Re: [Fis] Response to Sungchul. Generative Logic

2018-01-13 Thread Joseph Brenner
Dear All again,



Terry has introduced an absolutely essential concept on which we need to
focus, that of a generative logic of informational relationships. I would
just like to point out that we are not starting from zero. Some of us, for
example Mark J. and I have already recognized the need for a new logic, in
which understanding the dynamic relationships is central. In Logic in
Reality, for example, Terry's suggestion of the need to avoid "the tendency
to use language-like communication as the paradigm exemplar" is already
achieved by focus on the non-linguistic dynamic process properties of
information.



If Terry could expand his concept of the contours of a 'generative logic',
it might be possible to show this even more clearly.



Thank you and best wishes,



Joseph



  _

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Terrence W.
DEACON
Sent: samedi, 13 janvier 2018 19:33
To: Alex Hankey
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es; Emanuel Diamant; Sungchul Ji
Subject: Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul



Hi all,



I would be very encouraged if we are trying to develop beyond mere lists of
different uses of the term 'information' TO structured taxonomies of
distinct types of information TO a generative logic of how these distinct
modes of a complex information relationship are interrelated.



Dualistically distinguishing intrinsic properties of an informing medium
from relational properties that determine its reference provides an
important first step in growing the concept to encompas its full usefulness.
But I hope that we will also eventually begin to attend to the functional
value that the coveyed reference provides, since this too is often also
implicitly part of the various uses of the term 'infomation' in colloquial
and even scientific use. This requires more careful parsing of the term
"meaning" that is often invoked.



For instance, one can receive information that is unambiguously "about"
something but where that which it is about is already known and therefore is
"functionally redundant" (not to be confused with signal redundancy). Or
this information can be about something that is irrelevant to a given
function or end, while still being information about something.



An example would be telling me the time when I already know what time it is.
The statement about the time does indeed "mean" something-i.e. it is not
meaningless as gibberish woiuld be. Similarly, if I ask to know the current
temperature and I am instead told the time, the reference provided would be
useless to me-i.e. it wouldn't "make a difference" in the colloquial English
sense of that phrase. The concept of "meaning" tends to collapse or conflate
these two distinctions-reference and significance-which I think we should
endeavor to distinguish.



In this respect I like the suggestion by Alex Hankey that we consider an
example like the barely conscious "feeling" of being watched which both
conveys information about an extrinsic state of affairs and additionally has
a functional relevance which is implicit in the discomfort it typically
elicits. Both the aboutness and the significance are relational, not
intrinsic properties of information. They are are distinct relations because
they are asymmetrically dependent on one another. Thus if I am entirely
unaware of being watched I am nnot discomforted by it.



Note also the difference in these relational attrributes: aboutness or
reference is "in relation to" some state of affairs, whereas significance or
value is "in relation to" some telos intrinsic to an interpreting agent or
system.



Exploring such nondiscursive examples can help us to escape the tendency to
use language-like communication as the paradigm exemplar. The analysis of
the information intrinsic to and conveyed by music might in this respect
provide a useful platform for future discussion.



Are there other critical distinctions that we additionally need to
highlight?



Happy New Year, Terry



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Alex Hankey  wrote:

And what about the Kinds of Information that you cannot put in a data set? 

The information that makes you turn your head and meet the gaze of someone
staring at you.

No one could do that, which we humans and all animals do constantly,

unless we had received such information at a subliminal level in the brain.

We all have that capacity, it is vital for survival in the wild. All animals
do it.

The 'Sense of Being Stared At' is a common experience for most animals,

how far down the tree of life no one yet knows.



Whatever triggers it is definitely 'A Difference that Makes a Difference', 

so fits in your definition of 'Meaningful Information' - it has to!

BUT IT CANNOT BE DIGITAL INFORMATION.

Please Face Up to This Fact.



All best wishes,



Alex





On 13 January 2018 at 07:30, Sungchul Ji  wrote:

Hi Emmanuel and FISers,



Thank you, Emmanuel, for your generous remarks.  It is heartening to 

Re: [Fis] The Problem with Sungchul's Approach. Data

2018-01-13 Thread Joseph Brenner
Dear All,



The problem that I see with the approach of Sungchul and others like it is
its reference to data, specifically, quantitative data or their semiotic
equivalent. Without a robust theory of information-as-process, there is no
way of capturing the qualitative aspects of information and communication,
above all human-human. For this, a new logic is required; will take me to my
second note of this week in a response to Terry.



