in the "structure" which assumes the specification of a 
system of reference.

In evolutionary terms: structure is deterministic/selective; Shannon-type 
information measures only variation/uncertainty.



I agree with you. And complementary part "bit" comes from its dynamics.



Best,

Gordana




Best wishes,
Gordana

From: Rafael Capurro [mailto:raf...@capurro.de]
Sent: den 25 september 2010 11:55
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Cc: Loet Leydesdorff; 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

dear Gordana

just because the bit-view of reality one possible view is. Otherwise bits turns 
into digital metaphysics.
Floridi: he is contradictory. He says/said that the infosphere is not the 
cybetspace, then yes, then no... Then he says that forms are on a "higher level 
of abstraction" that bit-forms... which is what Plato would say and said (but 
much better than Floridi), the digital infosphere being only one possibility of 
forms, then he says...

best

Rafael


Dear all,

Regarding the very interesting discussion of "it" from "bit" and vice versa.

Usually each level of information processing (semantic, algorithmic, 
implementational) presupposes some "it" in which "bit" is implemented. In 
computing, recursions must have a bottom.

Could it be the case that on the very fundamental level, "it" and "bit" cannot 
be distinguished at all?
They simply are an "it-bit" like in Informational Structural Realism of Floridi 
who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an informational 
structure.

Fluctuons being quantum-mechanical phenomena have already dual wave-particle 
nature.
Why cannot they be "it-bit" as well?

Best,
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 25 september 2010 10:48
To: 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; 
fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

Dear Joe,

Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are "its", that is, 
energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is 
certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the 
same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a 
non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where 
something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the 
material-energetic and non-material aspects of information.

Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon's concept of 
information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, the 
Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality.

One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with the 
biologically inspired concept of information as "a difference which makes a 
difference" (Bateson). This is observed information by a system which can 
provide meaning to the information.

I would not call this "anti-realist", but "anti-positivist". The specification 
in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as different from res 
extensa). All of physics also has this epistemological status. All other 
science, too, but sometimes positivism is ideologically prevailing.

Best wishes,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/







___

fis mailing list

fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>

https://webmail.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)

Director, Steinbeis-Transfer-Institute Information Ethics (STI-IE), Karlsruhe, 
Germany (http://sti-ie.de)

Distinguished Researcher in Information Ethics, School of Information Studies, 
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA

President, 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<mail

Re: [Fis] Fluc replies - more

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Kevin, Dear all!

What I was thinking about, referring to Floridi's Informational Structural 
Realism is his claim that reality is an informational structure
"A preferable alternative is provided by an informational approach to 
structural realism, according to which knowledge of the world is knowledge of 
its structures. The most reasonable ontological commitment turns out to be in 
favour of an interpretation of reality as the totality of structures 
dynamically interacting with each other." Floridi [11] p. 151.
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/4/878/pdf
I could have referred to physicists Zeilinger, Lloyd, or Vedral and number of 
other authors who would say that reality fundamentally is informational.

Now, the question of objective vs. subjective levels (levels of organization 
vs. levels of abstraction). One may be interested in the first place in the 
epistemological aspect and then focus on what an agent can see from that 
informational reality. On the other hand one may put the focus on the 
ontological side and ask what informational reality an agent can see. Those two 
things are closely related. I agree with you that if we only focus on levels of 
abstraction we will miss something, as LOA only reflect epistemological side. 
Besides epistemology we need ontology, which is reflected in Levels of 
organization LOO.

What I find interesting is the interplay of epistemological and ontological 
informational structures. Those informational structures should be seen in 
conjunction with computational processes. All of that is also closely connected 
to the question of it or bit, or the relationships between information and 
matter/energy.

Present FIS discussion shows that there is an interest and a lot of things to 
do in order to elucidate our current understanding of the relationship.
I would like to kindly invite you to contribute to the following special issue 
of the journal Information:
. http://www.mdpi.com/journal/information/special_issues/matter/

With best regards,
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Kevin Kirby
Sent: den 29 september 2010 00:29
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] FW: Fluc replies - more


All,

It is fascinating to follow the trails here from fluctuons to the it/bit issue 
and beyond.

As I read Conrad's theory, a fluctuon is not a prima facie informational 
object; it is not bit-like, or qubit-like for that matter.  It is as "it" as 
any particle -- even a virtual particle, a vacuum fluctuation -- can ever be. 
(Joe and I agree here.) That being said, fluctuons could still find a home in a 
dual-aspect theory like that which Gordana has been developing (in the same way 
as electrons, protons, etc.)

Is Conrad an idealist? A materialist? Well, in much of his work he emphasized 
the special nature of matter, how it is the material substrate that makes 
evolution work. It was not, pace Dennett, the dumb Darwinian algorithm of 
variation + selection, but the amazingly productive degeneracy and verticality 
of the organization of the physical world that made it work.

On the other hand, he also believed in what he called  "the principle of 
philosophic relativity" (in a paper of the same name in 1997) or later, the 
"principle of antinomic freedom". He said that he wanted to strive for a theory 
that was good in a variety of "philosophical coordinate systems."  (The 
particular issue that motivated this position dealt with free will versus 
determinism.)  Well, despite that stance, I still think he was a materialist of 
a sort.

The overview by Kevin Clark on how he related Kaluza-Klein induced matter 
theories to biophysics is tantalizing, and it certainly strikes one as in the 
spirit of Conrad's work.  He did believe that the Ricci tensor, for example, 
would be interpreted in terms of density in his masson seas, and I suppose this 
could be consistent with some sort of induction down from 5D space into 
ordinary spacetime.  (But this quickly goes far beyond my expertise here.)  I 
do wish we could get more gravitational physicists to tease apart Conrad's 
ideas -- separating what could work from what is pleasing but a dead end.

But as Koichiro points out in his closing recollection, one need not look only 
to the graviton here.

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. Fluctuons come in to biology because life relies on subtle 
conformation changes of proteins, the tactile dance of enzymes, and quantum 
superposition effects play roles here, as well as fluctuations in the vacuum 
seas.  This is where Conrad daringly closes the loop: in this low-mass 
high-information regime of biomolecules we see a striking similarity to the 
high-mass regime near black holes: the chasing of unreachable self-consist

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Colleagues,

Relating information with intelligence seems to me important for several 
reasons. I will try to suggest that intelligence might be a good conceptual 
tool if we want to anchor our understanding of information and knowledge in the 
natural world. 
Yixin mentions the problem of three approaches to AI which exist independently, 
based on the methodological doctrine of "divide and conquer". We agree that 
"divide and conquer" is just not enough, it is the movement in one direction, 
and what is needed is the full cycle -bottom up and top down - if we are to 
understand biological systems. 

The appropriate model should be generative - it should be able to produce the 
observed behaviors, such as done by Agent Based Models (ABM) which includes 
individual agents and their interactions, where the resulting global behavior 
in its turn affects agents' individual behavior. Unlike static objects that 
result from a "divide and conquer" approach, agents in ABM are dynamic. They 
allow for the influence from bottom up and back circularly. Central for living 
organisms is the dynamics of the relationships between the parts and the whole.

Shannon's theory of communication is very successful in modeling communication 
between systems, but it is a theory that presupposes that communication exists 
and that mechanisms of communication are known. On the other hand if we want to 
answer the question why those systems communicate at all and what made them 
develop different mechanisms of communication we have to go to a more 
fundamental level of description where we find information processes and 
structures in biological systems. Natural computation such as described by 
Rozenberg and Kari in "The many facets of natural computing" 
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~lila/Natural-Computing-Review.pdf includes information 
processing in living organisms.

Generative models of intelligence may be based on info-computational approach 
to the evolution of living systems. Three basic steps in this construction are 
as follows:
. The world on its basic level is potential information. 
(I agree with Guy on his information realism)
. Dynamics of the world is computation which in general is information 
processing (natural computationalism or pancomputationalism)
. Intelligence is a potential for (meaningful) action in the world. (I agree 
with Josph)

The minimal claim would be that there is no intelligence without information. 
For an agent, intelligence is the ability to face the world in a meaningful way 
and it increases with the number of different ways an agent is able to respond 
with. (This is a statistical argument: in a dynamical world, ability of an 
agent to respond to a change in several different ways increases its chances 
for survival.)
Back to the question of Raquel: can a simple organism be ascribed intelligence? 
- which Pedro suggests to answer in the positive by broadening the concept of 
intelligence. I agree with this proposed generalization for several reasons.

Maturana and Varela conflate life itself with cognition (to be alive is to 
cognize). Similarly, we can connect the development of life (towards more and 
more complex organisms) with intelligence (if an organism acts meaningfully in 
the world, we say it acts intelligently; meaningfulness has degrees and so has 
intelligence). In that approach intelligence would be the property of an 
organism which gives it a potential to develop increasingly more complex 
informational structures and increasingly more complex (meaningful) responses 
to the environment. One can argue that increasing the repertoire of meaningful 
responses (interactions with the world) increases agents potential for survival 
and success.

As a consequence this approach makes way for a basic quantitative measure of 
intelligence as a level of complexity of an organism providing the diversity of 
its responses.( Of course this measure of intelligence is not in the sense of 
IQ or specific individual's "smartness" but of the species increasing 
capability to flourish.)

This view also agrees with the understanding that even in humans there are 
several different intelligences - linguistic, logical, kinesthetic, naturalist, 
emotional, interpersonal, intrapersonal, spatial, musical, etc. If the 
complexity of the information processing structures and diversity of 
interactions with the environment are the measure, then plants and by the same 
token even single cells may qualify as intelligent in the sense of naturalist 
and kinesthetic intelligence.

In sum, there are different ways to define intelligence and information 
dependent on what we want them to do for us. Concepts are tools used by 
theories. Theories are tools used by people. Many different concepts address 
different aspects of the world and seem to fill their purpose. 
>From an info-computational approach we may hope to provide a base for the 
>construction of generative explanatory models for the development of 

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

I suppose semioticians are interested in an individual human's sense-making in 
a context of human society.
Or perhaps a social animal's sense making.
What I think about is how life forms organize to produce increasingly complex 
patterns of information processing.
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: den 13 november 2010 23:03
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

Concerning:

>The minimal claim would be that there is no intelligence without information. 
>For an agent, intelligence is the ability to face the >world in a meaningful 
>way and it increases with the number of different ways an agent is able to 
>respond with.

  It seems to me that this implies, in any non-mechanistic system, semiosis -- 
that is to say, a process of interpretation by the agent.  Thus, intelligence 
would be related to the viewpoint of the agent, which would be located by its 
needs.  Semioticians, however, have not been much engaged by this concept.  
Hoffmeyer claims that it is especially a social skill.

STAN



On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

Relating information with intelligence seems to me important for several 
reasons. I will try to suggest that intelligence might be a good conceptual 
tool if we want to anchor our understanding of information and knowledge in the 
natural world.
Yixin mentions the problem of three approaches to AI which exist independently, 
based on the methodological doctrine of "divide and conquer". We agree that 
"divide and conquer" is just not enough, it is the movement in one direction, 
and what is needed is the full cycle -bottom up and top down - if we are to 
understand biological systems.

The appropriate model should be generative - it should be able to produce the 
observed behaviors, such as done by Agent Based Models (ABM) which includes 
individual agents and their interactions, where the resulting global behavior 
in its turn affects agents' individual behavior. Unlike static objects that 
result from a "divide and conquer" approach, agents in ABM are dynamic. They 
allow for the influence from bottom up and back circularly. Central for living 
organisms is the dynamics of the relationships between the parts and the whole.

Shannon's theory of communication is very successful in modeling communication 
between systems, but it is a theory that presupposes that communication exists 
and that mechanisms of communication are known. On the other hand if we want to 
answer the question why those systems communicate at all and what made them 
develop different mechanisms of communication we have to go to a more 
fundamental level of description where we find information processes and 
structures in biological systems. Natural computation such as described by 
Rozenberg and Kari in "The many facets of natural computing" 
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~lila/Natural-Computing-Review.pdf includes information 
processing in living organisms.

Generative models of intelligence may be based on info-computational approach 
to the evolution of living systems. Three basic steps in this construction are 
as follows:
. The world on its basic level is potential information.
(I agree with Guy on his information realism)
. Dynamics of the world is computation which in general is information 
processing (natural computationalism or pancomputationalism)
. Intelligence is a potential for (meaningful) action in the world. (I agree 
with Josph)

The minimal claim would be that there is no intelligence without information. 
For an agent, intelligence is the ability to face the world in a meaningful way 
and it increases with the number of different ways an agent is able to respond 
with. (This is a statistical argument: in a dynamical world, ability of an 
agent to respond to a change in several different ways increases its chances 
for survival.)
Back to the question of Raquel: can a simple organism be ascribed intelligence? 
- which Pedro suggests to answer in the positive by broadening the concept of 
intelligence. I agree with this proposed generalization for several reasons.

Maturana and Varela conflate life itself with cognition (to be alive is to 
cognize). Similarly, we can connect the development of life (towards more and 
more complex organisms) with intelligence (if an organism acts meaningfully in 
the world, we say it acts intelligently; meaningfulness has degrees and so has 
intelligence). In that approach intelligence would be the property of an 
organism which gives it a potential to develop increasingly more complex 
informational structures and increasingly more complex (meaningful) responses 
to the environment. One can argue that increasing the repertoire of meaningful 
responses (int

Re: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

.
An important study is to try to figure out from where and how the most basic 
and primary cognitive processes arise.
The emergence of cognitive phenomena needs a network of specialized cells or is 
that each dynamical entity is “cognitive” in itself?

Sincerely,

Walter

-
Walter Riofrio
Researcher IPCEM, University Ricardo Palma. Lima-Perú
Chercheur Associé; Complex Systems Institute-Paris (ISC-PIF)
Theoretical and Evolutionary Biology
Email: walter.riof...@iscpif.fr
-



On dom 14/11/10 05:07 , "Joseph Brenner" joe.bren...@bluewin.ch sent:
Dear Gordana, Stan and All,

Gordana wrote:
>From an info-computational approach we may hope to provide a base for the 
>construction of >generative explanatory models for the development of 
>intelligence by information processing in >living organisms.

Stan wrote:
>Intelligence, I think, lies more in reinterpretation than in the building more 
>that may follow >upon it.

There is nothing I radically object to in the above formulations, but they 
leave me dissatisfied from the following perspective: in the first by Gordana, 
intelligence is reified into some sort of output (to be expected from a 
computational approach) and the dynamic process or capacity aspects less 
visible. This is a general problem of mathematically tractable generative 
models, but that is for me not a virtue. Stan's is more congenial, as 
"reinterpretation", seen as a real cogntive and not only epistemological 
process, corresponds better to what I see "going on" in the operation of 
intelligence, in "intelligizing". The difficulty here, and this is my question 
to the group rather than an answer, is in the example used to illustrate 
"reinterpretation". It seems to me to have been chosen from just about the 
lowest level of complexity at which we find information. At the highest 
cognitive levels, pushing things to the limit, we might find the relation 
between intelligence and information becoming as important as the limiting 
terms themselves.

Best wishes,

Joseph


- Original Message -
From: Stanley N Salthe
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

Gordana --

Interpretation of information builds more information, which again becomes 
interpreted.  In living systems each generation makes a new interpretation 
based upon changed conditions of life. But in this case there is not more 
(genetic) information, but rather recently altered information -- history 
rewritten according to the latest interpretation of recent conditions.  Some 
might call this process 'intelligence'. This is the (neo)Darwinian 
interpretation.  It does not address your point about "increasingly complex 
patterns of information", which is indeed what appears in the fossil record (as 
well as in human discourse).  To build more requires preservation and 
interpretation. In the physical world, this image is captured in the asteroid 
impacts on the moon, with subsequent hits deforming, but not erasing, the 
original one.  Information here increases, but not, I think, intelligence.  
Intelligence, I think, lies more in reinterpretation than in the building more 
that may follow upon it.

STAN
(Pedro -- this is a new week, so this is my first)
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
 wrote:
I suppose semioticians are interested in an individual human’s sense-making in 
a context of human society.
Or perhaps a social animal’s sense making.
What I think about is how life forms organize to produce increasingly complex 
patterns of information processing.
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: den 13 november 2010 23:03

To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

Concerning:

>The minimal claim would be that there is no intelligence without information. 
>For an agent, intelligence is the ability to face the >world in a meaningful 
>way and it increases with the number of different ways an agent is able to 
>respond with.

  It seems to me that this implies, in any non-mechanistic system, semiosis -- 
that is to say, a process of interpretation by the agent.  Thus, intelligence 
would be related to the viewpoint of the agent, which would be located by its 
needs.  Semioticians, however, have not been much engaged by this concept.  
Hoffmeyer claims that it is especially a social skill.

STAN



On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
 wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

Relating information with intelligence seems to me important for several 
reasons. I will try to suggest that intelligence might be a good conceptual 
tool if we w

Re: [Fis] Closing Comments?

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Hello FIS colleagues,

I like Igor's suggestion:

“Information is heterogeneity, stable for some definite time”.

A simpler general version is Bateson's:

"Information is the difference that makes the difference" 

Best wishes,
Gordana


--------
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, 
Associate Professor 
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
Mälardalen University
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Box 883, SE-721 23 Västerås, Sweden




-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Igor Gurevich
Sent: den 20 december 2010 12:28
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Closing Comments?

Dear Pedro C. Marijuan!
Dear Dear Colleagues!

DEFINITION OF CONCEPT “INFORMATION”

1) D. Doucette in work “Challenges for Those Constructing a Science of
Information as an Evolving Unique Discipline” presented at Fourth
International Conference on the Foundations of Information Science:
Towards a new science of information (FIS 2010), Beijing, China, 21-24
August 2010 (2010) has defined “Science of Information”: “In
establishing the new evolved information discipline, there should be
some initial awareness that information is a part of all elements,
systems, conditions and is therefore also an integral part of the
other individual disciplines and sciences. In studying information
phenomena, it is essential to look beyond the limitations of how human
use and perceive information, or even how living organisms' uses
information. It is proposed that information is a continuous evolving
process that exists in some simple to complex form in every stage of
development across all science and academia domains as well as being a
significant part of everything that exists. Information is a trigger
mechanism, emphasis and nutrient for not only information activities
but also all physical biological elements, systems and activities”.
2) If we want to create “Science of Information” we must use single,
unified, unique definition of the “information” concept. I suggested
it [Gurevich I.M. Law of informatics - a basis of researches and
designing of complex communication and management systems. (In
Russian). «Ecos». Moscow. 1989. 60 p.].
«Information is heterogeneity, stable for some definite time of the
arbitrary physical nature. Thereby, a letter in a book, an atom, a
molecule, an elementary particle, a star, a drawing, a pattern, a
ploughed field, a wood and other heterogeneities contain and carry the
information».
 “Information is heterogeneity, stable for some definite time”.
Regardless of the nature of heterogeneity, would be it letters, words,
phrases or - elementary particles, atoms, molecules, or - people,
groups, societies, etc.
The measure of the degree of heterogeneity or information is Shannon's
information entropy and other information characteristics (information
divergence, joint entropy, communication information).
The proposed definition and the Shannon information entropy and other
information characteristics can describe information (heterogeneity)
of any nature.
3) The definitions of homogeneity and heterogeneity.
Consider a set M of elements m. If the elements m are the same,
identical (not different from each other), then the set M is
homogeneous. If the elements m are not the same, no identical
(differing one from other), then the set M is no homogeneous.
4) Types of information.
4.1. Classical information. Time of existence of the heterogeneity is
infinite. This is absolutely stable heterogeneity.
4.2. Macroinformation (by Chernavsky). Time of existence of the
heterogeneity is not less than the time of existence of the system.
This is essentially stable heterogeneity.
I4.3. Information. Time of existence of the heterogeneity is less than
the time of existence of the system, but more then the time course of
processes in the system. This is stable for some definite time
heterogeneity.
4.4. Microinformation (by Chernavsky). Time of existence of the
heterogeneity is essentially less than the time of existence of the
system. This is unstable heterogeneity.
[Chernavsky D.S. Synergetics and Information (dynamic information
theory). Issue 2-e Corr. and add. Moscow. URSS. (In Russian). 2004.
288 p.].
5) The information (heterogeneity) is an objective reality. Its
existence does not depend on availability of Observer. For example:
heterogeneity (elementary particles, atoms, molecules) possess certain
information (and physical) characteristics, properties (properties of
the first order), in particular they contains certain volume of the
information.
6) Availability of Observer can give for the information
(heterogeneity) new properties (property of the second order) –
perception, content, sense, value, …
Note. Information properties of heterogeneity (properties of the first
order) determine the fundamental limitations on property of the second
order.
7) Observer per

Re: [Fis] On Stan's reply to Gavin

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Robert,

> For example, information is continually being created and destroyed in 
> ecological systems.

Exactly! Even in simple physical artifacts such as computers, we delete/erase 
information regularly and generate information (as program outputs).

> ... to understand what the physicists are claiming.
It seems to me, given spatiotemporal distance big enough, one does not see such 
phenomena which generate/destroy information. Physics builds on laws of 
conservation.

