Re: [Fis] Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?

2017-10-22 Thread John Grisinger

FIS Colleagues:

I offer an alternative view of the Barber’s Paradox.  The term: barber 
does not refer to a person per se.  Rather it refers to a relationship 
between two persons, one of whom, when shaving another,  has the role: 
barber.  By extension, a barber is a person who provides that service.   
When I provide shaving services to others, I am a barber; when I shave 
myself, I am not a barber.  The paradox arises from not recognizing that 
persons and roles are different entities.  With the following 
rephrasing, there is no paradox.


        Bob, being the only barber in town, shaves all and only those 
men who do not shave themselves.


Changing the subject from a service-provider role to a person makes it 
is clear that Bob is one of the men who shaves himself. 



John Grisinger


On 10/22/2017 6:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Dear Krassimir and FIS Colleagues,

It is time for my second post this week.

First of all I am glad to participate in such very interesting 
discussion!


Thank you for the nice posts.

More than 25 years ago, working on the new theory, I had to solve the
problem with concept of entity which has information activity. There 
were

many candidates for such concept: “robot”, “agent”, “intelligent agent”,
“interpreter”, “subject”, “information subject”, “intelligent subject”,
etc. Every such concept had its own history and many domains of meanings
which caused many misunderstandings.
In the same time, if one had a single meaning then it couldn’t be 
applied

to all entities with information activity. For instance, concept “robot”
is not good to be used for a human.

Because of this, we had proposed a new word: “INFOS”, which had no 
meaning

in advance and may be defined freely without misunderstandings. I shall
use it in my further posts.

I do not want to define it now. Step by step its meaning will arise from
what I shall write. In many discussions till now, I had seen that this
approach is the best way to introduce a new concept.

***

I want specially to thank Bruno for his post from 18.10.2017 about
“Self-reference”!


Thank you.



For me, it is very important it to be analyzed. I shall do this on the
basis of an example.

Not all kinds of self-reference concern information activity and Infos.
But, if at least one case exists, then we have to analyze it.

Such case, for instance, is the Barber paradox: A barber (who is a man)
shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave
himself?

This paradox exists only in “3D” mathematical world based on triad
(x, y, f)
or, in other writings: (x, f, y), y=f(x), etc.
(there are several nice publications of Mark Burgin about triads !).

I.e. paradox exists only if we ignore the fact that the Barber is a 
human.


The paradox could not exist in the “4D” world of informatics where we 
have

quadruple (x, y, f, I) or, in other words, for Infos “I”, “y” is
information about “x” because of evidence “f”.

What is happen when the Barber shaves someone?

At the first place, it is a direct collecting, by eyes, the data 
about the

place where the razor has to be put to shave.

Have you ever seen a Blind barber?

NO! OK, this is a fundamental condition.

Not only Barber, but every human COULD NOT DIRECTLY COLLECT DATA about
his/her face, head, or back.

In another case, for instance, we have to have eye on the end of the 
nose

which has to be as long as the elephant trunk!

This means: the barber cannot shave himself because he could not see 
where

to put the razor!

But every man can shave his beard! How he can do it?
Of course, everyone will say, by using a mirror!

But this is NOT DIRECT REFLECTION (data collecting).
It is TRANSITIVE SELF-REFLECTION via mirror!

Who does the barber shave: himself or the man in the mirror?

Of course, the second!!! Barber puts the razor on his own beard and this
way he shaves the man in the mirror.

The Barber paradox does not exist if we take in account that the 
barber is

a human (a kind of Infos) and needs data.

So, the answer of the question “Does he shave himself?“ is NO!, he
doesn’t, he shaves the man in the mirror who do not shave himself 
because

the razor is in the hand of barber and no paradox exists.

Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?



Hmm... Let say a village exists where the barber shaves all and only 
men who does not shave themselves (nor beard in that village!).


Then we have the logical paradox. If he does not shave himself he has 
to shave himself, by definition, and if he shaves himself, he shaves 
someone shaving himself, which he can't do.


The solution of the paradox is simple: there is no such village. (we 
cannot solve so easily the paradox of the set of all set which do not 
belong to themselves, though).


The idea of adding a "time parameter" is good though, and that is what 
make the notion of enumeration of all partal computable functions 
possible, but with the price that the one everywhere defined will be 
sparsed in an 

Re: [Fis] TR: What is ³Agent²?

2017-10-22 Thread Stanley N Salthe
Christophe --

Regarding:

>Social institutions clearly have final causes (a long and complex list..)
but associating agency and teleology to elementary particles may be
problematic as it introduces final causes in a material universe. This
looks close to an "intelligent design" option that we prefer to avoid.

