Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics? - Species specific?

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Jerry, 

 

At the risk of being jailed by Pedro, let me point to the beauty of the example:

 

>From a molecular biological perspective, the assertion of “same encoding” of 
>information is contrary to fact.

 

OK: the coding of the information is species specific; both theoretically and 
empirically. I fully agree. 

But this argument cannot carry the inference that the information (to be coded) 
is species specific. 

 

If one wishes to define information as “a difference which makes a difference”, 
reference systems for both differences have to be specified. Differences(1) can 
make a difference(2) for a system of reference (receiver). The latter system 
can receive the information and code it, or the information can be discarded as 
noise. 

 

Noise or probabilistic entropy can be defined as  differences(1) without 
difference(2). A set of differences(1) can be considered as a probability 
distribution which is yet meaningless; that is, Shannon-type information. 

 

Distinguishing between the coding (= diff2 operating on diff1) and the coded 
differences(1) is a condition for analytical clarity. Otherwise, one uses the 
same word for two different concepts and confusion is expected to prevail. The 
idea that one can reconcile two analytical different concept in a “universal” 
theory is mistaken.

 

Best,

Loet 

 

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

Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics? - Species specific?

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List:

> Your claim that information is SPECIES SPECIFIC is completely at variance 
> with the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that I presented in my 3 week session that the 
> minds of different animal species have used the same encoding of gestalt 
> forms for the past 400 million years since the evolution of the amniotes.
> 

Pedro’s assertion that biological information is species specific is amply 
supported by massive amounts of molecular biological evidence.
One of the critical “differences that make a difference” between species is 
that each member of a specific species  has a DNA sequence that is compatible 
with reproduction within the species. (Even though the concept of a species is 
that of homology of individuals, not homogeneity of individuals.)

From a molecular biological perspective, the assertion of “same encoding” of 
information is contrary to fact.

Cheers

jerry



> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Alex Hankey  wrote:
> 
> Pedro suggested that I send these comments to the whole group, so here they 
> are
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Alex Hankey" >
> Date: 29 Jun 2016 21:20
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics?
> To: "Pedro C. Marijuan"  >
> Cc: 
> 
> Dear Pedro,
> 
> Your claim that information is SPECIES SPECIFIC is completely at variance 
> with the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that I presented in my 3 week session that the 
> minds of different animal species have used the same encoding of gestalt 
> forms for the past 400 million years since the evolution of the amniotes.
> 
> Study of response of plants to human intentions has simlar implications 
> related to Rupert Sheldrake's 'Sense of being stared at'. These WELL 
> authenticated phenomena have hugely important implications for our 
> understanding of information in Experience - the topic of my presentation. 
> Best wishes, 
> Alex Hankey
> 
> On 29 Jun 2016 4:24 pm, "Pedro C. Marijuan"  > wrote:
> Dear Marcus, Loet, Bob... and All,
> 
> Again very briefly, your exchanges make clear the limits of the received 
> Shannonian approach and the (narrow?) corridors left for advancement. I find 
> this situation highly reminiscent of what happened with Mechanics long ago: 
> an excellent theory (but of limited scope) was overstretched and used as a 
> paradigm of what All science should be... it contributed well to technology 
> and to some other natural science disciplines, but was far from useful 
> --nefarious?-- for humanities and for the future of psychological and social 
> science studies. 
> 
> The figure from Weaver in Loet's excellent posting leaves a few aspects 
> outside. The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other aspects of 
> the information phenomenon do not enter. By doing that we have streamlined 
> the phenomenon... and have left it ready for applying a highly successful 
> theory, in the technological and in many other realms (linguistics, artif. 
> intelligence, neurodynamics, molec. networks, ecol. networks, applied soc. 
> metrics, etc). Pretty big and impressive, but is it enough? Shouldn't we try 
> to go beyond?
> 
> I wonder whether a far wider "phenomenology of information" is needed 
> (reminding what Maxine argued months ago about the whole contemplation of our 
> own movement, or Plamen about the "war on cancer"?). If that inquiry is 
> successful we could find for instance that:
> 
> 1. There are UNIVERSALS of information. Not only in the transmission or in 
> the encoding used, well captured by the present theory, but also in the 
> generation, in the "purpose", the "meaning", the targeted subject/s, in the 
> duration, the cost, the value, the fitness or adaptive "intelligence", etc.
> 
> 2. Those UNIVERSALS are SPECIES' SPECIFIC.
> 
> 3. Those UNIVERSALS would be organized, wrapped, around an ESSENTIAL CORE. It 
> would consist in the tight ingraining of self-production and communication 
> (almost inseparable, and both information based!). In the human special case, 
> it is the whole advancement of our own lives what propels us to engage in 
> endless communication --about the universals of our own species-- but with 
> the terrific advantage of an open-ended communication system, language.
> 
> 4. Those UNIVERSALS would have been streamlined in very different ways and 
> taken as "principles" or starting points for a number of 
> disciplines--remembering the discussion about the four Great Domains of 
> Science. A renewed Information Science should nucleate one of those domains. 
> 
> Best regards to all, 
> (and particular greetings to the new parties joined for this discussion)
> --Pedro
>
> 
> El 27/06/2016 a las 12:43, Marcus Abundis escribió:
>> 
>> Dear Loet,
>> 
>> I hoped to reply to your posts sooner as of all the voices on FIS I 
>> often sense a general 

