[Fis] Workshop T 9.2 at IS4IS Summit

2015-02-03 Thread MARCIN Schroeder
Dear Colleagues,Using this chanel of communication I would like to bring to your attention information about"Triangular Relationship Information-Reality-Cognition: Through the Prism of Physical-Biological-Cognitive Sciences, Computing and Philosophy" Workshop within FIS Track ofISIS Summit in Vienna, June 3-7, 2015whichwe areorganizing with Gordana. As for all other tracks and workshops the deadline for extended abstracts (750-2,000 words) is February 27.I am attachingthe Call for Papers and a poster of the workshop created by Gordana. The poster is so beautiful that it will be a nice decoration of the door to your office or ofany bulletin board. Regards,MarcinMarc
inJ.Schroeder,Ph.D. Professor AkitaInternationalUniversity Akita,Japan m...@aiu.ac.jp
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture?

2015-02-03 Thread Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Dear list,

For clarity, below is the message that I sent to Terry offline, to which he
responded. Here are my final remarks.

The work presented by Terry uses a mixture of formal and informal terms
but, from my point of view, the work lacks rigor. This is highlighted in
the demand that constraints have no physical basis and is evident in the
discussion concerning dynamical constraint. The latter serves to
illustrate another complaint concerning word density and comfort.

A comfort in word juxtapositions is all very well if used, as it was by
Charles Peirce, for precise technical purposes, if an equation is not at
hand or is currently beyond statement. But something that Peirce required,
inherited from his loving father, was a demand for necessity. Recall that
for Benjamin and Charles mathematics is the science that draws necessary
conclusions from premises of any kind. If Charles were to put together
dynamic and constraint, for example, you can be sure that he specified
exactly what it is that is dynamic and specified exactly what a
constraint is.

In fairness, Terry has attempted to do this but, in my view, has failed. It
should be clear that constraints are not of themselves dynamic and they may
always be applied where degrees of freedom exist, though not exclusively.
It appears that the dynamic part of dynamical constraint refers not to
the constraint but to its object. Now, it may seem dumb to harp on this,
but I fail to see how the application of a constraint to anything at all,
dynamic or static, can be anything other than a posterior determinant.

A constraint, like natural selection, necessarily has a physical basis,
contrary to what was said, that is the physical basis of the constraint is
the physical system itself. It is one that allows the constraining
selection, the behavior, involved to take place. A posterior determinant
enforces a necessary partial order. And this is something for which we may
reasonably expect an equation.

Now, anyone familiar with Shannon will know that these ideas cannot fit
into Shannon's theory because Shannon deals with probability and
transmissions. Indeed, we would need to move from the abstraction of
communication to the necessity of apprehension where a more certain
language may be brought to task. To abstract constraints away from the
physical in any case, necessarily leads to dualism, and a blunt denial of
this does not help anyone. Although a well reasoned denial is always worth
listening to

In trying to understand the language use, I suggested that, perhaps, simple
notions such as YUK and YUM were thought of as constraints. In the case of
bacteria, YUK and YUM, for me, are not merely normative. They are
manifest behaviors of the physical organism structure. I can say, for
example, that this e-coli or that not only experiences YUM as it purses the
density of a sugar gradient but that the surface shapes that have formed
under its influence (and are refined by the insertion of latent receptors
and motor functions), and that may be described as bound holomorphic
functors (hyper-functors), are manifestations of the physical YUM.

Finally, I find the claims that any of us are taking information theory
beyond Shannon spurious.  Here I almost certainly diverge from many of my
colleagues who hold a nebulas information theory in such high regard and
like to mix it up with all the other things that use the term information
from the variety of European languages. It is fair for me to note, however,
that Shannon was a fine applied mathematician and if you wish to move
beyond Shannon, you must, at least, command that skill.

It seems to me however that a different skill is required to enable us to
extract ourselves from the senseless tangle into which we now all head.
This is the skill of Schlipp, Reichenbach or Carnap, rigorous epistemology,
without it there can be no hope for information theory of any kind of
unified science.

Regards,
Steven


My earlier message:
I am puzzled concerning your use of the phrase dynamical constraint and
your reference here to a dynamical organization for interpretation.  What
is it exactly that is dynamic?

