Dear Sung et al.,
I appreciate human bias in terms of numerical scale, but I don’t think that is
what we actually achieve by using logarithms. If the universe of possibility
is fractal, using a logarithm does not eliminate the problem of large numbers.
I think the primary outcome achieved by
Joseph,
Thank you for this concise statement. It very closely matches my own
perspective. I would only add the notion that meaningfulness or
meaninglessness is not an inherent property of information. It is entirely
contingent upon the affect, or the absence of affect, of encountered
inform
Hi Krassimir,
Thanks for asking this important question. I’m curious to see how others might
answer it. For me, the “mental model” is a centralized system for information
processing that receives inputs from multiple sensory mechanisms and can induce
action as a consequence. In biology, this
biotic universe
populated with physico-chemical laws valid everywhere.
Another subject interesting to many of us
All the best
Christophe
De : Guy A Hoelzer mailto:hoel...@unr.edu>>
Envoyé : mardi 13 février 2018 18:18
À : Foundations of Informa
Hi All,
I want to pick on Christophe’s post to make a general plea about FIS posting.
This is not a comment on meaning generation by agents. Christophe wrote:
"Keeping in mind that communications exist only because agents need to manage
meanings for given purposes”.
This seems to imply that
Dear Gordana,
Thank you for describing this spectrum of system qualities that illuminate
varying degrees of agency. I think this is a very useful perspective. For
example, when I refer to ‘agency’ I do not mean to imply anything about the
ability to “choose” among options in the sense of cons
Best regards,
El oct 3, 2017 4:28 PM, "Guy A Hoelzer"
mailto:hoel...@unr.edu>> escribió:
Dear Krassimir et al.,
Your post provides an example of the importance that semantics plays in our
discussions. I have suggested on several occasions that statements about
‘informat
Dear Krassimir et al.,
Your post provides an example of the importance that semantics plays in our
discussions. I have suggested on several occasions that statements about
‘information’ should explicitly distinguish between a purely heuristic
definition, such as those involving ‘meaning’, and
I agree with Arturo. I understand information exclusively as matter and
energy, and the diversity of their states through space/time. What else it
there? The alternative would be to accept ‘information’ as merely an heuristic
concept that helps us to communicate and make sense of our lives wi
Greetings all,
It seems that the indigestion from competing definitions of ‘information’ is
hard to resolve, and I agree with Terry and others that a broad definition is
preferable. I also think it is not a problem to allow multiple definitions
that can be operationally adopted in appropriate
I suspect both of these positions might be correct, but they are focussing on
systems that exist on different spatial (and temporal?) scales. Living
systems, like individual organisms, participate as components of larger
systems, such as social and ecological systems. Not only do they particip
Hi All,
I have enjoyed reading the FIS posts over the past couple of weeks and it has
raised a very fundamental question for me. There has been lots of discussion
here over the years on questions that are at least tangential to my current
question, but I’m not sure it has been considered in qui
Hi Robert,
I haven’t read your book yet, but thanks for the link. You have certainly
thought through these issues much more deeply than I have and I appreciate your
perspective. I am trying to parse the meanings of your three fundamentals, so
please let me know if I am getting the main ideas
I personally consider metabolism to be at the core of what constitutes ‘life’,
so the notion of autopoeisis is very attractive to me. It is also possible
that the richness of life as we know it depends on having metabolisms
(activity), genomes (memory), and reproduction combined. The reduction
Hi All,
I have been following this thread with interest as much as time permits. I
think multilevel approaches to understanding information flow is an important
one. I also think the structure of natural systems exhibits both hierarchical
and heterarchical features. The hierarchies we formal
Hi Terry,
I have used the term ‘perception’ in referring to in-formation that affects
internal structure or dynamics. This would contrast with forms of potential
information that might pass through the system without being ‘perceived’. For
example, we have a finite number of mechanisms we cal
Hi Terry,
I have a question about your ‘PS’. I think of MEP as being constrained by
potentials and a limited set of material opportunities (the adjacent
possibilities). I think of it as a thermodynamic version of natural selection
in which some alternative states are thermodynamically favored
Hi All,
Like many here, I am very interested in the notion of neuroinformation and the
contrast between information as static pattern or temporal process. I want to
suggest a way to think of the static and process views of information as
identical concepts. I take the static view to be someth
Hi Loet,
I appreciate the rigor of your comments. I have some follow up responses
interspersed below.
