Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

[Terrence W. DEACON]

AUTONOMOUS AGENCY: The definition I propose for autonomous agency It is
open to challenge. Of course, there are many ways that we use the term
'agent' in more general and metaphoric ways. I am, however, interested in
the more fundamental conception that these derived uses stem from. I do not
claim that this definition is original, but rather that it is what we
implicitly understand by the concept. So if this is not your understanding
I am open to suggestions for modification.

I should add that it has been a recent goal of my work to describe an
empirically testable simplest model system that satisfies this definition.
Those of you who are familiar with my work will recognize that this is what
I call an autogenic or teleodynamic system. In this context, however, it is
only the adequacy of the definition that I am interested in exploring. As
in many of the remarks of others on this topic it is characterized by
strange-loop recursivity, self-reference, and physicality. And it may be
worth while describing how this concept is defined by e.g. Hofstadter, von
Foerster, Luhmann, Moreno, Kauffman, Barad, and others, to be sure that we
have covered the critical features and haven't snuck in any "demons". In my
definition, I have attempted to avoid any cryptic appeal to observers or
unexamined teleological properties, because my purpose is instead to
provide a constructive definition of what these properties entail and why
they are essential to a full conception of information.

CENTRALITY OF NORMATIVE PROPERTIES: A critical factor when discussing
agency is that it is typically defined with respect to "satisfaction
conditions" or "functions" or "goals" or other NORMATIVE properties.
Normative properties are all implicitly teleological. They are irrelevant
to chemistry and physics. The concept of an "artificial agent" may not
require intrinsic teleology (e.g. consider thermostats or guidance systems
- often described as teleonomic systems) but the agentive properties of
such artifacts are then implicitly parasitic on imposed teleology provided
by some extrinsic agency. This is of course implicit also in the concepts
of 'signal' and 'noise' which are central to most information concepts.
These are not intrinsic properties of information, but are extrinsically
imposed distinctions (e.g. noise as signal to the repair person). So I
consider the analysis of agency and its implicit normativity to be a
fundamental issue to be resolved in our analysis of information. Though we
can still bracket any consideration of agency from many analyses my simply
assuming it (e.g. assumed users, interpreters, organisms and
their functions, etc.), but this explicitly leaves a critical defining
criterion outside the analysis. In these cases, we should just be clear
that in doing so we have imported unexplained boundary conditions into the
analysis by fiat. Depending on the goal of the analysis (also a
teleological factor) this may be unimportant. But the nature and origin of
agency and normativity remain foundational questions for any full theory of
information.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Stanley N Salthe 
wrote:

> Here is an interesting recent treatment of autonomy.
>
> Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio: Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical
>
> and Theoretical Enquiry (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life
> Sciences 12);
>
> Springer, Dordrecht, 2015, xxxiv + 221 pp., $129 hbk, ISBN
> 978-94-017-9836-5
>
>
> STAN
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Terrence W. DEACON 
> wrote:
>
>> AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT IS A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM ORGANIZED TO BE CAPABLE OF
>> INITIATING PHYSICAL WORK TO FURTHER PRESERVE THIS SAME CAPACITY IN THE
>> CONTEXT OF  INCESSANT EXTRINSIC AND/OR INTRINSIC TENDENCIES FOR THIS SYSTEM
>> CAPACITY TO DEGRADE.
>>
>>
>> THIS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE WORK THAT IS SPECIFICALLY CONTRAGRADE
>> TO THE FORM OF THIS DEGRADATIONAL INFLUENCE, AND THUS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO
>> BE INFORMED BY THE EFFECTS OF THAT INFLUENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENT’S
>> CRITICAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Koichiro Matsuno 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our
>>> universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem
>>> (2006). If (a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise
>>> their free will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and
>>> molecules lack their share of the similar capacity. For our bodies
>>> eventually consist of those atoms and molecules.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent
>>> atoms and molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob
>>> Ulanowicz at long last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case
>>> would have to forcibly be dismissed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

[Stanley N Salthe]

Here is an interesting recent treatment of autonomy.

Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio: Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical

and Theoretical Enquiry (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life
Sciences 12);

Springer, Dordrecht, 2015, xxxiv + 221 pp., $129 hbk, ISBN 978-94-017-9836-5


STAN

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Terrence W. DEACON 
wrote:

> AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT IS A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM ORGANIZED TO BE CAPABLE OF
> INITIATING PHYSICAL WORK TO FURTHER PRESERVE THIS SAME CAPACITY IN THE
> CONTEXT OF  INCESSANT EXTRINSIC AND/OR INTRINSIC TENDENCIES FOR THIS SYSTEM
> CAPACITY TO DEGRADE.
>
>
> THIS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE WORK THAT IS SPECIFICALLY CONTRAGRADE
> TO THE FORM OF THIS DEGRADATIONAL INFLUENCE, AND THUS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO
> BE INFORMED BY THE EFFECTS OF THAT INFLUENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENT’S
> CRITICAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS.
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Koichiro Matsuno 
> wrote:
>
>> On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our
>> universe.
>>
>>
>>
>>This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem
>> (2006). If (a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise
>> their free will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and
>> molecules lack their share of the similar capacity. For our bodies
>> eventually consist of those atoms and molecules.
>>
>>
>>
>>Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent
>> atoms and molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob
>> Ulanowicz at long last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case
>> would have to forcibly be dismissed.
>>
>>
>>
>>This has been my second post this week.
>>
>>
>>
>>Koichiro Matsuno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Alex
>> Hankey
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42 AM
>> *To:* Arthur Wist ; FIS Webinar <
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
>>
>>
>>
>> David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they
>> are as fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass.
>>
>>
>>
>> Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those
>> emphasized by complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be
>> non-reducible and fundamental to our universe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
> University of California, Berkeley
>
> ___
> 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] What is “Agent”?

[Terrence W. DEACON]

AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT IS A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM ORGANIZED TO BE CAPABLE OF
INITIATING PHYSICAL WORK TO FURTHER PRESERVE THIS SAME CAPACITY IN THE
CONTEXT OF  INCESSANT EXTRINSIC AND/OR INTRINSIC TENDENCIES FOR THIS SYSTEM
CAPACITY TO DEGRADE.


THIS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE WORK THAT IS SPECIFICALLY CONTRAGRADE
TO THE FORM OF THIS DEGRADATIONAL INFLUENCE, AND THUS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO
BE INFORMED BY THE EFFECTS OF THAT INFLUENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENT’S
CRITICAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Koichiro Matsuno 
wrote:

> On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:
>
>
>
> the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe.
>
>
>
>This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem
> (2006). If (a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise
> their free will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and
> molecules lack their share of the similar capacity. For our bodies
> eventually consist of those atoms and molecules.
>
>
>
>Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent
> atoms and molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob
> Ulanowicz at long last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case
> would have to forcibly be dismissed.
>
>
>
>This has been my second post this week.
>
>
>
>Koichiro Matsuno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Alex
> Hankey
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42 AM
> *To:* Arthur Wist ; FIS Webinar <
> Fis@listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
>
>
>
> David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they
> are as fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass.
>
>
>
> Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those
> emphasized by complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be
> non-reducible and fundamental to our universe.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>


-- 
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] Fwd: Re: Verification of the Principle of Information Science--John Torday

[Mark Johnson]

I was thinking that these words from A.N. Whitehead's "Science and the
modern world" (1926) are highly relevant to our discussions:

"When you are criticising the philosophy of an epoch do not chiefly direct
your attention to those intellectual positions which its exponents feel it
necessary explicitly to defend. There will be some fundamental assumptions
which adherents of all the variant systems within the epoch unconsciously
presuppose. Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what
they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred
to them. With these assumptions a certain limited number of types of
philosophic systems are possible, and this group of systems constitutes the
philosophy of the epoch" (p.61)

What assumptions are we blind to? From my own perspective, we assume an
education system and a science system which enables us to talk this kind of
talk. We rarely talk about the context which these systems create for us.
In order to get another "way of putting things", we should try see more
clearly the full gamut of constraints which bind us to our existing ways of
putting things.