Best,
Gordana


----
Dr Dr Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, 
Associate Professor 
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
Mälardalen University
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Box 883, SE-721 23 Västerås, Sweden




-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Robert Ulanowicz
Sent: den 1 februari 2011 01:10
To: ro...@robinfaichney.org
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] On Stan's reply to Gavin

> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Robin Faichney  
> wrote:

>>  "Conservation  of information" can be translated as
>> meaning   that   physical   laws  do  not break down, and the state of
>> affairs  at  one  time  can  be  considered  "encoded" in the state of
>> affairs at another time. For instance, events within the event horizon
>> of  a  black hole (or, on the holographic principle, on the surface of
>> the  event  horizon) could, in principle, be determined by examination
>> of the Hawking radiation that escapes as the hole diminishes.

Dear Robin,

I have always wondered what physicists meant when they talked about  
"conservation of information", because Shannon-like measures are  
definitely not state variables, and hence not conserved. For example,  
information is continually being created and destroyed in ecological  
systems.

Even if the laws of nature do not break down, there simply are not  
enough of them to encode complex situations. While the laws themselves  
are all conservative, the implicit boundary value problem is  
*necessarily* contingent. This accounts for the reality and ubiquity  
of indeterminacy in complex systems.

I find it difficult to imagine how stochastic events such as occur  
within a black hole could possibly be "determined" by Hawking  
radiation, or even by anything more reliable.

Could you possibly guide me to some reference where I could attempt  
again to understand what the physicists are claiming.

Thanks,
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 <http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan>
--


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



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

Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Loet, Joe, Fis colleagues


>Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free observations – e.g., Carnap – is much 
>more doubtful. Most of >us will have given up on this “realistic” position.

This is a very interesting issue. It seems to me very reasonable to claim that 
for any observation one has at least a rudimentary “theory” – as this process 
goes in a loop. Observation is done in time and during observation we act, 
which demands at least basic theoretical understanding. Of course sophisticated 
observations like those made in CERN are loaded with tons of theory. But there 
is a difference between acting within some system, or acting on a premise that 
what is studied maybe goes outside that systems box. One example is 
generalization of physics from Aristotelian to Newtonian. Within a system, one 
introduces more and more complicated assumptions in order to accommodate for 
observations, but at some point framework must change. There are jumps to more 
generalized frameworks in this process of learning. I see Joe’s logic in 
reality even here – a tension between an existing framework (which a is not 
enough) and the potential new one capable of accommodating for new knowledge. 
So realism would consist in not denying that the world is more than a theory we 
have at hands.

>One would also wonder whether animals without language, would have the 
>possibility to compose and perform music (without human orchestration).

Some birds are singing and birdsong sounds like music. Much of modern music is 
produced almost like a birdsong in a sense that it is not following any rules 
of composition, sometimes it is simply a collection of sounds found in nature. ☺

Best,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 21 mars 2011 08:04
To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror

To paraphrase Antonio Salieri's famous "Prima la musica, dopo le parole", I say 
"first reality, then the signs".

Dear Joseph: “allegro, ma non troppo”!

In the 18th century, “nature” is still considered as God’s creation and 
therefore has priority to our (human) wordings and signings. Thus, one was 
interested in “natural philosophy” and “natural law” as manifestations. 
However, this has eroded. Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free observations 
– e.g., Carnap – is much more doubtful. Most of us will have given up on this 
“realistic” position. One would also wonder whether animals without language, 
would have the possibility to compose and perform music (without human 
orchestration).

It seems important to me to distinguish between the order in which things are 
historically generated (although we have no access to this process than by 
reconstructing this order) and the evolutionary order of control. The latter 
system emerges from the former: order is constructed bottom-up, but control is 
increasingly top-down. The control arrow feeds back on the historical arrow and 
from this perspective the signs come first.

This may not have been included in Pierce’s writings. ☺

With best wishes,
Loet

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

Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Joseph,

Thank you for this precise clarification. I agree completely and I also follow 
tensions and changes in our discussions in the list.
Especially interesting to me is how theories or frameworks communicate, use 
each other and internalize each other.
(I believe that is essentially the same process as the one you mention for the 
change of Logic in Reality itself).
Currently there are ongoing paradigm shifts in computing, logic, biology, 
cognitive science, information science and several others.
Not all research fields get “updated” instantly, it takes time.
Interdisciplinary discussions sometimes contain criticisms built on 
presupposition about other research fields as they looked like some time before.
(I meet often the idea that computing is the same as the Turing Machine model.  
But there is strong development of new computational paradigms and even if they 
are not completely established, they already exist in some fragmentary form.)

“But I would rather risk such reproaches than accept the present situation,
in which philosophers argue only with dead biologists and biologists only with 
dead philosophers… “
Michael Morange,  Life Explained

So I think this list is a good example of living philosophers talking with 
living biologists and other living FISers which makes it much more exciting and 
difficult.

Best regards,
Gordana


From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch [mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]
Sent: den 22 mars 2011 21:08
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic; Loet Leydesdorff; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: AW: RE: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror

Dear Gordana,

Thank you for your very pertinent illustration of what Logic in Reality "is". 
There are (at least) two dynamics possible, 1) the tension between two existing 
frameworks, from which a new one (jump) may emerge and 2) that between an 
existing framework, for example Logic in Reality itself and what it could 
potentially become. I would just emend your phrase the "the world is more than 
a theory we have at hand" to "more than we have at hand in actual form" to make 
clearer that what is potential is also "at hand".

That these tensions are real is illustrated almost every day in these 
discussions . . .

Best regards,

Joseph
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se
Datum: 21.03.2011 08:40
An: "Loet Leydesdorff", 
"joe.bren...@bluewin.ch", 
"fis@listas.unizar.es"
Betreff: RE: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror


Dear Loet, Joe, Fis colleagues


>Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free observations – e.g., Carnap – is much 
>more doubtful. Most of >us will have given up on this “realistic” position.

This is a very interesting issue. It seems to me very reasonable to claim that 
for any observation one has at least a rudimentary “theory” – as this process 
goes in a loop. Observation is done in time and during observation we act, 
which demands at least basic theoretical understanding. Of course sophisticated 
observations like those made in CERN are loaded with tons of theory. But there 
is a difference between acting within some system, or acting on a premise that 
what is studied maybe goes outside that systems box. One example is 
generalization of physics from Aristotelian to Newtonian. Within a system, one 
introduces more and more complicated assumptions in order to accommodate for 
observations, but at some point framework must change. There are jumps to more 
generalized frameworks in this process of learning. I see Joe’s logic in 
reality even here – a tension between an existing framework (which a is not 
enough) and the potential new one capable of accommodating for new knowledge. 
So realism would consist in not denying that the world is more than a theory we 
have at hands.

>One would also wonder whether animals without language, would have the 
>possibility to compose and perform music (without human orchestration).

Some birds are singing and birdsong sounds like music. Much of modern music is 
produced almost like a birdsong in a sense that it is not following any rules 
of composition, sometimes it is simply a collection of sounds found in nature. ☺

Best,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 21 mars 2011 08:04
To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror

To paraphrase Antonio Salieri's famous "Prima la musica, dopo le parole", I say 
"first reality, then the signs".

Dear Joseph: “allegro, ma non troppo”!

In the 18th century, “nature” is still considered as God’s creation and 
therefore has priority to our (human) wordings and signings. Thus, one was 
interested in “natural philosophy” and “natural law” as manifestations. 
However, th

Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering Principles

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Stan,



Ø  The key is whether the trait involved can be modeled; on these grounds it 
has not yet been shown that 'qualia' can be generalized beyond the human 
experience, yet even > a child can see, for example, that a mother hen is very 
unhappy when her chicks are threatened.

Being a computer scientist I don't really know enough about qualia, so I 
checked Wiki and read:

"Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, the 
experience of taking a recreational drug, or the redness of an evening sky."

I believe that hen and other animals have some sort of qualia, of course not 
human qualia, but their own, animal qualia.

Am I wrong in my believe that animals can feel pain, have headache, feel taste 
of drink and food, can see colors and can even get drunk (Animals Are Beautiful 
People,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDknJ6KPLxc ) and that pain, headache etc. that 
they experience represent their qualia?

With best regards,
Gordana



http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: den 1 april 2011 21:39
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering 
Principles

It seems obvious to me that any property held by a very complex entity (e.g., 
human being), IF it can be modeled, then that model can be used to generalize 
that property ANYWHERE we wish to.  On these grounds I have been busy working 
on 'physiosemiosis' using the triadic formulation of semiosis of Charles 
Peirce.  I have proposed that the 'sign' emerges from the context of an 
interaction between object and system.  If context has no effect on the 
interaction, there is no semiosis.  If, on the contrary, context affects the 
interaction, then we have semiosis, even in a pond.

The key is whether the trait involved can be modeled; on these grounds it has 
not yet been shown that 'qualia' can be generalized beyond the human 
experience, yet even a child can see, for example, that a mother hen is very 
unhappy when her chicks are threatened.

STAN
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Pridi Siregar 
mailto:pridi.sire...@ibiocomputing.com>> wrote:
Hi all !

Maybe the term « observer » in Pedro's « non-human observer » term is what bugs 
some of you because it seems to imply some "non-human cogitum" that by habit we 
may want to equate to human thinking. Of course trying to understand the 
"psychology" of a bacteria may be a bit hard for humans so perhaps the term 
"observer" should be given a broader meaning and the challenge would be to 
define the nature/ boundaries/mechanics of this semantic 
extension/redefinition. The same may hold for defining "language"  and 
"meaning"... But for lack of time I really haven't followed all the debates and 
I'm no philosopher.  As a business person I am much more practical and I do 
have one practical concern/question: are we trying to lay down a new theory of 
living systems or are we going (in some not too distant future) towards 
devising a computational framework that (even modestly) may go beyond projects 
such as the VHP?Sorry to be so down to earth but I suppose that in this 
forum everyone is allowed to express himself/herself...:)

Pridi




De : fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] De 
la part de joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2011 19:38
À : l...@leydesdorff.net; 'Pedro C. Marijuan'; 
fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering 
Principles

Dear Pedro,

I do not quite recognize myself in the statement:

Basically, their informational subject looks like the abstract, disembodied, 
non-situated, classical observer, equipped in a
Cartesian austerity --and outside, just the Order or maybe the Disorder.

I thought my implicit observer was very much real, embodied and non-classical, 
fully participating (and in part constituting) the "order and disorder".

However, I rather tend to agree with you that Loet's, Rosen's and Dubois' 
models of communication, anticipation, etc. are somewhat too abstract. The 
models, as I think Loet may agree, are created for analysis, and do not define 
the physical, dynamic relation between the models, the creation of models and 
what is being modeled as processes.

I have never understood why Maturana had to say that observers are 
operationally generated when it seems obvious that they exist, albeit at 
different levels of complexity and (and here we agree) capability of 
recursiveness. As I have said previously, autopoiesis, like spontaneity and 
self-organization are concepts that are very useful, but cannot be taken to 
describe, as fully as I anyway would like, the dynamics of the cognitive 
processes necessary for an understanding of informati

Re: [Fis] replies to Quiao, Pedro, Krassimir & Loet

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Stan,

I have a question. I don't understand why thermodynamics in the expression:

{thermodynamics {information theory {semiotics}}}

Our brains are very much about electrical signal processing.
And a lot of information processes in the world are not thermodynamic processes 
in the first place.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say:

{physics {information theory {semiotics}}}



Best,

Gordana



PS

In any case, Søren will surely disagree and say that Information is not enough!

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: den 27 april 2011 21:32
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] replies to Quiao, Pedro, Krassimir & Loet


(1) Replying Quiao --



On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:

Message from Qiao Tian-qing



--



 Dear FISers

There is another general theory of information (GTIA).

I consider,

The customarily named information is the collection of three kinds of things´ 
attributes: things themselves (including cause or effect formed through their 
interaction), the attributes of things that someone thinks and simulates, and 
the attributes of tools someone or something uses when considers, expresses, or 
simulates something. The first kind of attributes of things is based on facts, 
for example, the three states of water, someone is swimming. This are physical, 
chemical, biological, social or any other properties of things, irrefutable and 
objective, which have nothing to do with any expressive way related to the 
thing (such spoken and written languages, music or pictures).



This relates to the semiotic work of  Jacob von Uexküll ('Biological Theory', 
1925), who suggested that each species has its own sensory equipment, and 
finds/ lives in a different world from other species.  It could be said that 
this was an early postmodern text.   It is now in the standard (Peircean) 
background of semiotics.



The second kind is related with the inner thoughts, or expressions through 
talk, or sentence, namely, some attributes of things that someone can find; or 
the attributes of things that could be simulate according to science and 
technology.



 Here we find Bidgman's 'operationalism' in his 1927 'The Logic of Modern 
Physics'.



The third kind is the attributes of tools used by someone (or something) when 
he himself thinks, or expresses, or simulates something, i.e. the state of 
brain neurons when he thinks, the line trend of words when writes, the 
vibration frequency and intensity of sound when speaks, the bit of circuit 
devices in a computer, or the models of devices used in an experiment, etc.



This again relates to the above.

---





(2) Then to Pedro, Krassimir and Loet:



Pedro Says:



But a new framework (way of thinking) is needed where we somehow 
de-anthropogenize the field, getting it partially free of the above 
circularity: "because I am philososphically or disciplinarily configured that 
way, info is this and that for me". My usual argument in this list has been 
that a few "informational entities" have to be taken as model systems, and then 
a comparative study undertaken. Now what I would ad is that a previous new 
"theory of mind" has to be advanced, a little bit at least.



And Krassimir says:



What we may do is to invite everybody to present from his/her point of view one 
or more (own or not) information theories. The texts we will organize in a book 
for free access from all over the world.



Loet says:



The need for a general theory of information can therefore be understood 
psychologically, but this is itself a special subject of possible theorizing. 
:) The inference to a general theory is not warranted by this (empirical) 
philosophy of science.



I have just completed an attempt to sketch of a very general theory of 
information written for a special issue of the new journal "Information" based 
on the FIS 2010 Beijing conference.  In this paper I suggest that semiotics is 
subsumed by information theory and that this in turn is subsumed by 
thermodynamics.  Thus -- {thermodynamics {information theory {semiotics}}}



This is based on my generalization of the Shannon definition of information, as:

information is a reduction in uncertainty = choosing;



Bateson: information is a difference that makes a difference (to an 
interpreting system)



Thermodynamic: information is any constraint on entropy production



STAN
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] meaningful inforamtion

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Hello FIS,

On mentioning of Braitenberg’s book “Information - der Geist in der Natur”, 
Søren Brier made me aware of an older work in a similar spirit -
Danish physicist’s Hans Christian Ørsted’s (1777-1851) “The soul in nature”, 
here digitalized by Google:
http://www.archive.org/stream/soulinnaturewit00horngoog#page/n0/mode/1up

Best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Robin Faichney
Sent: den 20 juli 2011 14:49
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] meaningful inforamtion

Hi Pedro and Anthony,

Valentino Braitenberg has a book out this year in German: Information - der 
Geist in der Natur

My knowledge of German is dismal, but it seems to be about information as the 
"spirit" or "mind" of nature. This would be consistent with a quotation of his 
from Luciano Floridi, editor, Philosophy of Computing and Information: Five 
Questions, 2008, p16:

The concept of information, properly understood, is fully sufficient to do away 
with popular dualistic schemes  invoking spiritual substances distinct from 
anything in physics. This is Aristotle redivivus, the concept of matter and 
form united in every object of this world, body and soul, where the latter is 
nothing but the formal aspect of the former. The  very term “information” 
clearly demonstrates its Aristotelian origin in its linguistic root.

Anthony talks about form too, of course, but I'm afraid I find his concept of 
"meaningful" information to be somewhat dualistic -- but maybe I just haven't 
understood his view of the relationship between meaningful information and 
material form.

Robin

Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 12:38:03 PM, Pedro wrote:

Thanks, Anthony, for the info on your book. As you will see during future 
discussion sessions (currently we are in the vacation pause) some parties in 
this list maintain positions not far away from your own views. In our archive 
you can check accumulated mails about the matter you propose --e.g. discussions 
during the last spring. But I think you are right that the whole biological 
scope of information has been rarely discussed.  best wishes ---Pedro

FIS website and discussions archives: see http://infoscience-fis.unizar.es/


aread...@verizon.net escribió:
I emailed an earlier version of the following contribution to the listserve a 
few days ago and am interested in finding out if it is suitable  for 
dissemination and, if os, when it might be included. My main interest is in 
promoting discussion about the approach it takes to dealing with the 
observer-dependent aspects of information.

My book " Meaningful Information: The BridgeBetween Biology, Brain and 
Behavior' has just been published by Springer. Itintroduces a radically new way 
of thinking about information and the importantrole it plays in living systems. 
Thiså opens up new avenues for exploring howcells and organisms change and 
adapt, since the ability to detect and respondto meaningful information is the 
key that enables them to receive their geneticheritage, regulate their internal 
milieu, and respond to changes in their environment.The types of meaningful 
information that different species and different celltypes are able to detect 
are finely matched to the ecosystems in which theylive, for natural selection 
has shaped what they need to know to functioneffectively within them. 
Biological detection and response systems range fromthe chemical configurations 
that govern genes and cell life to the relativelysimple tropisms that guide 
single-cell organisms, the rudimentary nervoussystems of invertebrates, and the 
complex neuronal structures of mammals andprimates. The scope of meaningful 
information that can be detected andresponded to reaches its peak in our own 
species, as exemplified by our specialabilities in language, cognition, 
emotion, and consciousness, all of which areexplored within this new framework.

The book's home page can be found at: 
http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/book/978-1-4614-0157-5

 I am eager tofind out what members think about it.

Anthony Reading




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


--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-




--
Robin Faichney

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.e

Re: [Fis] Chemical information: a field of fuzzy contours ?

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear all,

Let me comment on Loet's statement:


Ø  Information cannot to be found as res extensa.
There exists a framework, Informational Structural Realism, (Floridi) 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d7586712n7321314/ in which res extensa is 
nothing but information (for an agent). Within Informational Structural Realism 
the fabric of reality (the world) is information. That includes agents, 
messages, objects, everything. So in ISR information is found in res extensa as 
its structure or a form.
Without res extensa there is no information. (There is no information without 
representation). Information itself is fundamental fabric of reality and 
structures resulting from its self-organization, able to keep (memorize) traces 
of the past and, based on that, anticipate the future (of res extensa in its 
different forms), act in the world increasing its own chances to survive. In 
ISR information is the form of res extensa , both on an object level and on 
meta-levels.

Best regards,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/



From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 19 september 2011 12:04
To: 'Michel Petitjean'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Chemical information: a field of fuzzy contours ?


Dear Michel,



>  Stating that information does not exist may be compared to stating that a 
> cloud does not exist: it is hard to define it rigorously and its frontiers 
> are highly fuzzy, but everybody is sure that it exists.



The problem is here the "exist". This easily lead to reification. For example, 
you formulate:



>  Thus I would not seek information here.



In my opinion, "information" can be entertained as a concept in a discourse. It 
can then also be defined, for example, as probabilistic entropy. I like 
Husserl's term "cogitatum" which he added in "the Cartesian Meditations" to 
Descartes distinction between res extensa and res cogitans. Information cannot 
to be found as res extensa.



Best wishes,

Loet




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

Re: [Fis] New circumstances

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Pedro,
Heartfelt congratulations on your new position
and best wishes for the future work as Research Director!
Sincerely,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
Sent: den 27 november 2011 21:28
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] New circumstances

Dear FIS colleagues,

During the last month I have been involved in new responsabilities at my home 
institution. Actually I have been designated as Research Director of the 
Institute, which obviously means good news for me, but also a lot of noise and 
distractions for my research activities, fis included. In a few weeks, however, 
I should be able to reorganize my tasks and return to fis discussions. 
Hopefully, in a medium term there might be better oportunities for promotion of 
fis activities and international cooperation in research projects.

By the way, let me remind that the next session will be  in charge of Marcin 
and Gordana, about experiences and possibilities in Info Science Teaching... 
the formal announcement will be made at their request.

greetings to all,

--Pedro
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

eral way to its particular 
manifestations in other disciplines?



Since the course (or courses) should present an identity of the discipline of 
Information Science, it is very important that we are convinced about the 
authentic existence of a large enough common ground. Can we develop a map of 
this territory?

Can we pool resources to establish foundations for a standard, Information 
Science curriculum?



Marcin and Gordana



Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D.

Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs

Akita International University

Akita, Japan

m...@aiu.ac.jp<mailto:m...@aiu.ac.jp>





Gordana Dodig Crnkovic,

Associate Professor

Head of the Computer Science and Networks Department School of Innovation, 
Design and Engineering Mälardalen University Sweden http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/



Organizer of the Symposium on Natural/Unconventional Computing, the Turing 
Centenary  World Congress of AISB/IACAP

https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012





___

fis mailing list

fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>

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

[Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Hi All,

One way of looking at the question of curriculum would be from the point of 
view of what already exists
of education in the Foundations of Information.

Are there any courses which might be a part of such a curriculum?

To start with I can tell about the course I have, which does not cover much of 
Science of information, but there are several connections.
As I work at the computer science department, my perspective is computational.
For me computing is information processing and information is that which is 
processed, and that which is a result of processing.
Processing may be done by a machine or by an organism or anything else - the 
whole of nature computes (processes information) in different ways.
As info-computationalist, I believe that information is unthinkable without 
computation.
So the course is on Computing and Philosophy but addresses Philosophy of 
Information and Science of Information as well and topics on evolution of life, 
intelligence (natural and artificial), consciousness, etc.  
http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil

I believe it would be good to have a course on the foundations of information 
science for people in the computing.
Information and computation are completely entangled! And this gives also an 
opportunity to introduce other fields into computing, to contribute to building 
bridges and
facilitating inter-disciplinary/ cross-disciplinary/ trans-disciplinary  
learning.

