Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

2015-06-19 Thread HowlBloom
re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.
 
may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list: linguistic  
biology.  per the work of Guenther Witzany.  also reflected in my book  The 
God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.
 
each approach uses a helpful metaphor.  no one approach sees  the elephant 
in its entirety. so please let us use all three.
 
with oomph--howard
 
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
Author  of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History  (mesmerizing-The Washington Post), 
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass  Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st 
Century (reassuring and sobering-The New  Yorker), 
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism (A  
tremendously enjoyable book. James Fallows, National Correspondent, The  
Atlantic), 
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates(Bloom's argument  will rock 
your world. Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I Accidentally Started the  Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” 
Timothy Leary), and 
The Mohammed Code  (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” 
David Swindle, PJ  Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting  
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University
Founder:  International Paleopsychology Project. Founder: The Group 
Selection Squad;  Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Board Member 
and 
Member Of Board  Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding Board Member: 
Epic of Evolution  Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project. 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango  Media Lab. Member: New York Academy of Sciences, 
American Association for the  Advancement of Science, American Psychological 
Society, Academy of Political  Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 
International Society for Human  Ethology. Scientific Advisory Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation. Advisory Board  Member, The Buffalo Film Festival. 
Editorial board member, The Journal of Space  Philosophy. 


In a message dated 6/19/2015 9:22:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
emanl@gmail.com writes:

 
Dear Jerry,   
Thank you for responding to my  post. 
Thank you very much for an  attempt to read and to understand my Vienna 
Symposium related  publications. 
I apologize for a delay in my  response – I was trying to read and to 
understand your papers (“Algebraic  Biology” and “_Physical Foundations of  
Organic Mathematics”). Unfortunately, I did not  understand much of what you 
are 
talking there (about biological  computations)._ 
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_Organic_Mathematics_(Abstra
ct_August_26_2014))  
_Never mind, it is my fault, not  yours. To my shame, I often also do not 
understand what other people on the  forum are writing too. _ 
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_Organic_Math
ematics_(Abstract_August_26_2014))  
As to me, I think (and write)  that the era of a computational approach to 
science and nature studies is over  and we are gradually replacing it with a 
cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology,  
Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry,  
Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational  
linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology, Cognitive  
ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive endocrinology,  
Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even Cognitive  computing). 
By definition,  computational approaches imply intensive data processing, 
while Cognitive  approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is 
the difference?  Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue.  
I was pleased to hear from Prof.  Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna) 
that “By means of the reformation,  all scientific and philosophical 
domains are facing an integrative trend of  paradigm reform, which I name as “
informationalization of science”,  (The quotation is from one of his 
presentation slides).  
As you can see, my assertions  are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims, 
but far from what you (and other  mainstream FIS contributors) obey and 
adhere to.  
I am a newcomer to FIS and I do  not intend to preach in the others’ 
temple. But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the  founding fathers of the Philosophy of 
Information. Therefore, it would be wise  for you to be in an agreement with 
his 
postulates.  
Best  regards, 
Emanuel  Diamant. 
 
 
From: Jerry LR  Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 15,  2015 8:42 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS  newcomer

Dear Emanuel: 
 

 
Thanks for posting your views on Research  Gate.
 

 
Interesting perspective, but...  the essence of  biology / biological 
computation are empirical observations that are highly  irregular in nature. 
One 
must separate the concepts of structures 

Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

2015-06-19 Thread Emanuel Diamant
 

Dear Jerry, 

 

Thank you for responding to my post.

Thank you very much for an attempt to read and to understand my Vienna
Symposium related publications.

 

I apologize for a delay in my response - I was trying to read and to
understand your papers (Algebraic Biology and 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_
Organic_Mathematics_%28Abstract_August_26_2014%29 Physical Foundations of
Organic Mathematics). Unfortunately, I did not understand much of what you
are talking there (about biological computations).

 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_
Organic_Mathematics_%28Abstract_August_26_2014%29 Never mind, it is my
fault, not yours. To my shame, I often also do not understand what other
people on the forum are writing too. 

 

As to me, I think (and write) that the era of a computational approach to
science and nature studies is over and we are gradually replacing it with a
cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology,
Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry,
Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational
linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology,
Cognitive ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive
endocrinology, Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even
Cognitive computing).

 

By definition, computational approaches imply intensive data processing,
while Cognitive approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is
the difference? Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue. 

 

I was pleased to hear from Prof. Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna)
that By means of the reformation, all scientific and philosophical domains
are facing an integrative trend of paradigm reform, which I name as
informationalization of science, (The quotation is from one of his
presentation slides). 

