Thanks Steven. I think this makes our source of disagreement quite clear. Unlike you, I take a naturalistic and realist approach to both information and knowledge, and think that their extent and relations are an empirical matter on which we can be radically incorrect. I agree that future productivity is hard to assess (I wrote my dissertation on Kuhn, mostly in agreement, and also with Lakatos). Past productivity is another issue, though, and that is all I was claiming. Basically my perspective it pretty similar to Bill Wimsatt's in Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality (Harvard, 2007) http://www.amazon.com/Re-Engineering-Philosophy-Limited-Beings-Approximations/dp/0674015452. He and I have had similar views since we started in Philosophy, with me mostly following. I recall back in 1977 when I declared that Philosophy was basically an engineering problem that I did not get a very good response. My previous career was in geotechnical engineering using innovative methods that I developed by taking a multifaceted approach. Agreement in approaches is a good indication of reality, and failure means you have made something up that isn't right. Frankly, blocking potential consiliences a priori I find revolting. John
Professor John Collier Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 email: colli...@ukzn.ac.za>>> On 2012/04/18 at 09:39 PM, in message <d7be50e5-e64d-4df3-be36-c75fc8106...@iase.us>, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> wrote: Dear John, Since Locke "established usage" and appeals to authority has rarely been a criteria of "right" definition or sufficient to deny refinement. To state one's own usage clearly, in order to disclose its flaws and intention, seems hardly a cause for criticism, unless that criticism be simply to state your own usage with the same or greater clarity. I do not believe we can speak for the usage of others, nor can we appeal to "dictionaries" of any kind. It is our individual responsibility to "take charge" of our definitions (a position, for example, that I call "definitionism"). I am with you in believing that to assert "real" meaning, independent of our own usage, of any term is silly, indeed to do so is unscientific. For me, terms like "information" and "knowledge" are simply ways of speaking about the world, they are notions that we force upon the world, they are not necessary distinctions, forced upon us by the world. Without an epistemology of this kind in the development of ideas it's hard to project whether the usage of any given term will be productive. Of course, we must allow for the vagaries of fortune and perception, the road to clarity is paved with many corrections. With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering http://iase.info On Apr 18, 2012, at 4:54 AM, John Collier wrote: > Steven, > > You are free to use "information" as you wish; however, physicists, especially cosmologists, have been using it in ways that involve meaning in no direct way at all. They do computations on it, and explain cosmological and astronomical phenomena in terms in which it (or an equivalent) is essential. See, for example, Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, earlier work by Wheeler and Gell Mann, more recent work by Seth Lloyd. It is an established usage. > > The idea of talking in terms of the real meaning of "x", where x is some term is really a bit silly. The important thing is whether some idea for which x is a sign can be used productively and scientifically. > > John > > > Professor John Collier > Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal > Durban 4041 South Africa > T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 > F: +27 (31) 260 3031 > email: colli...@ukzn.ac.za>>> On 2012/03/18 at 07:24 PM, in message <4ad9379c-fb4a-40f8-826e-52f5978ff...@iase.us>, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> wrote: > > I'm with Bob on this to a point. > > Too often I see people giving information an existential status that it is not due. As you will recall, in my terms, information is simply a way of speaking about that which identifies cause and adds to knowledge, "knowledge" is simply a way a way of speaking about that which determines subsequent action. > > However, this does allow me to identify a rock as the source of information and to speak about its behavior in terms of its "knowledge," that about its structure and dynamics that determine its subsequent action. > > I do not use "semeiosis" in the universal way that I use "knowledge." I could see it being so used only if it excludes sensory operation, since I argue for a role that sense plays in the behavior of living systems, and I include that role as distinguishing semeiosis, the term for me refers only to the sign processing of living systems. > > With respect, > Steven > > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Bob Logan wrote: > > > Dear Stanley - how can there be information in the abiotic world? Information is the noun associated with the verb to inform or informing. A rock can not be informed. An abiotic entity can not be informed. Information begins with life. A bacterium can be informed but not an abiotic entity. When we look at stars or the moon or a fossil, they are not information. Our interpretation of the things in nature we observe, biotic or abiotic is the information. Perhaps I am missing something but that is how I see things from my naive point of view. The star, the moon or the fossil are not signs unless you believe that God exists and he or she made these signs for us