Dear Sung et al.,
I appreciate human bias in terms of numerical scale, but I don’t think that is
what we actually achieve by using logarithms. If the universe of possibility
is fractal, using a logarithm does not eliminate the problem of large numbers.
I think the primary outcome achieved by
Joseph,
Thank you for this concise statement. It very closely matches my own
perspective. I would only add the notion that meaningfulness or
meaninglessness is not an inherent property of information. It is entirely
contingent upon the affect, or the absence of affect, of encountered
, this can be a centralized nervous system
and whole organism behavior as the form of an output. We illustrate this
process as we read and write FIS posts.
Are you looking for more detail about the “mental model”, or is this the sort
of thing you have in mind?
Cheers,
Guy
Guy Hoelzer, Associate
is an event that emerged from the a-biotic universe
populated with physico-chemical laws valid everywhere.
Another subject interesting to many of us
All the best
Christophe
________
De : Guy A Hoelzer <hoel...@unr.edu<mailto:hoel...@unr.edu>>
Envoyé : mardi
Hi All,
I want to pick on Christophe’s post to make a general plea about FIS posting.
This is not a comment on meaning generation by agents. Christophe wrote:
"Keeping in mind that communications exist only because agents need to manage
meanings for given purposes”.
This seems to imply
e, retaining their specificity.
Best regards,
El oct 3, 2017 4:28 PM, "Guy A Hoelzer"
<hoel...@unr.edu<mailto:hoel...@unr.edu>> escribió:
Dear Krassimir et al.,
Your post provides an example of the importance that semantics plays in our
discussions. I have suggested on sever
Dear Krassimir et al.,
Your post provides an example of the importance that semantics plays in our
discussions. I have suggested on several occasions that statements about
‘information’ should explicitly distinguish between a purely heuristic
definition, such as those involving ‘meaning’, and
many of my colleagues,
which I think illustrates the problem caused by failing to make this
distinction explicit. As I have argued before, I think clearly distinguishing
between ‘information’ and ‘meaning’ would be a good first step in this
direction.
Regards,
Guy
Guy Hoelzer, Associate
I personally consider metabolism to be at the core of what constitutes ‘life’,
so the notion of autopoeisis is very attractive to me. It is also possible
that the richness of life as we know it depends on having metabolisms
(activity), genomes (memory), and reproduction combined. The
you think the notions of perception and
interpretation are effectively the same thing?
Cheers,
Guy
Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nevada Reno
Phone: 775-784-4860
Fax: 775-784-1302
hoel...@unr.edumailto:hoel...@unr.edu
On Apr 24, 2015, at 10:22 AM
). Contingency on idiosyncratic
configurations within and in the neighborhood of a system might lead the system
to follow a variety of alternative paths. Would you argue that autogenesis is
not an MEP process from this somewhat fuzzy perspective?
Cheers,
Guy
Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
.
Regards,
Guy
Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nevada Reno
Phone: 775-784-4860
Fax: 775-784-1302
hoel...@unr.edumailto:hoel...@unr.edu
On Dec 4, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Krassimir Markov
mar...@foibg.commailto:mar...@foibg.com wrote:
Dear Bob,
I think
I have never understood the process of telomere shortening and this is a
tantalizing idea. What factor might drive the evolution of a bookkeeping
mechanism like telomere shortening in cells? I ask my question this way to
intentionally avoid the assumption that it must represent an adaptation
AND INFORMATION are objective phenomena. PERCEPTION AND MEANING are
subjective phenomena.
Can anybody see a problem with this form of the statement?
Regards,
Guy Hoelzer
On Aug 25, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Krassimir Markov
mar...@foibg.commailto:mar...@foibg.com wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for comments
Greetings All,
While I like to think that I am not limited to reductionistic thinking, I find
it difficult to understand any perspective on information that is not limited
to physical manifestation. I would appreciate further justification for a
non-physicalist perspective on information. How
Hi Gavin,
I am having trouble following your implicit argument about meaning information
theory. I do understand your complaint about evidence, tests, corroboration
and corresponding logic and mathematics, although I'm not sure I agree that
things are so bleak. The 'implicit' part I detect
This is an interesting question. What is the meaning of meaning? I would
define as something like the affects of perception on a perceiving system.