This is not as ambitious as the original question, but can help understanding 
where we are now and where we want to be.

Best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: den 5 december 2011 20:53
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education

And it could feature in 'Science for Non-Majors' courses as well.

STAN
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Guy A Hoelzer 
mailto:hoel...@unr.edu>> wrote:
Hi All,

I agree with those who are suggesting that Information Science makes sense
as a widely useful way to think about different scientific disciplines
even if we don't have a strong consensus on how to define 'information'.
I think there is enough coherence among views of 'information' to underpin
the unity and universality of the approach.  Perhaps Information Science
is less a discipline of its own and more of a common approach to
understanding that can be applied across disciplines.  While I can imagine
good courses focusing on Information Science, it might be most productive
to include a common framework for information-based models/viewpoints
across the curriculum.

Guy Hoelzer


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

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

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Colleagues,

A few short comments on contributions by Pedro, Wolfgang and Karl

Dear Pedro:
Your courses
Bioinformation: informational analysis of living systems; and
Science, Technology and Society: an introduction to the informational history 
of societies
sound very interesting.
Do you possibly have any links to web pages or any information (even in 
Spanish) that may give us a hint about the content?


Dear Wolfgang:
Thank you very much for this detailed information.
We need more of similar inputs in order to get a feeling about the state of the 
art.
Any links to course web pages would be greatly appreciated.
I am happy to see Computing and Philosophy as a compulsory course.
To start with I see several possibilities to include elements of your courses 
in my Computing and Philosophy.

For the next year I will prepare a new basic-level course in Swedish titled:  
Information-Knowledge-Science
where I can include what I learn from your and Pedro's courses and hopefully 
from coming contributions to this discussion as well.
This is a slow progress, but some progress anyway.


Dear Karl,

You point to the important aspect of the problem: who are the audience for the 
course/curriculum we want to develop?



"Next Step

Let us do the test of checking the intended audience for this FIS production. 
Whatever we call it, if we do generate (create, dream up, catalogise, package, 
edit, etc.) something worth to be taught, then it needs an audience.

Towards whom do we want to direct our efforts of coming up with something new?"

It also seems to me that we are building bridges (Wolfgang addresses this issue 
in his text 
http://www.hofkirchner.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/forIASCYSchengdu2010.pdf
 ) and we start from different fields. Mine is computing.
Some other people have chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. as a starting 
point.

So the courses cannot be identical for everybody, but there might be many 
common themes. For example I think self-organization in Wolfgang's courses is 
something people within computing should know more about, and should be 
included in courses addressing our present-day scientific knowledge.

All the best,
Gordana


--------
Dr Dr Gordana Dodig Crnkovic,
Associate Professor
Head of the Computer Science and Networks Department
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Mälardalen University
Sweden
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

Organizer of the Symposium on Natural/Unconventional Computing,
the Turing Centenary  World Congress of AISB/IACAP
https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012







From: Wolfgang Hofkirchner [mailto:wolfgang.hofkirch...@tuwien.ac.at]
Sent: den 7 december 2011 17:48
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science 
Education

dear gordana,

maybe the following is of interest to the topic. first, the description of the 
module i am responsible of in the curriculum of master students of technical 
informatics and media informatics from this year on (see below). and second, a 
link to download a background information from my website referring the field 
i'm teaching in (and taught in salzburg) including a description of my courses 
that i had called years ago foundations of information science 
(http://www.hofkirchner.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/forIASCYSchengdu2010.pdf).

Designing Technosocial Systems
Regelarbeitsaufwand: 6Ects
Bildungsziele:

Fachliche und methodische Kenntnisse:

Students acquire, for tayloring their methodolo- gies of designing socially 
embedded systems, theoretical knowledge in the fields of
* Information Ethics * Information concepts * Philosophy of Science * 
Science-Technology-Society with special focus on ICTs

Kognitive und praktische Fertigkeiten:

Students develop skills * to reflect different perspectives of computer science 
* to get aware of impacts of technology design on society * to understand 
multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary needs * to discriminate between 
mathematical, empirical and engineering approaches * to choose and tailor the 
appropriate methodology
* to better master complexity

Soziale Kompetenzen, Innovationskompetenz und Kreativität:

Students are capacitated * to feel comfortable with teams going beyond 
disciplines * to respond to the requirement to take social responsibility * to 
balance formal and informal requirements

Inhalt: Theoretical foundations:

Philosophy of Information (Computing and Philosophy) and 
Science-Technology-Society with special focus on ICTs (Information and Society):
Computing and Philosophy issues: Location of informatics in the classification 
of disci- plines; ways of thinking (reduction, projection, dichotomisation, 
integration); transdisci- plinarity in science and engineering; information 
processing and information generation; system theoretical concepts; computers 
and information ethics.

Infor

Re: [Fis] Common Ground - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Marcin,

To me the idea about FIS web page with resources for teaching about Foundations 
of Information is a right step forward.
That is also a way for the community as a whole to become more visible and 
formally established, and a means to plant
new ideas into generations of future researchers.

That is the minimum we can do at this stage.


With best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc



-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of m...@aiu.ac.jp
Sent: den 10 december 2011 09:00
To: Pedro C. Marijuan; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Common Ground - Discussion of Information Science Education

Dear all,
Thank you for sharing experience regarding your teaching on 
the subject related to information. I think it would be a good 
idea to create a FIS web page with resources for teaching 
about information. It could have either materials or links to 
materials which could be used in preparation of courses. 
It could include examples of syllabi. 

At this point, I can see the following main points emerging in 
the discussion:

1. Differences in opinion regarding the use of the name 
"Information Science" in teaching about information in the 
broad FIS spirit of inquiry: 
AGAINST
- The name was already used for disciplines of more specific 
interests.
- Doubts whether it is possible to consider the studies of 
information uniform enough to form a discipline.
- Doubts whether there is justified reason to use the term 
information, which has been abused in the past. 
- Need for more clear definition of the concept of 
information, before the term information is used in the name 
of the discipline. 
- Different name will help in developing an identity for the 
discipline

FOR
- The value of the idea of FIS is in looking at information in 
a very general way integrating multiple perspectives, thus the 
goal is to set foundations for an authentic Information 
Science.
- Establishing conventional borders for the discipline (based 
on particular definition of information) can only harm its 
development. Different conceptualizations of information 
should compete and that which allows to develop theory (or 
theories) of information which serves best in understanding 
reality will emerge as a standard. 
- Diversity of perspectives on information does not preclude 
unity of Information Science consisting in the methods of 
inquiry. 

NEUTRAL
- For teaching about information the name of discipline is 
irrelevant.

2. Concept of information has a great potential in integration 
of curriculum, in particular its part related to sciences, but 
also in more general sense. 

There was I think consensus on this integrative power of 
information studies. I agree wholeheartedly with this point of 
view. Actually, I already published some papers on this 
subject five years ago. 
However, here we have a paradox putting this consensus in 
jeopardy. If the issues of the definition of information, or 
of the use of name "Information Science" are so polarizing for 
FIS community (people who have so much in common), how can we 
believe that information can function as an integrative 
concept for education? 

Can we try to identify the territory which we all agree is our 
own? Is our common ground just a place where we are coming to 
fight? Or is it actually a place where we want to build 
something together? 
Once we have an understanding of what we all share, it will be 
easier to decide about the view propagated among students.

Regards,
Marcin
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

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

Re: [Fis] Physics of Computing

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Kevin and FIS,
Searching for Andrei's articles, I found 
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4952.pdf
and in the abstract there is a claim:
 "Therefore, mental states, during perception cognition of ambiguous figures, 
follow quantum mechanics."

I am not an expert by any means but I find this claim very plausible from my 
personal experience as a cognitive agent in case of ambiguous figures.
When I cannot decide what an ambiguous figure actually is I keep number of 
plausible hypotheses actual in mind waiting for contextual clues to help me 
make disambiguation.
The state of mind about an ambiguous figure can be written as a superposition 
of possible states with corresponding weights and that superposition
can be likened with a quantum mechanical superposition of states.
It seems to me that there could be very natural mechanisms for this phenomenon, 
and really nothing non-physical.
Maybe Andrei can help elucidate the exact meaning of similar statistical forms 
found in several different fields, as the title of his book says:
"Ubiquitous quantum structure: from psychology to finance".


Best,
Gordana

PS
Back to Pedro's original reference to physical levels of information, Deacon 
made a useful distinction between three different levels of information.

Deacon's three types of information parallel his three levels of emergent 
dynamics which in Salthe's notation looks like:
[1. thermo- [2. morpho- [3. teleo-dynamics]]] with corresponding mechanisms

 [1. mass-energetic [2. self-organization [3. self-preservation (semiotic)]]] 
and corresponding Aristotle's causes

 [1. efficient cause [ 2. formal cause [ 3. final cause]]]

In the above, thermodynamics and semiotic layers of organization are linked via 
intermediary layer of morphodynamics (spontaneous form-generating processes), 
and thus do not communicate directly (so it looks like mind communicating with 
matter via form).
Of course there is physics at the bottom.


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012




From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Kevin Clark
Sent: den 16 mars 2012 21:56
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Physics of Computing

Dear FISers:

Pedro and Plamen raise good and welcomed points regarding the nature of 
physics, information, and biology. Although I believe in a strong relationship 
between information and physics in biology, there are striking examples where 
direct correspondences between information, physics, and biology seem to 
depart. Scientists are only beginning to tease out these discrepancies which 
will undoubtedly give us a better understand of information.

For example, in the study of cognition by A. Khrennikov and colleagues and J. 
Busemyer and colleagues, decisional processes may conform to quantum statistics 
and computation without necessarily being mediated by quantum mechanical 
phenomena at a biological level of description. I found this to be true in 
ciliates as well, where social strategy search speeds and decision rates may 
produce quantum computational phases that obey quantum statistics. In such 
cases, a changing classical diffusion term of response regulator 
reaction-diffusion parsimoniously accounts for the transition from classical to 
quantum information processing. Thus, there is no direct correspondence between 
quantum physicochemistry and quantum computation. Because the particular 
reaction-diffusion biochemistry is not unique to ciliates (i.e., the same 
phenomena is observed in plants, animals, and possibly bacteria), this 
incongruity may be widespread across life.

Best regards,

Kevin Clark
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Physics of Computing

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Kevin, Joe, FIS

What worried me in the recent exchanges was (possibly based on my 
misunderstanding) an implicit suggestion that information somehow can be 
unphysical when it becomes semantic.
Exactly as Joe says (and Deacon as well in his book), absentials are defined in 
relation to (regularities of) that which is present. Indeed there is the 
figure-background connection;
there are no absentials without “presentials” which are physical.

I will also now wait for FIS debate.
Best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc/>

https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012

From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch [mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]
Sent: den 17 mars 2012 05:54
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: AW: Re: [Fis] Physics of Computing

Dear Gordana,

There are for me many question marks in ascriptions of quantum properties to 
complex cognitive phenomena. The inversion of perspective I propose. using 
Deacon's term, is to see processes of superposition as common both to quantum 
phenomena as simplified projections of mental processes and to the mental 
processes themselves. This does not require, as many people seem rather 
desperately to want, that any given figure -ground event involve quanta at that 
higher level. In this case, your useful term "likened with a quantum mechanical 
superposition" can be replaced, usefully I suggest, by a weighting of the 
degrees of actuality and potentiality of the components of a evolving complex 
process. This is both where information is and what it is.

In this connection, I call all FIS'ers attention to the very pertinent concept 
of another Andrei, Andrei Igamberdiev, described in his book, of Internal 
Quantum States. The difference is, if I understand both sets of ideas 
correctly, is that Igamberdiev is talking about the foundations of theoretical 
biology. He does not require that Nature at higher levels actually instantiate 
quantum structures in any sense other than that, as Gordana says, there is 
nothing non-physical and quanta are involved a priori.

Cheers,

Joseph
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se
Datum: 16.03.2012 23:11
An: "Kevin Clark", 
"fis@listas.unizar.es"
Kopie: "andrei.khrenni...@msi.vxu.se"
Betreff: Re: [Fis] Physics of Computing

@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face 
{font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face 
{font-family:Consolas; panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;} p.MsoNormal, 
li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; 
font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} a:link, 
span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; 
text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} span.mark 
{mso-style-name:mark;} span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; 
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault 
{mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 
11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} 
-> [if gte mso 9]>[if gte mso 9]>
Dear Kevin and FIS,
Searching for Andrei’s articles, I found 
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4952.pdf
and in the abstract there is a claim:
 “Therefore, mental states, during perception cognition of ambiguous figures, 
follow quantum mechanics.”

I am not an expert by any means but I find this claim very plausible from my 
personal experience as a cognitive agent in case of ambiguous figures.
When I cannot decide what an ambiguous figure actually is I keep number of 
plausible hypotheses actual in mind waiting for contextual clues to help me 
make disambiguation.
The state of mind about an ambiguous figure can be written as a superposition 
of possible states with corresponding weights and that superposition
can be likened with a quantum mechanical superposition of states.
It seems to me that there could be very natural mechanisms for this phenomenon, 
and really nothing non-physical.
Maybe Andrei can help elucidate the exact meaning of similar statistical forms 
found in several different fields, as the title of his book says:
“Ubiquitous quantum structure: from psychology to finance”.


Best,
Gordana

PS
Back to Pedro’s original reference to physical levels of information, Deacon 
made a useful distinction between three different levels of information.

Deacon’s three types of information parallel his three levels of emergent 
dynamics which in Salthe’s notation looks like:
[1. thermo- [2. morpho- [3. teleo-dynamics]]] with corresponding mechanisms

 [1. mass-energetic [2. self-organization [3. self-preservation (semiotic)]]] 
and corresponding Aristotle’s causes

 [1. efficient cause [ 

Re: [Fis] Physics of computing

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Pedro and FIS colleagues,

When connecting information to physics, I believe you may like the following 
view, from the abstract of an invited article
for a special issue of the journal Information on Information and Energy/Matter 
(currently in review):

INFORMATION PHYSICS—TOWARDS A NEW CONCEPTION OF PHYSICAL REALITY
Philip Goyal
Department of Physics, University at Albany (SUNY), 1400 Washington Av., 
Albany, NY 1, USA
Version April 10, 2012 submitted to Information.

Abstract: The concept of information plays a fundamental role in our everyday 
experience, but is conspicuously absent in framework of classical physics. Over 
the last century, quantum theory and a series of other developments in physics 
and related subjects have brought the concept of information and the interface 
between an agent and the physical world into increasing prominence. As a 
result, over the last few decades, there has arisen a growing belief amongst 
many physicists that the concept of information may have a critical role to 
play in our understanding of the workings of the physical world, both in more 
deeply understanding existing physical theories and in the formulation of new 
theories. In this paper, I explicate the origin of the informational view of 
physics, illustrate some of the work inspired by this view, and give some 
indication of its implications for the development of a new conception of 
physical reality.

Goyal talks about all of physics, reformulated in terms of information, not 
only one part of it like quantum mechanics.
If you combine this approach with Mark Burgin’s view that computation in 
general is information processing,
then Philip Goyal’s article can be understood in terms of computation.

I am looking forward to see the complete special issue which is taking shape 
these days, several articles are in review,
and there are several already published interesting contributions on to the 
relationship between information and physics:
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/information/special_issues/matter/

With best regards,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012




From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: den 16 april 2012 17:54
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Physics of computing

Dear Joseph and FIS collegues,

The only item I can remember formally addressing the topic is "La logique du 
vivant", by Francois Jacob in very early 70's. But it was perhaps more a 
philosophy of life than a rigorous approach or overall theoretical description 
of life processes. In any case it was original ("bricolage") and inspiring. 
Nowadays my main criticism to visions inspired in physics would run as follows: 
imagine we are dealing with computers; any general approach to their 
performances, should it be based on "solid state physics"? Nope. You would need 
a theoretical, brand new vision, eg Turing machine on universal computation, or 
something similar attending to structures of computing processes and computing 
machinery. It would extend completely beyond physics, as the informatics realm 
is situated... pure technological creativity due to software and hardware 
engineers (of course, always mastering and slaving natural processes at the 
bottom, but in "artful" ways and multilevel purposes).

Regarding bio, the new theoretical integrated or unified approach ("logic" or 
whatever) would be similar to the above creativity. Grounded on some central 
bio characteristic, in my opinion self construction, as von Neumann started 
with his unfinished theory of self-constructing machines. Cells (and organisms) 
are the only entities rigorously selfconstructing themselves. Actually biology 
would be the science of selfconstruction... where a new notion of info related 
to the impact of communication on selfconstructing processes ("meaning") would 
be central. It may look challenging, but without protein synthesis there is no 
meaning!

My criticism to current bio-doctrines extends to systems biology and other 
fashions (synthetic biology, bioinspired computing, artificial life...). Some 
ideas thrown in Inbiosa meetings could enter into the discussion too, I think.

best wishes

---Pedro

joe.bren...@bluewin.ch escribió:
Dear Pedro,

Thank you, Pedro, for bringing up the question of logics. My suggestion of a 
Logic in Reality is to open the debate, rather than to claim it is the only 
"over-arching logic" possible. Nevertheless, it would be useful for me and 
perhaps others if you could make your critique more specific by pointing to at 
least one logic that is used biologically that addresses the dynamics of 
complex processes. So far, I have not identified any such logical system that 
is more than a metaphorical use of the term "logic" or refers to some more or 
less reproducible characteristics of such processes. Otherwise, logics seem to 
m

[Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK - PRESENTED BY DEACON

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Hector,

This might be a good way, Terry Deacon presenting his book:
http://fora.tv/2012/04/18/Incomplete_Nature_How_Mind_Emerged_From_Matter 

What I find fascinating with this book is the whole dynamical framework,
from thermodynamics, to morphodynamics and teleodynamics.
See also: 
http://www.american.edu/cas/economics/info-metrics/pdf/upload/Beavers-Oct-2011-presentation.pdf

For sure, Deacon is not computationalist and his ideas of information and 
computation are pretty classical ones.
But it does not matter in this context. For a computationalist all three kinds 
of dynamics are computational processes,
and corresponding structures are informational structures.

With best wishes,
Gordana


-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Hector Zenil
Sent: den 27 april 2012 22:40
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK

Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is such a presumed
breakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among FIS
enthusiasts?

Thanks.


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
 wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have a
> FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the new info
> avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffman
> and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular
> discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple of
> voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob Logan
> could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh
> discussion session for the coming months.
>
> Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list; the
> filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together.
> Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated or as
> as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one.
>
> best
>
> ---Pedro
> (fis list coordination)
>
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

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

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

Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK - PRESENTED BY DEACON

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Pedro,

I am sure that Terry Deacon would agree with you - the book is incomplete, and 
it leaves host of open questions.
But that is what makes it attractive. It is a book that moves and provokes 
thoughts.
So the idea to organize a conference about Incomplete Nature is a very good 
idea.

All the best,
Gordana




Dr Dr Gordana Dodig Crnkovic,
Associate Professor
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Mälardalen University
Sweden
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

Organizer of the Symposium on Natural/Unconventional Computing,
the Turing Centenary  World Congress of AISB/IACAP
https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012




From: Pedro C. Marijuan [mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es]
Sent: den 4 maj 2012 11:35
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Cc: Hector Zenil; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK - PRESENTED BY DEACON

Dear Gordana, Hector and colleagues,

I keep thinking that the theme of "absences" is really fundamental for 
advancing the foundations of information science, but I am disappointed  by the 
way Terry has oriented the book. Both style and contents are inadequate for my 
taste. He continues to do what he did in previous papers, highly promising ones 
(as some parties discussed in past messages we had in the list); pointing to 
exciting new absential aspects but finally focusing in the physical ones 
(without much new enlightenment).

In my opinion the most appropriate direction to advance an absential calculus 
of sorts is the language of SYMMETRY. Several parties in this list have already 
discussed the theme (me included). Symmetry breaking and symmetry restoration 
and related formal tools are the way to tackle the absential dimension in the 
genuine informational entities: cells, nervous systems, societies (and the 
vacuum!!). To reiterate that the fundamental point is not about computation, 
but about self-construction. Those "absences" refer to "gaps", " functional 
voids" in the self-construction cycles/processes of those entities --there 
might be 'natural computation' associated, eg, in cellular signaling systems, 
but finally the ruling aspect is about self-maintenance and reproduction. We 
could also enlist McLuhan in this critical position regarding the 
physicalist-computationalist interpretations, I think.

So, after a glance in the whole book, I am now in the detailed reading of 
Chapter 4, with mounting disappointment... "Incomplete Book"!! Deeper 
exploration needed!!

best

---Pedro



Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic escribió:

Dear Hector,



This might be a good way, Terry Deacon presenting his book:

http://fora.tv/2012/04/18/Incomplete_Nature_How_Mind_Emerged_From_Matter



What I find fascinating with this book is the whole dynamical framework,

from thermodynamics, to morphodynamics and teleodynamics.

