Re: [Fis] Replies to Walter Loet

2010-12-21 Thread Loet Leydesdorff
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.

2010-12-21 Thread 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,’ *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.

2010-12-21 Thread karl javorszky
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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

  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 

[Fis] Fwd: Closing Comments?

2010-12-21 Thread walter . riofrio
 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 who have

[Fis] Add Closing Comments?

2010-12-21 Thread walter . riofrio
  

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