Best wishes,



Joseph



  _

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji
Sent: dimanche, 14 janvier 2018 04:37
To: Alex Hankey
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es; Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul



Hi Alex,



Thanks for raising the thought-provoking question.



According to the dual theory of information (i.e, the physical vs. semantic
information theory (PSIT)) [1] as I understand it, there is no  "Information
that you cannot put in a data set ".  That is, all the information discussed
in natural and human sciences must be grounded in the physical upon which
the semanticity (or functionality) of any structure must arise.  For
example, all heritable traits (including the kind of sensory experiences you
described) must be grounded in DNA structures as clearly pointed out by
Petoukhov [2, 3], for instance.   Unlike the current textbook version of DNA
viewed as a set of linear sequences of genes composed of just one alphabet
of 4 letters, A, C. G and T,  my interpretation of the mathematical analyses
of DNA-sequences (as summarized in the concept of the tetra-groups of DNA
sequences [4]) carried out by Petoukhov [2, 3] indicates that DNA is a
linear sequences of the 4 nucleotides structured (or partitioned) into n
alphabets (or languages), each consisting of 4^n letters, where n = 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, etc., of which we may currently be aware of only the simplest alphabet
with n = 1.  The n = 5 alphabet (i.e., the n^th alphabet or the n^th cell
language) should consist of 4^5 = 1,024 letters, and the n = 6 alphabet
should contain 4,096 letters, etc.  Having these multiple alphabets or
molecular languages may have been beneficial for biological evolution,
probably because they increased the information storage and processing
capacities of the cell.   I am not a computer scientist but it seems to me
that the situation is similar to computer scientists using two different
alphabets -- one with 2 digits (i.e., o, 1) and the other with 2^3 = 8
digits (i.e., , 1000, 1100, 0011, . . .) in order to
increase the information storage and processing capacities of computers.


All biological communications including cell-cell, cell-organ, cell-human,
humnan-human communications must be mediated by messages (or signs) (i)
written in an alphabet with n letters, where n can be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, . . .
.10^6?, thus having varying information storage and processing capacities,
and (ii) obeying a set of syntactic rules  so that (iii) the sender and the
receiver can understand the messages using a common set (or dictionary) of
rules of interpretation.



In conlusion, my breif answer to Alex's question would be that human brains
have evolved to perform the kind of sensory functions you describe based on
"molecular data", not necessarily macroscopic physical or linguistic data
employed in macrosciences and engineering.



All the best.



Sung





References:



  [1] Emanuel Diamant, The brain is processing information, not data. Does
anybody care?, ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract.
http://sciforum.net/

conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842


   [2] Petoukhov, S. (2017).  Genetic
coding and united-hypercomplex systems in the models of algebraic
biology.BioSystems 158: 31-46.[3] Petoukhov, S. (2016).
The system-resonance approach in modeling genetic structures. BiosySystems
139:1-11.
   [4] Petoukhov, S. (2018). The rules of long DNA-sequences and
tetra-groups of oligonucleotides. arXiv:1709.04943v4 [q-bio.OT]















   [4] Ji, S. 

Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul

2018-01-13 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari Emanuel, Loet, Sung, Alex, Terry,
tutti insieme costituite un bel coro. Siete un'armonia meravigliosa. La
musica è il paradigma della scienza della vita o della vita della scienza.
E' un vero piacere dell'anima leggerVi. Siete forti, chiari e
incontrovertibili. Credo che il regista Pedro sia molto contento. Questa è
la strada da seguire. Non bisogna inseguire chimere o illusioni. Tutto ciò
che si conosce esiste e tutto ciò che esiste si conosce (lo dedico a
Giuseppe Brenner). Grazie, grazie, grazie.
Da parte di un economista della felicità.
Un abbraccio affettuoso.
Francesco

2018-01-14 4:37 GMT+01:00 Sungchul Ji :