Final cause (teleology) is an issue separate from agency. I believe that in
the context of the Big Bang theory, and given the constitutive low energy
efficiency of all work, the Second Law of thermodynamics can be viewed as a
final cause of all energy usage whatever.

STAN

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Christophe Menant <
christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> wrote:

>
> Dear Gordana,
>
> Your proposal for elementary particles and social institutions as two
> limit cases for agency is interesting as it also positions limit cases for
> normative/teleological properties
>
> highlighted as implicit parts of agency by Terry. And it brings in
> perspectives on your subject.
> Social institutions clearly have final causes (a long and complex list..)
> but associating agency and teleology to elementary particles may be
> problematic as it introduces final causes in a material universe. This
> looks close to an "intelligent design" option that we prefer to avoid.
> Why not introduce  a possible "trend to increasing complexity" (TIC) in
> our universe, with steps since the big bang:
> energy => elementary particles=> atoms=>molecules=>
> life=>humans=> (perhaps pan-computationalism has a say there?).
> Agency and normative/teleological properties can then be looked at
> as emerging during the TIC at the molecules=>life transition (Terry's
> morphodynamics).
> Rather than being  a limit case for agency,  elementary particles are then
> part of the thread leading to teleology/agency via the TIC.
> How would you feel about such wording?
> Best
> Christophe
>
>
>
> --
> *De :* Fis  de la part de Gordana
> Dodig-Crnkovic 
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 20 octobre 2017 11:02
> *À :* Terrence W. DEACON; 'Bob Logan'; l...@leydesdorff.net; 'fis'
> *Objet :* Re: [Fis] What is ³Agent²?
>
>
> Dear Terry, Bob, Loet
>
> Thank you for sharing those important thoughts about possible choices for
> the definition of agency.
>
> I would like to add one more perspective that I find in Pedro’s article
> which makes a distinction between matter-energy aspects and informational
> aspects of the same physical reality. I believe that on the fundamental
> level of information physics we have a good ND simplest example how those
> two entangled aspects can be formally framed.
> As far as I can tell, Terrys definition covers chemical and biological
> agency.
> Do we want to include apart from fundamental physics also full cognitive
> and social agency which are very much dominated by informational aspects
> (symbols and language)?
> Obviously there is no information without physical implementation, but
> when we think about epistemology and the ways we know the world, for us and
> other biological agents *there is no physical interaction without
> informational aspects*.
> Can we somehow think in terms those two faces of agency?
> Without matter/energy nothing will happen, nothing can act in the world
> but that which happens and anyone registers it, has informational side to
> it.
> For human agency (given that matter/energy side is functioning)
> information is what to a high degree drives agency.
>
> Do you think this would be a fruitful path to pursue, with “agency” of
> elementary particles and agency of social institutions as two limit cases?
>
> All the best,
> Gordana
>
>
>
> __
> Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> Chalmers University of Technology
> School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
> http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
> 
> Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
> www.mrtc.mdh.se
> GORDANA DODIG-CRNKOVIC Professor of Computer Science.
> gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se. Mobile
> MDH: +46 73 662 05 11 <+46%2073%20662%2005%2011>
>
> General Chair of is4si summit 2017
> http://is4si-2017.org
> 
> IS4SI-2017 - International Society for Information Studies
> 
> is4si-2017.org
> IS4SI-2017 Summit - International Society for Information Studies -
> DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY Embodied, Embedded, Networked,
> Empowered...
>
>
>
> From: Fis  on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff <
> l...@leydesdorff.net>
> Organization: University of Amsterdam
> Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net" 
> Date: Friday, 20 October 2017 at 08:40
> To: 'Bob Logan' , 'fis' 
> Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
>
> Dear 

[Fis] TR: What is “Agent”?

2017-10-22 Thread Christophe Menant


Yes Stan,
the Moreno-Mossio book is an interesting and recent treatment of autonomy but, 
as the title indicates, it is focused on biological autonomy.
FYI there is also a 2009 paper by Barandiaran & all (some from the Moreno IAS  
team) that addresses agency and autonomy in a different way, allowing to 
consider artificial agents:  "Defining Agency individuality, normativity, 
asymmetry and spatiotemporality in action". The paper is available at:
 
https://xabierbarandiaran.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/barandiaran_dipaolo_rohde_-_defining_agency_v_1_0_-_jab_20091.pdf

Best
Christophe



De : Fis  de la part de Stanley N Salthe 

Envoyé : jeudi 19 octobre 2017 21:47
À : Terrence W. DEACON; fis
Objet : Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

Here is an interesting recent treatment of autonomy.


Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio: Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical

and Theoretical Enquiry (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences 
12);

Springer, Dordrecht, 2015, xxxiv + 221 pp., $129 hbk, ISBN 978-94-017-9836-5


STAN

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Terrence W. DEACON 
> wrote:

AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT IS A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM ORGANIZED TO BE CAPABLE OF INITIATING 
PHYSICAL WORK TO FURTHER PRESERVE THIS SAME CAPACITY IN THE CONTEXT OF  
INCESSANT EXTRINSIC AND/OR INTRINSIC TENDENCIES FOR THIS SYSTEM CAPACITY TO 
DEGRADE.


THIS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE WORK THAT IS SPECIFICALLY CONTRAGRADE TO 
THE FORM OF THIS DEGRADATIONAL INFLUENCE, AND THUS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO BE 
INFORMED BY THE EFFECTS OF THAT INFLUENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENT’S CRITICAL 
ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Koichiro Matsuno 
> wrote:
On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:

the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe.

   This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem (2006). If 
(a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise their free 
will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and molecules lack their 
share of the similar capacity. For our bodies eventually consist of those atoms 
and molecules.

   Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent atoms and 
molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob Ulanowicz at long 
last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case would have to 
forcibly be dismissed.

   This has been my second post this week.

   Koichiro Matsuno



From: Fis 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Alex Hankey
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42 AM
To: Arthur Wist >; FIS 
Webinar >
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they are as 
fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass.

Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those emphasized by 
complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be non-reducible and 
fundamental to our universe.

Alex



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




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

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


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


Re: [Fis] Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?

2017-10-22 Thread Bruno Marchal


Dear Krassimir and FIS Colleagues,





It is time for my second post this week.

First of all I am glad to participate in such very interesting  
discussion!


Thank you for the nice posts.

More than 25 years ago, working on the new theory, I had to solve the
problem with concept of entity which has information activity. There  
were
many candidates for such concept: “robot”, “agent”, “intelligent  
agent”,
“interpreter”, “subject”, “information subject”, “intelligent  
subject”,
etc. Every such concept had its own history and many domains of  
meanings

which caused many misunderstandings.
In the same time, if one had a single meaning then it couldn’t be  
applied
to all entities with information activity. For instance, concept  
“robot”

is not good to be used for a human.

Because of this, we had proposed a new word: “INFOS”, which had no  
meaning
in advance and may be defined freely without misunderstandings. I  
shall

use it in my further posts.

I do not want to define it now. Step by step its meaning will arise  
from

what I shall write. In many discussions till now, I had seen that this
approach is the best way to introduce a new concept.

***

I want specially to thank Bruno for his post from 18.10.2017 about
“Self-reference”!


Thank you.





For me, it is very important it to be analyzed. I shall do this on the
basis of an example.

Not all kinds of self-reference concern information activity and  
Infos.

But, if at least one case exists, then we have to analyze it.

Such case, for instance, is the Barber paradox: A barber (who is a  
man)
shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he  
shave

himself?

This paradox exists only in “3D” mathematical world based on triad
(x, y, f)
or, in other writings: (x, f, y), y=f(x), etc.
(there are several nice publications of Mark Burgin about triads !).

I.e. paradox exists only if we ignore the fact that the Barber is a  
human.


The paradox could not exist in the “4D” world of informatics where  
we have

quadruple (x, y, f, I) or, in other words, for Infos “I”, “y” is
information about “x” because of evidence “f”.

What is happen when the Barber shaves someone?

At the first place, it is a direct collecting, by eyes, the data  
about the

place where the razor has to be put to shave.

Have you ever seen a Blind barber?

NO! OK, this is a fundamental condition.

Not only Barber, but every human COULD NOT DIRECTLY COLLECT DATA about
his/her face, head, or back.

In another case, for instance, we have to have eye on the end of the  
nose

which has to be as long as the elephant trunk!

This means: the barber cannot shave himself because he could not see  
where

to put the razor!

But every man can shave his beard! How he can do it?
Of course, everyone will say, by using a mirror!

But this is NOT DIRECT REFLECTION (data collecting).
It is TRANSITIVE SELF-REFLECTION via mirror!

Who does the barber shave: himself or the man in the mirror?

Of course, the second!!! Barber puts the razor on his own beard and  
this

way he shaves the man in the mirror.

The Barber paradox does not exist if we take in account that the  
barber is

a human (a kind of Infos) and needs data.

So, the answer of the question “Does he shave himself?“ is NO!, he
doesn’t, he shaves the man in the mirror who do not shave himself  
because

the razor is in the hand of barber and no paradox exists.

Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?



Hmm... Let say a village exists where the barber shaves all and only  
men who does not shave themselves (nor beard in that village!).


Then we have the logical paradox. If he does not shave himself he has  
to shave himself, by definition, and if he shaves himself, he shaves  
someone shaving himself, which he can't do.


