[Fis] _ Re: _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

2016-04-01 Thread Louis H Kauffman
Dear Soren and Folks,
I have included some comments inside Soren’s introduction.
Best,
Lou K.

>  
> Infobiosemiotics
> 
> Søren Brier, CBS
> This discussion aims at contributing to the definition of a universal concept 
> of information covering objective as well as subjective experiential and 
> intersubjective meaningful cognition and communication argued in more length 
> in Brier (2015a). My take on the problem is that information is not primarily 
> a technological term but a phenomenon that emerges from intersubjective 
> meaningful sign based cognition and communication in living systems. The 
> purpose of this discussion is to discuss a possible philosophical framework 
> for an integral and more adequate concept of information uniting all isolated 
> disciplines (Brier, 2010, 2011, 2013a+b+c). 
> 
> The attempts to create objective concepts of information were good for 
> technology (Brilliouin 1962) and the development of AI, but not able to 
> develop theories that could include the experiential (subjective) aspect of 
> informing that leads to meaning in the social setting (Brier 2015b). The 
> statistical concept of Shannon (Shannon and Weaver 1963/1948) is the most 
> famous objective concept but it was only a technical invention based on a 
> mathematical concept of entropy, but never intended to encompass meaning.  
> Norbert Wiener (1963) combined the mathematics statistical with Boltzmann’s 
> thermodynamically entropy concept and defined information as neg-entropy. 
> Wiener then saw the statistical information’s entropy as a representation for 
> mind and the thermodynamically entropy as representing matter. So he thought 
> he had solved the mind matter problem through his and Schrödinger’s 
> (1944/2012) definition of information as neg-entropy.
> 

> The idea was developed further into an evolutionary and ecological framework 
> by Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979, 19827) resulting in an ecological cybernetic 
> concept of mind as self-organized differences that made a difference for a 
> cybernetically conceptualized mind (Brier 2008b). But this concepts that 
> could not encompass meaning and experience of embodied living and social 
> systems (Brier 2008a, 2010, 2011). 
> 
[It seems to me that Bateson is well aware of the neccesity of being meaningful 
and thoughtful in relation to information and that his ‘difference that makes a 
difference’ is often the difference that is understood by an aware observer. 
Thus for him it is often the case that information arises within awareness and 
is not just 
a matter of channel capacities as in the Shannon approach. The whole reason one 
is take by Bateson and can find much to think about there is that he has a 
sensitive and thoughtful approach to this area of problems. It is too harsh to 
just say that “the idea was developed further …”. 
> My main point is that from the present material, energetic or informational 
> ontologies worldview we do not have any idea of how life, feeling, awareness 
> and qualia could emerge from that foundation. 
[Yes.]
> Ever since Russell and Whitehead’s attempt in Principia Mathematica to make a 
> unified mathematical language for all sciences and logical positivism failed 
> (Carnap, 1967 & Cartwright et.al. 1996), 
> 
[Personally, I do not regard the incompleteness results of Godel as an 
indication of failure! They show for the first time the true role of formalism 
in mathematics and in intellectual endeavor in general. We cannot rely on 
formalism only for our search, but it is through examining the limits of given 
formalisms that the search can be carried further. I do not say this is the 
only way forward, but we are no longer stuck with idea of a perfect mechanism 
that can in principle generate all mathematical 
truths. This has failed and we are happy at that.]
> the strongest paradigm attempting in a new unification is now the 
> info-computational formalism based on the mathematic calculus developed by 
> Gregory Chaitin (2006 and 2007) ).
> 
[The ‘mathematical calculus’ of Chaitin iis very stimulating and it is based on 
the same incompleteness arguments as Goedel. Chaitin defines ‘random’ relative 
to a given formal system L. A sequence is random if there is no algorithm in L 
simpler than THE SEQUENCE ITSELF that can generate the sequence. Complexity of 
algorithms can be examined from this point of view. What we do not see in 
Chaitin is that same thing we do not see in Shannon. We do not see a role for 
judgement or phenomenolgy. I am interested in your notion that Chaitin has done 
more than this. Please say more.]


> The paradigm is only in its early beginning and is looking for a concept of 
> natural computing (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2012) going beyond the Turing concept of 
> computing. But even that still does not encompass the experiential feeling 
> mind and the meaning orienting aspect of intersubjective communication wither 
> be only sign or also language based.
> 
[Here I think you 

[Fis] QFT

2016-04-01 Thread Andrei Khrennikov
  I just complete the statement of Hans: the really relativistic treatment 
of 
quantum phenomena is done in the framework of quantum field theory, QFT.

yours,

Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of Applied Mathematics,
International Center for Mathematical Modeling
in Physics, Engineering, Economics, and Cognitive Science
Linnaeus University, Växjö-Kalmar, Sweden

From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Hans von Baeyer 
[henrikrit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 7:50 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] _ In defense of quantum mechanics

The founders of quantum mechanics all realized that RELATIVITY posits a linear 
relationship between energy and momentum of a massive particle, while 
NONRELATIVISTIC classical mechanics, which is a mere approximation, implies 
that kinetic energy is related to the square of the momentum.  Since light 
always moves at light speed, the approximate treatment does not apply to 
photons.