to interpret. What do you mean that semiosis is a universal phenomenon? > > > > best Bob > > On 2012-03-18, at 11:48 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote: > > > >> As my first posting for this week: > >> > >> Bob, Loet -- I respond by clarifying that my meaning in this little equation is that (following Sebeok) semiosis is a universal phenomenon. The system of interpretance in my effort here is the LOCALE. It is such locales that have evolved into organisms and social systems. In organisms and other distinct systems of interpretance, the sign is the context for interpretation. So, in the little equation, I am GENERALIZING semiosis into abiotic Nature. > >> > >> STAN > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> wrote: > >> Dear Bob, > >> > >> > >> > >> Yes, I agree: the difference that makes a difference is operationally generated by a receiving system; information itself is nothing but a series of differences (contained in a probability distribution). The selection mechanisms in the receiving systems that position the incoming uncertainty have to be specified (as hypotheses). Meaningful information emerges from selecting the signal from the noise. > >> > >> > >> > >> The meaningful information (the differences that make a difference) can again be communicated as information (for example, in and among biological systems). Thus, the operation is recursive and the communication / autopoiesis continues. Meaning can only be communicated by systems which are able to entertain a symbolic order reflexively such as human beings and in interhuman discourses. > >> > >> > >> > >> I'll read the book by Reading. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Loet > >> > >> > >> > >> Loet Leydesdorff > >> > >> Professor, University of Amsterdam > >> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), > >> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. > >> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 > >> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en > >> > >> > >> > >> From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan > >> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 10:55 PM > >> To: Stanley N Salthe > >> Cc: fis > >> Subject: Re: [Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S. > >> > >> > >> > >> Stan - great formula but as I learned from Anthony Reading who wrote a lovely book on information Meaningful Information - it is the recipient that brings the meaning to the information. > >> > >> > >> > >> PS My book What is Information was been translated into Portuguese and published in Brazil where I am doing a 4 city, 5 university speaking tour. The book has not yet appeared in English but it is scheduled to be published soon by Demo press. > >> > >> > >> > >> Regards from Brazil - Bob > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2012-03-17, at 11:17 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Concerning the meaning (or effect) of information (or constraint) in general, I have proposed that context is crucial in modulating the effect -- in all cases. Thus: it would be like the logical example: > >> > >> > >> > >> Effect = context a x Constraint ^context b > >> > >> > >> > >> STAN > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Christophe Menant <christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> wrote: > >> > >> Dear FISers, > >> Indeed information can be considered downwards (physical & meaningless) and upwards (biological & meaningful). The difference being about interpretation or not. > >> It also introduces an evolutionary approach to information processing and meaning generation. > >> There is a chapter on that subject in a recent book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Information-Computation-Philosophical-Understanding-Foundations/dp/toc/9814295477). > >> "Computation on Information, Meaning and Representations.An Evolutionary Approach" > >> Content of the chapter: > >> 1. Information and Meaning. Meaning Generation > >> 1.1. Information.Meaning of information and quantity of information > >> 1.2. Meaningful information and constraint satisfaction. A systemic approach > >> 2. Information, Meaning and Representations. An Evolutionary Approach > >> 2.1. Stay alive constraint and meaning generation for organisms > >> 2.2. The Meaning Generator System (MGS). A systemic and evolutionary approach > >> 2.3. Meaning transmission > >> 2.4. Individual and species constraints. Group life constraints. Networks of meanings > >> 2.5. From meaningful information to meaningful representations > >> 3. Meaningful Information and Representations in Humans > >> 4. Meaningful Information and Representations in Artificial Systems > >> 4.1. Meaningful information and representations from traditional AI to Nouvelle AI. Embodied-situated AI > >> 4.2. Meaningful representations versus the guidance theory of representation > >> 4.3. Meaningful information and representations versus the enactive approach > >> 5. Conclusion and Continuation > >> 5.1. Conclusion > >> 5.2. Continuation > >> A version close to the final text can be reached at http://crmenant.free.fr/2009BookChapter/C.Menant.211009.pdf > >> > >> As Plamen says, we may be at the beginning of a new scientific revolution. But I'm afraid that an understanding of the meaning of information needs clear enough an understanding of the constraint at the source of the meaning generation process. And even for basic organic meanings coming from a "stay alive" constraint, we have to face the still mysterious nature of life. And for human