> Hi Alex,
>
>
> Thanks for raising the thought-provoking question.
>
>
> According to the dual theory of information (i.e, the physical vs.
> semantic information theory (PSIT)) [1] as I understand it, there is no  
> "Information
> that you cannot put in a data set ".  That is, all the information
> discussed in natural and human sciences must be grounded in the physical
> upon which the semanticity (or functionality) of any structure must arise.
> For example, all heritable traits (including the kind of sensory
> experiences you described) must be grounded in DNA structures as
> clearly pointed out by Petoukhov [2, 3], for instance.   Unlike the current
> textbook version of DNA viewed as a set of linear sequences of genes
> composed of just one alphabet of 4 letters, A, C. G and T,  my
> interpretation of the mathematical analyses of DNA-sequences (as summarized
> in the concept of the tetra-groups of DNA sequences [4]) carried out by
> Petoukhov [2, 3] indicates that DNA is a linear sequences of the 4
> nucleotides structured (or partitioned) into n alphabets (or languages),
> each consisting of 4^n letters, where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., of which we
> may currently be aware of only the simplest alphabet with n = 1.  The n = 5
> alphabet (i.e., the n^th alphabet or the n^th cell language) should consist
> of 4^5 = 1,024 letters, and the n = 6 alphabet should contain 4,096
> letters, etc.  Having these multiple alphabets or molecular languages may
> have been beneficial for biological evolution, probably because they
> increased the information storage and processing capacities of the cell.
>  I am not a computer scientist but it seems to me that the situation is
> similar to computer scientists using two different alphabets -- one with 2
> digits (i.e., o, 1) and the other with 2^3 = 8 digits (i.e., ,
> 1000, 1100, 0011, . . .) in order to increase the
> information storage and processing capacities of computers.
>
>
> All biological communications including cell-cell, cell-organ, cell-human,
> humnan-human communications must be mediated by messages (or signs)
> (i) written in an alphabet with n letters, where n can be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, .
> . . .10^6?, thus having varying information storage and processing
> capacities, and (ii) obeying a set of syntactic rules  so that (iii) the
> sender and the receiver can understand the messages using a common set (or
> dictionary) of rules of interpretation.
>
>
> In conlusion, my breif answer to Alex's question would be that human
> brains have evolved to perform the kind of sensory functions you describe
> based on "molecular data", not necessarily macroscopic physical or
> linguistic data employed in macrosciences and engineering.
>
>
> All the best.
>
>
> Sung
>
>
>
> References:
>
>   [1] Emanuel Diamant, *The brain is processing information, not data.
> Does anybody care?, *ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract.
> http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842
> 
>
> 
> [2] Petoukhov, S. (2017).  Genetic coding and united-hypercomplex systems
> in the models of algebraic biology.*BioSystems* *158*: 31-46.
> [3] Petoukhov, S. (2016).  The system-resonance approach in
> modeling genetic structures. *BiosySystems* *139*:1-11.
>[4] Petoukhov, S. (2018). The rules of long DNA-sequences and
> tetra-groups of oligonucleotides. arXiv:1709.04943v4 [q-bio.OT]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 

Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul

2018-01-13 Thread Sungchul Ji
Hi Alex,


Thanks for raising the thought-provoking question.


According to the dual theory of information (i.e, the physical vs. semantic 
information theory (PSIT)) [1] as I understand it, there is no  "Information 
that you cannot put in a data set ".  That is, all the information discussed in 
natural and human sciences must be grounded in the physical upon which the 
semanticity (or functionality) of any structure must arise.  For example, all 
heritable traits (including the kind of sensory experiences you described) must 
be grounded in DNA structures as clearly pointed out by Petoukhov [2, 3], for 
instance.   Unlike the current textbook version of DNA viewed as a set of 
linear sequences of genes composed of just one alphabet of 4 letters, A, C. G 
and T,  my interpretation of the mathematical analyses of DNA-sequences (as 
summarized in the concept of the tetra-groups of DNA sequences [4]) carried out 
by Petoukhov [2, 3] indicates that DNA is a linear sequences of the 4 
nucleotides structured (or partitioned) into n alphabets (or languages), each 
consisting of 4^n letters, where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., of which we may 
currently be aware of only the simplest alphabet with n = 1.  The n = 5 
alphabet (i.e., the n^th alphabet or the n^th cell language) should consist of 
4^5 = 1,024 letters, and the n = 6 alphabet should contain 4,096 letters, etc.  
Having these multiple alphabets or molecular languages may have been beneficial 
for biological evolution, probably because they increased the information 
storage and processing capacities of the cell.   I am not a computer scientist 
but it seems to me that the situation is similar to computer scientists using 
two different alphabets -- one with 2 digits (i.e., o, 1) and the other with 
2^3 = 8 digits (i.e., , 1000, 1100, 0011, . . .) in order 
to increase the information storage and processing capacities of computers.

All biological communications including cell-cell, cell-organ, cell-human, 
humnan-human communications must be mediated by messages (or signs) (i) written 
in an alphabet with n letters, where n can be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, . . . .10^6?, thus 
having varying information storage and processing capacities, and (ii) obeying 
a set of syntactic rules  so that (iii) the sender and the receiver can 
understand the messages using a common set (or dictionary) of rules of 
interpretation.


In conlusion, my breif answer to Alex's question would be that human brains 
have evolved to perform the kind of sensory functions you describe based on 
"molecular data", not necessarily macroscopic physical or linguistic data 
employed in macrosciences and engineering.


All the best.


Sung



References:

  [1] Emanuel Diamant, The brain is processing information, not data. Does 
anybody care?, ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract. 
http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842

  [2] Petoukhov, S. (2017).  Genetic coding and united-hypercomplex systems in 
the models of algebraic biology.BioSystems 158: 31-46.[3] 
Petoukhov, S. (2016).  The system-resonance approach in modeling genetic 
structures. BiosySystems 139:1-11.
   [4] Petoukhov, S. (2018). The rules of long DNA-sequences and tetra-groups 
of oligonucleotides. arXiv:1709.04943v4 [q-bio.OT]









   [4] Ji, S. (2017).Neo-Semiotics: Introducing Zeroness into Peircean 
Semiotics May Bridge the Knowable and the Unknowable. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 
 131:387-401. PDF at 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610717300858?via%3Dihub
   [5] Ji, S. (1997). Isomorphism between cell and human languages: molecualr 
biological, bioinformatic and 

Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul

2018-01-13 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
Hi all,

I would be very encouraged if we are trying to develop beyond mere lists of
different uses of the term 'information' TO structured taxonomies of
distinct types of information TO a generative logic of how these distinct
modes of a complex information relationship are interrelated.

Dualistically distinguishing intrinsic properties of an informing medium
from relational properties that determine its reference provides an
important first step in growing the concept to encompas its full
usefulness. But I hope that we will also eventually begin to attend to the
functional value that the coveyed reference provides, since this too is
often also implicitly part of the various uses of the term 'infomation' in
colloquial and even scientific use. This requires more careful parsing of
the term "meaning" that is often invoked.

For instance, one can receive information that is unambiguously "about"
something but where that which it is about is already known and therefore
is "functionally redundant" (not to be confused with signal redundancy). Or
this information can be about something that is irrelevant to a given
function or end, while still being information about something.

An example would be telling me the time when I already know what time it
is. The statement about the time does indeed "mean" something—i.e. it is
not meaningless as gibberish woiuld be. Similarly, if I ask to know the
current temperature and I am instead told the time, the reference provided
would be useless to me—i.e. it wouldn't "make a difference" in the
colloquial English sense of that phrase. The concept of "meaning" tends to
collapse or conflate these two distinctions—reference and
significance—which I think we should endeavor to distinguish.

In this respect I like the suggestion by Alex Hankey that we consider an
example like the barely conscious "feeling" of being watched which both
conveys information about an extrinsic state of affairs and additionally
has a functional relevance which is implicit in the discomfort it typically
elicits. Both the aboutness and the significance are relational, not
intrinsic properties of information. They are are distinct relations
because they are asymmetrically dependent on one another. Thus if I am
entirely unaware of being watched I am nnot discomforted by it.