Best wishes,

Mark

On 19 October 2017 at 14:54, Pedro C. Marijuan 
wrote:

> (Message from John Torday --Note: neither the list nor the server do
> accept attachments)
>
>  Mensaje reenviado 
> Asunto: Re: [Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science
> Fecha: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 06:45:07 -0700
> De: JOHN TORDAY  
> Para: Pedro C. Marijuan 
> 
>
> Dear All, I feel like the beggar at the banquet, having arrived at the FIS
> of late in response to Pedro's invitation to participate, having reviewed
> our paper on 'ambiguity' in Progress in Biolphyics and Molecular Biology
> (see attached). In my deconvolution of evolution as all of biology
> (Dobzhansky), I have reduced the problem to the unicellular state as the
> arbiter of information and communication, dictated by The First Principles
> of Physiology- negative entropy, chemiosmosis and homeostasis. I arrived
> at that idea by following the process of evolution as ontogeny and
> phylogeny backwards from its most complex to its simplest state as a
> continuum, aided by the concept that evolution is a series of
> pre-adaptations, or exaptations or co-options. With that mind-set, the
> formation of the first cell from lipids immersed in water generated
> 'ambiguity' by maintaining a negative entropic free energy within itself in
> defiance of the external positive energy of the physical environment, and
> the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The iterative resolution of that
> ambiguous state of being is what we refer to as evolution. For me,
> information and communication are the keys, but they are not co-equals. I
> say that because in reducing the question of evolution to the single cell,
> I have been able to 'connect the dots' between biology and physics, such
> elements of Quantum Mechanics as non-localization and the Pauli Exclusion
> Principle being the basis for pleiotropy, the distribution of genetics
> throughout the organism, and The First Principles of Physiology,
> respectively. So now, thinking about the continuum from physics to biology,
> literally, the Big Bang generated the magnitude and direction of both the
> Cosmos and subsequently biology, i.e. life is a verb not a noun, a process,
> not a thing. For these reasons I place communication hierarchically 'above'
> information. Moreover, this perspective offers answers to the perennial
> questions as to how and why life is 'emergent and contingent'. The
> emergence is due to the pleiotropic property, the organism having the
> ability to retrieve 'historic' genetic traits for novel purposes. And the
> contingence is on The First Principles of Physiology. So we exist between
> the boundaries of both deterministic Principles of Physiology and the Free
> Will conferred by homoestatic control, offering a range of set-points that
> may/not evolve when necessary, depending on the prevailing environmental
> conditions.
>
> And by the way, this way of thinking plays into Pedro's comments about the
> impact of such thinking on society because in conceiving of the cell as the
> first Niche Construction (see attached), all that I have said above plays
> out as the way in which organisms interact with one another and with their
> environment based on self-referential self-organization, which is the basis
> for consciousness, all emanating from the Big Bang as their point source.
> So with all due respect, Information is the medium, but communication is in
> my opinion the message, not the other way around. I see this as a potential
> way of organize information in a contextually relevant way that is not
> anthropocentric, but objective, approximating David Bohm's 'implicate
> order'. Ciao for now, I hopeJohn Torday
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 

[Fis] Fwd: Re: Verification of the Principle of Information Science--John Torday

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

(Message from John Torday --Note: neither the list nor the server do 
accept attachments)



 Mensaje reenviado 
Asunto: Re: [Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science
Fecha:  Thu, 19 Oct 2017 06:45:07 -0700
De: JOHN TORDAY 
Para:   Pedro C. Marijuan 



Dear All, I feel like the beggar at the banquet, having arrived at the 
FIS of late in response to Pedro's invitation to participate, having 
reviewed our paper on 'ambiguity' in Progress in Biolphyics and 
Molecular Biology (see attached). In my deconvolution of evolution as 
all of biology (Dobzhansky), I have reduced the problem to the 
unicellular state as the arbiter of information and communication, 
dictated by The First Principles of Physiology- negative entropy, 
chemiosmosis and homeostasis. I arrived at that idea by following the 
process of evolution as ontogeny and phylogeny backwards from its most 
complex to its simplest state as a continuum, aided by the concept that 
evolution is a series of pre-adaptations, or exaptations or co-options. 
With that mind-set, the formation of the first cell from lipids immersed 
in water generated 'ambiguity' by maintaining a negative entropic free 
energy within itself in defiance of the external positive energy of the 
physical environment, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The 
iterative resolution of that ambiguous state of being is what we refer 
to as evolution. For me, information and communication are the keys, but 
they are not co-equals. I say that because in reducing the question of 
evolution to the single cell, I have been able to 'connect the dots' 
between biology and physics, such elements of Quantum Mechanics as 
non-localization and the Pauli Exclusion Principle being the basis for 
pleiotropy, the distribution of genetics throughout the organism, and 
The First Principles of Physiology, respectively. So now, thinking about 
the continuum from physics to biology, literally, the Big Bang generated 
the magnitude and direction of both the Cosmos and subsequently biology, 
i.e. life is a verb not a noun, a process, not a thing. For these 
reasons I place communication hierarchically 'above' information. 
Moreover, this perspective offers answers to the perennial questions as 
to how and why life is 'emergent and contingent'. The emergence is due 
to the pleiotropic property, the organism having the ability to retrieve 
'historic' genetic traits for novel purposes. And the contingence is on 
The First Principles of Physiology. So we exist between the boundaries 
of both deterministic Principles of Physiology and the Free Will 
conferred by homoestatic control, offering a range of set-points that 
may/not evolve when necessary, depending on the prevailing environmental 
conditions.