See also: 
http://www.american.edu/cas/economics/info-metrics/pdf/upload/Beavers-Oct-2011-presentation.pdf



For sure, Deacon is not computationalist and his ideas of information and 
computation are pretty classical ones.

But it does not matter in this context. For a computationalist all three kinds 
of dynamics are computational processes,

and corresponding structures are informational structures.



With best wishes,

Gordana





-Original Message-

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Hector Zenil

Sent: den 27 april 2012 22:40

To: Pedro C. Marijuan

Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>

Subject: Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK



Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is such a presumed

breakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among FIS

enthusiasts?



Thanks.





On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan

<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:



Dear colleagues,



Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have a

FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the new info

avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffman

and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular

discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple of

voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob Logan

could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh

discussion session for the coming months.



Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list; the

filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together.

Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated or as

as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one.



best



---Pedro

(fis list coordination)



-

Pedro C. Marijuán

Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group

Instituto Ar

Re: [Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Bruno and FIS colleagues,

Here are my three comments on the current discussion:
(1)
It seems to me that one thing should be taken into account: computationalism is 
not a monolithic body of theory,
and old approaches should not be mixed with the current ones.

Here is what Matthias Scheutz says (and I agree) in Computationalism: New 
Directions:

"Classical computationalism -- -the view that mental states are computational 
states -- -has come under attack in recent years. Critics claim that in 
defining computation solely in abstract, syntactic terms, computationalism 
neglects the real-time, embodied, real-world constraints with which cognitive 
systems must cope.

Instead of abandoning computationalism altogether, however, some researchers 
are reconsidering it, recognizing that real-world computers, like minds, must 
deal with issues of embodiment, interaction, physical implementation, and 
semantics.

This book lays the foundation for a successor notion of computationalism. It 
covers a broad intellectual range, discussing historic developments of the 
notions of computation and mechanism in the computationalist model, the role of 
Turing machines and computational practice in artificial intelligence research, 
different views of computation and their role in the computational theory of 
mind, the nature of intentionality, and the origin of language."
http://books.google.se/books?id=Y59zyNWnNfYC&printsec=front_cover&redir_esc=y

(2)
"The usual critics always assume type of first person/third person identity 
thesis which are incompatible both with computationalism or with quantum 
mechanics." (Bruno)

All we know with confidence about the first person is from the third persons 
accounts about first persons.
When it comes to first person accounts on the same first person, the "person" 
telling the story anyway is not the same person experiencing the world,
because those two exist in different instants of time. (Here I refer to 
Minsky's view of dynamical societies of mind)
So my account about my experiences comes from my memory and is a 
reconstruction. Psychologists know how unreliable self- accounts are.

Why not simply admit that all the knowledge about the first person simply comes 
from the third persons accounts about first persons?

(3)
When it comes to digital/analog and discrete/continuous debate, it must be 
pointed out that some of computationalist approaches are purely discrete (what 
here is called digital) while others allow for both discrete and continuous 
representations.*

I also agree with Hector and Wolfram that physics has primacy.
If at some level of abstraction such as quantum mechanics one observes both 
continuum and discrete states, that means understanding the nature as a 
computational system at that level of abstraction, computations are both 
discrete and continuous (like computations of an analog computer).

Our models of reality are not the same thing as reality. It is not the reality 
that is continuous or discrete - it is our best models of reality that are 
continuous or discrete. Reality is always more than our models. We are 
discussing our models.
We are always in a search for the best (richest, most productive, most general 
etc.) models of reality, and we learn through the process and we will continue 
to learn. Learning does not depend only on the nature of reality, it also 
depends on human effort invested in our interactions with the world and the 
construction of increasingly better models.

Best regards,
Gordana



*A very good and elucidating account of the discrete, continuous, analog, 
digital will be found in:
Maley, C.J. Analog and digital, continuous and discrete. Philos. Stud. 2010, 
155, 117-131.

Also here:
http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/2/3/460



From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: den 12 maj 2012 11:03
To: Hector Zenil
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Information Science
Subject: Re: [Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday


On 12 May 2012, at 00:55, Hector Zenil wrote:


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Bruno Marchal 
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

On 11 May 2012, at 13:10, Hector Zenil wrote:

Information that readers may find interesting:


Stephen Wolfram has written the first in a series of blogs posts about

NKS titled "It's Been 10 Years; What's Happened with A New Kind of

Science?": 
http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/its-been-10-years-whats-happened-with-a-new-kind-of-science/


Stephen will also be hosting an Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit, where

he will be taking questions  about NKS and his research program on

Monday, May 14 at 3pm EST.


I think it is a good opportunity to start an interesting discussion

about several topics, including of course information and computation.


It looks like advertising for a type of universal system, the cellular
automata.

Coincidently, Wolfram wrote today
(http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/

Re: [Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Bob,

I am not sure if I have right to reply, but you make a very important remark.

The answer is: computing nature performs much more than existing computers.

What is computable in computing nature is what nature is able to perform 
through its continuous changes.
Dialectical processes are also typical in nature and thus in the framework of 
computing nature, those also are computations.

In short the question is: what kind of computations are those dialectical 
processes?

That is what we want to learn.

All the best,
Gordana


-Original Message-
From: Robert Ulanowicz [mailto:u...@umces.edu] 
Sent: den 15 maj 2012 15:36
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Cc: Bruno Marchal; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday

Quoting Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic :


> 2.   Whatever changes in the states of the physical world there  
> are, we understand them as computation.

Dear Gordana,

I'm not sure I agree here. For much of what transpires in nature (not  
just in the living realm), the metaphor of the dialectic seems more  
appropriate than the computational. As you are probably aware,  
dialectics are not computable, mainly because their boundary value  
statements are combinatorically intractable (sensu Kauffman).

It is important to note that evolution (which, as Chaisson contends,  
applies as well to the history of the cosmos [and even the symmetrical  
laws of force]) is driven by contingencies, not by laws. Laws are  
necessary and they enable, but they cannot entail.

Regards,
Bob


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

Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Joseph and FIS colleagues,

"I will not argue here for or against computationalism (digital mechanism), 
because I do not understand how complex biological, cognitive and social 
processes can be computable, if no algorithm can be written for them. I speak 
of the processes themselves, not models of them.I would be grateful if someone 
(Bruno?) could explain this to me - I apologize if I have missed where this was 
done. " (Joseph)

It seems to me that the answer to Joseph's question is given in the following 
passage by Roger Penrose:

"(S)ome would prefer to define "computation" in terms of what a physical object 
can (in principle?) achieve (Deutsch, Teuscher, Bauer and Cooper). To me, 
however, this begs the question, and this same question certainly remains, 
whichever may be our preference concerning the use of the term "computation". 
If we prefer to use this "physical" definition, then all physical systems 
"compute" by definition, and in that case we would simply need a different word 
for the (original Church-Turing) mathematical concept of computation, so that 
the profound question raised, concerning the perhaps computable nature of the 
laws governing the operation of the universe can be studied, and indeed 
questioned."

Penrose in the Foreword to Zenil H. (Ed.): A Computable Universe, Understanding 
Computation & Exploring Nature As Computation, World Scientific Publishing 
Company/Imperial College Press, (2012)

In the field of Natural Computing the whole of nature computes. Nature is a 
network of networks of computing processes.
For many of such processes there are no simple single algorithms (like for 
human mind which also is a process - a network of processes)
There is a complex computational architecture and not a single algorithm.

"Nature indeed can be seen as a network of networks of computational processes 
and what we are trying is to compute the way nature does, learning its tricks 
of the trade. So the focus would not be computability but computational 
modeling. How good computational models of nature are we able to produce and 
what does it mean for a physical system to perform computation, computation 
being implementation of physical laws."

>From the Introduction to the book Computing Nature, forthcoming in SAPERE book 
>series: http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/work/COMPUTING-NATURE-20121028.pdf

In a computing nature complex biological, cognitive and social processes are 
(naturally) computable, even if no algorithm can be written for them.
But then "computable" is a more general term, as Penrose points out.

With best regards,
Gordana



From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
Sent: den 13 november 2012 18:24
To: Bob Logan; Stanley N Salthe
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

Dear FIS Friends and Colleagues,

Sometimes I feel as if I have been "whistling Dixie", to use an American 
expression for futility, for the last four years. I have tried to call 
attention to the fact that there is at least one way of doing logic, that of 
Stéphane Lupasco as up-dated in my Logic in Reality (LIR), that is not bounded 
by linguistic constraints, but allows one to make inferences about the real 
states of a system, actual and potential.

LIR is thus a logic that is relevant to the discussion, offering a considerably 
more complex picture of causality than a simple reversal of cause and effect. 
Ditto for emergence. It is thus a new but still rigorous, if partly qualitative 
way of mediating certainly philosophical and some scientific efforts, for 
example information-as-process.

I will not argue here for or against computationalism (digital mechanism), 
because I do not understand how complex biological, cognitive and social 
processes can be computable, if no algorithm can be written for them. I speak 
of the processes themselves, not models of them. I would be grateful if someone 
(Bruno?) could explain this to me - I apologize if I have missed where this was 
done.

A contrario, if anyone does not understand Logic in Reality, I would be happy 
to send some references that explain it. This might make possible its inclusion 
in the discussion.

Thank you and best wishes,

Joseph

- Original Message -
From: Bob Logan
To: Stanley N Salthe
Cc: fis
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

Hey Stan - I agree with the way you characterize the role of logic as a 
linguistic mechanism. Logic connects one set of statements, the premises, with 
another set of statements, the conclusion. Without challenging your remarks I 
would suggest that like the case with the poets it is sometimes useful to set 
aside the dictates of logic. McLuhan talked about the reversal of cause and 
effect. By this he meant in the case of artists that they start with the effect 
they wish to create and

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Gyorgy, Pedro, Stan, Joe, Karl, Igor, and other FIS colleagues,
With thankfulness for all of your enlightening comments
which strengthen my feeling that there is a lot of exciting work in front of us,
and that we witness all but the end of science,
I wish you all
A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR 2013!
Best,
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Gyorgy Darvas
Sent: den 3 januari 2013 11:28
To: fis@listas.unizar.es; Pedro C. Marijuan
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner

Ladies and Guys,

I do not understand fully, why the problematic of dark matter is so much 
important from the aspect of information.

We, physicists either, cannot agree what is dark matter.
Several physicists interpret the notion in different ways, and this ambiguity 
is reflected in the Fis discussion as well.
I have my own interpretation as well, what differs from that of most 
physicists. (I do not want to bore you with my interpretation.)
We do not agree even in that, whether dark matter and dark energy are the same. 
(According to me, they aren't. cf., e.g. my paper linked in my signo)

From my aspects of symmetry/invariance, I'd add only one, I think so, important 
issue:
all physicists agree in the conservation of mass in the universe, but
- we do not agree which mass is conserved (i.e., it may be the gravitational 
mass, or may be the sum of the gravitational and inertial masses);
- many physicists are not aware that although "the mass" (which?) is conserved, 
the value of the conserved quantity depends on the reference frame from which 
we observe it.
The latter has two important consequences:
- once, there must be such a reference frame, in which the conserved quantity 
of mass - counted on the basis of the first Noether theorem - is minimal; in 
this case that reference frame is distinguished from all other reference 
frames; and this distinction would contradict to one of the basic principles of 
the relativity theory, according to which all reference frames are equivalent.
- at second, if we would like to avoid this contradiction, there must be such a 
gauge field, in the presence of which all reference frames lead to the same 
amount of conserved mass. This means, there is not the Lorentz transformation 
alone under which the mass will be conserved in the universe, but the Lorentz 
transformation plus another transformation in that gauge field (which should 
depend on velocity). (I proved the existence of such combined transformation in 
a series of papers in 2009-12. It holds not only for mass.)

In short, I think, it is not our task to solve the problem of "what is dark 
matter".
However, this remark does not mean a constraint to wish a happy new year to all 
of you,
Gyuri

.
Symmetry Festival 2013, Delft, 2-7  
August
Download and print the poster in A3 
size, post it at your 
department,
throughout your parent institution, and distribute among colleagues outside.
Thank you for your contribution to publicize the event!
.
A recent publication online:
Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded conservation 
law
.
__
Gyorgy Darvas
E-mail  ; Skype: darvasgy; S Y M M E T R I O 
N
Mailing address: c/o G. Darvas; 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067 Hungary
Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965;
Monograph: 
Symmetry;
  Course of lectures on  
Symmetry,
Course of lectures on 
 Interactions in 
Kinetic Fields and the Conservation of 
IFCS
___
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Natural Philosophy? -- RE: [Fwd: SV: Science, Philosophy and Information. An Alternative Relation] S.Brier

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear colleagues,

Could it be so that Philosophy of Statistical Mechanics does not make much 
sense without Philosophy of Cognition 
and philosophy of the rest?

Could it be so that what we need is Natural Philosophy as it was before it has 
fallen apart into specialist sciences?

With best regards,
Gordana

-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of John Collier
Sent: den 11 februari 2013 18:38
To: Loet Leydesdorff; 'Pedro C. Marijuan'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: Science, Philosophy and Information. An 
Alternative Relation] S.Brier

I guess I am at a loss to see them as separate discourses.  Especially in the 
domain of Information.

Contrary to what Stan said, I think that many of the major advances in science 
from Statistical Mechanics, to Relativity Theory to Quantum Mechanics did and 
continue to have a major philosophical component, and professional philosophers 
work with scientists directly in each of these fields, It used to be true in 
Computer Science, but is less so now. In Cognitive Science there is currently 
virtually now separation. In Biology there are many philosophers who work with 
biologists, and vice versa, but far too many who do not.

I think that technology is much more linked to industry than it is to the 
sciences above.

John

At 06:03 PM 2013/02/11, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
>How does one measure the synergy among three discourses?
>That is an interesting question within information theory (as part of 
>both science and philosophy).
>
>Best,
>Loet
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es 
>[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
>Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:29 PM
>To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: Science, Philosophy and Information. An 
>Alternative Relation] S.Brier
>
> Original Message 
>Subject:SV: [Fis] Science, Philosophy and Information. An
>Alternative
>Relation
>Date:   Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:32:04 +0100
>From:   Søren Brier 
>To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch , Pedro Clemente
>Marijuan Fernandez , fis@listas.unizar.es 
>, John Collier 
>References: <6043399.89641360255002322.javamail.webm...@bluewin.ch>
>
>
>
>Dear Joseph
>
>
>
>I go for each of the three nominally independent disciplines are not 
>independent, but that each provides a dynamic ontological and 
>epistemological link to the other two, more or less strong or "actual"
>depending on the extent to which one wishes to emphasize certain 
>aspects of knowledge. Science without philosophy is stupid but 
>philosophy without science is blind. I am for a synergetic interaction.
>
>
>
>
>
>Best wishes
>
>
>
>   Søren Brier
>
>
>
>Professor in the semiotics of information, cognition and commmunication 
>science,
>
>department of International Business Communication, Copenhagen Business 
>School,
>
>Dalgas Have 15, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>*Fra:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
>[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *På vegne af 
>*joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
>*Sendt:* 7. februar 2013 17:37
>*Til:* Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez; fis@listas.unizar.es; John 
>Collier
>*Emne:* [Fis] Science, Philosophy and Information. An Alternative 
>Relation
>
>
>
>Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
>The formation of the the Society for the Philosophy of Information at 
>the University of Hertfordshire is announced in the link in John's note.
>It includes the announcement and Call for Papers of the International 
>Conference on the Philosophy of Information to be held in Xi'An, China 
>in October, 2013, sponsored by both the above Society, led by Professor 
>Luciano Floridi and the Institute for the Philosophy of Information in 
>Xi'An under the direction of Professor Wu Kun.
>
>This increased activity in the area of the philosophy of information 
>(another major Workshop is planned this Spring) raises the issue of the 
>relation between the science and philosophy of information as well as 
>of the philosophy of science. I am aware of and agree with the position 
>expressed by Pedro that information science in the FIS framework should 
>emphasize scientific research in the sense of knowledge that is 
>quantifiable and/or provable. However, I do not believe that either he 
>or others of you intend to exclude rigorous qualitative knowledge, 
>especially as it concerns the dual nature of information.
>
>The ubiquitous presence of information in all disciplines, as 
>emphasized by Wu, suggests an alternative relation linking philosophy, 
>science and information that is NOT one of simple hierarchical 
>inclusion or possession ("of"). One possibility is to say that it is 
>information that links philosophy and science, but this formulation 
>perhaps fails to recognize the general properties of the latter two.
>
>Another possibility is to say that each of the three nominally 
>independent disci

Re: [Fis] [ITHEA ISS] Computer Science Open Educational Resources Portal

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Karl,
It was an interesting thought about nuomenon as Musil's man without properties.
Also about natural information that is not Shannon information as Shannon 
information is abstract and natural information is physical.
To me (as a physicist) it looks like plausible to think about nuomenon as a 
thing with many more properties than we know.
If I do not think of nuomenon as abstraction but as the concrete physical world 
before anyone interacts with it.
Before we observe the world, it is untouched in its original state. We change 
the world through interactions.
Quantum mechanics and chaotic systems are good examples how observation causes 
changes.

Physically, nuomenon exists and it is not without properties but with 
properties which we cannot know directly through our senses.
We only imagine that the color we see is property of the world. It is the 
property of our interaction with the world.
We found many ways around the problem of learning about properties of the 
world, not only via our senses but through extended cognition -
instruments and theories. However we can never be sure how much more there is 
to uncover.

By our increasingly more complex relationships with the nuomenon we capture 
completely new phenomena
that without our interaction would newer be uncovered. We co-produce phenomena 
through the interaction with nuomenon.
Physical nuomenon (unlike the concept of nuomenon) can be seen as an 
inexhaustible source of possible phenomena.
What do you think?

Best regards,
Gordana



From: Karl Javorszky mailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "karl.javors...@gmail.com<mailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com>" 
mailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:26 AM
To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>, Krassimir 
Kostadinov Markov mailto:i...@foibg.com>>, John Collier 
mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>>, Joseph Brenner 
mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>>, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>>, Michel 
Petitjean mailto:ptitj...@itodys.jussieu.fr>>, fis 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>, Gara Péter 
mailto:g...@eik.bme.hu>>, Gyorgy Darvas 
mailto:darv...@iif.hu>>
Subject: Re: [ITHEA ISS] Computer Science Open Educational Resources Portal


Dear Colleagues,

maybe there is a European institutoion, or a collection of European 
individuals, whoi can manage and cooperate in a projecdt of science? If not, 
the development of this approach to - among other concepts - dark matter, dark 
energy, unified field theory, genetic information transfer, atc. will be 
offered to those who have a tradition of seeing advantages in action.

I'm prepared to contribute to a workshop on how to use tha accounting machine 
in Madrid.

Hoping that there is a spirit of entrepreneurship also in Europe, I look 
forward your suggestions.

Karl


Letter to Darina (not yet sent)

Dear Darina,

Thank you for the informative link to your institution. I'd like to ask you a 
question re your resources and willingness to participate inb a development 
project.

Your post has reached me as I am a member of ITHEA. Into ITHEA I got included 
by reason of being a founding member of FIS (Foundations of Information 
Science). This is a  chat room dedicating itself to - well - information 
science.

There is a new algorithm that appears to be rather useful. (Being its inventor, 
I'm of course less than exactly impartial in judging its possible and potential 
uses.) The basic idea is combining the use of the logical operators {<|=|>} and 
{+} on the same data set. (This is the idea that got discouraged at Elementary 
School, as we were instructed to disregard the differences between additions as 
long as their result is the same.)

There is a literature to this idea and also some tables, computer graphics and 
so on. The project is presently at the nerd-working-in-garage-level, as its 
novelty has prevented mainstream institutions from dedicating resources to it. 
(Some may also hint at human nature being such as it is, not really flexible in 
some respects.)

Now the time appears to become ripe for actually contemplating something 
different to the methods used so far; a Conference titled "Natural Information 
Technologies" being called for end September in Madrid. My Essay was accepted 
for presentation at this Conference.

Although I'd prefer to have as partners in development a European setup, for 
many reasons, there is no denying that entrepreneurship and open-mindedness is 
a more general strait in the US than in the EU.

So, I'd like to make you the offer to participate in the development of the 
idea. I'll enclose the Essay; in there you will find a link to a series of 
e-lectures I had given to FIS last semester titled "Learn to Count in Twelve 
Easy Steps", and the site where the data tables and  the amateurish graphi

Re: [Fis] Madrid Meeting

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Thank you Karl for this information!
I didn't know about it, or I somehow missed it in all the other information.
It looks very interesting!
I had two conferences in three weeks in September and teaching this semester, 
so I should have been planning long in advance.
Hope you will have a great conference!

Best wishes,
Gordana


From: Karl Javorszky mailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "karl.javors...@gmail.com<mailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com>" 
mailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:24 PM
To: fis mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>, "Pedro C. 
Marijuan" mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>, 
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>>, Joseph 
Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>>
Subject: Madrid Meeting


Hope to see you at the NIT conference.
Karl
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] AISB is celebrating 50th anniversary in 2014 - Invitation to the symposium Representation and Reality

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

The society for the study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of 
Behaviour (the AISB) is celebrating 50th anniversary in 2014, see 
http://aisb50.org/

We would especially like to invite you to the symposium titled Representation 
and Reality that we are organizing: 
https://sites.google.com/site/representationofreality/home and we hope you 
might be interested in contributing.