Note also the difference in these relational attrributes: aboutness or
reference is "in relation to" some state of affairs, whereas significance
or value is "in relation to" some *telos* intrinsic to an interpreting
agent or system.

Exploring such nondiscursive examples can help us to escape the tendency to
use language-like communication as the paradigm exemplar. The analysis of
the information intrinsic to and conveyed by music might in this respect
provide a useful platform for future discussion.

Are there other critical distinctions that we additionally need to
highlight?

Happy New Year, Terry

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Alex Hankey  wrote:

> And what about the Kinds of Information that you cannot put in a data set?
> The information that makes you turn your head and meet the gaze of someone
> staring at you.
> No one could do that, which we humans and all animals do constantly,
> unless we had received such information at a subliminal level in the
> brain.
> We all have that capacity, it is vital for survival in the wild. All
> animals do it.
> The 'Sense of Being Stared At' is a common experience for most animals,
> how far down the tree of life no one yet knows.
>
> Whatever triggers it is definitely 'A Difference that Makes a Difference',
> so fits in your definition of 'Meaningful Information' - it has to!
> BUT IT CANNOT BE DIGITAL INFORMATION.
> Please Face Up to This Fact.
>
> All best wishes,
>
> Alex
>
>
> On 13 January 2018 at 07:30, Sungchul Ji  wrote:
>
>> Hi Emmanuel and FISers,
>>
>>
>> Thank you, Emmanuel, for your generous remarks.  It is heartening to know
>> that our ideas converge, although we carried out our research independently
>> of each other, a clear example of consilience.
>>
>>
>> (*1*)  I like and agree with the Kolomogorov quote you cited in [1]:
>>
>>
>> "*Information is a linguistic description of structures in a given data
>> set.*"
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that there are 4 key concepts embedded in the above quote,
>> which we may view as the definition of what may be called the "Komogorov
>> information" or the "Kolmogorov-Bateson information" for  the
>> convenience of reference:
>>
>> *i*)   data set (e.g., ACAGTCAACGGTCCAA)
>> *ii*)  linguistic description (e.g., Threonine, Valine, Asparagine,
>> Glycine)
>> *iii*) structure (e.g., 16 mononucdotide, 8 dinucldotides, 5
>> trinucleotides plus 1)
>> *iv*) mathematical description (e.g., tensor product of two 2x2 matrices
>> of 4 nucleotides) [2, 3].
>>
>> The first three elements are obvious, but the 4th is not so obvious but
>> justified in view of the recent work of Petoukhov [2, 3].
>>

Re: [Fis] FW: New Year Lecture. Logic of Recursive Transductions

2018-01-13 Thread Loet Leydesdorff



At this point, I feel I need a ‘refresher’ on Loet Leydesdorff’s 
important distinction, with reference to information, between recursion 
and incursion. Loet?




When one thinks outside the box, as Bob U. will have us do, the air may 
seem a little thin, for a while. However, one can soon get 
acclimatized, with some good will.




Cheers,



Joseph






Dear Joseph,

I am not sure, but I guess that the recursive transductions assume a 
forward arrow of time: the previous state (at t-1) is "transduced" into 
a next one (at t = t).


An incursive system provides also a reference to its current state. For 
example, a new technology is shaped with reference to the previous one, 
but also with reference to a current market as the relevant selection 
environment. A hyperincursive system develops with reference to its next 
future state (t + 1) or even beyond that (t + n).


For example, meaning -- in interpersonal communications -- is provided 
from the perspective of hindsight in the present, but with reference to 
horizons of meaning. This reference to possible future states provides 
the intentionality that is specific for interhuman communication. The 
logic thus is different from a biological system developing with the 
arrow of time (in history).


Another terminology would be that of trajectories and regimes. 
Trajectories are shaped with time; for example, along life-cycles. 
Regimes (e.g., life vs. death) are next-order selection mechanisms which 
shape the conditions for trajectories. This is still at the level of 
general systems theory. In interhuman communication specifically, the 
order remains an order of expectations which feeds back onto the present 
state from future (possible) states. This inversion of time leads to the 
generation of redundancy as different from the (Shannon-type) 
information. It provides new options.


Hopefully, I answered your question.

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