The solution of the paradox is simple: there is no such village. (we  
cannot solve so easily the paradox of the set of all set which do not  
belong to themselves, though).


The idea of adding a "time parameter" is good though, and that is what  
make the notion of enumeration of all partal computable functions  
possible, but with the price that the one everywhere defined will be  
sparsed in an non computable way, leading to incompleteness and  
intrinsic ignorance.


Yet, if we cannot build a machine comprehending its own semantics, we  
can build a machine referring to any of its parts, including the whole  
part of itself, by the use of the second recursion theorem of Kleene,  
or Gödel self-reference.
The basic idea is elementary: you apply a duplicator to its self  
description (in some universal machinery). If D'x' = 'x'x'', D'D'  
gives 'D'D'' (with a reasonable notion of quoting). Similarly if D'x'  
gives T('x'x''), D'D' gives T applied to itself T('D'D'').  With the  
term "human", you might have added a piece of non 3p communicable  
insight, in which case you were referring, I guess, partially at  
least, to the non nameable first person transported by that 3p self.  
(in 

[Fis] TR: What is ³Agent²?

2017-10-22 Thread Christophe Menant

Dear Gordana,
Your proposal for elementary particles and social institutions as two limit 
cases for agency is interesting as it also positions limit cases for 
normative/teleological properties
highlighted as implicit parts of agency by Terry. And it brings in perspectives 
on your subject.
Social institutions clearly have final causes (a long and complex list..) but 
associating agency and teleology to elementary particles may be problematic as 
it introduces final causes in a material universe. This looks close to an 
"intelligent design" option that we prefer to avoid.
Why not introduce  a possible "trend to increasing complexity" (TIC) in our 
universe, with steps since the big bang:
energy => elementary particles=> atoms=>molecules=> life=>humans=> (perhaps 
pan-computationalism has a say there?).
Agency and normative/teleological properties can then be looked at as emerging 
during the TIC at the molecules=>life transition (Terry's morphodynamics).
Rather than being  a limit case for agency,  elementary particles are then part 
of the thread leading to teleology/agency via the TIC.
How would you feel about such wording?
Best
Christophe




De : Fis  de la part de Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 

Envoyé : vendredi 20 octobre 2017 11:02
À : Terrence W. DEACON; 'Bob Logan'; l...@leydesdorff.net; 'fis'
Objet : Re: [Fis] What is ³Agent²?


Dear Terry, Bob, Loet

Thank you for sharing those important thoughts about possible choices for the 
definition of agency.

I would like to add one more perspective that I find in Pedro’s article which 
makes a distinction between matter-energy aspects and informational aspects of 
the same physical reality. I believe that on the fundamental level of 
information physics we have a good ND simplest example how those two entangled 
aspects can be formally framed.
As far as I can tell, Terrys definition covers chemical and biological agency.
Do we want to include apart from fundamental physics also full cognitive and 
social agency which are very much dominated by informational aspects (symbols 
and language)?
Obviously there is no information without physical implementation, but when we 
think about epistemology and the ways we know the world, for us and other 
biological agents there is no physical interaction without informational 
aspects.
Can we somehow think in terms those two faces of agency?
Without matter/energy nothing will happen, nothing can act in the world but 
that which happens and anyone registers it, has informational side to it.
For human agency (given that matter/energy side is functioning) information is 
what to a high degree drives agency.

Do you think this would be a fruitful path to pursue, with “agency” of 
elementary particles and agency of social institutions as two limit cases?

All the best,
Gordana



__
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
[http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/IMG_1101-20150801-G.jpg]

Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
www.mrtc.mdh.se
GORDANA DODIG-CRNKOVIC Professor of Computer Science. 
gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se. Mobile MDH: 
+46 73 662 05 11


General Chair of is4si summit 2017
http://is4si-2017.org
[http://media.is4si-2017.org/2016/06/IS4SI-2017-2.jpg]

IS4SI-2017 - International Society for Information 
Studies
is4si-2017.org
IS4SI-2017 Summit - International Society for Information Studies - 
DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY Embodied, Embedded, Networked, 
Empowered...




From: Fis > 
on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
>
Organization: University of Amsterdam
Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net" 
>
Date: Friday, 20 October 2017 at 08:40
To: 'Bob Logan' >, 
'fis' >
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

Dear Bob and colleagues,

I agree with the choice element. From a sociological perspective, agency is 
usually defined in relation to structure. For example, in terms of 
structure/actor contingencies. The structures provide the background that bind 
us. Remarkably, Mark, we no longer define these communalities philosophically, 
but sociologically (e.g., Merton, 1942, about the institutional norms of 
science). An interesting extension is that we nowadays not only perceive 
communality is our biological origins (as species), but also in terms of