Perhaps you mean to say that  the process of interpretation is dynamic and
that this process applies one or more static constraints. Such a constraint
would be, for example, YUK or YUM. This might be a view consistent with
that of Charles Peirce although it seems too analytic for me.

This is surely not what you speak of since such a constraint is necessarily
the organization of something existent (a priori). How then is this not a
posterior determination?

Perhaps you mean only to suggest that YUK or YUM are refinable hardwired
interpretive constraints. In which case interpretation is no immediate
process and constraint is not an activity. Perhaps dynamic then refers to
this refinement and the in situ selection of one or the other? This would
be more in line with my thinking.

However, I hope you see the confusion concerning your 

[Fis] Concluding the Lecture!

2015-02-03 Thread pedro marijuan

Dear colleagues, this New Year Lecture is over. Our invitee will make his final 
statements and ALL should abide by the courtesy constraint of not replying 
further... Thanks Terry for all your informational work!  
Best--Pedro


BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@

-Original Message-
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@iase.us
Sender: Fis fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 11:38:17 
To: Foundations of Information Science of Information Science Information 
Information Sciencefis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture?

Dear list,

For clarity, below is the message that I sent to Terry offline, to which he
responded. Here are my final remarks.

The work presented by Terry uses a mixture of formal and informal terms
but, from my point of view, the work lacks rigor. This is highlighted in
the demand that constraints have no physical basis and is evident in the
discussion concerning dynamical constraint. The latter serves to
illustrate another complaint concerning word density and comfort.

A comfort in word juxtapositions is all very well if used, as it was by
Charles Peirce, for precise technical purposes, if an equation is not at
hand or is currently beyond statement. But something that Peirce required,
inherited from his loving father, was a demand for necessity. Recall that
for Benjamin and Charles mathematics is the science that draws necessary
conclusions from premises of any kind. If Charles were to put together
dynamic and constraint, for example, you can be sure that he specified
exactly what it is that is dynamic and specified exactly what a
constraint is.

In fairness, Terry has attempted to do this but, in my view, has failed. It
should be clear that constraints are not of themselves dynamic and they may
always be applied where degrees of freedom exist, though not exclusively.
It appears that the dynamic part of dynamical constraint refers not to
the constraint but to its object. Now, it may seem dumb to harp on this,
but I fail to see how the application of a constraint to anything at all,
dynamic or static, can be anything other than a posterior determinant.

A constraint, like natural selection, necessarily has a physical basis,
contrary to what was said, that is the physical basis of the constraint is
the physical system itself. It is one that allows the constraining
selection, the behavior, involved to take place. A posterior determinant
enforces a necessary partial order. And this is something for which we may
reasonably expect an equation.

Now, anyone familiar with Shannon will know that these ideas cannot fit
into Shannon's theory because Shannon deals with probability and
transmissions. Indeed, we would need to move from the abstraction of
communication to the necessity of apprehension where a more certain
language may be brought to task. To abstract constraints away from the
physical in any case, necessarily leads to dualism, and a blunt denial of
this does not help anyone. Although a well reasoned denial is always worth
listening to

In trying to understand the language use, I suggested that, perhaps, simple
notions such as YUK and YUM were thought of as constraints. In the case of
bacteria, YUK and YUM, for me, are not merely normative. They are
manifest behaviors of the physical organism structure. I can say, for
example, that this e-coli or that not only experiences YUM as it purses the
density of a sugar gradient but that the surface shapes that have formed
under its influence (and are refined by the insertion of latent receptors
and motor functions), and that may be described as bound holomorphic
functors (hyper-functors), are manifestations of the physical YUM.

Finally, I find the claims that any of us are taking information theory
beyond Shannon spurious.  Here I almost certainly diverge from many of my
colleagues who hold a nebulas information theory in such high regard and
like to mix it up with all the other things that use the term information
from the variety of European languages. It is fair for me to note, however,
that Shannon was a fine applied mathematician and if you wish to move
beyond Shannon, you must, at least, command that skill.

It seems to me however that a different skill is required to enable us to
extract ourselves from the senseless tangle into which we now all head.
This is the skill of Schlipp, Reichenbach or Carnap, rigorous epistemology,
without it there can be no hope for information theory of any kind of
unified science.

Regards,
Steven


My earlier message:
I am puzzled concerning your use of the phrase dynamical constraint and
your reference here to a dynamical organization for interpretation.  What
is it exactly that is dynamic?