And by the way, this way of thinking plays into Pedro's comments about 
the impact of such thinking on society because in conceiving of the cell 
as the first Niche Construction (see attached), all that I have said 
above plays out as the way in which organisms interact with one another 
and with their environment based on self-referential self-organization, 
which is the basis for consciousness, all emanating from the Big Bang as 
their point source. So with all due respect, Information is the medium, 
but communication is in my opinion the message, not the other way 
around. I see this as a potential way of organize information in a 
contextually relevant way that is not anthropocentric, but objective, 
approximating David Bohm's 'implicate order'. Ciao for now, I 
hopeJohn Torday



On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
> wrote:


   Dear All,

   After Xueshan clarion call, I partially change what I was writing.
   Of course I have to thank him for his support of the 10 principles.
   Actually, in connection with the recent exchanges, particularly with
   Gordana's and John (Torday) posts, I was working in some ideas
   further related to the principles. On the one side the general view
   on the "new kind of natural science/philosophy" around information,
   and on the other side the transcendentalism of life... I think they
   also connect with Xueshan call of synthesis between info disciplines
   in his last paragraph. Trying to be concise I present herewith three
   points:

   First. "There is Life--and Information."
   Second. "We contemplate the World."
   Third. "The society around us."

   1. Life and Information: In biology, information is the new mantra.
   All kinds of scientific-technological-entrepreneurial gurus have
   proclaimed it, based on the revolutionary discoveries and gigantic
   bio-data accumulations. But scientifically, few people are trying to
   accommodate a new central theory of biology that could incorporate
   that new empirical reality of amazing complexity. In my own
   preliminary approach I describe how 

Re: [Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear All,

After Xueshan clarion call, I partially change what I was writing. Of 
course I have to thank him for his support of the 10 principles. 
Actually, in connection with the recent exchanges, particularly with 
Gordana's and John (Torday) posts, I was working in some ideas further 
related to the principles. On the one side the general view on the "new 
kind of natural science/philosophy" around information, and on the other 
side the transcendentalism of life... I think they also connect with 
Xueshan call of synthesis between info disciplines in his last 
paragraph. Trying to be concise I present herewith three points:


First. "There is Life--and Information."
Second. "We contemplate the World."
Third. "The society around us."

1. Life and Information: In biology, information is the new mantra. All 
kinds of scientific-technological-entrepreneurial gurus have proclaimed 
it, based on the revolutionary discoveries and gigantic bio-data 
accumulations. But scientifically, few people are trying to accommodate 
a new central theory of biology that could incorporate that new 
empirical reality of amazing complexity. In my own preliminary approach 
I describe how the simplest cells confront "the information flows" of 
their environment and couple them with the inner information flows 
related to their self-production, always doing it adaptively. Regarding 
the excellent work that John Torday has done on the evolutionary 
organizational achievements of multicellulars, as he mentioned, there 
are ample possibilities of mutual connection... Everything is rather  
preliminary but at least we can open the door so that other people 
behind could do it better.
In any case, around life and information, we see an amazing world of 
molecular complexity in action that contains some of the fundamentals of 
the new info perspective. The living cell can really "perceive" selected 
portions of the world around (information flow) and regularly intercepts 
them by means of its sensory apparatus (signaling system). Then it 
reacts adaptively, modifying its processes and structures according to 
inner stocks of permanent information (knowledge), sculpting a life 
cycle, also communicating with other living cells, and really building 
"molecular meaning" upon the received signals. Besides, the pervasive 
horizontal gene transfer in microbial ecosystems (phages, viruses, 
plasmids, sex...) has generated a collective multi-species assemblage or 
genuine "planetary library" of global molecular knowledge. It is not 
bombastic, as all planetary cycles of fundamental elements that sustain 
all present life are based on trillions of molecular machines of 
prokaryotes that have been churning around for eons. This Molecular 
Internet of sorts (Sorin Sonea dixit) was the beginning, and made 
possible so many things that now we may call in so many ways: 
evolvability, autopoiesis, agency, informational existence, ecological 
webs, ecosphere, GAIA, etc.
We may discuss quite legitimately about information physics, but 
clarifying first the scientific discourse about biological information 
by means of a new consistent viewpoint looks a priority (at the same 
level, at least).