 

As you can see, my assertions are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims,
but far from what you (and other mainstream FIS contributors) obey and
adhere to. 

 

I am a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others' temple.
But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy of
Information. Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement with
his postulates. 

 

Best regards,

Emanuel Diamant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

 

Dear Emanuel:

 

Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.

 

Interesting perspective, but...  the essence of biology / biological
computation are empirical observations that are highly irregular in nature.
One must separate the concepts of structures from functions in the languages
of chemistry and biology.

 

You may wish to look at the concepts of languages from your perspectives.

 

Several of my online available papers will provide more substance for these
comments.

 

Cheers

 

jerry

 

 

On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Emanuel Diamant wrote:





Dear FISlists,

 

I am a newcomer to the FIS discussion table. The debate that is going on in
your list-exchange is very interesting to me, but frankly, for the most of
the time, I only guess about what you are talking - my vocabulary and my
notions of Information are quite different from yours. Nevertheless, I would
like to add my voice to the ongoing discourse - I would like to direct you
to my page on the Research Gate (
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant) to see my uploads from
the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you will find them interesting.

 

Best regards,

Emanuel Diamant.

 

___
Fis mailing list
 mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es Fis@listas.unizar.es
 http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

 

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Notes . . .

2015-06-19 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear Howard and FIS colleagues,

Many thanks for your exciting comments; dealing first with Koichiro's 
intriguing point on action and probabilities, I think it links with the 
Quantum Bayesianism we discused last year in the list (von Baeyer's FIS 
New Year Lecture), and also with Karl Frinston's distributions / 
representations of probabilities in cerebral areas within an overarching 
entropy-minimization principle (it is not a physical entropy, and 
reminding Loet's comment, I think he was quite right with his 
contentious message of 15 June!). Action is but the forgotten other side 
the epistemic coin. Not to forget that a motor-centered epistemology has 
been recently discussed too.


Responding to Howard's below, rather than making further interleaving, I 
will continue with a unitary text.
In my view, the new informational thinking is slowly taking shape in a 
variety of fields, and the reference to Witzany's work on the viruses' 
social dynamics, is an excellent exponent on how carefully following the 
very dynamics of life, we may arrive at similar conceptual scenarios. My 
point is that biological communication (as well as human) does not occur 
in a vacuum where whatever combinatory game may be played. The life 
cycle of the entity is the big watcher of communication, not just 
passively waiting for some stimulus passing by, but actively deploying a 
series of molecular or supramolecular actions that for instance conduce 
to receive the appropriate information/communication or to engage in 
locomotor exploration. In general, action stemming out from the cycle  
--or propensity to action-- comes first, regarding the possible 
information gathered and the responses to be observed later on. Each 
life cycle has capability to deploy autonomously a very vast repertoire 
of adaptive actions / behaviors / communications that overall should 
conduce to its own advancement. So, the reliance on stimulus-response 
becomes a dubious way of lumping together the animate and the inanimate 
(a mere electromagnetic relay would also provide S-R behavior), leaving 
aside the most precious stuff of life: its informational organization in 
an autonomous, self-propelled life-cycle. It is a life-cycle that 
besides, has to take place in a highly complex and challenging 
ecological niche and within a tricky social environment. To reiterate 
the main point: the living is not S-R mechanistic, is informational.


And what is information? I agree with Howard's relative approach to 
information. I think that, together with Marcin, we must organize a 
future discussion-session in the list to analyze this most integrative 
stance. I think that this view now is mature enough to be publicly 
discussed (and has already appeared in the literature occasionally). My 
personal contention is that a similar relative conceptualization may be 
extended to other informational entities (viruses, cells, organisms, 
brains, social groups and institutions, societies at large...) that also 
communicate in order to advance their self-production processes. 
Precisely in economy, we may understand that prices emerge as the 
information which connects and integrates the ACTIONS of producers and 
consumers allowing the self-organization of the whole. Obviously, the 
market information is exchanged in order to improve the condition of the 
individuals, and in aggregate to advance their own life cycles. 
Similarly, in physiological markets between cells, molecular signals 
--really an information flow-- would also be exchanged to coordinate the 
actions emerging from the ongoing life-cycles.