With very best regards,

Gordana Dodig Crnkovic and Raffaela Giovagnoli




Dr Dr Gordana Dodig Crnkovic,
Professor
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Mälardalen University
Sweden
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc/>

Organizer of the Symposium on Natural/Unconventional Computing,
the Turing Centenary  World Congress of AISB/IACAP
https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012


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

Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion 
(bottom-up--top-down—and-back-again)?
Just a thought.

All the best,
Gordana

http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

From: Loet Leydesdorff mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM
To: 'Stanley N Salthe' mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>, 
'fis' mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Cc: Инга mailto:inga@mail.ru>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.)  A nice example for you might be 
communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse code.  The 
actual local operations here may not be the best framework to view this 
(including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this example into my 
above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is communicating, not 
individual persons.  It takes two positions for this communication to occur, 
and this makes the system a large scale one, and so its speed of communication 
is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy principles.

I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would then be 
subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size and speed), 
but it is a social construction on top of the individuals, isn’t it? Is there 
room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of the second law?) such 
as the generation of redundancy?

Best,
Loet



・Inga Ivanova and Loet Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in 
University-Industry-Government Relations: The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, 
and Simulated.


・Loet Leydesdorff and Inga Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human 
Communication Systems: Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing 
Meaning, Journal of the American Society for 
Information Science and Technology (in press).
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] reply to Loet, Stan, Joseph

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Joseph and Stan, Loet, Inga, FIS,

Stan's description seems to me fine when it comes to the relationship between a 
system/group/society and its single constituent/part/individual.
But one may also be interested in another relationship, between a system and a 
group of all individuals/constituents that constitute it, such as for example 
the difference between FIS and a group {Stan, Loet, Joseph, Inga, Pedro, …} of 
all its members.
Individuals constitute different groups for different reasons, through 
different interactions.
In that case a set of individuals is not less than a system, they are 
potentially even more,
as the same individuals/parts can form different groups/systems - depending on 
circumstances.

I agree with Joseph's description of dynamics as a spiral motion and the 
process of complexification through "alternating actualization and 
potentialization".

All the best,
Gordana



http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc/>


From: Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>>
Reply-To: Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>>
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 5:40 PM
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>>, Loet 
Leydesdorff mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>, 'Stanley N 
Salthe' mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>, 'fis' 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Cc: Инга mailto:inga@mail.ru>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

Dear Gordana and Loet,

I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of the 
hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially very 
important. In reality, it is the processes in the "hierarchy" that have been 
moving and continue to move partly in a non-univocal manner, countercurrently 
if you like. My logic gives a framework for such
movement in a spiral, not circular manner by alternating actualization and 
potentialization.

Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity, that are 
communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to 
communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more 
complete understanding of communication should be able to take such 
complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion.

Best,

Joseph
- Original Message -
From: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic<mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>
To: Loet Leydesdorff<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; 'Stanley N 
Salthe'<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu> ; 'fis'<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Cc: Инга<mailto:inga@mail.ru>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet


Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion 
(bottom-up--top-down—and-back-again)?
Just a thought.

All the best,
Gordana

http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

From: Loet Leydesdorff mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM
To: 'Stanley N Salthe' mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>, 
'fis' mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Cc: Инга mailto:inga@mail.ru>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.)  A nice example for you might be 
communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse code.  The 
actual local operations here may not be the best framework to view this 
(including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this example into my 
above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is communicating, not 
individual persons.  It takes two positions for this communication to occur, 
and this makes the system a large scale one, and so its speed of communication 
is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy principles.
I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would then be 
subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size and speed), 
but it is a social construction on top of the individuals, isn’t it? Is there 
room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of the second law?) such 
as the generation of redundancy?
Best,
Loet

・Inga Ivanova and Loet 
Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government Relations: 
The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, and 
Simulated.<http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3836>

・Loet Leydesdorff and Inga 
Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: Steps 
Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaning<http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849>, 
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (in 
press).



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Frequentists, Bayesians and Jaynesians - assumptions and consequentces

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear colleagues,

Encouraged by your recent exchanges, which show that the topic of Hans' New 
Year Lecture is
far from exhausted, I would like to think a bit more on the fundamental change
from Frequentist to Bayesian statistics. Hans writes:

“On the one hand each individual agent assembles the totality of her experiences
(experimenting, reading, talking, calculating...) into a web of probability
assignments that is as coherent and comprehensive as possible. That's the easy
part, and, as usual, physicists have picked it as their domain. But the hard
part is the effort of agents to correlate their private experiences -- i.e. to
communicate with each other in order to develop a common scientific worldview.
Agent A's description of an experience serves as input for updating B's personal
probability assignments via Bayes' law. And this is done through language as
well as math.” (Hans mail from Saturday, January 18, 2014 6:47 PM)

Reading the above I conclude that QBist change of perspective is not only 
relevant for quantum
physics, or physics in general. It is relevant for all sciences based on 
observations and experiments.
And indeed, among others, brain researchers are using Bayesian statistics.
However, there are brain researchers arguing for the necessity of going beyond 
Bayes:

http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/2/175 Beyond Bayes: On the Need for a Unified 
and Jaynesian
Definition of Probability and Information within Neuroscience by Christopher D. 
Fiorillo

Are there any comments to this claim?
Would Jaynesian statistics make a difference for Qbism?
I would like to learn more.

With best wishes,
Gordana




http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


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

Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man & Cognitive Informatics

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

John,

Ideas from the following article may also be of interest in this context:

Yingxu Wang (2003)  On Cognitive Informatics, Brain and Mind, Volume 4, Issue 
2, pp 151-167
 http://www2.enel.ucalgary.ca/IJCINI/ICfCI/JB&M-Vol4-No2-CI.pdf

All the best,
Gordana


From: John Collier mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>>
Date: Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:26 AM
To: Bob Logan mailto:lo...@physics.utoronto.ca>>
Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es" 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man

Bob,

Sometimes ignored in the mathematics of Shannon's approach are the coding and 
decoding steps, which he does not put in mathematical form, but appear in his 
diagrams.

There has been some work in this area, the best of which I think to be 
Information Flow by Barwise and Seligman. It is a difficult book, and could 
have been a lot more clear. In any case there is a potential solution to the 
coding issue in the idea of infomorphisms being relations between two sets of 
classifications. The classifications don't have to be the same for information 
transfer, but they do have to satisfy certain conditions. The work is grounded 
in work in the 30s by engineers looking at distributed systems. My 
understadning is that there is a group at Stanford working on reconciling this 
approach with Shannon, but I haven't heard anything from them recently. Ted 
Gorenson, who was on fis some time ago, was giving reports. I have been making 
some progress of my own here, on the specific problem from my PhD thesis on 
commensurability across scientific theories with differing classifications. I 
have given a few talks on this, and will give a more advanced one at a meeting 
on New Approaches to Scientific Realism near Cape Town in August. 
Unfortunately, what initially looked promising is now leading me to some 
serious doubts about whether information transferred from one theoretical 
context to another can solve the problem, and I am going back to my thesis 
hypothesis that pragmatics are required to solve the problem, and that this 
cannot be formalized (the basis of a couple of papers I have on pragmatics -- 
the formal pragmatists really don't like it) I have done with a former student.

Sorry for the vagueness, but this is not an easy problem, and to go into more 
detail would take far too much space right now.

Incidentally, I had a massive hard drive problem, and lost much of my in box, 
hence the late reply. I hope it is still useful.

John

At 04:37 PM 2013-12-08, Bob Logan wrote:
Dear John - I agree with your distinction between information and 
communication. What is essential for communication is the interpretation of the 
information. If I cannot interpret the information there is no communication. 
What Shannon leave out of his theory of signals (this is not a typo, I believe 
that the notion of Shannon's work as information theory is a category error) is 
the interpretation of the receiver. The notion that a random set of numbers is 
the maximum amount of information seems ludicrous to me as what interpretation 
can one make of a random set of numbers. John, one slight quibble. You refer to 
Shannon's "model of communication". How can he have a model of communication if 
he makes now allowance for interpretation. He was concerned with the accuracy 
of transmitting a set of signs from point A to point B. Krassimir wrote: 
"Communication is a process of exchanging of "signals, messages" with different 
degree of complexity (Shannon)." Without the ability to interpret the signals 
there is no communication. If someone speaks to me in Navaho or Mandarin they 
will exchange signals with me but their level of communication will be close to 
nil. All I will be able to infer is that they want to communicate with me.

I hope that my exchange of signals is interpretable and that I have 
communicated with you, John and other members of FIS.

The expression of this hope leads to the following thought. In an exchange 
between two intelligent agents who speak the same language but have made 
different assumptions about an issue they are discussing there is often a 
breakdown in communication because their interpretation of the assumptions upon 
which their exchange of signals are based are so different. This brings to mind 
I. A. Richards notion that in order for communication to occur one has to 
feedforward the context of what one wants to say. He once suggested that 
perfect communication only occurs if the two communicants have identical 
experiences and since this is not possible absolutely perfect communication is 
not possible. However one can improve one's communication by feedforwarding the 
context. So my feedforward to you and the FIS audience is that I worked with 
Marshall McLuhan from 1974 to his passing in 1980, he was a student of I. A. 
Richards and he (McLuhan) believed communication is effected by both the 
content of the message and the medium or channel by which the signals 

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Very interesting. It might also be useful to connect information to
computation as information dynamics.
Information self-structuring and morphological computing are of interest.
See for example:

http://www.indiana.edu/~cortex/ICDL05_paper.pdf Information
Self-Structuring: Key Principle for Learning
and Development 

This type of computation (biological, neurocomputation) is richer both
temporally and spatially than Turing Machine model ca capture. See:
http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~cmg/papers/Crutchfield.CHAOSIntro2010.pdf Santa Fe
Institute Working Paper 10-11-024
Beyond the Digital Hegemony. A Focus Issue on "Intrinsic and Designed
Computation: Information Processing in Dynamical Systems"


So if brain structures compute, this computation is much more complex than
a simple mechanical clockwork-type process.

Conferences in the series http://www.neuroinformatics2013.org and
http://www.neuroinformatics2014.org are also closely related.
Neuroscientists talk about information processing in the brain and mutual
information (see the first article).

Information can be seen as structures and computation as the dynamics of
those structures. 
Both are complex in case of brain - the structures are fractal and
processes are parallel concurrent and distributed.

We are still trying to develop suitable frameworks both in information
theory and in theory of computation,
at the same time with learning more about brain - it is a two-way
development process.

There is a beautiful article: Lila Kari, Grzegorz Rozenberg: The many
facets of natural computing - that addresses those new developments.
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/141/1400200/p72-kari.pdf?ip=129.16.219.
106&id=1400200&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=74F7687761D7AE37%2E3C5D6C4574200C81
%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=460437900&CFTOKEN=86096657&__ac
m__=1417615447_3795fbeab8c8723f1f2fb7884c2936b2


With best regards,
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic




____________
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden
http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/








On 03/12/14 13:55, "Lars-Göran Johansson"
 wrote:

>I suggest that you take a look at Floridis book 'Philosophy of
>Information' where he distinguishes three senses of the word
>'information' and one of which seems to fit what you are asking about ,
>viz., 'Neuroinformation'.
>regards 
>Lars-Göran Johansson
>
>3 dec 2014 kl. 13:46 skrev Carolina Isiegas :
>
>> Dear list,
>> 
>> I have been reading during the last year all these interesting
>>exchanges. Some of them terrific discussions! Given my scientific
>>backgound (Molecular Neuroscience), I would like to hear your point of
>>view on the topic of neuroinformation, how information "exists" within
>>the Central Nervous Systems. My task was experimental; I was interested
>>in investigating the molecular mechanisms underlying learning and
>>memory, specifically, the role of the cAMP-PKA-CREB signaling pathway in
>>such brain functions (In Ted Abel´s Lab at the University of
>>Pennsylvania, where I spent 7 years). I generated several genetically
>>modified mice in which I could regulate the expression of this pathway
>>in specific brain regions and in which I studied the effects of
>>upregulation or downregulation at the synaptic and behavioral levels.
>>However, I am conscious that the "information flow" within the mouse
>>Nervous System is far more complex that in the "simple" pathway that I
>>was studying...so, my concrete question for you "Fishers" or "Fisers",
>>how should we contemplate the micro and macro structures of information
>>within the neural realm? what is Neuroinformation?
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Carolina Isiegas
>> ___
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>--
>Lars-Göran Johansson
>professor
>filosofiska institutionen
>Uppsala Universitet
>
>
>
>
>___
>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] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY AND FOUR GREAT SCIENTIFIC DOMAINS Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

tion. In the similar way as an autogen, as a 
self-organizing unit that preserves itself dynamically and grows via a 
combination of autocatalysis and self-assembly, our knowledge grows dynamically 
and the meaning of pieces changes accordingly. In other words, it is not only 
self-organizing but also self-generating. Different scientific domains support 
and regulate each other; different “domain-specific” (or “science-specific”) 
models can help better construction or generation of knowledge of the whole as 
well as of the details. Specifically, it might be useful to connect to 
computing (as information dynamics), as Pedro suggests.

Computing (Rosenbloom, “The Fourth Great Scientific Domain”) seen as 
information dynamics, goes together with the physical, the biological, and the 
social. The project of naturalization proceeds by connecting all four domains. 
(Dodig-Crnkovic, 2014) The attractiveness of the project as Terry’s (as 
presented in the Incomplete Nature) is in its contribution to the 
naturalization of reference and significance – concepts that still are highly 
mystified in the eyes of many.

At the end, I have two questions.

First the particular one. I would like to know what exactly is the difference 
between autogenesis and autopoiesis? It seems to me that autogenesis as it 
looks like from Terry’s Opening Essay is a step before the whole system can be 
integrated and said to be alive. On the other hand autopoiesis is the process 
of life of an organism such as cell with all properties of a living organism. 
Autogen seems to me as a chemical automaton while autopoetic system is alive. 
The theory of autopoiesis is descriptive and qualitative. It does not make the 
insights made by Maturana and Varela less important. Understanding autopoiesis 
as cognition makes a vital connection between mind and matter. Like Pedro, I 
also believe that study of the behavior of prokaryotic cells such as bacteria 
is useful as it can reveal a lot about information processing as social 
cognition (Ben-Jacob, Becker, & Shapira, 2004; Ben-Jacob, Shapira, & Tauber, 
2006, 2011; Ben-Jacob, 2008, 2009a, 2009b) (Ng & Bassler, 2009; Waters & 
Bassler, 2005).

There is a lot we don't know about such complex systems as bacteria but we can 
learn relevant things even if we apply “lazy evaluation” strategy for many 
parts in the model. In other words, it should be possible and reasonable to 
build knowledge even though we do not know (enough) about parts we build from 
and their mutual interactions.

My second question, the general one, goes back to Pedro’s post:  how the New 
Year’s Essay connects to the big picture with four great scientific domains?

With best regards,
Gordana



References
Ben-Jacob, E. (2008). Social behavior of bacteria: from physics to complex 
organization. The European Physical Journal B, 65(3), 315–322.
Ben-Jacob, E. (2009a). Bacterial Complexity: More Is Different on All Levels. 
In S. Nakanishi, R. Kageyama, & D. Watanabe (Eds.), Systems Biology- The 
Challenge of Complexity (pp. 25–35). Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.
Ben-Jacob, E. (2009b). Learning from Bacteria about Natural Information 
Processing. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1178, 78–90.
Ben-Jacob, E., Becker, I., & Shapira, Y. (2004). Bacteria Linguistic 
Communication and Social Intelligence. Trends in Microbiology, 12(8), 366–372.
Ben-Jacob, E., Shapira, Y., & Tauber, A. I. (2006). Seeking the Foundations of 
Cognition in Bacteria. Physica A, 359, 495–524.
Ben-Jacob, E., Shapira, Y., & Tauber, A. I. (2011). Smart Bacteria. In L. 
Margulis, C. A. Asikainen, & W. E. Krumbein (Eds.), Chimera and Consciousness. 
Evolution of the Sensory Self. Cambridge Boston: MIT Press.
Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2014). Modeling Life as Cognitive Info-Computation. In A. 
Beckmann, E. Csuhaj-Varjú, & K. Meer (Eds.), Computability in Europe 2014. LNCS 
(pp. 153–162). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Kurakin, A. (2011). The self-organizing fractal theory as a universal discovery 
method: the phenomenon of life. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 
8(4). Retrieved from http://www.tbiomed.com/content/8/1/4
Ng, W.-L., & Bassler, B. L. (2009). Bacterial quorum-sensing network 
architectures. Annual Review of Genetics, 43, 197–222.
Waters, C. M., & Bassler, B. L. (2005). Quorum Sensing: Cell-to-Cell 
Communication in Bacteria. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 21, 
319–346.




http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/



From: Jeremy Sherman 
mailto:mindreadersdiction...@gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday 18 January 2015 03:41
To: fis mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11

It would be satisfying perhaps to think of our collective work as at the 
forefront of the development of what will become A Grand Domain of Science, but 
I would say the better trend in current science is tow

[Fis] Workshop Triangular Relationship Information-Reality-Cognition at IS4IS Summit

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Colleagues,

As Marcin got problem with mail that bounced, I try again, with links to 
attachments.

As you learned from Marcin's mails, this is the announcement of the workshop
"Triangular Relationship Information-Reality-Cognition:
Through the Prism of Physical-Biological-Cognitive Sciences, Computing and 
Philosophy"
within FIS Track of ISIS Summit in Vienna, June 3-7, 2015
which Marcin and I are organising.

As for all other tracks and workshops the deadline for extended abstracts 
(750-2,000 words) is February 27.

Please find here links to the Call for Papers and a poster of the workshop.
CALL FOR PAPERS 
<http://www.idt.mdh.se/~gdc/work/CallForPapers-TRIRC-20150203.pdf> 
http://www.idt.mdh.se/~gdc/work/CallForPapers-TRIRC-20150203.pdf
POSTER<http://www.idt.mdh.se/~gdc/work/TRIRC-IS4IS-2015-poster.pdf> 
http://www.idt.mdh.se/~gdc/work/TRIRC-IS4IS-2015-poster.pdf

With best regards,
Marcin & Gordana


________
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden
http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

&

Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D.
Professor
Akita International University
Akita, Japan
m...@aiu.ac.jp


From: MARCIN Schroeder mailto:m...@aiu.ac.jp>>
Date: Tuesday 3 February 2015 13:03
To: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: [Fis] Workshop T 9.2 at IS4IS Summit




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

[Fis] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

To me the miracle is not so much order, as it is relation, and thus as Loet 
says "order is always constructed (by us)"-
but the miracle is the very existence of anything (us, the rest of the 
universe).
Why there is something rather than nothing (that would be much simpler)?
To me miracle is how it all started. From vacuum fluctuations? But where the 
vacuum comes from?
But then, why should we call it a miracle?
Perhaps the better name is just natural law, finally equally inexplicable and 
given,
but sounds more general and less mystic.

Best,
Gordana


From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Organization: University of Amsterdam
Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net" 
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Date: Monday 22 February 2016 at 20:36
To: 'Bruno Marchal' mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>, 'fis 
Science' mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24


All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions.

I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and can, minimize the miracle.

Why would one need a worldview? The whole assumption of an order as a Given (in 
a Revelation) is religious. Order is always constructed (by us) and can/needs 
to be explained.

No "harmonia praestabilita", but ex post. No endpoint omega. No cosmology, but 
chaology.

With due respect for those of you who wish to hold on to religion or nature as 
a given; however, vaguely defined.

Best,
Loet

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

Re: [Fis] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Bob,

I agree with you that: neither of existing models (Newtonian physics, original 
Darwinian formulation of evolution) is sufficient for explaining how real 
change—in the form of creative advance or emergence—takes place in nature. And 
that: Chance and disarray in natural processes are necessary conditions for 
real change. Randomness contributes richness and autonomy to the natural world. 
(From the description of your book A Third Window: Natural Life beyond Newton 
and Darwin). Complex phenomena and self-organisation are subject of intense 
research within science and by no means understood as miraculous.

It seems to me that all depends on how we conceptualise “miracle” vs. “law”. 
“Laws” need not be deterministic and they can also evolve, as physicists are 
talking about unification of forces under conditions of early universe. In 
analogy with the previous posts regarding “miracles” we can imagine minimising 
“laws” to one in our model of the early universe and then follow how the “laws” 
emerge together with the rest of everything.
I imagine “miracle” as something going beyond our understanding forever, while 
natural phenomenon is something we believe to be able to find a good model for, 
no matter how long it may take.

If we imagine “miracles” as explanation for things we do not have good models 
for, the world would be full of miracles. As a scientist I just react to the 
word “miracle” being used to explain what we do not understand in nature. I 
have seen human laws in practice, and I was taught about “natural laws” in 
school. I have never seen a “miracle” and I do not believe in “miracles” other 
than poetic figures of speech.

All the best,
Gordana


On 23/02/16 02:20, "Robert E. Ulanowicz" 
mailto:u...@umces.edu>> wrote:

Dear Gordana,

"Law" is a slippery concept. Most physicists make the theological
assumption that the laws of physics pre-existed the Big Bang. I rather
doubt that. I see the laws as having evolved (precipitated?) out of
inchoate configurations of processes.


