Re: [Fis] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11 Mechanism and Model
Dear Terry and colleagues, “As I have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all aspects of the information concept, and certainly not at the level of human thought. I merely propose to dissolve the implicit dualism in our current concepts at the most basic level, so that for example it will be possible to develop a scientifically grounded theory of molecular biosemiotics.” Is the crucial point that an expected information content is always referential to a maximum entropy and therefore a relational concept? The significance/meaning is thus provided by the redundancy? I doubt whether this is part of the physics (as you seem to claim). It follows from the math and is yet content free; in other words, it can be provided with meaning given any system of reference or, in other words, discourse. The universality of the claim would thus be based on the mathematical (dimensionless) character of it. Best, Loet ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11
Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference, 2013). best ---Pedro https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0 ** *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen /et al/., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents the four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and informational. Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote: Hi, Pedro. I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science) Would you please send it again? Thank you. Moises -- - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fwd: Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference & significance
-- Forwarded message --
From: Pedro C. Marijuan
Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference &
significance
To: Stanley N Salthe
Good comment! But not only to me, it has general interest, you should put
it into the list too... ---Pedro
Stanley N Salthe wrote:
>
> Pedro -- The Four Domains of Science diagram is reminiscent of the
> hierarchy of scientific disciplines outlined by Comte, Spencer and Peirce.
> Thus (using the subsumptive hierarchy):
>
>
> {informational realm {physicochemical realm {Biological realm {social
> realm
>
>
> Information is here viewed as preceding any of the other realms. It is
> not clear how to understand this. Peirce had in this position ‘Universal
> Mind’, which I think could be viewed as informational. Comte had
> mathematics here, reifying what many would take to be an emergent human, or
> animal, capability.
>
> Many today would likely not give information a separate realm, but would
> take it to emerge with the physical world (?Wheeler?). I think this
> coincides with my own view.
>
>
> STAN
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, pedro marijuan > wrote:
>
> Thanks Stan (next Monday I will resend the figure). By the way, it
> would be great if you can contribute to warm up the session!
> Best--Pedro
> BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@
>
>
> *From: * Stanley N Salthe >
> *Date: *Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:39:40 -0500
> *To: *Pedro C. Marijuan >
> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of
> reference & significance
>
> Oedro -- The figure does not show in this message.
>
> STAN
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
> mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:
>
> Dear Terry and FIS colleagues---and pirates,
>
> Just a brief reflection on the below.
>
> (From Terry's last message)...
> So my goal in this case is quite modest, and yet perhaps also a bit
> foolhardy. I want to suggest a simplest possible model system to
> use
> as the basis for formalizing the link between physical processes
> and
> semiotic processes. Perhaps someday after considerably elaborating
> this analysis it could contribute to issues of the psychology of
> human
> interactions. I hope to recruit some interest into pursuing this
> goal.
>
> In my view, any research endeavor is also accompanied by some
> "ultimate" goals or ends that go beyond the quite explicit
> disciplinary ones. In this case, say, about the destiny of the
> constructs that would surround the information concept (or the
> possibility of framing an informational perspective, or a
> renewed information science, or whatever), wouldn't it be
> interesting discussing in extenso what could that ultimate
> vision?
>
> I mean, most of us may agree in quite many points related to
> the microphysical (& thermodynamic) underpinning of
> information, as it transpires in the exchanges we are
> having--but where do we want to arrive finally with the
> construction activity? I tend to disagree with localist aims,
> even though at the time being they may look more prudent and
> parsimonious. Putting it in brief, too briefly!, and borrowing
> from Rosenbloom (P.S. 2013. On Computing: The Fourth Great
> Scientific Domain) the idea is that information science,
> properly developed and linked with computer science and
> mathematics, should constitute one of the Great Domains of
> contemporary science. The informational would go together with
> the physical, the biological, and the social: constituting the
> four great domains of science. See Figure below. Rather than
> attempting the construction of another average or standard
> discipline, information science is about the making out of one
> of the “great scientific domains” of contemporary knowledge.
>
> More cogent arguments could be elaborated on how to cover
> sceintifically the whole "information world" (human societies,
> behaving individuals, brain organization, cellular processes,
> biomolecules) and the problem of interlocking--crisscrossing a
> myriad of information flows at all levels. But the point is,
> "ends", although unassailable, may be as much important as
> "beginnings".
>
> Thanks in advance for the patience!