meanings, the even more mysterious nature of human mind. > >> This is not to discourage our efforts in investigating these questions. Just to put a stick in the ground showing where we stand. > >> Best, > >> Christophe > >> > >> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:47:28 +0100 > >> From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > >> To: fis@listas.unizar.es > >> Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S. > >> > >> -------- Mensaje original -------- > >> > >> Asunto: > >> > >> Re: [Fis] Physics of computing > >> > >> Fecha: > >> > >> Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:24:38 +0100 > >> > >> De: > >> > >> Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> > >> > >> Para: > >> > >> Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > >> > >> Referencias: > >> > >> <20120316041607.66ffc68000...@1w8.tpn.terra.com> <4f6321c3.5000...@aragon.es> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> +++++++++++ > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> I could not agree more with Pedro's opinion. The referred article is interesting indeed. but, information is only physical in the narrow sense taken by conventional physicalistic-mechanistic-computational approaches. Such a statement defends the reductionist view at nature: sorry. But information is more than bits and Shanno's law and biology has far more to offer. I think we are at the beginning of a new scientific revolution. So, we may need to take our (Maxwell) "daemons" and (Turing) "oracles" closer under the lens. In fact, David Ball, the author of the Nature paper approached me after my talk in Brussels in 2010 on the Integral Biomathics approach and told me he thinks it were a step in the right direction: biology driven mathematics and computation. > >> > >> By the way, our book of ideas on IB will be released next month by Springer: http://www.springer.com/engineering/computational+intelligence+and+complexity/book/978-3-642-28110-5 > >> If you wish to obtain it at a lower price (65 EUR incl. worldwide delivery) please send me your names, mailing addresses and phone numbers via email to: pla...@simeio.org. There must be at least 9 orders to keep that discount price.. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Plamen > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: > >> > >> Dear discussants, > >> > >> I tend to disagree with the motto "information is physical" if taken too strictly. Obviously if we look "downwards" it is OK, but in the "upward" direction it is different. Info is not only physical then, and the dimension of self-construction along the realization of life cycle has to be entered. Then the signal, the info, has "content" and "meaning". Otherwise if we insist only in the physical downward dimension we have just conventional computing/ info processing. My opinion is that the notion of absence is crucial for advancing in the upward, but useless in the downward. > >> By the way, I already wrote about info and the absence theme in a 1994 or 1995 paper in BioSystems... > >> > >> best > >> > >> ---Pedro > >> > >> > >> > >> walter.riof...@terra.com.pe escribió: > >> > >> Thanks John and Kevin to update issues in information, computation, energy and reality. > >> I would like point out to other articles more focused in how coherence and entanglement are used by living systems (far from thermal equilibrium): > >> > >> Engel G.S., Calhoun T.R., Read E.L., Ahn T.K., Mancal T., Cheng Y.C., Blankenship R.E., Fleming G.R. (2007) Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems. Nature, 446(7137): 782-786. > >> > >> Collini E., Scholes G. (2009) Coherent intrachain energy in migration in a conjugated polymer at room temperature. Science, vol. 323 No. 5912 pp. 369-373. > >> > >> Gauger E.M., Rieper E., Morton J.J.L., Benjamin S.C., Vedral V. (2011) Sustained Quantum Coherence and Entanglement in the Avian Compass. Phys. Rev. Lett., 106: 040503. > >> > >> Cia, J. et al, (2009) Dynamic entanglement in oscillating molecules. arXiv:0809.4906v1 [quant-ph] > >> > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> > >> Walter > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> fis mailing list > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> fis mailing list > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >> > >> > >> > >> Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov > >> landline: +49.30.38.10.11.25 > >> fax/ums: +49.30.48.49.88.26.4 > >> mobile: +44.12.23.96.85.69 > >> email: pla...@simeio.org > >> URL: www.simeio.org > >> > >> ------------------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> fis mailing list > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> fis mailing list > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >> > >> > >> > >> ______________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> Robert K. Logan > >> > >> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD > >> > >> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto > >> > >> www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> fis mailing list > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> fis mailing list > >> fis@listas.unizar.es > >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > ______________________ > > > > Robert K. Logan > > Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD > > Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto > > www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > fis mailing list > > fis@listas.unizar.es > > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
