Re: [Fis] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11 Mechanism and Model

2015-01-19 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari Tutti,
nei miei numerosi libri, a partire da Economia del patrimonio
architettonico-ambientale (1983), ho sostenuto che la triade semiotica
significazione, informazione e comunicazione attraversa il mondo biologico,
fisico e sociale e viceversa il mondo biologico, fisico e sociale
attraversa la triade semiotica significazione, informazione e
comunicazione. Quindi non ha senso pensare che il mondo informativo sia
separato dagli altri mondi (cfr. Maturana e Varela). A seconda i processi
 o modelli dei suddetti mondi che si considerano si possono usare alcune o
tutte le categorie di informazioni possibili: genetica (genealogica),
termodinamica o naturale (entropico/neg-entropica), matematica
(entropico-cibernetica)  e semantica (storico-culturale o
significato-significante). Le stesse unità autopoietiche possono allentare
o ridurre la loro auto-referenzialità mediante l'informazione-comunicazione
che supera la rigidezza o la chiusura dei loro codici. Per questo in
Valore e valutazioni (1999) mi sono posto in una situazione intermedia
tra Maturana-Varela e Niklas Luhmann. Per comprendere meglio il mio
approccio è necessario: assegnare all'economia il ruolo di scienza delle
scienze che le conferiva  anche Ernst Mach; considerare l'informazione la
legge delle leggi di tutte le scienze dell'uomo e della natura.l
Un abbraccio affettuoso a Tutti, da un poverino esponenziale, quale sono.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-01-19 20:37 GMT+01:00 Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi 
bacigalupiwo...@gmail.com:

 Josh Bacigalupi here, fellow pirate.  Thank you all for this thoughtful
 discussion.

 Work is a fundamental focus of Terry's project.  We can all agree that the
 creation of entropy is necessary to do work; such degradation of a gradient
 is a necessary precondition of work potential, but not just any work.  The
 specific kind of work that some self-entailed proto-cell does in its
 environment must be such that it increases the chances that such nascent
 agency will have increased the chances of its own propagation in that open
 system.  Terry calls this teleodynamic work.

 But this isn't even the most stringent requirement we place on ourselves.
 Not only must this work be relevant to its own persistence, *the
 constraints necessary to enact this specific dynamic must be able to
 persist for some finite time in the absence of any gradient what-so-ever.*
 In other words, Terry's hypothesized autogen is specifically conceived to
 retain the capacity to do self-efficacious work even after local chemical
 equalibrium has been attained.

 Once a gradient is again available, any viable autogen must be able to
 restart the very specific co-constraints of auto-catalysis and
 self-organized containment, a process that we suggest must be able to both
 self-repair and create new sets of co-constraint in wholly novel
 substrates.  This, in effect, spans the ontological gap from the vast
 majority of physico-chemical dynamics to the first distinct dynamic of a
 measurable medium of informational significance, whose benchmark of
 significance is the persistence of autogenic constraints.

 Although intriguing, we are skeptical when speculating about vastly more
 complex and likely intentional agents, like bacterium, or clearly
 intentional agents, like humans.  We suggest that focus on a priori
 intentional agency skips the distinct logical step from ubiquitous
 self-organizing dynamics, where rate of entropy production is increased
 (dissipating not only the external gradient but the internal organization
 itself), to the relatively rare teleodynamics, where rate of entropy and
 work production are mitigated by the autogen's normative relation to its
 surroundings.

 Cheers,
 Josh



 On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu
 wrote:

 Hi Joseph,

 Glad to have you join in. My goal is (paraphrasing Einstein) to
 develop a model system that is as simple as possible but not too
 simple to provide a foundation for formalizing the concepts of
 reference and significance. If too simple, it would be helpful to know
 what is specifically missing.

 In considering more complex model systems the critical constraint is
 to avoid cryptically assuming a homuncular perspective that sneaks in
 some undescribed mentality (often an external observational
 perspective) to do the interpretive work and to define what
 constitutes reference and significance. I am unwilling to use a
 bacterium as my model, because we implicitly assume their end-directed
 and sensing capacities without explaining them. Nor am I willing to
 assume that nucleic acids are intrinsically informational or that
 information is just pattern replication, as has become a common
 assumption in many evolutionary theories.

 As I have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all
 aspects of the information concept, and certainly not at the level of
 human thought. I merely propose to dissolve the implicit dualism in
 our current concepts at the 

[Fis] Fwd: Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference significance

2015-01-19 Thread Stanley N Salthe
-- Forwarded message --
From: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference 
significance
To: Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu


Good comment! But not only to me, it has general interest, you should put
it into the list too... ---Pedro

Stanley N Salthe wrote:


 Pedro --  The Four Domains of Science diagram is reminiscent of the
 hierarchy of scientific disciplines outlined by Comte, Spencer and Peirce.
 Thus (using the subsumptive hierarchy):


  {informational realm {physicochemical realm {Biological realm {social
 realm


 Information is here viewed as preceding any of the other realms.  It is
 not clear how to understand this.  Peirce had in this position ‘Universal
 Mind’, which I think could be viewed as informational. Comte had
 mathematics here, reifying what many would take to be an emergent human, or
 animal, capability.

 Many today would likely not give information a separate realm, but would
 take it to emerge with the physical world (?Wheeler?).  I think this
 coincides with my own view.


 STAN


 On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, pedro marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:

 Thanks Stan (next Monday I will resend the figure). By the way, it
 would be great if you can contribute to warm up the session!
 Best--Pedro
 BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@
 
 
 *From: * Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu
 mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu
 *Date: *Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:39:40 -0500
 *To: *Pedro C. Marijuanpcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 *Subject: *Re: [Fis] Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of
 reference  significance

 Oedro -- The figure does not show in this message.