2. Looking at the World: After the incredible complexification of life, 
nervous systems, etc. we, the improbable, the unexpected, are here. And 
like our humble bacterial ancestors, we have to confront the world for 
our individual living, and so we regularly contemplate and are immersed  
into the quasi-infinite information flows of the environment. But this 
time, by means of language, acting both as our new social communication 
tool and as an open-ended symbolic system, our collective capabilities 
of relating with the world have boomed. And historically we have 
developed those social repositories or stocks of knowledge we call 
science and all kinds of accompanying technological tools that allow us 
a new contemplation and action onto the world around. Now we can sense 
the most remote perceptions, we can colligate them with the different 
disciplines, and produce adaptive (or non adaptive) responses, with 
supposedly the final goal of advancing our lives both individually and 
collectively.
The new kind of science/philosophy to establish around this 
informational "looking at the world"  would demand a new "observer", in 
this case starting from a differentiated set of disciplinary principles 
of observation. But that creates a lot of logic and scientific 
difficulties. Recognizing the limitation of the agent/observer is one of 
them; leaving open-ended the observable is another. I am aware of the 
invincible circularity that easily surrounds all of this. So the need of 
a set of new principles sidestepping the worst problems and allowing 
fresh new thought. Probably, the easiest part would be the parallel 
realization of a new synthesis incorporating a new stock of scientific 
concepts (admittedly, most of them in the making yet); at least it could 

[Fis] TR: What is “Agent”?

[Christophe Menant]

Resent to FIS correct address


De : Christophe Menant
Envoyé : jeudi 19 octobre 2017 11:15
À : is
Cc : Krassimir Markov
Objet : RE: [Fis] What is “Agent”?


Dear FIS colleagues,

Looking at defining agency is an interesting subject, somehow close to 
information and meaning. Thank you Krassimir for bringing it up.
Let me propose here an approach based on what we can call ‘agents’ in our 
everyday life. This can highlight characteristics possibly leading to a 
definition.for agents.
Based on laymen’s understanding of the world most of us would agree about items 
that can be considered as agents and items that cannot.
Obviously, animals, humans and plants are agents (Natural Agents).
Also, robots and most of our programmable builds up are agents (Artificial 
Agents).
But stones, puddles, smokes (inert items) are not generally considered as 
agents (‘non-agents’).
In terms of characteristics it is pretty obvious that both agents and 
non-agents obey physico-chemical laws that exist everywhere.
But in contrast it is worth noticing that agents are local entities submitted 
to internal constraints.
Natural Agents are submitted to ‘intrinsic constraints’ like ‘stay alive’ 
(individual & species) and ‘live group life’, with other specific constraints 
for humans.
AAs are different as they have to satisfy ‘derived constraints’ coming from 
their designer.
All these internal constraints are satisfied by actions implemented by the 
agents. These actions can be physical, biological or mental and take place in 
or out the agent.
Inert items (non-agents) are not submitted to internal constraints and do not 
act for constraint satisfaction.
Such characterization of agents as different from non-agents brings us to the 
following:
Agents are local entities.
Agents are submitted to internal constraints.
Agents are capable of action for constraint satisfaction.
This leads to a possible definition for an agent as being ‘an identifiable 
entity submitted to internal constraints and capable of actions for the 
satisfaction of the constraints’ (a more detailed presentation of that 
definition is available at https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2).

Such definition of an agent focused on action for internal constraint 
satisfaction positions meaning generation at the core of agency (a meaning is 
generated as being the connection between received information and an internal 
constraint).
And such relations between agency and meaning allow to look at some AI concerns 
in quite simple terms. Characterizing agents and meanings by intrinsic or 
derived constraints leads to positions on the Turing Test, on the Chinese Room 
Argument and on the Symbol Grounding Problem (short paper on subject at 
https://philpapers.org/rec/MENTTC-2).

Best
Christophe


De : Fis  de la part de Krassimir Markov 

Envoyé : dimanche 15 octobre 2017 23:27
À : Foundation of Information Science
Objet : [Fis] What is “Agent”?