Under the prevailing metaphysics, miracles are impossible. For that
matter, so is real change! If we switch metaphysical foundations, however,
the boundary between law and miracle grows permeable.


Best wishes,
Bob

To me the miracle is not so much order, as it is relation, and thus as
Loet says "order is always constructed (by us)"-
but the miracle is the very existence of anything (us, the rest of the
universe).
Why there is something rather than nothing (that would be much simpler)?
To me miracle is how it all started. From vacuum fluctuations? But where
the vacuum comes from?
But then, why should we call it a miracle?
Perhaps the better name is just natural law, finally equally inexplicable
and given,
but sounds more general and less mystic.

Best,
Gordana


From: Fis
mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>>
 on
behalf of Loet Leydesdorff
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Organization: University of Amsterdam
Reply-To: 
"l...@leydesdorff.net"
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Date: Monday 22 February 2016 at 20:36
To: 'Bruno Marchal' 
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>, 'fis
Science' 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24


All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions.

I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and can, minimize the miracle.

Why would one need a worldview? The whole assumption of an order as a
Given (in a Revelation) is religious. Order is always constructed (by us)
and can/needs to be explained.

No "harmonia praestabilita", but ex post. No endpoint omega. No cosmology,
but chaology.

With due respect for those of you who wish to hold on to religion or
nature as a given; however, vaguely defined.

Best,
Loet

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






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

Re: [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear colleagues,
In my understanding, both Loet and Søren are right. Loet about how sciences 
look like today and Sören about the need of integrative processes in the future.


Sören:
Thus the question is how can we establish an alternative transdisciplinary 
model of the sciences and the humanities to the logical positivist reductionism 
on one hand and to postmodernist relativist constructivism on the other in the 
form of a transdisciplinary concept of Wissenschaft (i.e. “knowledge creation”, 
implying both subjectivism and objectivism)? The body and its meaning-making 
processes is a complex multidimensional object of research that necessitates 
trans-disciplinary theoretical approaches including biological sciences, 
primarily biosemiotics and bio-cybernetics, cognition and communication 
sciences, phenomenology, hermeneutics, philosophy of science and philosophical 
theology (Harney 2015, Davies & Gregersen 2009).


Loet:
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?




On all levels, knowledge is a result of two opposed processes – integration and 
differentiation of information. Here data can be seen as atoms of information. 
I take it to be self-evident that knowledge is produced by all living 
organisms, individually and in groups, from bacteria or single cells in a 
multicellular organism up. So yes, knowledge is not only what individuals have 
in their bodies as saved data/ information/ knowledge (Here I think of the 
process of formation ever more complex structures from data to information to 
knowledge to wisdom (Tom Stonier). Knowledge is shared by communities of 
practice.

Interestingly, there is already today a body of knowledge about integrative 
research projects, especially developed in applied research such as one aiming 
at solving wicked, ill-defined, real-world problems such as problems of 
environment and sustainable development. Also, medicine is a field where more 
and more transdisciplinary approaches can be found such as in cancer research 
where models are made ranging from molecular up to macroscopic social 
structures, where all disparate research fields such as molecular biology and 
epidemiology contribute to build a complex, multi-faceted knowledge of the 
phenomenon. As an illustration, have a look at: 
http://www.transdisciplinarity.ch/td-net/Aktuell.html

Two handbooks are also of interest:

Hadorn, G.H. et al., 2008. Handbook of transdisciplinary research, Springer 
Netherlands.

Frodeman, R., Klein, J.T. & Mitcham, C. eds., 2010. The Oxford Handbook of 
Interdisciplinarity, OUP Oxford.

How does information enter this process of integration of knowledge from 
diverse research domains?

Dodig-Crnkovic G., Physical Computation as Dynamics of Form that Glues 
Everything Together<http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/2/204/pdf>,
Information<http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/2/204> 
(doi:10.3390/info3020204<http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info3020204>) Special Issue 
on Information: Its Different Modes and Its Relation to 
Meaning<http://www.mdpi.com/journal/information/special_issues/information_meaning/>,
 R. Logan Ed., 2012 3(2), 204-218

Best,
Gordana



________
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Vice Dean of Graduate Education
Department of Applied IT
Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden
http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Organization: University of Amsterdam
Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>" 
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Date: Saturday 2 April 2016 at 13:04
To: "'Pedro C. Marijuan'" 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>, 
"fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS


Thus the question is how can we establish an alternative transdisciplinary 
model of the sciences and the humanities to the logical positivist reductionism 
on one hand and to postmodernist relativist constructivism on the other in the 
form of a transdisciplinary concept of Wissenschaft (i.e. “knowledge creation”, 
implying both subjectivism and objectivism)? The body and its meaning-making 
processes is a complex multidimensional object of research that necessitates 
trans-disciplinary theoretical approaches including biological sciences, 
primarily biosemiot

[Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu 2016, web page

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Thank you Pedro!

For those of FIS colleagues who might be interested in the details of ICIS2016 
conference on Intelligence Science,
including the presentations, here is the web page:
http://www.intsci.ac.cn/ICIS2016/speaker.jsp

Still more information can be found at http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/

World Scientific is starting the series on Intelligence Science 
http://www.worldscientific.com/series/sis
edited by Zhongzhi Shi, who was part of ICIS2016 
http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/shizz/

So the new field is in its beginnings and the feeling is very hopeful.

Best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
http://is4si-2017.org/




From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
Date: Sunday 13 November 2016 at 03:01
To: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: [Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu

Dear FIS Colleagues,

During past days a conference on Intelligence Science was hold in Chengdu. It 
was organized by Zhao Chuan (fis member, who presented in this list about the 
same topic last year), and was chaired by Yixin Zhong (well known in this list 
too). Western FIS parties who attended were Gordana, Joseph Brenner (although 
finally read in absentia), and myself. Chinese FIS colleagues Wu Kun, Xiaohui, 
Bi Lin, and others were also attending or presenting. Well, it was quite 
interesting an experience. Rethinking the basic ideas on intelligence, both 
"natural" and "artificial", in parallel to FIS and IS4SI efforts around 
information science looks a promising complementary strategy. A second 
conference will take place next year, in another Chinese city. It will be more 
widely publicized so to facilitate the attendance of Western parties.

Best greetings from Xi'an Information Philosophy Institute, in Jiaotong 
University, one of the earliest and most fruitful Chinese initiatives in 
information studies...

--Pedro

PS. About meaning, what Malcolm says should be obvious: in central nervous 
systems meaning predates human language.
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu 2016, web page of ICIS2016

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Indeed Christophe, you were pioneering evolutionary approach to cognition and 
intelligence,
and you made important contributions in that direction to books and conferences 
and to FIS discussions as well.
I join you in kindly asking Pedro to send the presentation materials of his 
Chengdu talk to the list.

Best wishes,
Gordana

PS
Here comes the group picture from the ICIS2016 conference, to give you a 
feeling of the atmosphere and to inspire you to contribute next time!
http://www.idt.mdh.se/~gdc/work/Chengdu-ICIS2016-group-photo/Chengdu-ICIS2016-group.pdf


From: Christophe 
mailto:christophe.men...@hotmail.fr>>
Date: Sunday 13 November 2016 at 12:09
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>>, PEDRO 
CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: RE: Intelligence Science in Chengdu 2016, web page


Thanks Gordana and Pedro for this interesting set of information and 
presentations.

Would it be possible, Pedro, that you make available the content of your 
presentation "Intelligence and the information flow: An evolutionary 
perspective"?

An evolutionary perspective to information looks indeed as a natural and 
promising thread that deserves, I feel, more developments.
You may remember Gordana the chapter addressing part of that subject 
"computation on information, meaning and representations. An evolutionary 
approach" in your 2011 book. ( http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI)

[http://philpapers.org/assets/raw/philpapers-plus250.jpg]<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI>

Christophe Menant, Computation on Information, Meaning and 
...<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI>
philpapers.org
Understanding computation as "a process of the dynamic change of information" 
brings to look at the different types of computation and information.




Best
Christophe

________
De : Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> de 
la part de Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>>
Envoyé : dimanche 13 novembre 2016 06:08
À : PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ; 
fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Objet : [Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu 2016, web page


Thank you Pedro!

For those of FIS colleagues who might be interested in the details of ICIS2016 
conference on Intelligence Science,
including the presentations, here is the web page:
http://www.intsci.ac.cn/ICIS2016/speaker.jsp
ICIS2016, October 31 - November 1, Cheng Du, 
China<http://www.intsci.ac.cn/ICIS2016/speaker.jsp>
www.intsci.ac.cn
Biography. Yixin Zhong, Professor from the Center for Intelligence Science 
research, University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China.



Still more information can be found at http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/
Intelligence Science Website - intsci.ac.cn<http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/>
www.intsci.ac.cn
Intelligence science is an interdisciplinary subject which is jointly studied 
by brain science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence and others.



World Scientific is starting the series on Intelligence Science 
http://www.worldscientific.com/series/sis
Series on Intelligence Science (World 
Scientific)<http://www.worldscientific.com/series/sis>
www.worldscientific.com
By (author): Shi Zhongzhi (Chinese Academy of Sciences, China). Volume 2 
Intelligence Science


edited by Zhongzhi Shi, who was part of ICIS2016 
http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/shizz/

So the new field is in its beginnings and the feeling is very hopeful.

Best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
[http://ait.gu.se/digitalAssets/1502/1502605_gordana.jpg]<http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic>

Gordana Dodig Crnkovic - Tillämpad informationsteknologi 
...<http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic>
www.ait.gu.se
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic Associate Professor at the Department of Applied IT. 
Vice Head at the department responsible for graduate education. Professor of 
Computer ...


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
[http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/IMG_1101-20150801-G.jpg]<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc>

Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic - MDH<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc>
www.mrtc.mdh.se
GORDANA DODIG-CRNKOVIC Professor of Computer Science. School of Innovation, 
Design and EngineeringMälardalen University, Sweden


http://is4si-2017.org/
[http://media.is4si-2017.org/2016/06/IS4SI-2017-2.jpg]<http://is4si-2017.org/>

IS4SI-2017 - International Society for Information 
Studies<http://is4si-2017.org/>
is4si-2017.org
IS4SI-2017 Summit - International Society for Information Studies - 
DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY Embodied, Embedded, Networked, 
Empowered...






From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of PE

[Fis] What if consciousness is an Euclidean n-space?

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear colleagues,

Krassimir makes very important point that I would like to expand on.

It is vital to be aware under which assumption model/theory has been made. One 
might wish that this be accepted as a fundamental rule among researchers 
presenting their models – first declare fundamental assumptions (preferably 
also implicit ones).

Only if we clearly understand the assumptions can we compare different models 
and approaches. What happens all too often is that this fundamental part is 
unclear and big discussions are taking place for no reason as theories are 
built under different assumptions and refer to different domains, have 
different level of abstraction etc. but they are assumed to somehow give the 
same results.

For example if we make our models under assumption that light has corpuscular 
nature, we will see certain classes of phenomena. On the contrary, if we assume 
that it is a wave, we will see something else.

The same goes even here. We should see the assumptions and ask ourselves:

What does it imply if we assume that consciousness is a continuous function of 
reflected reality?

What does it imply if assume that consciousness is Euclidean n-space?


With best wishes,
Gordana




_
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Vice Dean of Graduate Education
Department of Applied IT
Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden
http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
President of the International Society for Information Studies
http://is4si-2017.org/




From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Krassimir Markov mailto:mar...@foibg.com>>
Organization: ITHEA
Reply-To: Krassimir Markov mailto:mar...@foibg.com>>
Date: Saturday 26 November 2016 at 18:23
To: FIS mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: [Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???


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→ Rn 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
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Invitation to IS4SI summit 12-16 June, Gothenburg, Sweden

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear colleagues,

This year the International Society for Information Studies IS4SI is organizing 
the summit under the motto:

DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. Embodied, Embedded, Networked, 
Empowered through Information, Computation & Cognition!
The event will take place in Gothenburg, 12-16 June.

We will explore both foundations of information and its connections to other 
theoretical and applied fields in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary 
setting, including four conferences:

Foundations of Information Science, Philosophy of Information, The Difference 
that makes a Difference and International Forum on Ecology of Information 
Studies

Apart from conferences, there will be number of symposia (Doctoral symposium, 
Theoretical information studies, Morphological computing and cognitive agency,  
Cognitive distributed computing, etc. ) workshops (Distributed responsibility 
in time of big data, Transhumanism, Digital netizens, Habits and rituals, 
etc.), tutorials and variety of panels addressing topics ranging from the 
future of work to good information society and machine consciousness.

Our keynote speakers include Terrence Deacon, Bo Dahlbom, Jack Copeland, 
Catherine Mulligan, Yixin Zhong, Schahram Dustdar, Mark Burgin, Olle Häggström 
and Sarah Spiekermann.

For more details, please have a look at the summit web page: 
http://is4si-2017.org

Many members of FIS community are already involved in the organisation of 
Gothenburg summit.
We hope you will join us and contribute with your work, meeting colleagues from 
this community and others.

Submission deadline for extended abstracts: 1 March.

Sweden is fantastic, and Gothenburg represents the best of Sweden, especially 
in summer.
Looking forward to meeting you in Gothenburg!

Gordana
for IS4SI organisation


_____
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Vice Dean of Graduate Education
Department of Applied IT
Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden
http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
President of the International Society for Information Studies
http://is4si-2017.org/



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

[Fis] TEN PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION, FROM YET ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

tructures, 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.






__
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
General Chair of is4si summit 2017
http://is4si-2017.org<http://is4si-2017.org/>


From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
Date: Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 14:33
To: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

Dear FIS Colleagues,

There is no problem with heretics in this list. They are very welcome as they 
make us think on our favorite ideas in a different way or even from an opposed 
angle. We must always maintain the scholarly tone, that's the only condition! 
(well, apart from the "two messages per week" sacred rule)... From the many 
--exciting-- recent exchanges, let me pick from Lars: "assuming that 
Information is a property, an entity is not necessary. We can proceed with 
scientific research, using any information concept we think useful, without 
assuming it refers to anything." Something similar but perhaps less clearly 
formulated was in my proposal of the indefinability of information and the 
reference to notions such as "propagating influence" and "distinction on the 
adjacent."

Therefore I friendly disagree with Yixin below: "the definition of information 
is the real foundation of information science", although I acknowledge the 
value and interest of his whole approach from the background of 
formal/computational approaches to our problem/field. Somehow, defining 
information universally is like looking for the "red herring", but it doesn't 
mean that we must condemn the term to obscurity. We can develop the foundations 
of information science without that definition, and indeed the advancement 
during last ten years has been promising.

My personal strategy, beyond the 10 public points I formulated, consists on 
theoretical/empirical work about "informational entities". Those entities, the 
existence of which depends on a special relationship with the environment, are 
able to continuously distinguish - say - energy flows from information flows, 
intertwining both kinds of flows with their own survival and maintenance 
processes. An excellent parallel can be made with Harold Morowitz on the energy 
flow and Geoffrey West on scaling entities. The former for the 
micro-perspective (& ecological perspective) and the latter for the 
macro-perspective on the organizational dynamics of cells, organisms, 
enterprises, cities...

The closest realm we can consider, and acknowledge almost completely at the 
molecular scale, is the living cell. That's the most strategic theater where we 
can define a series of essential concepts: first the information flow, then the 
signaling system, the life cycle, the cell-cell communication, the complexity 
growth, etc. etc. This was the origins of the genuine existential openness to 
tiny informational signals from the environment. I bet that there is something 
fundamental to learn about this bio-informational way of existence that can be 
usefully carried on to physical quarters and also to the social. There is a 
common informational philosophy of organization, e.g. reminding Joseph 
Brenner's LIR, that at the time being we don't recognize b

Re: [Fis] Fw: TEN PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION, FROM YET ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. A Newer Kind of Science. Logic and Principle 4

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Joseph and All,

Just to make my point on “New Kind of Science” clear.
I am not saying that we should attempt Wolfram’s New Kind of Science (NKS) 
applied to information studies.
In the spirit of inclusiveness, thinking primarily about what NKS did achieve, 
instead of what it did not,
I would say that NKS is a remarkable and valuable project, but it is not what I 
proposed for information  or study of information.

My idea was to propose a new kind of < natural philosophy> with human included*.
That is a completely new kind of project, and very different .

Regarding all particular and very important contributions, mentioned in this 
list,  including LIR, I can hardly as a human, understand them all into a 
detail. What all of us who cannot know the detail of everything that is being 
produced at increasing rate, the only viable way is to network and delegate the 
specialist knowledge to dedicated specialists. This presupposes that we are 
able to speak on some level in some common language.
That might be the language of natural philosophy with human included.
In short, that was what I proposed. Not to be forced to choose one single 
approach but to make shared sense of as much as possible of what we know as a 
research community.

Best
Gordana

*Natural philosophy was science of Newtons days, and Newton was natural 
philosopher.


From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Joseph Brenner 
mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>>
Reply-To: Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>>
Date: Friday, 6 October 2017 at 13:49
To: fis mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: [Fis] Fw: TEN PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION, FROM YET ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. 
A Newer Kind of Science. Logic and Principle 4

Dear Gordana and Friends,

In 2002, the cybernetician Stephen Wolfram published a massive book with the 
title, A New Kind of Science. For me, it was not: it was an attempt to explain 
the simplest, quasi-non-living structures of living systems by recourse to 
simple algorithms and a multitude of formal logics whose meaning in relation to 
reality was largely non-existent. It was deconstructed in a review in Science.

We should not duplicate this error, and that is why I was and still am put off 
by Arturo's introductory comment and in fact by all attempts to explain the 
information and the world only by numbers and equations.

Regarding transdisciplinarity, I am sure that Sören will agree that his 
Multiple Square diagram is only one part of one possible transdisicplinary 
approach to information and other complex phenomena. The founding of the active 
International Center for Transdisciplinary Research by Lupasco, Nicolescu, 
Morin and Varela, among others in 1984 is of interest not only historically. 
One of the 'pillars' (principles) of transdisciplinary in the acceptation of 
Nicolescu is the Logic of the Included Third of Lupasco. In my view view, only 
such a logic of processes is adequate "for the world and reality in all its 
richness", since it is based on science and not on Peircean reductive 
classifications.

I therefore welcome Gordana's double reference, in the same highly significant 
short paragraph, to axioms and principles. Both can be part of our Newer 
science. I will go farther and say that the axioms of the Lupasco logic, which 
I have renamed Logic in Reality (LIR), fit in our New Science or Pre-Science at 
Principle 4:

4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production 
processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy 
flows.

LIR talks directly to the "saw-tooth" evolution of such real processes, seeing 
their elements as energy as well. I strongly suggest that Principle 4 can be 
amended to read as follows:

4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-and 
hetero-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the 
accompanying energy flows. These processes follow a non-binary, 
non-truth-functional logic.

Criticisms welcome.

Best wishes,

Joseph


- Original Message -
From: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic<mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>
To: Pedro C. Marijuan<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> ; 
fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 12:22 PM
Subject: [Fis] TEN PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION, FROM YET ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE



Dear Colleagues,

Following this interesting and enlightening discussion I have got several 
thoughts that I would like to share with you. First of all it is a great 
pleasure to read variety of contributions, deep thoughts and insights, profound 
questions as well. This list so very often brightens my thoughts on information.

I agree with Arturo that what we have today is not a science (of information), 
I also agree with Terry and Joseph that it might be rather seen as pre-science, 
and I would also propose a further view that we mig

Re: [Fis] What is ³Agent²?

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Terry, Bob, Loet

Thank you for sharing those important thoughts about possible choices for the 
definition of agency.

I would like to add one more perspective that I find in Pedro’s article which 
makes a distinction between matter-energy aspects and informational aspects of 
the same physical reality. I believe that on the fundamental level of 
information physics we have a good ND simplest example how those two entangled 
aspects can be formally framed.
As far as I can tell, Terrys definition covers chemical and biological agency.
Do we want to include apart from fundamental physics also full cognitive and 
social agency which are very much dominated by informational aspects (symbols 
and language)?
Obviously there is no information without physical implementation, but when we 
think about epistemology and the ways we know the world, for us and other 
biological agents there is no physical interaction without informational 
aspects.
Can we somehow think in terms those two faces of agency?
Without matter/energy nothing will happen, nothing can act in the world but 
that which happens and anyone registers it, has informational side to it.
For human agency (given that matter/energy side is functioning) information is 
what to a high degree drives agency.

Do you think this would be a fruitful path to pursue, with “agency” of 
elementary particles and agency of social institutions as two limit cases?

All the best,
Gordana



__
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
General Chair of is4si summit 2017
http://is4si-2017.org<http://is4si-2017.org/>


From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Organization: University of Amsterdam
Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>" 
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Date: Friday, 20 October 2017 at 08:40
To: 'Bob Logan' mailto:lo...@physics.utoronto.ca>>, 
'fis' mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

Dear Bob and colleagues,

I agree with the choice element. From a sociological perspective, agency is 
usually defined in relation to structure. For example, in terms of 
structure/actor contingencies. The structures provide the background that bind 
us. Remarkably, Mark, we no longer define these communalities philosophically, 
but sociologically (e.g., Merton, 1942, about the institutional norms of 
science). An interesting extension is that we nowadays not only perceive 
communality is our biological origins (as species), but also in terms of 
communicative layers that we construct and reproduce as inter-agency 
(interactions).