Perhaps you mean to say that  the process of interpretation is dynamic and
that this process applies one or more static constraints. Such a constraint
would be, for example, YUK or YUM. This might be a view consistent with
that of 

Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? - In Praise of Teleodynamics

2015-02-03 Thread Bob Logan
Dear Pedro, Terry and Fellow FISers - 

I was composing the email below when your email appeared asking us not to 
respond any further to Terry's final remarks. I disagree with this arbitrary 
cutoff as I was about to send out what follows below. It also seems an 
abridgement of free speech to ask us not to discuss an issue we might be 
interested in. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the ground rules of the FIS list 
but the other listservs I belong to have never attempted to cutoff a topic. 
There have been occasions where they have asked an individual who posts too 
often to not turn the list into their own bully pulpit. Anyway as the guy who 
suggested that we ask Terry to lead a FIS conversation I will exercise the 
perogative to share my thoughts one more time. I would also be prepared to 
accept your restriction if you had given us advanced notice with an exact 
deadline of shutting down this thread.
Here is what I had written when you sounded the bell as a death knell to this 
discussion which is submitted with respect and the undertaking to abide by the 
referee's decision and not comment on Terry's final remarks although I would 
love to hear from my colleagues their final thoughts on Terry's teleodynamic 
approach - Bob 

In order to respect the only 2 per week constraint here are my comments to 
the flurry of recent posts in this thread. There is one caveat with which I 
wish to preface my remarks and it is this:
 I am a member of Terry research team and therefore I am biased, but I would 
like to share with my FIS  colleagues why I believe the teleodynamic approach 
that Terry has developed is the best game in town for understanding the origin 
of life and the nature of information.

Pedro wrote on Jan 30:
At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an end 
to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their late 
comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be 
appreciated.

Bob's reply: Since Pedro issued the above call for the end of the discussion of 
Terry's provocative paper there has been a flurry of activity. As The English 
author Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once wrote: Nothing so concentrates the mind 
as the hangman's noose! I hope we can carry on a week or two more as some of 
us are just warming up. The first of the year is a logical starting point for  
a new discussion thread but it also corresponds to the beginning of a new 
semester here in Canada and other places in North America. I for one was 
focussed on launching the new semester and my courses so I respectfully request 
that we keep the conversation going for awhile longer before we start a new one.

Now I have a few comments to support Terry's teleodynamic approach which I 
present:

Joe Brenner wrote later on Jan 30:
we can all easily understand and agree that the incorporation of ‘homunculi’, 
that is, unproven mechanisms, as explanatory, should be avoided. In my view, 
however, Terry has a small army of homunculi at work (sic!) who insure that his 
processes of self-organization, self-reconstitution and ‘spontaneous’ 
self-assembly can take place! The finality of using his simulated autogenic 
systems is “a rigorous physical foundation upon which” future complex theories 
of information may be based. If, as I contend, Terry’s approach has failed to 
take into account the fundamentally dualistic physical properties of real 
systems, it is hard to see how it could do so.

Bob's reply:  As much as it pains me to disagree with my friend Joe who is in 
general in support of Deacon's approach I have to counter his accuasation that 
Terry has a small army of homunculi at work: There are no homunculi in the 
autogen model. According to Deacon's approach an incredible co-incidence has 
occurred in which the two self organizing processes of auto-catalysis and the 
self assembly of the crystal-like membranes became self-supporting. It is only 
by a chance event that one can explain how an organization of molecules with 
properties so different from abiotic matter suddenly became alive, able to 
propagate its organization and emerge as a self that acts teleonomically in its 
own interest. That co-incidence is the one in a billion or more chance that the 
by product of a particular autocatalytic set were also the ingredients for the 
self assembly of a bi-lipid membrane that could encase the autocatalytic set in 
a protective membrane and that the by products of that self-assembly process 
provided the raw materials for the very same autocatalysis. This is not a 
homunucli but just plain dumb luck or to give it a fancy name an aleatoric 
event, a one in a trillion event, but given the billion year (or multi-trillion 
second) time scale it becomes inevitable that such a rare event will occur. The 
two self-organizing processes that combined to form the purported autogen are 
due to first order extrinsic constraints. That these two constraints could be 
mutually