[Fis] Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of communications
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 > 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,
Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
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 are exchanged so that "the medium is the message." all the best - Bob Logan On 2013-12-08, at 7:41 AM, John Collier wrote: > 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 __ Robert K. Logan Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto http://utoronto
Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
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 To: Krassimir Markov , "Pedro C. Marijuan" , "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
Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
> 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. I agree with John, communication theory is a subset of information theory, even if historically the part was articulated before we realized the whole. In working with ecological networks, I have no concern whatsoever with coding and decoding. The calculus of information theory works wonderfully to quantify the degree of constraint vs. residual flexibility. It is a *phenomenological* tool that performs in abstraction of any details about what constitutes the constraints. Possibly coding is involved, usually it is not (unless you still believe in strict reductionism, that is). My two cents. Regards to all! Bob U. ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
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