Re: [Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

[John Collier]

That is insulting. Please be more careful in the future.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Krassimir Markov [mailto:mar...@foibg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2016 7:00 PM
To: John Collier ; fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

Dear John and FIS Colleagues,
The main paradox of the “black hole information paradox” is that maybe someone 
knows what is the “black hole” but in the same time he/she has no imagination 
what is “information”.
Friendly regards
Krassimir






From: John Collier
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:01 PM
To: fis
Subject: [Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

Not solved yet, as method applies only EM radiation, and not to gravity (where 
the real problem lies in any case).

I note that the problem can be stated properly only by using information theory 
(or something that is equivalent – same models).

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jun/08/soft-hairs-help-resolve-the-black-hole-information-paradox

John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
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] Progress on black hole information paradox

[John Collier]

That is one limited way to think of information . It is reasonably precise, 
which is an advantage. But ignores and in fact rules out other usages that 
share important basic properties, suggesting a unified notion that goes well 
beyond the narrow usage you prefer, Krassimir.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Krassimir Markov
Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2016 8:58 PM
To: FIS 
Subject: [Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

Dear Francesco,
Thank you for the polite words!
In addition to your explanation, I have to point that, from mine point of view, 
we have principally and opposite understandings of the concept information.
Your position is that the information is primary and matter and energy are 
secondary, i.e. information created both of them.
My understanding is that the information is a kind of reflection in the 
material entities but not every reflection is information.
The “reflection” is internal structural of functional difference which has been 
created after an interaction between entities.
Only living creatures may operate with reflections in their consciousness.
In other words, the “information” is a reflection in the consciousness for 
which in the same consciousness there exist evidence what the refection 
reflects.
Friendly regards
Krassimir

PS: This is my second post for this week.
Next half month I will spend on Summer Session of ITHEA International 
Conferences (http://www.ithea.org/conferences/itaf2016.htm).
Because of this I shall be silent till middle of July.
Have nice and happy summer!

From: Francesco Rizzo
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:29 PM
To: Krassimir Markov
Subject: Re: [Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

Cari John, Krassimir e Tutti,
informazione è un infinito o molteplice modo di prendere forma (neg-entropia), 
dis-informazione è un infinito o molteplice modo di perdere forma (entropia). 
Con il mio processo di tras-in-formazione, cuore della "Nuova economia", 
consistente nell'immissione (input) di materia, energia e informazione e 
nell'emissione (output) di materia, energia e informazione in stati diversi, ho 
capito 20 anni prima di S. Hawking, pur essendo un economista, che la sua 
teoria non funzionava. Lui è arrivato alle mie, modeste, stesse conclusioni nel 
2004-2005. Inoltre energia e materia non sono altro che due tipi di 
informazione, quindi l'unica o fondamentale legge dell vita e della scienza è 
l'INFORMAZIONE. Questo ora stanno incominciando a conoscerlo od ammetterlo 
tanti, ma io l'ho sempre pensato, scritto e proposto agli economisti che sono 
spesso duri di cervice come l'apostolo Pietro. Non mi dilungo ad esporre i 
dettagli o particolari di questa problematica contenuti almeno in una dozzina 
di miei libri, a proposito soprattutto dell'indeterminazione quantistica e 
dell'indeterminazione gravitazionale.
Ad onor del vero sono stato stimolato a trasmettere questa e-mail molto, 
troppo, sintetica dal problema the black-hole-infromation-paradox presentato e 
suggerito in modo magnifico da John Collier e dalla domanda di Krassimir 
Markov, altrettanto notevole, "qualcuno, lui/lei non  immagina cosa sia 
informazione". Mille grazie a tutti e due e a a tutti Voi che sopportate il mio 
(essere) italiano.
Un abbraccio veramente affettuoso e riconoscente.
Francesco

2016-06-28 19:00 GMT+02:00 Krassimir Markov 
>:
Dear John and FIS Colleagues,
The main paradox of the “black hole information paradox” is that maybe someone 
knows what is the “black hole” but in the same time he/she has no imagination 
what is “information”.
Friendly regards
Krassimir






From: John Collier
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:01 PM
To: fis
Subject: [Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

Not solved yet, as method applies only EM radiation, and not to gravity (where 
the real problem lies in any case).

