Re: [Fis] Replies to Walter & Loet
Replying to Loet on information: I would say that there is a third major kind of information -- information as constraint (on anything, therefore on entropy production). This comes out of Pattee's distinction between dynamics and non-holonomic constrain. Example: examine an equation, say simply Y = aX^b. a and b are functioning as information here. This information is not uncertainty, and it does not overtly imply an observer in the usual sense. If we generalize the observer, it might be said that a and b make a difference to ... ? ... STAN Dear Stan and colleagues, Yes, a multitude of meanings of the information can be formulated, as Mark Burgin also noted in a separate email, once information is defined as "a difference which makes a difference" because the system of reference has then to be specified for each specific difference. Thus, the Bateson-type of information is system-specific: for which system does the difference make a difference. This system can be an assumed observer (Edelman, Maturana, Von Foerster) or a social system; for example, a discourse (Luhmann). Observers can be differently positioned and social systems can be differentiated internally (e.g., bio-information, scientific information, etc.) Thus, one may wish to construct a kind of "hierarchy" of distinctions: 1. The first distinction would be between Shannon-type and Bateson-type information; 2. The second distinction between the meaning of the information for an assumed observer or a network (social) system; 3. Differentiations in the systems may lead to different definition of relevant information; 4. Different subdynamics within each system can be expected to position the information differently (as elaborated in my previous email). This was my second penny for this week. J Best wishes for a happy new year, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Closing Comments? From Qiao T.Q.
An interesting message from Qiao Tian-qing Note: attachments are not much welcome by the host server of this list. --P. Mensaje original Asunto: I agree with you Fecha: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:52:38 +0800 De: whhbs...@sina.com Para: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Dear Pedro You said: ‘*Factually, information becomes undefinable,’ *I agree with you.* *Claude E. Shannon also issued a statement: “It is almost impossible to count on a sole concept about information being satisfactorily responsible for every possible application in general fields”. (Peter F. Drucker. Knowledge Work and Knowledge Society: The social Transformations of this Century. Quoted from [Gang, L. 2007]) In this email’s attachment, a paper expresses my viewpoint. This paper puts forward a definition, and its mathematical expressions, of what is *customarily named information*, hoping it will be helpful to end the philosophical exploration for the concept of information. best regards ---Qiao Tian-qing QTQ -- Definition to Pedro.doc Description: MS-Word document ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Closing Comments? From Qiao T.Q.
On Information Please allow me to respectfully disagree with many of you. The term 'information' can well be defined by stringent logical-mathematical methods. It will, however, need agreement on the calssification of the kinds of information. In preparation to an answer to the questions formulated by Pedro I prepared a short summary. As this deals with the same concept, I'd like to include it here. On recognising the properties of matter and of the intellect itself. This subject has been worked through by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae. In today’s terminology, one may restate the following: We recognize the patterns of our perceptions. These show that different kinds of matter exist. The inner differences that we make among our impressions depend on one hand on the properties of the matter “outside”, on the other hand on the fineness of differentiation of one’s own intellect “inside”. We deduct the outside world by means of our insight into the patterns of our impressions. Since Thomas the following has been added: We have an instinctive and an intellectual set of rules of the brain. These are interdependent. The intellectual set of rules can be codified and results in formal logical sentences in formal logical languages. In this, made-up, idealized world, every sentence is related to every other sentence by means of made-up rules. A coherent system of thoughts is in itself conclusive and well-explained, and may of course be near to, or far from Reality, if Reality means that from what the system of idealized sentences has been idealized away. The set of rules may in itself be beautiful and elaborate, and this is completely disconnected to the question, whether anyone obeys them. Within the set of rules, it can not be decided, whether they have any outside consequences, therefore this question cannot be discussed and one should keep his silence about it. Recently, some have addressed the problem of inner contradictions within a well-constructed closed logical system and have come up with the following: The rules have been derived by observing something that happens regularly. Therefore, there is something what is