Dear FIS Colleagues,

After nice collaboration last weeks, a paper Called “Data versus
Information” is prepared in very beginning draft variant and already is
sent to authors for refining.
Many thanks for fruitful work!

What we have till now is the understanding that the information is some
more than data.
In other words:
 d = r
 i = r + e
where:
 d => data;
 i => information;
 r => reflection;
 e => something Else, internal for the Agent (subject, interpreter,
etc.).

Simple question: What is “Agent”?

When an entity became an Agent? What is important to qualify the entity as
Agent or as an Intelligent Agent? What kind of agent is the cell? At the
end - does information exist for Agents or only for Intelligent Agents?

Thesis: Information exists only for the Intelligent Agents.

Antithesis: Information exists at all levels of Agents.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir





___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Fis Info Page - unizar.es
listas.unizar.es
The FIS initiative (Foundations of Information Science) started in 1994 with a 
first meeting in Madrid (organized by Michael Conrad and Pedro Marijuan), and 
was ...



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

Re: [Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science and the Definition of Information ON THE EXAMPLE OF GARDEN PEAS

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Professor,

your rightful indignation will be even deeper when you consider that the
official important and valuable discussion among the most prominent and
recognised eminent functionaries of highly respected institutions has been
repeatedly disturbed by boring patterns of observations related to garden
peas.



Am 19.10.2017 09:52 schrieb "Xueshan Yan" :

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Since April 2017, the FIS forum has been silent for as long as 5 months.
September 15, Pedro has raised 10 Principles of Information Science with
his amazing insight. As we all know, since the December 1997, FIS forum has
run nearly 20 years, colleagues gathered here mainly focused on two
topics:1) The analysis of different information problems that they apply
the concept of information; 2) Definition of information; But this time,
Pedro opened a third FIS topic: Principle of Information Science.
Undoubtedly, it is the highest goal of FIS colleagues and all information
scientists in the world.

However, after the presentation of the 10 principles, the discussion has
not been developed in accordance with the expectations of all FIS
colleagues, including Pedro. After about 6 or so direct reviews about the
10 principles, the discussions quickly shifted to the topic of eternal
controversial on FIS: The definition of information. And then the
discussion start moving to Data, Meaning, Message, Reflection, Agent and so
on, it is a stunned. Are the 10 principles wrong? Why has the definition of
information been put on the table again? Looking back, at least one year
ago, at the FIS forum, Bateson's "Information is a difference that makes a
difference" still occupies the stage of information definition with an
overwhelming majority of leading roles. The 10 principles put forward by
Pedro are undoubtedly meaningful, but why do it secretly change the topic
into information definition again?.

*1. Pedro's 10 Principles of Information Science*

Referring to Pedro's view (Sept. 20), we can divide the 10 principle into
the following 3 groups: 1~3: The Universal Principle which is suitable for
all types of information; 4~5: The Local Principle which is only suitable
for the type of organic information; 6~10: The Local Principle which is
only suitable for the type of human information. From a macro point of
view, these 10 principles are related to Pedro's personal professional
research — Biological Information — of his lifelong field of study, and
information flow and knowledge recombination is his favorite topic in
recent years. As for human information, this is a subject that I am most
interested in and I am glad that he can put forward 4 principles from his
view.

The first principle is the exact expression of Wiener's 1948 statement
(Wiener, 1948), and it is now well known among scientists all over the
world. The other 9 principles come from Pedro himself. Unfortunately, in
the discussions during these period, in addition to about 6 colleagues
commented on these principles directly, almost no else commented.
Obviously, there must be some problems. My view is that the problem lies
mainly in the universal nature of the principle. It consists of two
aspects: 1) Scope. Since it is called principle of information science, all
principles under it should generally be applied to all information types
and disciplines rather than to some kind of them. If they are expressed as
"X principles of Biological Informatics", or "X principles of Human
Informatics", they may be more precise; 2) Correctness. Verification for
each principle requires time, this can be observed in the future
discussion, we don't have to worry. I believe that these principles will
eventually inspire the vitality they deserve.