>
> ---Pedro
>
>
>
> **
>
>
> *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic
> shows the network of contemporary disciplines
Re: [Fis] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11 Mechanism and Model
Hi Loet, I do indeed consider this relationship to be measurable and thus expressible mathematically. This in itself doesn't mean that it ignores content. Indeed, a specific content and a specific target function-state are prerequisites, and so must be assumed in the analysis. In my opinion, as necessary assumptions, this makes the part of the background physics. So there must be both universality and physical specificity to this analysis— the specificity of referent and significant end-state treated as givens in the equation. The term "expected" plays a crucial role here. It introduces a Bayesian implication behind Shannon's analysis. But it also is what necessitates the self-repairing, self-reproducing features of autogenesis. To specify information what a given constraint-state of a medium represents there must be a reference state. However, it cannot be MEP or even maximum thermodynamic entropy (analogous to Shannon's entropy) but instead the work differential between current state of degraded autogenesis and a reconstituted or reproduced autogen. — Terry On 1/18/15, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > Dear Terry and colleagues, > > > > “As I have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all aspects > of the information concept, and certainly not at the level of human thought. > I merely propose to dissolve the implicit dualism in our current concepts at > the most basic level, so that for example it will be possible to develop a > scientifically grounded theory of molecular biosemiotics.” > > > > Is the crucial point that an expected information content is always > referential to a maximum entropy and therefore a relational concept? The > significance/meaning is thus provided by the redundancy? > > > > I doubt whether this is part of the physics (as you seem to claim). It > follows from the math and is yet content free; in other words, it can be > provided with meaning given any system of reference or, in other words, > discourse. The universality of the claim would thus be based on the > mathematical (dimensionless) character of it. > > > > Best, > > Loet > > > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11 Mechanism and Model
PS typo correction line 5 from bottom: ... To specify information *that* a given constraint-state of a On 1/19/15, Terrence W. DEACON wrote: > Hi Loet, > > I do indeed consider this relationship to be measurable and thus > expressible mathematically. This in itself doesn't mean that it > ignores content. Indeed, a specific content and a specific target > function-state are prerequisites, and so must be assumed in the > analysis. In my opinion, as necessary assumptions, this makes the part > of the background physics. So there must be both universality and > physical specificity to this analysis— the specificity of referent and > significant end-state treated as givens in the equation. > > The term "expected" plays a crucial role here. It introduces a > Bayesian implication behind Shannon's analysis. But it also is what > necessitates the self-repairing, self-reproducing features of > autogenesis. To specify information what a given constraint-state of a > medium represents there must be a reference state. However, it cannot > be MEP or even maximum thermodynamic entropy (analogous to Shannon's > entropy) but instead the work differential between current state of > degraded autogenesis and a reconstituted or reproduced autogen. > > — Terry > > On 1/18/15, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: >> Dear Terry and colleagues, >> >> >> >> “As I have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all >> aspects >> of the information concept, and certainly not at the level of human >> thought. >> I merely propose to dissolve the implicit dualism in our current concepts >> at >> the most basic level, so that for example it will be possible to develop >> a >> scientifically grounded theory of molecular biosemiotics.” >> >> >> >> Is the crucial point that an expected information content is always >> referential to a maximum entropy and therefore a relational concept? The >> significance/meaning is thus provided by the redundancy? >> >> >> >> I doubt whether this is part of the physics (as you seem to claim). It >> follows from the math and is yet content free; in other words, it can be >> provided with meaning given any system of reference or, in other words, >> discourse. The universality of the claim would thus be based on the >> mathematical (dimensionless) character of it. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Loet >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Professor Terrence W. Deacon > University of California, Berkeley > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11
Hi Pedro, Thanks for sharing this beautiful and instructive image. I wonder if it should actually be more accurate as a higher dimensional graph or if rather than ambiguous overlap if there is some degree of containment in these relationships. — Terry On 1/19/15, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: > Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image > again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the > philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference, > 2013). best ---Pedro > > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0 > > > > ** > > *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the > network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen > /et al/., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents > the four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and > informational. > > > > > Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote: >> Hi, Pedro. >> I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science) >> Would you please send it again? >> >> Thank you. >> >> Moises >> > > > -- > - > Pedro C. Marijuán > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) > Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > - > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11