continuously irregular. Relative to that background of perception we rejoice in recognizing that what is invariably somehow, and are proud of predicting its next occurrence. The next occurrence we distinguish re the place and the properties. We try to understand the interplay between the place and the properties of the next occurrence, because that is already a task exciting our intellectum, in the sense of perceptive organs. The thing catches our attention by its predictability. Therefore, there exists a background, less predictable, less ordered, which we use to recognize the foreground before it. Now within a closed logical system – like the human intellect is one – there cannot be unregulated processes which one uses dependably, and be it that one uses them as backgrounds. So there is a minor and a maior degree of order and the perception uses the maior degree of order to perceive before the background of the minor degree of order. This concept has been demonstrated on our traditional and other ways of dealing with the most simple logical statement there is, namely a+b=c. We have at all times a presently relevant order in existence and can relate to previous and future states of the world, and this before a multitude of aspects which are presently irrelevant. The irrelevant aspects provide a multitude of different orders which are by magnitudes more pervasive than the order, and can therefore well be used as background. Restating Thomas: the intellect knows that it is well-ordered. It can deduct, and recognize by its shortcomings, that a higher, better, (in his terms: divine) order exists. By today’s methods it is possible to relate that what is the case to that what is not the case. The order prevailing in the background is not a disorder but an order based on aspects that are irrelevant. There are always many more irrelevant aspects to a logical statement than relevant ones, so there is always a background before which we can recognize the relevance of some aspects. Information now can be understood to relate to the alternatives within the maior order, and again as relating to the properties of the maior order within (connected to, contrasted to) the minor order. This method allows very well exact and usable definitions of information. So, the vote is not unanimous. There are solid, step-by-step deictic methods of definition for the term 'information' using a+b=c. Karl 2010/12/21 Pedro C. Marijuan > An interesting message from Qiao Tian-qing > > Note: attachments are not much welcome by the host server of this list. > --P. > > Mensaje original Asunto: I agree with you Fecha: Sat, > 18 Dec 2010 10:52:38 +0800 De: whhbs...@sina.com Para: > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > > Dear Pedro > > You said: ‘*Factually, information becomes undefinable
[Fis] Fwd: Closing Comments?
Dear FIS colleagues, We could talk on different aspects of the information notion. My approach is only to try to relate information with cognition. How from network of molecular dynamics, cognition and consciousness appeared in the universe? In other words, my interest is very limited and focused only in a naturalistic approach to the emergence of semantics of information (1). In this respect, I propose that “information with meaning” is the very nature of biological information (bio-meaning). I claim that signs in biological systems (and in pre-biotic systems as well) are related to matter–energy transformations as they are incorporated into the system as ‘variations’. In turn, these variations become biological information—always with bio-meaning—because they impact cohesion, maintaining, increasing or even decreasing the far from thermodynamic equilibrium state. From its initial emergence in the physical world, we can hypothesize that bio-meaning has the ability of increasing its levels of complexity and sophistication all the way up to the human world. Meaning and biological information were connected at their very beginning, and this bond conditioned the evolution of both notions well into the abstract levels of human culture. Due to this fact, it is possible the emergence of natural computations revealed in the emergence of first small world features in evolution (2). Lastly, if we agree that, in the long run of an open-ended evolution, the neurons are the cells specialized in transmitting the signals of different matter-energy variations coming from the environment by means of the digital action potentials between neurons, and if we furthermore assume that these transmissions “add” certain ways of recognizing the different matter-energy variations, then it is possible to achieve some clarifications about the emergence of mental properties (3). May it be that the constraints of the acoustic information flow due to the topological distribution of neural populations control the ways in which the information is transmitted. The specific distribution of neural cell types (in particular, inhibitory neurons) producing gradients of inhibition and/or excitatory signals are linked, we assume, to mental rules: the grammar of the mind? References (1) Riofrio, W. and Aguilar, L.A. (2010a) Different Neurons Population Distribution correlates with Topologic-Temporal Dynamic Acoustic Information Flow. In Unifying Themes in Complex Systems (New England Complex Systems Institute Book Series: Volume VI), edited by A.A. Minai, D. Braha and Y. Bar-Yam. Springer, pp. 227-234. [1] (2) Riofrio, W. (2008) Understanding the Emergence of Cellular Organization. Biosemiotics, 1(3): 361-377. (3) Riofrio, W. (2010b) On Biological Computing, Information and Molecular Networks. In Thinking Machines and the Philosophy of Computer Science: Concepts and Principles, edited by J. Vallverdú. IGI Global, pp. 53-65. Happy Holidays! 