The relation with the information issue is not obvious. I worked on this a bit 
in the first half of the 90s:

  *   "Structure"/"Action" Contingencies and the Model of Parallel Distributed 
Processing, <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jtsb93/index.htm> Journal for the 
Theory of Social Behaviour 23 (1993) 47-77.
  *   The Production of Probabilistic Entropy in Structure/Action Contingency 
Relations, <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jses95/jses95.pdf> Journal of Social and 
Evolutionary Systems 18 (1995) 339-56.
Best,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Professor emeritus, 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 Fellow, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en


From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 6:11 AM
To: Terrence W. DEACON mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>>
Cc: fis mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

Dear Terry and FIS friends - I agree with all that Terry has said about agency. 
I do wish to however to point out that an agent has choice and a non-agent has 
no choice. I would suggest that the defining characteristic of an agent is 
choice and therefore an agent must be a living organism and all living 
organisms are agents. Agents/living organisms have choice or are capable of 
choice or agency and they are the only things that have choice or can interpret 
information. Abiotic non-agents do not have information because they have no 
choice. We humans can have information about abiotic objects but those object

Re: [Fis] What is ³Agent²?

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear All,

>From the philosophical/epistemological and particularly theory of science
point of view, Mark¹s remark is essential.
What conceptual primitives do we use and how do we undersand them?
Mark reminds us that even basic concepts of a basic science of physic such
as space, time and matter/energy are complex cognitive constructions.
Words which we agree upon (I hope there are such) are conventional by
origin, like physical units.
That might be an insight from the perspective of cognitive science - if
something is not strictly agreed upon by construction, there are different
interpretations of it.
And that which we have agreement about are procedures defining how we
behave in order to observe something or construct something.
Is there anything else that is self-evident in such a way that everybody
immediately can agree about it?

Best wishes,
Gordana




On 2017-10-23, 22:04, "Fis on behalf of Mark Johnson"
 wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>There are some terms from physics which we use continually and assume
>we all know what they mean. I'm taking my cue from Peter Rowland's
>physics - see http://anpa.onl/pdf/S36/rowlands.pdf - in asking some
>fundamental questions not only about information, but about physics
>itself.
>
>1. "Dimension" - what is a dimension? We are told in school that
>height, width and depth are three "dimensions", or that time is a
>fourth. At the same time, we understand that a value in one dimension
>is called a "scalar", and that in two dimensions we have "vectors"
>(and also in more dimensions).
>
>2. "Vector" - this gets used in all sorts of contexts from cartography
>to text analysis. But we have bivectors, trivectors, psuedovectors and
>then the weird rotational asymmetry of quaternions, octonions, nonions
>(see Peirce's work on these in the collected papers: his emphasis on
>triadic forms seems to derive from his interest in quaternions). It's
>important to be clear about what we mean by "vector".
>
>4. "Matter" and "Mass" - do we mean "mass" when we say "matter"? It's
>worth noting that mass is a scalar value.
>
>5. "Energy" - isn't this a combination of mass, space and time? (e.g.
>1/2mv^2) So... a scalar, a vector and time?
>
>6. "Time" - Is time "real" in the same way as we might consider mass
>to be real?... It is perhaps surprising that mass and energy are
>connected: Nuclear reactors turn scalars into vectors! Is time
>imaginary? is time i? That would make it a pseudoscalar.
>
>7. "Conservation" - some things are conserved and other things aren't.
>Time isn't conserved. Mass is. Energy is conserved. Space isn't
>conserved, is it? Something weird happens with conservation...maybe
>this is agency? Is information conserved?
>
>8. "Information" - Shannon information involves counting things. On
>the face of it, it's a scalar value - but in the counting process,
>there is work done - both by the thing observed and by the body that
>observes it. Work, like energy, is (at least) a combination of mass,
>time and space. This applies to *any* counting: there is an imaginary
>component, the dimensions of space and scalar mass. It probably
>involves charge too.
>
>9. "Agency" - Turning to Terry's definition of "agency", it involves
>"work", "conservation" and "organisation". The definition hides some
>complexities relating to the nature of work, and the ways in which
>mass and charge might be conserved, but time and space isn't. Implicit
>in the relation between extrinsic and intrinsic tendencies (what are
>they?) is symmetry. Is agency a principle of conservation which
>unfolds the symmetry between conserved and non-conserved dimensions?
>That means we are in a symmetry: "a pattern that connects" - to quote
>Bateson.
>
>Personally, I find the value of these questions is that they render
>less certain the dogmatically asserted principles of modern physics.
>Maybe we need this uncertainty in order to get closer to
>"information".
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Mark
>
>
>On 23 October 2017 at 17:39, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> Dear Gordana,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 Oct 2017, at 11:02, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Terry, Bob, Loet
>>
>> Thank you for sharing those important thoughts about possible choices
>>for
>> the definition of agency.
>>
>> I would like to add one more perspective that I find in Pedro¹s article
>> which makes a distinction between matter-energy aspects and
>>informational
&

Re: [Fis] INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF INFORMATION

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Emanuel,
It is good that you rise this question, as it is of common interest (and you 
are sending it to the fis list).
MDPI journals have independent review process.
As an editor of a special issue, you can only invite papers that you would like 
to have in your special issue.
Then MDPI journal organises review process choosing three independent 
reviewers. If all of them reject the paper, scientific editor cannot get paper 
published, as it is assumed that peer review reflects the judgment of the 
competent research community.
As author I am always prepared to be subject to peer review, and as editor I 
respect decisions of the peer review process.
Given steadily increasing number of specialised disciplines and much smaller 
number of available reviewers, what we can do to increase the quality of peer 
review is to bring right specialities of reviewers onboard, and MDPI is always 
willing to consider new proposals.
In our community peer review is still closed/blind (which e.g. in some journals 
in biology is not - instead with each published article they provide 
information about three reviewers) which is also a topic one might discuss in 
this forum, and people in other fora discuss currently.
What kind of peer review would be the best one for a journal, a book, a 
conference?

Thank you for your kind words about is4si summit in Gothenburg 2017, and I hope 
you will join the next edition in 2019 at Berkeley.
I also noticed that Proceedings of the summit http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3 
have excellent visibility which is great for the community.

With best regards,
Gordana



From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Emanuel Diamant mailto:emanl@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, 6 November 2017 at 05:43
To: 'Gordana Dodig Crnkovic' 
mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se>>
Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF 
INFORMATION

Dear Gordana,
I received your invitation letters (dated Nov. 5 and Nov. 1). However, I think, 
I will not be able to accept your kind offer.
For the following reason: After the Vienna 2015 Summit, I was invited (by MDPI 
Information journal) to submit an extended version of my conference paper to 
the journal’s Special Issue: Selected Papers from the ISIS Summit Vienna 
2015<http://www.mdpi.com/journal/information/special_issues/ISIS-2015>.
A few days after I have submitted my paper, I was informed “that your 
manuscript has been declined for publication in Information”. No further 
explanation or editorial comments were provided (Guest Editors of the Issue 
were M. Burgin and W. Hofkirchner).
As it follows from your invitation letter, M. Burgin will again be the Chief 
Editor for all volumes of the Gothenburg Summit selected papers.
As you understand, I cannot allow myself to be subjected again to M. Burgin’s 
editorial customs. Therefore, I am sorry but I must turn down your kind 
proposal.
My publication ambitions are pretty well satisfied with the publication in the 
MDPI Proceedings, 2017, Vol. 1, Issue 3, and the attention the two of my papers 
have achieved among the readers: Wu Kun’s paper – 148 reads / 56 downloads, 
Burgin’s paper – 216 reads / 67 downloads. (Not so bad, as you see).
I appreciate your efforts in Gothenburg Summit organization.
Best regards,
Emanuel.
------------
From: Gordana Dodig Crnkovic [mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:17 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Cc: markburgin
Subject: INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF INFORMATION


Dear Emanuel,

As a result of Gothenburg meeting of the International Society for the study of 
information, Mark Burgin and I are preparing two volumes with World Scientific.
We would be very happy if  you could contribute to the volume addressing 
Philosophy and Methodology of Information.
We would expected a contribution on the topic you presented on the summit.

This is the first volume of two, the second one being dedicated to Theoretical 
Information Studies.
The books aim to chart the new interconnected territory and thus to set the 
foundation for the emerging research field of The study of information, 
presenting within the same context contemporary research in theoretical, 
philosophical and methodological aspects of information, with the goal of 
enabling new insights coming from cross-fertilization among the research 
fields. The structure of the books is given in the end of this message.
The schedule for the book project is defined by the following deadlines:
Expression of intention to contribute: November 15, 2017
Paper submission: January 15, 2018
Notification of acceptance/rejection: February 15, 2018
Submission of the final version of the paper: March 1, 2018.

In the expression of intention to contrib

Re: [Fis] R: Re: some notes - on the nature of science and communication

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear All,
In the discussion about the nature of science and the role of quantitative and 
qualitative methods I would like to add the following statement:
Logic is the science of rational thinking or reasoning.
http://www.math-inst.hu/~nemeti/whatislogic.html
Logic is not a quantitative science.

This connects to ancient Greek science that sprung out of philosophy of nature 
(even Newton was still natural philosopher) which relied more on reason than on 
observation/experience. And where they indeed made quantitative predictions 
like Eratosthenes who calculated the circumference of the Earth, the central 
part of his prediction was based on logical reasoning.

The main works of Aristotle were the Prior Analytics (Logic), the Physics, the 
Animal History, the Rhetorics, the Poetics, the Metaphysics, the Ethics, and 
the Politics. Today we consider Logic, Physics and Biology to be sciences, 
while Rhetorics, Poetics, Metaphysics, Ethics and Politics are not. How 
compulsory is it for something to be “science” in order to be a respectable 
form of knowledge?
Perhaps it is useful at some point in the development of human knowledge to 
have a holistic view bridging across sciences and other fields? Rational, 
logical view.
Science itself is not everywhere quantitative in its various layers and 
branches. There are theoretical non-observables in quantum mechanics and other 
physical theories and they play important role in their construction and 
operation.

Regarding the other discussion point, the necessity to differentiate between 
"the difference that makes the difference" for a machine and for a living 
organism I would say that the difference exists but is becoming less and less 
clear-cut the more machines become cognitive and intelligent. It is not 
difficult to imagine a limit case where intelligent machine talks to other 
intelligent machine. Would that be then mixing Shannon with (bio)semiotics?

The notion of communication might be constructed in a useful way to cover 
different levels of organisation of phenomena.
As growth of a crystal is different from a growth of a plant is different from 
a growth of a child – and yet it makes sense to talk about growth.
So I see using the word “communication” to machines or why not simplest 
physical systems that interact with other physical systems causing "the 
difference that makes the difference” for the system itself.
Definitions indeed are just the question of making good sense – they are matter 
of choice.

All the best,
Gordana


PS
Mark Burgin and I have sent invitations to contribute to World Scientific 
books: http://is4si-2017.org/publications/
Vol 1 Philosophy and Methodology of Information (G. Dodig-Crnkovic and M. 
Burgin, edts.)
Part 1. Philosophy of information
Part 2. Methodology of information
Part 3. Philosophy of information studies
Part 4. Methodology of information studies

Vol 2 Theoretical Information Studies (M. Burgin and G. Dodig-Crnkovic, edts.)
Part 1. Foundations of information
Part 2. Information theory
Part 3. Information as a natural phenomenon
Part 4. Cognition and intelligence in natural and artificial systems
Part 5. Social, economic and legal aspects of information
Part 6. Technological aspects of information

Please let us know as soon as possible if you intend (and even if you do not 
intend) to contribute, in order to help us keep the deadlines.



https://www.chalmers.se/en/staff/Pages/gordana-dodig-crnkovic.aspx



From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of "tozziart...@libero.it" 
mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>>
Reply-To: "tozziart...@libero.it" 
mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>>
Date: Friday, 17 November 2017 at 17:44
To: Sungchul Ji mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>>, 
"fis@listas.unizar.es" 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: [Fis] R: Re: some notes


Dear Sungchul,
I do not have anything against you, therefore sorry for my words, but your 
propositions gave me the opportunity to demonstrate the weirdness of such 
approaches for science.

YOU find it convenient to define communication as an irreducibly triadic 
process (physical, chemical, biological, physiological, or mental).  YOU 
identify such a triadic process with the Peircean semiosis (or the sign 
process) often represented as the following diagram which is isomorphic with 
the commutative triangle of the category theory.  Thus, to YOU, communication 
is a category.

I do not agree at all: therefore, could your proposition be kept as science?
All the scientists agree on the definition (even if operational) of an atom, or 
agree that E=mc^2.  If we are talking of something qualitative, that one agrees 
and another do not, we are not in front of Science.

Sorry,
Nothing personal.



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/


M

Re: [Fis] some notes

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Francesco,
Thank you so much for your enlightening post on logic that is rising the topic 
one level up.
You refer to Hegel who recognised complementary relationship between quality, 
quantity and their synthesis – measure, which is very central for the current 
discussion.
I made English translation of your mail (below) and I hope it is adequate 
enough.

However, in your mail, if I understand it correctly, and in the rest of the 
current discussion, it is assumed that mathematics is quantitative science.
As we are in the beginning of the era of big data that makes people believe 
that “data speak for themselves” and that sciences just collect and 
summarise/systematically represent data, it is very important to point out that 
mathematics is much, much more than data and its processing.
It is qualitative science in the same sense that logic is. Algebra is not 
quantitative science. Algebra is the study of mathematical symbols and the 
rules for manipulating these symbols. Topology is not quantitative science. 
Topology is the study of qualitative properties of topological spaces that are 
invariant under certain kinds of transformations.

Here is an explanation why it is essential not to identify quantitative 
literacy with mathematics.
https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/qr/qr_and_the_disciplines.html

All the best,
Gordana



From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Francesco Rizzo 
<13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 07:56
To: "y...@pku.edu.cn" 
mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>>
Cc: FIS Group mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes



Dear colleagues,
existence implies articulate knowledge in the various sciences of nature, human 
and social. So the "Science of Logic", not the logic of science, by Georg 
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1812-1816) applies to any kind of science. In fact, 
pure science of reason is divided into three doctrines of:
- being (quantity, quality and their unity - measure) 
https://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slbeing.htm;
- essence, which studies thought in its reflection or mediation, that is, the 
concept as it is "per se" and thus appears;
- concept, study of the concept "in itself and for itself".
The first presentation of reality takes place in the immediate, intuitive forms 
of quality, quantity and measure, but one must grasp what is hidden origin in 
the reality of being: the essence that represents the "truth of being".
Hegel's reinterpretation provides ontological foundations to (the theory of) 
economic value conceived as a combination or energy / information relationship 
based on dialectical quantity / quality and "qualitative quantity" or measure. 
Hegel does not contrast the quantity with quality, but tries to gain 
complementarity by deriving the first from the second. Quantity is the denial 
of quality. Quantity and quality vary continuously, they are characterized by 
variability, but quantitative variation is indifferent to the quality that does 
not change with the change in the quantitative dimension. If the quantity is a 
time of outwardness indifferent to the sphere of quality, it justifies or 
explains Hegel's lack of consideration for purely quantitative considerations 
and therefore for those quantitative or hard mathematical sciences. He believes 
that the propositions of geometry and arithmetic have an exclusively analytical 
and therefore tautological nature, denying them all heuristic efficacy.
This strong criticism of the rigor and scientific validity of mathematical 
models does not prevent him from carrying out an analysis that highlights the 
inadequacy of determinations,
quantitative for the same mathematics, in which, according to this 
philosophical approach that strongly influences scientific epistemology, it 
raises qualitative criteria making it become "sweet." If maths are forced to 
incorporate qualitative or ordinal criteria, they have to move to the sphere of 
measure or "qualitative quantity".
Of course, the science of logic has served me to elaborate the New Economy (see 
in particular Rizzo F., "Science can not be human, civil, social, economics 
(c), enigmatic, noble, prophetic", Aracne , Rome, 2016, pp. 604-615; or Rizzo 
F., "The City of Man, Subordinated to Faith", in Human Rights and the City 
Crisis by Corrado Beguinot et al., Giannini, Naples, 2012).
So, to make it short, "qualitative quantity", "emo-rationality" and "meaning, 
information, communication" are fundamental to the whole of knowledge.
I apologize for being overdue and thank you in advance for your critical 
attention.
Francis.


From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Francesco Rizzo 
<13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 07:56
To: "y...@pku.edu.cn" 
mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>>
Cc: FIS Group mailto:fis@listas.unizar.

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

In agreement with Sung I see the value of “language metaphor" that can be 
applied to physical objects when they are used for communication.
Description of “chemical language” used by bacteria can be found e.g. here 
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1468.full.pdfStephan and number of 
other articles by Bonnie Bassler or Eschel Ben-Jacob on quorum sensing, or in a 
popular talk here http://wagner.edu/newsroom/founders-day-2012-1/

This idea of information processing performed by natural systems is parallell 
to natural computing – cell computing, bacterial cognition, DNA computing, 
membrane computing, etc.

Best wishes,
Gordana


From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Sungchul Ji 
mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>>
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 14:46
To: FIS FIS mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the 
cateogry theory


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 ofTable 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

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

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Hello Terry, Sung, FIS colleagues

There is a notion of “body language”.

Perhaps it might be possible to develop a general theory of language that can 
take into account bacteria and dogs (according to Nature 
http://www.nature.com/news/dogs-can-tell-when-praise-is-sincere-1.20514) as 
well as plants https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634130/ & 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688289/ cognitive agents with 
different levels of cognition which communicate and process information in 
order to survive.

One may build a theory of communication of information by just paying attention 
to what has been sent with respect to the cognitive structures of a sender and 
what has been received with respect to the cognitive structure of a receiver. 
Here cognitive means embodied and should include all sensors, actuators, memory 
and information processing mechanisms. As in biology thre are different kinds 
of organisms there are also different kinds of “languages”. There are small 
languages communicated in relatively simple ways between simple agents (like 
cells) and big languages used by complex agents like humans.

Why not?

Best wishes,
Gordana




On 2018-02-13, 06:33, "Fis on behalf of Terrence W. DEACON" 
mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of 
dea...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

To claim that:

"without a language, no communication would be possible"

one must be using the term "language" in a highly metaphoric sense.

Is scent marking a language?
Music?
Sexual displays, like a peacock's tail?
How about a smile or frown?
Is the pattern of colors of a flower that attracts bees a language?
Was the evolution of language in humans just more of the same, not
something distinct from a dog's bark?
When a person is depressed, their way of walking often communicates
this fact to others; so is this slight modification of posture part of
a language?
If I get the hiccups after eating is this part of a language that
communicates my indigestion?

Is this usage of the term 'language' simply referring to the necessity
of a shared medium of communication? Is it possible to develop a
general theory of information by simply failing to make distinctions?

― Terry




On 2/12/18, Sungchul Ji 
mailto:s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>> wrote:
Hi FISers,


(1) I think language and communication cannot be separated, since without a
language, no communication would be possible (see Figure 1).



f
g
  Sender --->  Message
>  Receiver
   |
^
   |
 |
   |
 |

|_|

 h

“Language and communication are both irreducibly triadic; i.e., the three
nodes and three edges are essential for communication, given a language or
code understood by both the sender and receiver.”   f =  encoding; g =
decoding; h = information flow.

Figure 1.  A diagrammatic representation of the irreducibly triadic nature
of communication and language.




(2) I think it may be justified and useful to distinguish between
anthropomorphic language metaphor (ALM) and non-athropomorphic language
metaphor (NLM).  I agree with many of the members of this list that we
should not apply ALM to biology uncritically, since such an approch to
biology may lead to  unjustifiable anthropomorphisms.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus) and the anthropocentric theory of
creatiion.


(3) Table 1 below may represent one possible example of NLM.  Although the
linguistic terms such as letters, words, sentences, etc. are used in this
table, they  are matrially/ontologically  different from their molecular
coutner parts; e.g., letters are  different from nucleotides, protein
domians , etc.,and  words are different from genes, proteins, etc., but
there are unmistakable common formal features among them.

Table 1.  The formal and material aspects of the cell language (Cellese).

\  Material Aspect
 \(Function)
 \
 \
 \
  \
 \
Formal Aspect \
(Function) \
   \

DNA Language
(DNese;
Information transmission in time)

RNA Language
(RNese;
Information transmission in space, from DNA to proteins)

Protein Language
(Proteinese;
Energy transduction
from chemical to mechanical; i.e., conformon production)

Chemical Language
(Moleculese;
Source of free energy)

Letters*
(To build)

4n nucleotides
n = 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .
Exons (?)



Protein domains

Partial chemical reactions

Words
(To denote)

Genes



Proteins

Full chemical reactions

Sentences
(To decide)

cis-Genes (?)**



Metabolic pathways

Chemi

Re: [Fis] A MATHEMATICAL APPROACH TO BIOLOGICAL ISSUES

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Arturo

Thank you for the reference. You say:
>the sole language able to describe in quantitative terms scientific issues is 
>the mathematical one.