 STAN

 On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:

 Dear Terry and FIS colleagues---and pirates,

 Just a brief reflection on the below.

 (From Terry's last message)...
 So my goal in this case is quite modest, and yet perhaps also a bit
 foolhardy. I want to suggest a simplest possible model system to
 use
 as the basis for formalizing the link between physical processes
 and
 semiotic processes. Perhaps someday after considerably elaborating
 this analysis it could contribute to issues of the psychology of
 human
 interactions. I hope to recruit some interest into pursuing this
 goal.

 In my view, any research endeavor is also accompanied by some
 ultimate goals or ends that go beyond the quite explicit
 disciplinary ones. In this case, say, about the destiny of the
 constructs that would surround the information concept (or the
 possibility of framing an informational perspective, or a
 renewed information science, or whatever), wouldn't it be
 interesting discussing in extenso what could that ultimate
 vision?

 I mean, most of us may agree in quite many points related to
 the microphysical ( thermodynamic) underpinning of
 information, as it transpires in the exchanges we are
 having--but where do we want to arrive finally with the
 construction activity? I tend to disagree with localist aims,
 even though at the time being they may look more prudent and
 parsimonious. Putting it in brief, too briefly!, and borrowing
 from Rosenbloom (P.S. 2013. On Computing: The Fourth Great
 Scientific Domain) the idea is that information science,
 properly developed and linked with computer science and
 mathematics, should constitute one of the Great Domains of
 contemporary science. The informational would go together with
 the physical, the biological, and the social: constituting the
 four great domains of science. See Figure below. Rather than
 attempting the construction of another average or standard
 discipline, information science is about the making out of one
 of the “great scientific domains” of contemporary knowledge.

 More cogent arguments could be elaborated on how to cover
 sceintifically the whole information world (human societies,
 behaving individuals, brain organization, cellular processes,
 biomolecules) and the problem of interlocking--crisscrossing a
 myriad of information flows at all levels. But the point is,
 ends, although unassailable, may be as much important as
 beginnings.

 Thanks in advance for the patience!

 ---Pedro



 **


 *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic
 shows the network of 

Re: [Fis] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11 Mechanism and Model

2015-01-19 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
PS typo correction line 5 from bottom:

... To specify information *that* a given constraint-state of a

On 1/19/15, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu wrote:
 Hi Loet,

 I do indeed consider this relationship to be measurable and thus
 expressible mathematically. This in itself doesn't mean that it
 ignores content. Indeed, a specific content and a specific target
 function-state are prerequisites, and so must be assumed in the
 analysis. In my opinion, as necessary assumptions, this makes the part
 of the background physics. So there must be both universality and
 physical specificity to this analysis— the specificity of referent and
 significant end-state treated as givens in the equation.

 The term expected plays a crucial role here. It introduces a
 Bayesian implication behind Shannon's analysis. But it also is what
 necessitates the self-repairing, self-reproducing features of
 autogenesis. To specify information what a given constraint-state of a
 medium represents there must be a reference state. However, it cannot
 be MEP or even maximum thermodynamic entropy (analogous to Shannon's
 entropy) but instead the work differential between current state of
 degraded autogenesis and a reconstituted or reproduced autogen.

 — Terry

 On 1/18/15, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote:
 Dear Terry and colleagues,



 “As I have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all
 aspects
 of the information concept, and certainly not at the level of human
 thought.
 I merely propose to dissolve the implicit dualism in our current concepts
 at
 the most basic level, so that for example it will be possible to develop
 a
 scientifically grounded theory of molecular biosemiotics.”



 Is the crucial point that an expected information content is always
 referential to a maximum entropy and therefore a relational concept? The
 significance/meaning is thus provided by the redundancy?



 I doubt whether this is part of the physics (as you seem to claim). It
 follows from the math and is yet content free; in other words, it can be
 provided with meaning given any system of reference or, in other words,
 discourse. The universality of the claim would thus be based on the
 mathematical (dimensionless) character of it.



 Best,

 Loet






 --
 Professor Terrence W. Deacon
 University of California, Berkeley



-- 
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] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11

2015-01-19 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
Hi Pedro,

Thanks for sharing this beautiful and instructive image. I wonder if
it should actually be more accurate as a higher dimensional graph or
if rather than ambiguous overlap if there is some degree of
containment in these relationships.

— Terry

On 1/19/15, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:
 Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image
 again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the
 philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference,
 2013). best ---Pedro

 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0



 **

 *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the
 network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen
 /et al/., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents
 the four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and
 informational.




 Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote:
 Hi, Pedro.
 I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science)
 Would you please send it again?

 Thank you.

 Moises



 --
 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
 Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -




-- 
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] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11

2015-01-19 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
... in 3-space perhaps a tetrahedron instead of a 4-leaf clover, such
that each of the 4 academic domains were more equidistant from one
another.

On 1/19/15, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu wrote:
 Hi Pedro,

 Thanks for sharing this beautiful and instructive image. I wonder if
 it should actually be more accurate as a higher dimensional graph or
 if rather than ambiguous overlap if there is some degree of
 containment in these relationships.

 — Terry

 On 1/19/15, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:
 Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image
 again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the
 philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference,
 2013). best ---Pedro

 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0



 **

 *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the
 network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen
 /et al/., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents
 the four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and
 informational.




 Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote:
 Hi, Pedro.
 I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science)
 Would you please send it again?

 Thank you.

 Moises



 --
 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
 Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -




 --
 Professor Terrence W. Deacon
 University of California, Berkeley



-- 
Professor Terrence W. Deacon
University of California, Berkeley

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