... in 3-space perhaps a tetrahedron instead of a 4-leaf clover, such that each of the 4 academic domains were more equidistant from one another. On 1/19/15, Terrence W. DEACON wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > Thanks for sharing this beautiful and instructive image. I wonder if > it should actually be more accurate as a higher dimensional graph or > if rather than ambiguous overlap if there is some degree of > containment in these relationships. > > — Terry > > On 1/19/15, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: >> Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image >> again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the >> philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference, >> 2013). best ---Pedro >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0 >> >> >> >> ** >> >> *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the >> network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen >> /et al/., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents >> the four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and >> informational. >> >> >> >> >> Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote: >>> Hi, Pedro. >>> I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science) >>> Would you please send it again? >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Moises >>> >> >> >> -- >> - >> Pedro C. Marijuán >> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group >> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud >> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) >> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X >> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain >> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) >> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es >> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ >> - >> >> > > > -- > Professor Terrence W. Deacon > University of California, Berkeley > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11 Mechanism and Model
Josh Bacigalupi here, fellow pirate. Thank you all for this thoughtful discussion. Work is a fundamental focus of Terry's project. We can all agree that the creation of entropy is necessary to do work; such degradation of a gradient is a necessary precondition of work potential, but not just any work. The specific kind of work that some self-entailed proto-cell does in its environment must be such that it increases the chances that such nascent agency will have increased the chances of its own propagation in that open system. Terry calls this teleodynamic work. But this isn't even the most stringent requirement we place on ourselves. Not only must this work be relevant to its own persistence, *the constraints necessary to enact this specific dynamic must be able to persist for some finite time in the absence of any gradient what-so-ever.* In other words, Terry's hypothesized "autogen" is specifically conceived to retain the capacity to do self-efficacious work even after local chemical equalibrium has been attained. Once a gradient is again available, any viable autogen must be able to restart the very specific co-constraints of auto-catalysis and self-organized containment, a process that we suggest must be able to both self-repair and create new sets of co-constraint in wholly novel substrates. This, in effect, spans the ontological gap from the vast majority of physico-chemical dynamics to the first distinct dynamic of a measurable medium of informational significance, whose benchmark of significance is the persistence of autogenic constraints. Although intriguing, we are skeptical when speculating about vastly more complex and likely intentional agents, like bacterium, or clearly intentional agents, like humans. We suggest that focus on a priori intentional agency skips the distinct logical step from ubiquitous self-organizing dynamics, where rate of entropy production is increased (dissipating not only the external gradient but the internal organization itself), to the relatively rare "teleodynamics", where rate of entropy and work production are mitigated by the autogen's normative relation to its surroundings. Cheers, Josh On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Terrence W. DEACON wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > Glad to have you join in. My goal is (paraphrasing Einstein) to > develop a model system that is as simple as possible but not too > simple to provide a foundation for formalizing the concepts of > reference and significance. If too simple, it would be helpful to know > what is specifically missing. > > In considering more complex model systems the critical constraint is > to avoid cryptically assuming a homuncular perspective that sneaks in > some undescribed mentality (often an external observational > perspective) to do the interpretive work and to define what > constitutes reference and significance. I am unwilling to use a > bacterium as my model, because we implicitly assume their end-directed > and sensing capacities without explaining them. Nor am I willing to > assume that nucleic acids are intrinsically informational or that > information is just pattern replication, as has become a common > assumption in many evolutionary theories. > > As I have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all > aspects of the information concept, and certainly not at the level of > human thought. I merely propose to dissolve the implicit dualism in > our current concepts at the most basic level, so that for example it > will be possible to develop a scientifically grounded theory of > molecular biosemiotics. > > As to the point that we need to consider quantum effects, I worry that > it also allows another black box to stand in for an explanation. > Quantum effects are definitely real, and though well described, their > interpretation is even less approachable than the concepts of > reference and significance in information. I worry that we risk trying > to explain one mystery