Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man

2013-12-08 Thread Xiaohong Wang王小红
Dear John,
 
Your response to Krassimir is interesting, but I think the question is what is 
the definition of communication on earth, it seems the definitons of both of 
you are not the same.
 
And one more question is, is information itself meaningful?
I completely agree with your approach to really understand Shannon.
 
Best,
Xiaohong

 




 


- Original Message -
From: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za
To: Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com, Pedro C. Marijuan 
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis@listas.unizar.es fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
Date: 2013-12-08 20:41

At 12:38 AM 2013/12/05, Krassimir Markov wrote:
Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,
This discussion is full with interesting ideas.
What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts communication and
information interaction which reflect similar phenomena but at different
levels of live hierarchy.
Communication is a process of exchanging of signals, messages with
different degree of complexity (Shannon).
Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific
only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio
molecules, cells, organs).
Main feature of intelligent agents is decision making based on information
models.
Information interaction is impossible without communication.
Friendly regards
Krassimir
I would agree with distinguishing between communication and 
information interaction, but I infer exactly the opposite conclusion. 
Communication, it seems to me (and also according to the setup that 
is the basis for Shannon's approach) requires coding and decoding 
modules, but information transmission does not; it requires only a 
channel. Information needs to be decoded (given meaning) to be 
communication. At least that is what I read off of Shannon's model of 
communication theory.
Maybe Krassimir is not talking about Shannon type information, and 
has a different model in mind. If this is the case, it would be nice 
if he were to make it explicit, since most people today at least 
start with Shannon's approach (or one of the two rough equivalents 
discussed by Kolmogorov) as basis that at least gives the syntax of 
information, with channel, coding and decoding required for a full 
communications channel, but left undefined by Shannon (though recent 
work has tried to fill these gaps).
Cheers,
John
--
Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za
Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031
Http://web.ncf.ca/collier
___
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] Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of communications

2013-12-08 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

List, Joseph, Kassimir,  Bob U:

(This is a continuation of my inquiry into role of universals in biological 
communication.)

Joseph:
After reflecting on the roots of your system of Logic of Reality  as grounded 
in potentiality and actuality I remain as puzzled as ever. These two terms are 
widely used in philosophy and physics.  Indeed, historically, it appears these 
terms are translations from the Greek terms of Aristotle.

So, why am I puzzled?  Because I do not find a path from these terms to the 
terminology used by logicians.  While logic itself is an utter disaster (in the 
scientific sense of a unitary discipline) , one point that most authors agree 
upon is a logical statement allows one to draw a conclusion.  By extension, I 
expect a system of logic would allow a systematic method for drawing 
conclusions.  Do you find this to be an unreasonable expectation?

What am I missing?

Kassimir:

I suspect you are mis-reading the message that I seek to communicate.
You write:
 Information interaction is exchanging of information models.


In other words, you and I do not share a common information model.
By citing Shannon, you suggest that the information model of Shannon is 
sufficient for (mechanical?) communication.
But what is the notion of universality that you are pre-supposing?  Is it 
merely Euclidian mathematics?

My assertion is that one needs a nomino-realistic notion of information model 
in order to encode biological communication.  That is, the names are not 
arbitrary abstractions but necessarily must be constructed from parts.  The 
logic for this assertion are physical principles - physical atomism and the 
associated mathematics of physical conservation principles.  In other words, 
the arbitrary assignment of mathematical variables (names) will not generate a 
logic of biological communication.  

This conclusion is reached as a semiotic necessity - that is, the semiosis 
intrinsic to a mutual shared information model that operates between 
mathematics and physical atomism does NOT exist. 

 The antecedent model (information model) does not generate the consequent 
model and hence no conclusions can be drawn.  To make this point sharper, the 
physics community in general rejected the notion of physical atoms prior to the 
experimental and theoretical work between 1900 - 1930 (Rutherford, Bohr, 
Schodinger,...)

I note substantial parallelism between your views and those of my colleague, 
Bob Ulanowicz, in the limited sense that engineering mathematics plays a 
critical role in the structures of your arguments.

The concept of nomino-realism demands a richer mathematics, far richer than 
the typical engineering mathematics. 

The terms of this mathematics must be sufficiently rich to allow logicians to 
construct names from the properties of the terms. That necessity is the basis 
of the limitation of the classical mathematical views of universals, such as 
variables and such mathematical structures as categories. 

At the simple level of natural language communication, a speaker/listener of 
Russian and a speaker/listener of Chinese (pre-supposing that both are 
mono-linguistic) can not communicate because the encoding and decoding 
processes are not mutual.  This is a simple metaphor for the abstract concepts 
that I seek to communicate in the more general representation of mathematical 
symbols.  When are they nominal?  When are they realistic?  And when must they 
be both nominal and realistic?  Biological communication requires BOTH! 


Cheers 

Jerry

Headwater House



On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:08 PM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:

 
   1. Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of
  communications (Jerry LR Chandler)
 
 From: Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
 Subject: [Fis] Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of communications
 Date: December 5, 2013 11:08:23 PM CST
 To: fis@listas.unizar.es, pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 
 
 
 
 Pedro, FISers:
 
 Congratulations on a big step forward for FIS!
 
 I am delighted to see this major philosophical step (from the term 
 'information' to the term 'communication' for Pedro as the leader of FIS.
 
 The progressive step
 FROM the philosophy of information as a form of physics / number 
 TO the recognition of communication as the basis purpose of information
  is warmly welcomed here at the Headwater House.
 
 In my view, a new direction has been established for  FIS and I heartily 
 welcome it!
 
 The next step for FIS is,  in my opinion, to explore the relative.
 In other words, what are the nature of the relatives in communication?
 
 In this regard, I disagree strongly with Kassimir assertion that :
 Communication is a process of exchanging of signals, messages with 
 different degree of complexity (Shannon).
 Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific 
 only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio 
 molecules, cells, organs).
 
 My rejection of