If we consider that biological communication, and in general the 
communication of informational entities is tied to the maintenance and 
advancement of their self-production processes, the discussion of 
meaning follows quite naturally. Meaning becomes the impact of the 
information received upon the self-production process itself. In 
bio-molecular terms, meaning may be exactly enacted through a vastly 
used procedure, microarray experiments. By knocking down a particular 
receptor,or continuously keeping it on, we see the meaning effects 
that the specific signaling condition has on gene expression, on the 
whole cellular self-production. Meaningful communication begets relevant 
self-production changes. Then, lets generalize that informational 
entities are those that systematically intertwine the information 
(communication) flows and the energy (self-production) flows. The 
information derived from communication widely circulates and gets mixed 
with the inner self-production processes, adaptively changing the 
ongoing operations that constitute the metabolic life of the entity. 
That's the existential fate of all informational entities: they are 
adaptive, structurally always in the making, and in the dismantling.


And the dismantling connects very nicely with the conditions that 
Howard establishes for the functioning of a collective learning 

Re: [Fis] We have different “fen clubs” depending of sympathy to one or other definition of information

2015-06-19 Thread Bruno Marchal

Dear Krassimir,

I apologize because I have just realized that I have miss-replied in  
my last posting, and send them only to the writer of the post, and not  
to the list. Same for some comment I made to John Collier.


I intent to send a mail where I sum up my position on the information  
debate. I will read some of your text you are linking too, also.


Meanwhile I will answer only your question about theology: is it a  
science. I think that science does not really exist, but that the  
human scientific attitude can exist whatever the domain is, be it  
gardening, gastronomy, philosophy or theology. That attitude consists  
in accepting that we never know the truth, but that we can try to make  
theory precise enough to solve problems and to test consequences.


I have discovered that ideally correct machine have a rich theology,  
that they can discover by looking inward, and that it contains  
physics, making it testable: just compare machine's theological  
physics with the empiric science. Until now it fits, and many  
weirdness of nature (like the many-world) becomes simple theorem,  
but also admit different interpretation (it is more machine dreams  
than world). I will come back on this.


The main concept used in my work is the concept of Turing Universal  
Machine: she is the one feeding on information, and doing the  
interpretation of it. That might add some light on the present debate  
on information. I am aware that this sort of theology is closer to the  
greek neoplatonists theology (where God is mainly Truth, by  
definition) than to Aristotelian naturalism (with primary  
materiality), which might explain some resistance that I have often  
encountered. But science is not wishful thinking, like we do in the  
religion since it has been separated from science.


Best,

Bruno






On 15 Jun 2015, at 22:59, Krassimir Markov wrote:


Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

This discussion was not planed. It started without any a priory  
explanation and because of this become more emotional.


I see, we have different “fen clubs” depending of  sympathy to one  
or other definition of information.

This is nice. Variety is important for development of science.

What is not good is that we stay only on the stage of definition of  
information. It is not needed if no theory is built on it.

The theory has to be experimented and proved.
Finally, such theory has to explain all information appearances and  
processes around us – I say around us but not all imaginable ones!


How much theories we have till now?
FIS is just place to present Theories!
Unfortunately, Masters stay silent and not teach us to use their  
theories.


Below I attach my answers to Stan and Bruno which was sent last week.

Friendly regards
Krassimir




Dear Stan,
I have no more attempts for FIS List for this week and will send  
this my answer to FIS tomorrow.

But it is pleasure for me to answer to you now.

Yes, I do not agree with the Wheeler concept that information was  
the basis upon which everything else was founded – this is the  
concept of God and it could not be proved, only to believe.
Yes, information doesn't appear in the universe until life makes it  
appearance. More, the information does not appear independently from  
live creatures, it is their internal state(s).
No, information does not appear in the universe until it is  
manipulated by modern human society as a commodity, it appeared  
together with live.
Without reflections of external and internal structures and  
processes, as well as without memory, processing of reflection, and,  
at the end, reacting – without all of this the live is impossible.
What is done by modern society is to start understanding (but still  
not finished) what is the information.


Friendly regards
Krassimir


Dear Bruno,
Thank you for the remarks. Now I will answer only to you due to  
limit of posts in FIS List – tomorrow I’ll resend it for the list.


I agree with you partially.
Deep analysis and explanation of this problem is published in:
http://www.foibg.com/ijitk/ijitk-vol02/ijitk02-4-p06.pdf
I hope, in this publication you will find answer of your remarks as  
well as basis for further discussion.


I think that it is crucial to keep the harmony and dialectical unity  
of the scientific and non-scientific approaches,
following the wisdom of St. Augustine: Intelligo ut credam, credo  
ut intelligam!.


Finally, please answer: Is the Theology a science or not? What kind  
of experiments one may provide to proof the Theology statements?


Friendly regards
Krassimir
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis