Dear All, Let me remark some sentences from what John H publishes: > > And what's to say that cellular entities such as > astrocytes, chaperone cells and telomeres are not also 'inferencing' > in informational situations like calcium signalling, protein > folding and cell ageing? Let alone my GPS's cybernetic navigational > ability. Maybe our existing concepts of information are 'human all too > human'... IMO we need to develop a comprehensive Grammar of > Information which embraces not only semantics and syntax but also > modality, case, aspect , tense etc and looks at the language of > informational states, objects, events, experiences and processes > throughout the biosphere, physiosphere, sociosphere etc. > > ** Then I will develop the biosphere (cellular) info track, with an emphasis on the adaptability Conradian aspect of knowledge. Actually, together with Jorge and Raquel, we have just published a paper ON PROKARYOTIC INTELIGENCE: STRATEGIES FOR SENSING THE ENVIRONMENT (* see web address below). The way these "simplest" cells can make distinctions on the adjacent (environment) is already quite, quite sophisticate. It revolves around what we have called the 1,2,3 component-systems, and their combinations. Then there are many ways to produce different responses and to get modifications into the genomes. Terms such as "combination" and "recombination" are central to that. As long as life cycles are repeatedly performed, the existing "codes" will be particularly & collectively coupled to particular & general environmental aspects adaptively.
Then, consistent with the above notion of biol.information (as distinction on the adjacent) we could approach the knowledge theme as follows. For the cell, n"ew pieces of knowledge will be those additions to existing codes that increase the distinctional possibilities and / or the repertoire of adaptive responses"... Though the idea is quite tentative and provisional, it does not escalate too badly into other realms, nervous systems (cycle action-perception) and social system of knowledge (mixing of disciplines). Combination & Recombination become crucial items, both in the distinctional and action aspects. Trade-offs similar to Conrad's ones (perhaps a little bit different) should enter into the picture. And that's the idea. Knowledge exists to live in endless combinations and recombinations along social adaptive games. When we practice science we are obliged to be multidisciplinary (applying combinations of different basic knowledge bodies: maths, bio, physics, etc.); if a very successful mix is created we become "interdisciplinary" and have given birth by recombination to a new body of knowledge, an inter-discipline (eg, biophysics, biochemistry, etc.). Socially endlessly playing these combinations / recombinations game our system of the sciences has grown to fantastic proportions (on the order of 7000 disciplines were counted recently); the same goes with the social "combinatory" evolution of technology. Perhaps the number or the genre do not matter, the basic intellective game looks the same. best regards Pedro PS. the paper can be accessed at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2009.09.004 _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