Once a system has been affected it might change its behavior, but I would
hesitate to equate a behavioral response directly to the meaning of a
Hi Mark,
The only part that I take exception to is at the end of your colophon.
Specifically, I disagree with the statement “it is evident that to consider
that everything IS information is unreasonable and contradicts principles of
science.” I see contrast, or difference, as fundamental to
Hi Gavin,
I’m not quite sure how to respond as you didn’t ask a particular question.
Here are my thoughts about your points.
Waves are indeed about energy, which I think fits nicely into the scheme I
described regarding information. I suggested a very simple definition of
information as a
Greetings All,
I want to second Joseph’s claim that something may be transferred as
information, even if Stan’s “stuff” itself is not transferred. Waves, for
example, can often pass from one medium into another without a concomitant
transfer of stuff, and the form of the wave may be changed
, or a complete processing capability. In my view, this is the
most difficult and consequential point --besides, it directly militates
against the God's view we attribute to scientific observer... we already
discussed a little bit about this in Beijing!
best wishes
---Pedro
Guy
Pedro et al.,
My previous cautionary post did not get much traction in this thread, but I
still think my point was an important one to ensure that we are all talking
about the same thing. My point was that “intelligence” in inherently
subjective (in the eye of the beholder), unless we can
Hi All,
I appreciate this topic and discussion. I find myself in strong agreement
with the basic point made by Stan and Bob. Not all fluctuations penetrate
upwardly across levels of functional organization. Structural resonance in
the organization at some level makes it sensitive to certain
be swept up in other thermodynamic cascades, including
those exploited by other dissipative systems.
The Prigogine notion of dissipative systems provides a compelling case, in my
view, for including both pattern and process in generic treatments of
information.
Regards,
Guy
--
Dr. Guy A. Hoelzer
Hi Joseph,
This is an interesting topic having to do specifically with the way humans
process and weigh the validity of socially transmitted information. I would
like to add entry order effects to the positive/negative bias you describe.
I personally view cognition as a process that
,
Guy Hoelzer
on 11/14/08 5:00 AM, Robin Faichney (by way of Pedro Marijuan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thursday, November 13, 2008, 7:54:55 PM, I wrote:
Not only economists have economic models.
In my opinion the most important complicating factor in economics
Dear Giuseppe et al.,
I find the issues of meaning and interpretation very interesting, but I
think this FIS discussion needs to find some common ground if we are to get
anywhere. For example, Giuseppe wrote:
There is no purely physical status of information, since a physical
structure yields
Bob,
If the notions of Entropy and Shannon Information are alternative approaches
to characterize the same phenomenon in Nature, then the ways they have been
modeled would not necessarily reveal an underlying and fundamental
commonality. I think that many of us suspect that this is the case and
the social context that demands the sharing of meanings and constrains the
construction of meanings to resonate at the level of the social network.
Regards,
Guy Hoelzer
on 10/2/07 3:24 AM, Pedro Marijuan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Answering to a couple of Jerry's questions
Greetings,
I agree with Loet and Pedro that it seems important to distinguish between
environmental constraints (including material constraints emanating from the
qualities of components of a system) and self-imposed limitations associated
with the particular path taken as a dynamical system
Stan,
Aren't all constraints a form of information? I see constraints as informing
the bounds of the adjacent possible and adjacent probable. If this is correct,
then it would seem to render the economy as almosst pure information. In
fact, I think it would render all emergent systems as
emergence releases us from the need to drill down to the bottom in order to
FULLY understand higher order systems. In other words, it frees us from the
tedious demands of the reductionistic paradigm.
Regards,
Guy Hoelzer
___
fis mailing list
fis
.
It would be even more fantastic to learn about particular limitations of our
minds that might prevent us from understanding aspects of reality that might
exist, if it is possible to learn such a thing.
Regards,
Guy Hoelzer
on 11/8/06 1:28 AM, Arne Kjellman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Karl
physical systems.
Cheers,
Guy Hoelzer
on 10/26/06 7:16 AM, Robert Ulanowicz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Andrei Khrennikov wrote:
If we follow the line of Arne of realism/antirealism, then what should
we say about LAWS OF NATURE? I think that we would come to the
conclusion
34 matches
Mail list logo