I note that the problem can be stated properly only by using information theory 
(or something that is equivalent – same models).

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jun/08/soft-hairs-help-resolve-the-black-hole-information-paradox

John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
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

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es

Re: [Fis] [SPAM] Shannonian Mechanics?

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Marcus and FIS Colleagues,

You are right in your complaint. We have been saying very similar things 
concerning information generation--and also in your symbolic 
introduction of Darwin in your scheme concerning that series of 
complementary questions. Sorry for being so brief but I need some extra 
time to re-read your initial doc in this light and the very cogent 
responses you have been producing, particularly to Loet's points. In my 
first penny of next week I will comment on those matters. Now I respond 
to other comments (which partially dovetail with your themes).


To Loet, fine, we think very differently. Rather than Althusser's 
derogatory remark, I look at Schrodinger's disclaimer in his famous 
"What is Life": /"...[necessaryly] some of us should venture to embark 
on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second hand and 
incomplete knowledge of some of them—and at the risk of making fools of 
ourselves.” /Whether such kind of synthetic approaches (performed by 
each new scientific generation) can be successful or not today, is 
something that neither you nor me can foretell. At the very least, the 
enormous expansion of bio-info-comp disciplines in our times makes this 
demand more necessary than ever. No "hidden program" in my previous post 
but the open constatation that we have an excellent opportunity today in 
order to delineate those potential "universals" and "essential core" in 
an almost completely describable living system--bacteria. At least the 
rudiments of such approach appear in my team's work on Proyariotic 
Signaling Systems and in "How the Living...". Anyhow, when I referred to 
"principles" I was not meaning your interpretation as "origins" but to 
the usual way practicing scientists work on them. For instance, after 
more than 30 years of painful experimental, microscopy work on nervous 
systems, Ramon y Cajal wrote his formidable "Textura del Sistema 
Nervioso del Hombre y los Vertebrados", considered as the foundational 
opus of modern neurosceince. There he exposed the new "Doctrine of the 
Neuron", based on a few revolutionary principles... Mutatis mutandis, it 
might be an interesting case-model regarding the info science renewal 
commented in the previous post.


To Alex, I see the opposite. Making the "universals" species specific 
means that you can communicate and share gestalts far more easily within 
your own phylum or class, or order, than with the far distant ones. So, 
other mammals can approximately "read" your facial expressions and 
postural stance, and get your meaning, while starfish or insects will 
not. Don't you think so?


To Bob (offline comment), many thanks for the comprehension. I am happy 
that from different angles we see in common some stumbling blocks to 
win. Actually, one needs both kinds of criticisms, positive and 
negative, in order to advance a little more in this viscous terrain... 
but making constructive criticisms becomes a more difficult task.


Apologies if I have missed some other more brief comments. And sorry 
Marcus if this was sort of a disruption, but I think that your 
discussion topic invites quite a lot to transgress the boundaries.


Best--Pedro


El 29/06/2016 a las 17:31, Marcus Abundis escribió:

Dear Pedro, thank you for your excellent post.

Oddly, I have the feeling you think that you and I differ, but I saw 
little to disagree with in your note. As with Loet(?), I believe that 
*for now* I simply focus on a different level.


> the limits of the received Shannonian approach and <
> the (narrow?) corridors left for advancement . . highly <
> reminiscent of what happened with Mechanics long ago . .<
• If I did not see those limits I could not pursue this project. 
Still, it seems many do fail to see the limits here; especially in 
computer science (or *fill in the blank*). I suggested an origin for 
this “iceberg“ in my post on Cultural Legacy. Terry Deacon has also 
noted this odd “scientific failure“ – I say, so glaring that it would 
be comic if it were not so tragic.


• Re Mechanics, can you please point me to a time frame for that 
session so I can see what the archives hold?



>far from useful --nefarious?-- for humanities and for the<
> future of psychological and social science studies. <
• This is a bit painful to read, when I started the project I saw it 
as attempting a new structural psychology (social and individual). My 
thinking became more reductive (a priori) as I sought a firm base for 
modeling. Videos are available on this other "elevated" aspect 
(vimeo.com/evolv ), but they stray for the 
focus of *this* session.



>The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other<
> aspects of the information phenomenon do not enter. <
• You name Loet’s post here, and I saw the same issue – “processing 
meaning” versus “generating meaning.” But then my model synthesizes 
Shannon, Bateson, and Darwin; at the least Darwin targets why, what, 
how long, whom,