The founders always explained whether they were working relativistically or 
approximately, so there was never a mistake or a confusion on that score.

But there were plenty of different mistakes and confusions in their work -- 
some surviving to this day.

Hans Christian von Baeyer

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


[Fis] _ In defense of quantum mechanics

2016-04-01 Thread Hans von Baeyer
The founders of quantum mechanics all realized that RELATIVITY posits a
linear relationship between energy and momentum of a massive particle,
while NONRELATIVISTIC classical mechanics, which is a mere approximation,
implies that kinetic energy is related to the square of the momentum.
Since light always moves at light speed, the approximate treatment does not
apply to photons.

The founders always explained whether they were working relativistically or
approximately, so there was never a mistake or a confusion on that score.

But there were plenty of different mistakes and confusions in their work --
some surviving to this day.

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


[Fis] TR: _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

2016-04-01 Thread Christophe
Dear Soeren,
Looking for the ‘definition of a universal concept of information’ is indeed a 
key subject, but I’m not sure that focusing on the Peircean approach as you do 
is the best thread for that.
Positioning ‘life as meaning’ looks as a good starting point in an evolutionary 
perspective. But Peirce does not tell us much about the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of 
meaning in life.
Most of us would agree that meanings do not exist by themselves but have 
reasons of being that are closely related to the entity managing them. Life 
builds up meanings to maintain its living status, to stay alive (individual 
constraint) and to reproduce (species constraint). As far as I know, Peirce did 
not develop these perspectives that much.
The same can probably be said about the ‘how’ of meaning making.
On that last point FISers may remember a simple model introduced in FIS in 2002 
(and published in Entropy in 2003http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/5/2/193), the 
Meaning Generator System used to support an evolutionary approach

[http://img.mdpi.org/img/journals/entropy-logo-sq.png?c749711c57fbc121]

Entropy | Free Full-Text | Information and 
Meaning
www.mdpi.com
We propose here to clarify some of the relations existing between information 
and meaning by showing how meaningful information can be generated by a system 
submitted ...


(http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI) and to position some limits to AI 
(http://philpapers.org/rec/MENTTC-2). But as you know Peirce better than I do, 
perhaps you can recall some Peircean writings  close to modeling of meaning 
generation that I have missed. Pls let us know.
Whatever, we would probably agree that a modeling of meaning generation is at 
the core of an ‘evolutionary theory of the emergence of experiential 
consciousness’. And that such a theory applies differently to animals and to 
humans. Experiential consciousness in animals needs an understanding of life 
that we do not currently have. Human experiential consciousness calls in 
addition for self-consciousness which is also a mystery for today science and 
philosophy. But the Science of Consciousness is making some progresses in this 
area where meaningful representations can have a say 
(http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOO).
I of course agree on the enormous added values brought by Pierce on logic, 
philosophy, mathematics and various sciences. But I’m not sure that he is the 
best choice for ‘the definition of a universal concept of information’ where we 
should rather focus, I feel, on the natures of life and of consciousness.
But I may be wrong...
Christophe



De : Fis  de la part de Pedro C. Marijuan 

Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2016 14:00
À : fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

Dear FIS Colleagues,

I am attaching herein Soeren's presentation. If you have any trouble with the 
attachment, the file is in fis web pages too:

http://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/

By clicking on Soeren Brier's session (highlighted in red) you can immediately 
obtain it.

Nevertheless, below there is a selection of more general ideas from the paper. 
For those interested in FIS "archeology", Soeren presented in January 2004 a 
discussion session on Information, Autopoiesis, Life and Semiosis. It  can be 
found by scrolling in the same above link.

Best greetings--Pedro

-

Infobiosemiotics


Søren Brier, CBS

This discussion aims at contributing to the definition of a universal concept 
of information covering objective as well as subjective experiential and 
intersubjective meaningful cognition and communication argued in more length in 
Brier (2015a). My take on the problem is that information is not primarily a 
technological term but a phenomenon that emerges from intersubjective 
meaningful sign based cognition and communication in living systems. The 
purpose of this discussion is to discuss a possible philosophical framework for 
an integral and more adequate concept of information uniting all isolated 
disciplines (Brier, 2010, 2011, 2013a+b+c).