*2. Definition of Information*

Looking back over the past 20 years of FIS discussion, almost every other
time, someone must put forward the definition debate on information, and
then produced new definition. Whether your topic is to talk about any other
type of information, at the end, someone may intentionally or
unintentionally turn the topic to the definition of information. It reminds
me of some of my own research experiences. When I proposed that we should
pay attention to information science research in 1987 to a vice-president
of Peking University (A famous Linguist), he immediately questioned me: "Is
information science not the study of information definition?" Till November
2015, at the presidential meeting of Peking University, when I gave the
account on the establishment of China Chapter of IS4SI, the current
president just only asked me one question: what is your definition of
information now? Decades later, we can see that this problem has not
changed, and this is what we have to introspect. FIS forum, including
information scientists from other places, should not always discussed in
such a simple and unrestricted way to define the definition of information.
I recall Marcin said at our FIS 10 years ago: When somebody gives me

[Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science and the Definition of Information

[Xueshan Yan]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Since April 2017, the FIS forum has been silent for as long as 5 months. 
September 15, Pedro has raised 10 Principles of Information Science with his 
amazing insight. As we all know, since the December 1997, FIS forum has run 
nearly 20 years, colleagues gathered here mainly focused on two topics:1) The 
analysis of different information problems that they apply the concept of 
information; 2) Definition of information; But this time, Pedro opened a third 
FIS topic: Principle of Information Science. Undoubtedly, it is the highest 
goal of FIS colleagues and all information scientists in the world.

However, after the presentation of the 10 principles, the discussion has not 
been developed in accordance with the expectations of all FIS colleagues, 
including Pedro. After about 6 or so direct reviews about the 10 principles, 
the discussions quickly shifted to the topic of eternal controversial on FIS: 
The definition of information. And then the discussion start moving to Data, 
Meaning, Message, Reflection, Agent and so on, it is a stunned. Are the 10 
principles wrong? Why has the definition of information been put on the table 
again? Looking back, at least one year ago, at the FIS forum, Bateson's 
"Information is a difference that makes a difference" still occupies the stage 
of information definition with an overwhelming majority of leading roles. The 
10 principles put forward by Pedro are undoubtedly meaningful, but why do it 
secretly change the topic into information definition again?.

1. Pedro's 10 Principles of Information Science

Referring to Pedro's view (Sept. 20), we can divide the 10 principle into the 
following 3 groups: 1~3: The Universal Principle which is suitable for all 
types of information; 4~5: The Local Principle which is only suitable for the 
type of organic information; 6~10: The Local Principle which is only suitable 
for the type of human information. From a macro point of view, these 10 
principles are related to Pedro's personal professional research — Biological 
Information — of his lifelong field of study, and information flow and 
knowledge recombination is his favorite topic in recent years. As for human 
information, this is a subject that I am most interested in and I am glad that 
he can put forward 4 principles from his view.

The first principle is the exact expression of Wiener's 1948 statement (Wiener, 
1948), and it is now well known among scientists all over the world. The other 
9 principles come from Pedro himself. Unfortunately, in the discussions during 
these period, in addition to about 6 colleagues commented on these principles 
directly, almost no else commented. Obviously, there must be some problems. My 
view is that the problem lies mainly in the universal nature of the principle. 
It consists of two aspects: 1) Scope. Since it is called principle of 
information science, all principles under it should generally be applied to all 
information types and disciplines rather than to some kind of them. If they are 
expressed as "X principles of Biological Informatics", or "X principles of 
Human Informatics", they may be more precise; 2) Correctness. Verification for 
each principle requires time, this can be observed in the future discussion, we 
don't have to worry. I believe that these principles will eventually inspire 
the vitality they deserve.

2. Definition of Information

Looking back over the past 20 years of FIS discussion, almost every other time, 
someone must put forward the definition debate on information, and then 
produced new definition. Whether your topic is to talk about any other type of 
information, at the end, someone may intentionally or unintentionally turn the 
topic to the definition of information. It reminds me of some of my own 
research experiences. When I proposed that we should pay attention to 
information science research in 1987 to a vice-president of Peking University 
(A famous Linguist), he immediately questioned me: "Is information science not 
the study of information definition?" Till November 2015, at the presidential 
meeting of Peking University, when I gave the account on the establishment of 
China Chapter of IS4SI, the current president just only asked me one question: 
what is your definition of information now? Decades later, we can see that this 
problem has not changed, and this is what we have to introspect. FIS forum, 
including information scientists from other places, should not always discussed 
in such a simple and unrestricted way to define the definition of information. 
I recall Marcin said at our FIS 10 years ago: When somebody gives me logically 
correct definition of some concept I cannot say "It is wrong" but only that "I 
am not interested in this concept or that", "I do not believe this definition 
can be applied to what we agreed is denotation of the concept." The general 
concept of information requires for its foundations an appropriate rich