Re: [Fis] fluctuons
Dear Joseph, Yes, I have deliberately stuck to metaphorical usage. The vacuum is the ground state of a quantum system, which is a difficult thing to get access to, even theoretically. There are very few cases of studying excitations around such a ground state. Most perturbative methods, including those that reinforce our ideas of elementary particles are around a non-interacting ground state, with renormaization brought in to "dress" up the excitations. Ordinary quantum mechanics builds history into probability amplitudes, of course. I know there was an earlier reference to trapping low-level fluctuations in a hierarchically organized manner, generating turtles upon turtles ... probably by Stan Salthe. I find it hard to get my head around it. I know, for example, that there could be a ratcheting mechanism that uses energy to trap thermal motion to give directed motion as in myosin on actin, or RNA polymerases on DNA. But these are fluctuations in motion that are rectified by an active process. Once you average, you are left with an average. Could the hierarchical averaging be a reference to multiple windows for averaging/integration, each with a different subset of features to interface to? Maybe. After all, averaging in *reactive* systems must be implemented with reference to physical interactions. Examples -- temporal averaging based on lifetimes of the states bearing the output; spatially, by the extent of excursions undertaken by the actors; chemically, by the number of transitions undertaken in response to input fluctuations. Not really a logical hierarchy as what is possible by the limits of the physical interactions that bear the relevant information across. On a related train of associations, I wonder if the anticipatory supplement to purely reactive systems can occur in any other way than by oscillatory dynamics. Cheers, Sri PS: Can you point me to something I should read by way of Logic in Reality? On 14 Nov 2010, at 07:44, Joseph Brenner wrote: > Dear Sri, > > Thank you for your note, since I was "unhappy" with the point at > which the discussion seemed to end. Your perspective on the > structure of living organisms seems quite pertinent to the theme of > information processes. It is clearly related to Kaufmann-Logan > "biotic" information. > > However - however - unless I have missed something, you do not take > a position on the core thesis of Conrad's theory, namely (and All > please correct me if wrong) the coupling between sub-quantum changes > and biological molecules. > > In your note you refer to, among other things 1) the "vacuum" as a > metaphorical expression of changes in molecules; 2) an > epistemological view where you explicitly use the term "metaphorical > spatial remapping of an historical process"; 3) the "adjacent > possible" of "vacua", which vacua, however, refer back to your > metaphorical pictures. > > Now I think "adjacent possible" is wonderful expression for > structures, among others in your note, that can be formalized, > together with their dynamics, by the dialectics of my Logic in > Reality. However, this discussion is about Conrad, not Brenner. As I > understand him, Conrad placed the locus of his fluctuations at a > level, that of string theory or some equivalent, below that of the > thermodynamic processes well described by your approach. > > Might I please ask you to point out the ontological, physical link, > if any, that corresponds to the coupling as described above (between > sub-quantum changes and biological molecules)? Please note that it > is an extraordinarily deep and for me still unanswered question as > to whether the terms "history" and "information" can apply to > fluctuations in the quantum vacuum at all. > > Thank you and best wishes, > > Joseph > > - Original Message - From: "Srinandan Dasmahapatra" > > > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 7:14 AM > Subject: Re: [Fis] fluctuons > > > Hi, > > I've been meaning to send a note on Kevin Kirby's brief outline of > Conrad's fluction framework, but haven't had the time to compose my > thoughts coherently. I realised that I wouldn't really have the time > to do so, so I had better send something half-baked along anyway to > contribute to the discussion. Kevin concludes his piece with the > following remark: Overall, within fluctuon theory "the > interaction between the manifest organism and its unmanifest vacuum > sea image abets the evolution, persistence, and maintenance of this > unique complexity [of life]". This is a fascinating and rich notion. > What can we unfold from this notion now in 2010? > > The way I see it, organisms are organisational units, and we tend to > view genomic content as informational units. However, genomic > identifiers are merely one way of providing information tags. Apart > from the presence/absence of sequence, there is also the noti
Re: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)
Dear colleagues, Let me reply in chronological order: Stan: “It seems to me that this implies, in any non-mechanistic system, semiosis -- that is to say, a process of interpretation by the agent. Thus, intelligence would be related to the viewpoint of the agent, which would be located by its needs. Semioticians, however, have not been much engaged by this concept.” Emmeche http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche for example addresses the connection between genes, information and semiosis, see among others: El-Hani, C.N.; Queiroz, J.; Emmeche, C. Genes, Information, and Semiosis. In Tartu Semiotics Library 8; Tartu University Press: Tartu, Finland, 2009. Joseph: “There is nothing I radically object to in the above formulations, but they leave me dissatisfied from the following perspective: in the first by Gordana, intelligence is reified into some sort of output (to be expected from a computational approach) and the dynamic process or capacity aspects less visible.” I agree that the dynamics should not and cannot be cut off if one is to have adequate model of a living organism. In the info-computational approach, information and computation are two complementary phenomena (and concepts) that cannot be decoupled. Georg Kampis http://hps.elte.hu/~gk/Books/index.html in his book “Self-Modifying Systems in Biology and Cognitive Science, Volume 6: A New Framework for Dynamics, Information and Complexity” describes this interplay between the physical structure and its acting as a “program” for the behavior (in the sense of natural computation). Walter: “One interesting question is: Can intelligence exist without consciousness? If so, with which cognitive processes, it could be more feasibly related or derived?” Exactly. Probably classification i.e. making a difference – that is the most elementary step. (Bateson) In parallel we can ask (to relate to the Yixin’s original question about information-knowledge-intelligence): can knowledge exist without consciousness? There are ideas of “unconscious” and sub-conscious” knowledge even in organisms that possess consciousness. (There are experiments where patients with some specific brain damages behave as if they knew something, even though if asked they would say that they do not know.) As information processing in the brain has several levels and some of those are sub-symbolic and not directly accessible by consciousness, can we talk about “knowledge” in a broader sense that does not presuppose consciousness? That would go together with the broad idea of intelligence that does not presuppose consciousness. With best wishes, Gordana http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc --- From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of walter.riof...@terra.com.pe Sent: den 15 november 2010 00:57 To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong) Dear Gordana, Stan, Joseph and All, According with the creator of MI Theory (Gardner 1983) the intelligence is a biological and psychological potential to solve problems and/or create products that are valued in one or more cultural contexts. Gardner discovered seven relatively autonomous capacities that he named the “multiple intelligences”: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal (and afterwards, he introduced naturalist and existential intelligence). Possibly, there could be other autonomous capacities as emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, sexual intelligence and also digital intelligence. One interesting question is: Can intelligence exist without consciousness? If so, with which cognitive processes, it could be more feasibly related or derived? “…we can conclude that intelligence is related with (1) efficiency of basic cognitive processes (speed of perception and focused brain activity) and (2) metacognitive control and flexibility of cognitive processes (attention, cognitive control, strategy flexibility)…” (Pretz JE, Sternberg RJ (2004) Unifying the Field: Cognition and Intelligence. In Cognition and Intelligence: Identifying the Mechanisms of the Mind, Edited by JE Pretz, RJ Sternberg. Cambridge University Press, p. 314). It seems that intelligence needs the reference to some forms of cognition: What is the most basic cognitive process that emerged in evolution? We could say that some of the most "primary mental abilities" are: Perceptual speed, spatial visualization, Classification- Categorization, memory. So, in the quest to establish a relation between Information and Intelligence, it is important to take into account the cognitive phenomena. Reality is structured in levels. Not all the phenomena are in the lower levels but they are causes for the emergence of high level properties, structures, processes and the like. An important study