The attempts to create objective concepts of information were good for 
technology (Brilliouin 1962) and the development of AI, but not able to develop 
theories that could include the experiential (subjective) aspect of informing 
that leads to meaning in the social setting (Brier 2015b). The statistical 
concept of Shannon (Shannon and Weaver 1963/1948) is the most famous objective 
concept but it was only a technical invention based on a mathematical concept 
of entropy, but never intended to encompass meaning.  Norbert Wiener (1963) 
combined the mathematics statistical with Boltzmann’s thermodynamically entropy 
concept and defined information as neg-entropy. Wiener then saw the statistical 
information’s entropy as a 

[Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

2016-04-01 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear FIS Colleagues,

I am attaching herein Soeren's presentation. If you have any trouble 
with the attachment, the file is in fis web pages too:


http://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/

By clicking on Soeren Brier's session (highlighted in red) you can 
immediately obtain it.


Nevertheless, below there is a selection of more general ideas from the 
paper. For those interested in FIS "archeology", Soeren presented in 
January 2004 a discussion session on Information, Autopoiesis, Life and 
Semiosis. It  can be found by scrolling in the same above link.


Best greetings--Pedro

-


 Infobiosemiotics


Søren Brier, CBS

This discussion aims at contributing to the definition of a universal 
concept of information covering objective as well as subjective 
experiential and intersubjective meaningful cognition and communication 
argued in more length in Brier (2015a). My take on the problem is that 
information is not primarily a technological term but a phenomenon that 
emerges from intersubjective meaningful sign based cognition and 
communication in living systems. The purpose of this discussion is to 
discuss a possible philosophical framework for an integral and more 
adequate concept of information uniting all isolated disciplines (Brier, 
2010, 2011, 2013a+b+c).


The attempts to create /objective concepts/ of information were good for 
technology (Brilliouin 1962) and the development of AI, but not able to 
develop theories that could include the /experiential (*subjective*) 
aspect/ of informing that leads to meaning in the social setting (Brier 
2015b). The statistical concept of Shannon (Shannon and Weaver 
1963/1948) is the most famous objective concept but it was only a 
technical invention based on a mathematical concept of entropy, but 
never intended to encompass meaning.Norbert Wiener (/1963) /combined the 
mathematics statistical with Boltzmann’s thermodynamically entropy 
concept and defined information as neg-entropy. Wiener then saw the 
statistical information’s entropy as a representation for mind and the 
thermodynamically entropy as representing matter. So he thought he had 
solved the mind matter problem through his and Schrödinger’s (1944/2012) 
definition of information as neg-entropy. The idea was developed further 
into an evolutionary and ecological framework by Gregory Bateson (1972, 
1979, 19827) resulting in an ecological cybernetic concept of mind as 
self-organized differences that made a difference for a cybernetically 
conceptualized mind (Brier 2008b). But this concepts that could not 
encompass meaning and experience of embodied living and social systems 
(Brier 2008a, 2010, 2011).


My main point is that from the present material, energetic or 
informational ontologies worldview we do not have any idea of how life, 
feeling, awareness and qualia could emerge from that foundation.


Ever since Russell and Whitehead’s attempt in Principia Mathematica to 
make a unified mathematical language for all sciences and logical 
positivism failed (Carnap, 1967 & Cartwright et.al. 1996),the strongest 
paradigm attempting in a new unification is now the info-computational 
formalism based on the mathematic calculus developed by Gregory Chaitin 
(2006 and 2007) ). The paradigm is only in its early beginning and is 
looking for a concept of natural computing (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2012) going 
beyond the Turing concept of computing. But even that still does not 
encompass the experiential feeling mind and the meaning orienting aspect 
of intersubjective communication wither be only sign or also language based.


So far there is no conclusive evidence to make us believe that the core 
of reality across nature, culture, life and mind is purely absolute 
mathematical law as Penrose (2004) seems to suggest or purely 
computational.Meaning is a way of making ‘sense’ of things for the 
individual in the world perceived. It is a non-mathematical existential 
feeling aspect of life related to reflection past, present and future of 
existence in the surrounding environment, in humans enhanced by 
language, writings, pictures, music through culture. In animals 
cognition and communication are connected to survival, procreation and 
pleasure. In humans beings cognition develops into consciousness through 
subjective experiential and meaning based (self-) reflection of the 
individual’s role in the external world and becomes an existential aspect.


My conclusion is therefore that a broader foundation is needed in order 
to understand the basis for information and communication in living 
systems. Therefore we need to include a phenomenological and 
hermeneutical ground in order to integrate a theory of 
interpretative//subjective/ and intersubjective meaning and 
signification with a theory of /objective/ information, which has a 
physical grounding (see for instance Plamen, Rosen & Gare 2015). Thus 
the question is how can we