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 [2] --- - Original Message - From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: fis@listas.unizar.es Cc: Sent: mié 15/12/10 10:29 Subject: Fwd: [Fis] Closing Comments? FIS Friends, Like in most of our excursions, in the present one we have stumbled upon a very interesting and exciting "attractor". Rather than throwing ourselves into a deep discussion about the modes of social knowing and their historical interrelationship my suggestion is that we sidestep them and make some "concluding comments" on the ongoing discussion by coming back to the final questions of Prof. Zhong (Yixin in our friendly environment!). I will pen them at the bottom. Concerning the modes of knowledge discussion, next weeks I will make a proposal in order to have it as our next discussion session (immediately after this one, or perhaps after another session which has been tentatively demanded about an "axiomatic approach to information theory".) Let me make another suggestion. In the concluding comments it would be important trying to be as boldest as possible, as well as hearing new voices related to neuroscience, cellular-molecular biology, physics, and artificial intelligence. Thus I kindly demand to the active group of philosophically oriented parties, and to everybody else, to momentarily keep at bay the critical comments --only positive reactions (Christmas time!). All parties wh
[Fis] Add Closing Comments?
Excuse me, the order is:) References (1) Riofrio, W. (2008) Understanding the Emergence of Cellular Organization. Biosemiotics, 1(3): 361-377. (2) Riofrio, W. (2010a) On Biological Computing, Information and Molecular Networks. In Thinking Machines and the Philosophy of Computer Science: Concepts and Principles, edited by J. Vallverdú. IGI Global, pp. 53-65. (3) Riofrio, W. and Aguilar, L.A. (2010b) Different Neurons Population Distribution correlates with Topologic-Temporal Dynamic Acoustic Information Flow. In Unifying Themes in Complex Systems (New England Complex Systems Institute Book Series: Volume VI), edited by A.A. Minai, D. Braha and Y. Bar-Yam. Springer, pp. 227-234. [1] 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 [2] --- - Original Message - From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: fis@listas.unizar.es Cc: Sent: mié 15/12/10 10:29 Subject: Fwd: [Fis] Closing Comments? FIS Friends, Like in most of our excursions, in the present one we have stumbled upon a very interesting and exciting "attractor". Rather than throwing ourselves into a deep discussion about the modes of social knowing and their historical interrelationship my suggestion is that we sidestep them and make some "concluding comments" on the ongoing discussion by coming back to the final questions of Prof. Zhong (Yixin in our friendly environment!). I will pen them at the bottom. Concerning the modes of knowledge discussion, next weeks I will make a proposal in order to have it as our next discussion session (immediately after this one, or perhaps after another session which has been tentatively demanded about an "axiomatic approach to information theory".) Let me make another suggestion. In the concluding comments it would be important trying to be as boldest as possible, as well as hearing new voices related to neuroscience, cellular-molecular biology, physics, and artificial intelligence. Thus I kindly demand to the active group of philosophically oriented parties, and to everybody else, to momentarily keep at bay the critical comments --only positive reactions (Christmas time!). All parties who have participated in recent discussions, and particularly the new arrivals into the list, are cordially invited to reflect their brute insights on intelligence and information... maybe just penning three or four lines on a few of the questions below. Thus, these were Yixin's questions: • What is the correct concept of intelligence? • What is the correct concept of information? • What is the precise relation between intelligence and information? • How do you evaluate the current state of the art in the study of intelligence science? • How do you evaluate the current state of the art in the study of information science? • Do you agree with the statement that intelligence comes from knowledge and the latter from information? • What, do you think, is the feasible mechanism of intelligence growth? • Do you think it possible to have information being conversed to knowledge and even to intelligence? best wishes, and season greetings ---Pedro -- - 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/ - - Este mensaje ha sido verificado por el E-mail Protegido. Antivirus actualizado en 15/12/2010 / Versión: 0.96.4/12392 ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