by invoking an even greater mystery. I suspect > that there are aspects of quantum theory that are problematic > precisely because we lack a clear understanding of the referential > aspect of information. So the reanalysis of information that I am > suggesting may actually contribute to a better understanding of the > information provided by quantum experiments, rather than the other way > around. The key link is to the concept of physical work (which I argue > is essential for defining reference and significance). In this > submicroscopic domain where the concept of physical work requires a > different framing (though what this is is not obvious), the very > nature of reference must also be reframed. This is an implication of > this analysis that I would love to see developed. > > — Terry > > On 1/18/15, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote: > > Dear Pedro, Terry, Bob L., Bob U., Loet, Gordana and All, > > I have been in transit from Switzerland to California and only now have a > > moment to even start to comment on what
Re: [Fis] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11 Mechanism and Model
Cari Tutti, nei miei numerosi libri, a partire da "Economia del patrimonio architettonico-ambientale" (1983), ho sostenuto che la triade semiotica significazione, informazione e comunicazione attraversa il mondo biologico, fisico e sociale e viceversa il mondo biologico, fisico e sociale attraversa la triade semiotica significazione, informazione e comunicazione. Quindi non ha senso pensare che il mondo informativo sia separato dagli altri mondi (cfr. Maturana e Varela). A seconda i processi o modelli dei suddetti mondi che si considerano si possono usare alcune o tutte le categorie di informazioni possibili: genetica (genealogica), termodinamica o naturale (entropico/neg-entropica), matematica (entropico-cibernetica) e semantica (storico-culturale o significato-significante). Le stesse unità autopoietiche possono allentare o ridurre la loro auto-referenzialità mediante l'informazione-comunicazione che supera la rigidezza o la chiusura dei loro codici. Per questo in "Valore e valutazioni" (1999) mi sono posto in una situazione intermedia tra Maturana-Varela e Niklas Luhmann. Per comprendere meglio il mio approccio è necessario: assegnare all'economia il ruolo di "scienza delle scienze" che le conferiva anche Ernst Mach; considerare l'informazione la "legge delle leggi" di tutte le scienze dell'uomo e della natura.l Un abbraccio affettuoso a Tutti, da un poverino esponenziale, quale sono. Francesco Rizzo. 2015-01-19 20:37 GMT+01:00 Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi < bacigalupiwo...@gmail.com>: > Josh Bacigalupi here, fellow pirate. Thank you all for this thoughtful > discussion. > > Work is a fundamental focus of Terry's project. We can all agree that the > creation of entropy is necessary to do work; such degradation of a gradient > is a necessary precondition of work potential, but not just any work. The > specific kind of work that some self-entailed proto-cell does in its > environment must be such that it increases the chances that such nascent > agency will have increased the chances of its own propagation in that open > system. Terry calls this teleodynamic work. > > But this isn't even the most stringent requirement we place on ourselves. > Not only must this work be relevant to its own persistence, *the > constraints necessary to enact this specific dynamic must be able to > persist for some finite time in the absence of any gradient what-so-ever.* > In other words, Terry's hypothesized "autogen" is specifically conceived to > retain the capacity to do self-efficacious work even after local chemical > equalibrium has been attained. > > Once a gradient is again available, any viable autogen must be able to > restart the very specific co-constraints of auto-catalysis and > self-organized containment, a process that we suggest must be able to both > self-repair and create new sets of co-constraint in wholly novel > substrates. This, in effect, spans the ontological gap from the vast > majority of physico-chemical dynamics to the first distinct dynamic of a > measurable medium of informational significance, whose benchmark of > significance is the persistence of autogenic constraints. > > Although intriguing, we are skeptical when speculating about vastly more > complex and likely intentional agents, like bacterium, or clearly > intentional agents, like humans. We suggest that focus on a priori > intentional agency skips the distinct logical step from ubiquitous > self-organizing dynamics, where rate of entropy production is increased > (dissipating not only the external gradient but the internal organization > itself), to the relatively rare "teleodynamics", where rate of entropy and > work production are mitigated by the autogen's normative relation to its > surroundings. > > Cheers, > Josh > > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Terrence W. DEACON > wrote: > >> Hi Joseph, >> >> Glad to have you join in. My goal is (paraphrasing Einstein) to >> develop a model system that is as simple as possible but not too >> simple to provide a foundation for formalizing the concepts of >> reference and significance. If too simple, it would be helpful to know >> what is specifically missing. >> >> In considering more complex model systems the critical constraint is >> to avoid cryptically assuming a homuncular perspective that sneaks in >> some undescribed mentality (often an external observational >> perspective) to do the interpretive work and to define what >> constitutes reference and significance. I am unwilling to use a >> bacterium as my model, because we implicitly assume their end-directed >> and sensing capacities without explaining them. Nor am I willing to >> assume that nucleic acids are intrinsically informational or that >> information is just pattern replication, as has become a common >> assumption in many evolutionary theories. >> >> As I have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all >> aspects of the information concept, and certainly not at the level of >> human thought. I