How about language of computing such as executable biology?
Computing can provide real-time, dynamical, even interactive and beautifully 
visualised and analysable models:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/NBT07.pdf

Best wishes,
Gordana


__
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology
https://www.chalmers.se/en/staff/Pages/gordana-dodig-crnkovic.aspx
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/



From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of "tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>" 
mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>>
Date: Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 21:42
To: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: [Fis] A MATHEMATICAL APPROACH TO BIOLOGICAL ISSUES


Dear FISers,

Generally I do not like to put my own manuscript on the FIS list, but this time 
I have to let you understand what is my concept of biology... it is a 
mathematical-framed one.

As I write in the first Section, the sole language able to describe in 
quantitative terms scientific issues is the mathematical one. If we leave apart 
math, we do not have observables, and living dynamics are made by observables.



http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0317



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

Re: Fw: [Fis] The Identity of Ethics

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Viktoras and all,


Does it mean that those who survive are by definition "ethical"?
The strongest and fittest organisms are those whose behavior sets the 
norm of what is good?


Do I read it correctly?


Best wishes,
Gordana



Viktoras Didziulis wrote:

 Dear all,
 
Can't we just consider ethics as a glue of the society as a system. If to

look for an analogue in non-social domains, then any action from inside or
outside the system disrupting the system is "unethical" from perspective of
that very system. Thus eating proteins is "unethical" from perspective of
proteins, because its an end to their existence :-). Behaviour of cancer
cells might be conisdered unethical from a viewpoint of an entire organism.
In a same way criminal or unethical behavior of members in our societies
lead to social, economical and psychological problems like insecure or
unsafe environment, distrust leading to disintegration of social bonds, etc.
As a system, society has means (analog to immune system) to get rid of an 
unethical" elements by isolating or disintegrating them - which may seem 
unethical" from a standpoint of those elements... Still, when "unethical"

elements start to prevail, society either changes to some other form of
existence (history, history!..), or disintegrates and then bond again to a
new form/structure of society, because elements may not be able to exist if
they are not parts of something ensuring the quality of their existence...
 
Best wishes

Viktoras
 
---Original Message--- 
 
From: Rafael Capurro 
Date: 04/21/06 10:57:42 
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Fw: [Fis] The Identity of Ethics 
 
From: Rafael Capurro 
To: Jerry LR Chandler (by way of PedroMarijuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:58 PM 
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Identity of Ethics 
 
Dear Jerry and all, 
 
Morality is a (human) fact, not different from, say, the existence of
chemical reactions that follow special 'rules'. We say in German that 
Chemistry works" ("die Chemie stimmt") when we spontaneously make
friends/make love (See also Goethe's "Wahlverwandschaften"). 
 
Of course, I am not saying that the specifity of moral imperatives can be

deduced from natural phenomena whatsoever. I am just 'justifying' the
existence of a specific form of human reflection called ethics that has to
do explicitly with the moral phenomenon, I.e. With norms and values that
rule human action in a specific community. 
 
These norms and values can be descriptive analyzed (no different in

principle as when you analyze a chemical substance and its reactions with
other ones), what we call "descriptive ethics." 
 
We distinguish it from a "normative ethics" in which we tentatively analize

the form and content of such systems of morals in order to justify/change
them (or not) and so in order to give ourselves reasons for our actions.
That we are able to give ourselves reasons for our actions, I.e. That we do
not just act according to "unchangable" laws of nature but that we are open
to possibilities of action makes the specificity of human action and its 
moral" character. 
 
In case these possibilities take place within the context of modern digital

communication (Internet and the like) we speak of "information ethics"
(similarly to "medical ethics" in the case of situations in which the
physician/patient/society are involved regarding health). In other words, we
ask for an ethical foundation of our decisions within a digital
communication environment. But in a broader sense, we can say that 
information ethics' deals with norms and values of (human) communication in

different media. In this sense we speak for instance of library ethics,
(mass) media ethics etc. Of course, the ethics of scientific communication
belong to information ethics to, concerning not only, for instance,
plagiarism, but the very idea of sharing our (scientific) ideas with others
(which include some kind of "communism of ideas" that interferes sometimes
with the (moral/legal) rules of, say, copyright regime(S). 
 
The question you state about the genesis of moral (not ethical!) behavior is

a key issue in ethical thinking for centuries (I say: moral behaviour,
because this is the phenomenon we want to study, "ethical behavior" being
the reflection upon it: the question about the genesis of "ethical behavior"
is not (basically) different from the question of any other kind of 
scientific behavior": why do we do science? For pragmatical (survival)

purposes? For the seek of truth? ... In the case of ethics as reflection of
morality, we start with this kind of reflection whe we have problems with
moral rules. Ethics is a symptom. But this is a broad field of study that I
cannot deal with now). 
 
So, what is the genesis of moral behavior? Why do we "feel" obliged to do

the good? Is this the right question to start with? (as you see I am asking
now two different kinds a questions, an ethical and a "metaethical"
(linguistic) one). We can start wit

Re: [Fis] The Identity of Ethics

[gordana . dodig-crnkovic]

Dear all,

Mikael made a good point:

“On the other hand they may be also helpful to transmit ethical thinking (or at 
least moral values), so that they might even become as helpful in making 
advancements in this area of knowledge as good old fashioned books and other 
information technology devices.”

That is exactly the thing we have to think through. Designing and employing 
techno-sociological systems we are changing our environment and the conditions 
of life. The question is how to maximize good and minimize bad consequences of 
those systems that by necessity never can be made perfect, but being 
essentially dependent on humans, they continuously change, decay, evolve, etc. 

The value system that is embedded in those systems must be made explicit and 
actualized all the time. Generations apparently exist and often have different 
sensibilities; different generations co-exist and negotiate the rules of the 
game.

Of course there is no simple and permanent and static solution for all ethical 
and moral problems we experience. What we can do is to keep open mind and take 
responsibilities. That is an ongoing work. Values in technology are human ones, 
so it is our job to try our best to design and use the technology according to 
highest ethical standards.

The good thing to start with would be to understand what is it we want of 
technology, where we are heading, what is good and what is bad in this 
information-communication oriented society that claims to be interested in 
becoming a knowledge society.

Best,
Gordana



Citerat från "M. Nagenborg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Dear Pedro,
> dear all,
> 
> Pedro Marijuan wrote:
> > ... My point is that most of knowledge impinging on social life 
> > matters is of informal, implicit, practical, experiential nature. How
> 
> > can one gain access to cognitive "stocks" of such volatile nature? 
> > Only by living, by socializing, by a direct hands-on participation... 
> 
> > Each new generation has to find its own way, to co-create its own 
> > socialization path. No moral or ethical progress then!!! (contrarily 
> > to the advancement of other areas of knowledge).
> I think, at this point, it is very important to keep the distinction 
> between morality and ethics as scientific reasoning about morality.
> 
> The problem how to transmit ideas from one generation to another does 
> exist in very discipline. Everyone who is trying to become an expert in
> 
> a special field of knowledge has to be educated in this special field 
> (or has to educate himself). There is nothing special with "Ethics" in 
> this regard.
> 
> Also, I am not sure, if the generation-model is a very good way of 
> describing a society when it comes to education, because this implies 
> that one generation follows another. This seems to be too simple to me:
> 
> what we have is a overlapping of generations (not just two of them) and
> 
> I am not quite sure if the generation model is really that important for
> 
> living in a network society.
> > Obviously, learning machines or techno environments cannot substitute
> 
> > for a socialization process --a side note for "prophets" of the 
> > computational.
> But learning machines and techno environments should be at least look at
> 
> as something that may sharp the socialization process and might also 
> lead to conflicts between the generation, who designed the technology, 
> and the ones, who have to live with such an environment - at least if 
> one does not believe in real autonomous, moral artificial beings which 
> morality is in no way connected to the morality of the designers.
> 
> On the other hand they may be also helpful to transmit ethical thinking
> 
> (or at least moral values), so that they might even become as helpful in
> 
> making advancements in this area of knowledge as good old fashioned 
> books and other information technology devices.
> 
> Best regards,
> Michael Nagenborg
> 
> -- 
> Dr. phil. Michael Nagenborg
> Rüppurrer Str. 116
> D-76137 Karlsruhe
> 
> Tel. +49(0)721 3545955
> Fax +49(0)721 3545956
> 
> www.michaelnagenborg.de
> 
> 
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
> 
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] The Identity of Ethics and Integrity

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

“At the very best, your definition/inference holds only when singular
societal value sets are the criteria for judgment.  A general
attachment of 'integrity' with morals is improper.” James Rose

Here I think we have an important distinction that is good to make
having in mind the rapid process of globalization that is going on. It
is also relevant for Alex’s remarks.

It seems to me that one of the central issues right now is that of a
dialogue. There are importantly different ethical points of view within
different societies. There are different judgments dependent on how you
set your values/priorities. To me, the most reasonable way to solve
such problems is a dialogue. One way or the other human rules of the
game are negotiated. I agree with Steven that it is important to find
common denominators. If you want a dialogue between different value
systems (and what would be the alternative?) it is good to start from
what can be identified as common.

Lawrence Hinman for example identifies the three most fundamental
ethical principles as:
1.    Value human life (not killing the members of your group)
2.    Taking care of children
3.    Trust (that establishes the stable rules for the system)

Naturally the central question is whom you experience as a member of
your group – humanity or your best friends.

Back to the need of defining (global) ethics, one might say that one
thing happens here, as often in the history of philosophy – philosophy
is progressing by leaving parts of its territories to the science. It
seems to me good at this stage to make scientific all that may be made
scientific, but not more than that (paraphrasing Einstein’s advice to
make simple all the may be simplified, but not more than that). Part of
ethical judgment may be built into expert systems. Simulations may help
to predict the consequences of different ethical positions. (Here the
practical action - what can be done and how – is on focus).

The question of integrity that appears on many different scales –
integrity of a state related to other states, integrity of a group
among other groups, integrity of an individual in relation to other
individuals, groups, etc. What would be the value of those different
integrities? The answer is emerging as a result of interaction/dialogue
on different levels, and we hopefully are contributing to it. 

I like Michael’s view:
“The word "health" comes from the same root in language as the word
"wholeness". Psychological health comes from integration, and an
essential part of this is the process of remembering, i.e., bringing
the memory objects into an integrated structure of mind. “ 

It is a very general idea, and it can be applied in different value
systems and at different levels of granularity.

Best,
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/




James N Rose wrote:

  I would like to challenge this as a category error.
Integrity does not have to be linked with ethics
or morals.

A cannibal who remains true to his/her collective's
code of behavior and eats other people is outside
the coda of other society's "ethics or morals",
but has 'integrity' within his/her social order.

At the very best, your defnition/inference holds
only when singular societal value sets are
the criteria for judgement.  A general attachment
of 'integrity' with morals is improper.

James Rose
 





"Michael Leyton (by way of Pedro Marijuan )" wrote:
  
  
So it is by refusing to remember, that the
non-integrated person, i.e., the person without integrity,
becomes an unethical person.

best
Michael Leyton


  
  
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
  




___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Reply to Arne Kjellman: Objective and Peceptional Realities and probabilities

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Andrei,

> Nowdays in QI community is extremely popular Fuchsian (named to my
friend Chris Fuchs from Bell
> Lab) interpretation of QM: wave function is just information
representation of our believes about physical systems. 

This sounds great to me.

> Quantum probabilities are subjective probabilities.
Is it necessary? Are all our beliefs considered to be subjective?
Is there a place for common beliefs? 
(I think of shared beliefs within scientific communities.
In the same way as inter-subjective knowledge establishes itself as
"objective" knowledge within a community,
also common beliefs may arise as a result of shared knowledge.)

All the best,
Gordana

________
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Senior Lecturer
 
Mälardalen University,
Department of Computer Science and Electronics
 
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/ 



Andrei Khrennikov wrote:

   Dear Arne,
I agree with some your ideas  and disagree with others.
  
  
In this ontological issue I fully support Andrei - and to my mind Ted
is mi=
staken because a separation between what is the contribution of an
eventual=
 reality and the contribution of learned in theories of observation
is in p=
rinciple impossible. The reason for this is the (rarely recognised)
limited=
 human capacity of perception, where evolution has favoured
adaptiveness be=
fore tha ability truthfulness of (re)presentation.

  
  Andrei: I completely agree with this. So all our physical theories are
just approximations, but I still think (as Einstein did) that there is
real-reality beyond our observations (so Moon exists even when nobody
looks at it).

Yes our perceptions and feeling play the crucial role in that picture of
reality that we created. But here created has the meaning that we just
extracted a part of reality that could be represented by our
perceptions. I agree that it is a very small part of reality, moreover,
our representation is very special and it depends on models. We create
MODELS, but these are models of real-reality.

Information is information about reality.  Nowdays in QI community is
extremely popular Fuchsian (named to my friend Chris Fuchs from Bell
Lab) interpretation of QM: wave function is just information
representation of our believes about physical systems. Quantum
probabilities are subjective probabilities. I think that such
interpretation is the most close to yours. 

Such picture is not acceptable for me, two days ago we had the great
battle during the round table of the conference \"Foundations of
Probability and Physics-4\" in Vaxjo with Chris. But I need objective
probabilities and hence information. For the creator of teh frequency
probability theory Richard von Mises, probabilities for coin trials were
as real as e.g. the mass of this coin.
All the best, Andrei

  
  
I have been workning with a Subject-Oriented Approach to human
knowing (SOA=
) for 10 years now and in this view the pieces fall neatly into
place. The =
SOA take almost nothing for pre-given (granted) to human epistemology
- not=
 even a physical space. Maybe these ideas are most easy captured
considerin=
g Andrei\'s introduction to the on-going FIS-discussion:


  
We recall that quantum mechanics by itself is a huge building 

  

having the=
 sand-fundament -the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. On one hand,
there=
 was created >>the advanced mathematical formalism (calculus of
probabiliti=
es in the complex Hilbert space) giving predictions which are
supported by =
all existing experimental data. >>On the other hand, it is still
unclear wh=
y this formalism works so well and moreover it is not clear what it
really =
predicts, because by the orthodox Copenhagen >>interpretation (which
is the=
 conventional interpretation) quantum mechanics is not about physical
reali=
ty by itself, but about just our observations (of what?). All


  
unsolved pr=

  

oblems of quantum foundations are essentially amplified in the
quantum info=
rmation project. Problems which were of a purely philosophic interest
durin=
g one >>hundred years became technological and business problems.=20
My claim is that the SOA cements the sand-fundament of the CI by
introducin=
g as \"reversed\" causality where the percepts and observations are the
\"caus=
es\" of the reality-conception. Reality, which in turn, stands for
just the =
recurrent stability of human perception (with no further (forbidden)
 implications). See Wittgenstein: \"Whereof we cannot speak we
must be =
silent\" To Andrei\'s question of what is the essence of observation -
my rep=
ly is \"observation\" ie the feelings or complexity of feels a that
normal hu=
man experience each second of his life. During the years I have
learnt that=
 human \"feels\" are the 

Re: [Fis] Relating QI to other Information Theories

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear colleagues,
I have
two comments on the
recent discussion.
Michael
Devereux made a good
point:

“I’m sure, as you say, Andrei, that we must definitively specify
information by
a precise mathematical formulation, if we expect to make any progress.
But, I
think the Shannon and von Neumann formulas are not sufficiently
general. They
only describe the information content of an ensemble of identically
prepared
objects. That’s entirely adequate for the statistical results of real
quantum
experiments, or, say, for the train of electrical pulses in a telegraph
signal,
but they do not describe an individual bit of information. "

I think in this context it is also good, as John Collier did, to recall
alternative approaches, including Barwise and Seligman, Kolomogorov and
Chaitin, Ingarden et al. Jim Johnson refers to Michael Leyton, who
relates information to causal
explanation.All of these theories of information give interesting and
relevant
representations in the same way as ordinary light, x-ray, gamma-ray,
infrared, radio waves...will give you different views of the same
object – lets
say a galaxy. All of them might be necessary for our understanding.
It is not the question "which is the right one?" but rather "what are
they good for?".

Just for the sake
of completeness, let me mention Fisher information that also
is quantitatively defined, and is epistemologically oriented. B. Roy
Frieden
relates Fisher information and focuses on getting information from the
“world”
through an interaction (via probe particle) – a process that can be
seen as a measurement.
Measurements are generally imperfect. What is interesting in this
approach is that Frieden uses Fisher information as a basis for
unification of
sciences. See: http://www.optics.arizona.edu/Frieden/Fisher_Information.htm
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=17-0521810795-0
For me,
the most appealing with
concept of information in general is its universality – it connects
virtually completely
unrelated phenomena and research traditions. 
The
second thing I want to
comment on is QM vs. CM discussion where the possibility to describe
usual
macroscopic phenomena in QM language was mentioned. That might also be
the way
to relate to different concepts of information.

Could that be so that as long
as our knowledge (based on information) about a system is limited (we
know that
something is in either of n states with certain probabilities) some
kind of QM
description might be appropriate. As soon as enough information about
the “everyday
behavior” of quantum objects will be collected a “classical”
description of
quantum landscape will emerge and we will, one way or the other, be
able to talk
about particular events with particular objects, not only about
statistical properties
of ensembles. For what nanotechnology aims at (if I got it right) is
manipulating subatomic objects. To my understanding, in much the same
way as the
STM (scanning tunneling microscope) visualizes subatomic objects;
techniques must
be possible to develop to translate between quantum and classical
representations - both ways.
Best regards,
Gordana

________
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Senior Lecturer
 
Mälardalen University,
Department of Computer Science and Electronics
 
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/ 


 


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Realism

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Rafael & Dear colleagues,


Allow me to try to advocate reductionism.
I know how unpopular it might be.
Reductionism is an ideal of a physicist (and yes please, notice the
important distinction made by Steven Weinberg between petty
reductionism and grand reductionism!)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=1785  The
ideal of grand reductionism is to find the most general underlying
physical principles for the physical reality.
What else would we expect of a physicist?


I also believe that no reasonable physicist today believes that atoms
can account directly for all the diversity of this complex
world, not even of the physical phenomena alone. But they make an
enormous amount of sense at certain levels of abstraction.


Lets consider "panatomism" -
the claim that mater is made of atoms.
Of course theory of atomic structure of matter can not help us to solve
ethical problems of humanity. But it is very good to know that matter
consists of atoms. There is a range of phenomena that atomic theory can
account for and its very generality is an enormously powerful feature. 

I agree that in questions metaphysical, such as in the choice of the
general framework of realism or anti-realism (Ontological?
Epistemological? Is anti-realism synonymous with Platonism or with
constructivism? - It is not always clear.)

In any event the choice of metaphysical framework is nothing that you
have scientific proof for, but some research communities (for good
reasons I would say) prefer ontological realism (physical sciences are
typical example), some communities tend towards Platonism
(mathematicians are sometimes inclined towards this) - and I guess that
what makes certain framework attractive is its intuitive appeal to the
research community.

Are scientist more qualified to impose their own frameworks (based on
their own intuitions) within their research fields? I think they are.
The same way we trust medical doctors when they make judgments of our
complicated health state, the same way we may trust physicist's
ontological realism. If they don't have the right intuition, who has?

Of course, it is a question of intuition, not of knowledge, and it is
worth to make that distinction - I agree.

All the best,
Gordana
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/


Rafael Capurro wrote:
Dear
all,
  
  
declarations of faith are declaration of faith.
  
Nothing more, nothing less. They are self-contradictory in case they
are
  
supposed to be the truth about reality. In that case they are no
recongnized
  
as declarations of faith. The faith of a scientist that acknowledges to
be a
  
(materialist) realist is no less a faith than the one that believes
reality
  
is "just" numbers (or bits or...). The poverty of reductionisms is that
they
  
give the impression that in the long run we just need to make, as in
this
  
case, good physics and everything will be explained. This is not very
  
realistic, in fact.
  
kind regards
  
Rafael
  
  
  
Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro
  
Hochschule der Medien (HdM) - Stuttgart Media University, Wolframstr.
32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
  
Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
  
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
Voice Stuttgart: + 49 - 711 - 25706 - 182
  
Voice private: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
  
Homepage: www.capurro.de
  
Homepage ICIE: http://icie.zkm.de
  
Homepage IRIE: http://www.i-r-i-e.net
  
- Original Message - From: "Michael Devereux"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  
To: "FIS Mailing List" 
  
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 8:58 PM
  
Subject: [Fis] Realism
  
  
  
  Dear Arne and colleagues,


There is an essential reason, I believe, why nearly all physical
scientists are realists. There would be no physical science without
realism. Perhaps the most fundamental assumption upon which physical
science depends is the conviction that all of us are imbedded in the
same, objective physical reality.

I understand that one cannot prove this deductively, but the inductive
evidence seems, to most of us, to be overwhelming. From the very
beginning of physical science, through to the present, all of our
scientific accomplishments rely on a description of nature that is
observer independent. We’ve incorporated Gallilean relativity into the
fundament of classical physics. All the classical equations of motion
are observer independent. Would there be anything at all left of the
physical sciences if we discarded classical mechanics?

It is exactly the consistency and usefulness of the physical sciences
that argues, irrefutably, I believe, for the validity of the axioms
upon which physical science depends. Statistical mechanics,
hydrodynamics, electrodynamics, and others cannot stand without
classical mechanics. So, we physical scientists must adamantly refuse
to concede that because realism is not deductively derivable, it might
not be correct.

I note that Einstein built both his theories of relativity, special and
general,