On Oct 30, 2014, at 2:11 AM, Loet Leydesdorff
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The metaphors are sometimes confusing. For example:
Along the line of your argument, mean
Dear Bob et al.,
I take semiotics as the science of meaning, which I separate from the science
of information (information theory?). Along the line of your argument,
meaningfulness would be exclusive to dynamical systems where agency, purpose,
and self-interest have emerged. When such a syste
I have never understood the process of telomere shortening and this is a
tantalizing idea. What factor might drive the evolution of a bookkeeping
mechanism like telomere shortening in cells? I ask my question this way to
intentionally avoid the assumption that it must represent an adaptation
John,
I think you are misreading Stan’s comments a little. [Stan: please correct me
if I am wrong about that.] I think it would be fair to say that older car
engines were less well fit "between the energy gradient and the system
attempting to utilize it”. Another way of saying this is that
Dear Krassimir et al.,
I like your view very much with one exception. I think it confounds
information with meaning, which I think can lead to problems. For example, I
could give two people the same message written on your identical pieces of
paper. It is written in English, but only one of
I think of ‘collective intelligence’ as synonymous with collective ‘information
processing’. I would not test for its existence by asking if group-level
action is smart or adaptive, nor do I think it is relevant to ask whether
‘collective intelligence’ informed or misinformed individuals. I wo
Greetings All,
While I like to think that I am not limited to reductionistic thinking, I find
it difficult to understand any perspective on information that is not limited
to physical manifestation. I would appreciate further justification for a
non-physicalist perspective on information. How
For what it is worth, I view theory as even more central to science than the
other posts suggest. As I see it, data (observations of any kind) have no
meaning whatsoever without a theoretical framework to place them in. For me,
then, the only point of empirical science is to test, refine or re
Hi All,
I agree with those who are suggesting that Information Science makes sense
as a widely useful way to think about different scientific disciplines
even if we don't have a strong consensus on how to define 'information'.
I think there is enough coherence among views of 'information' to under
Hi Gavin,
I am having trouble following your implicit argument about "meaning information
theory". I do understand your complaint about "evidence, tests, corroboration
and corresponding logic and mathematics", although I'm not sure I agree that
things are so bleak. The 'implicit' part I detec
This is an interesting question. What is the meaning of meaning? I would
define as something like "the affects of perception on a perceiving system".
Once a system has been affected it might change its behavior, but I would
hesitate to equate a behavioral response directly to the meaning of a
per
ole "thing" .
> Friendly regards
> Krassimir
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Guy A Hoelzer
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 7:08 PM
> To: Foundations of Information Science Information Science
> Cc: Mark Burgin
> Subject: Re: [Fis] ON INFORMATION THEOR
Hi Mark,
The only part that I take exception to is at the end of your colophon.
Specifically, I disagree with the statement “it is evident that to consider
that everything IS information is unreasonable and contradicts principles of
science.” I see contrast, or difference, as fundamental to t
Hi Gavin,
I’m not quite sure how to respond as you didn’t ask a particular question.
Here are my thoughts about your points.
Waves are indeed about energy, which I think fits nicely into the scheme I
described regarding information. I suggested a very simple definition of
information as a co
Greetings All,
I want to second Joseph’s claim that something may be transferred as
information, even if Stan’s “stuff” itself is not transferred. Waves, for
example, can often pass from one medium into another without a concomitant
transfer of stuff, and the form of the wave may be changed wh
the
> most difficult and consequential point --besides, it directly militates
> against the God's view we attribute to scientific observer... we already
> discussed a little bit about this in Beijing!
>
> best wishes
>
> ---Pedro
>
>
> Guy A Hoelzer escr
Pedro et al.,
My previous cautionary post did not get much traction in this thread, but I
still think my point was an important one to ensure that we are all talking
about the same thing. My point was that “intelligence” in inherently
subjective (in the eye of the beholder), unless we can agre
Greetings All,
I am an evolutionary biologist with particular interest in communication and
behavior, so I approach the notion of intelligence from a different
perspective than I have seen so far in this discussion. A recurrent theme
in many of the FIS posts has been "what, if anything, is inform
Hi All,
I appreciate this topic and discussion. I find myself in strong agreement
with the basic point made by Stan and Bob. Not all fluctuations penetrate
upwardly across levels of functional organization. Structural resonance in
the organization at some level makes it sensitive to certain kin
ion.
Regards,
Guy
--
Dr. Guy A. Hoelzer
Department of Biology, MS 314
University of Nevada Reno
Reno, NV 89557
On 9/29/10 3:38 AM, "Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez"
wrote:
(herewith a very interesting text received off-line from a newcomer to
Robin,
You described very nicely the most fundamental way I like to think of semantics
(the meaning of information; I hope I am using this term properly). I would
emphasize that for me the "effect on the system" is a strictly internal
cascade. For example, if I perceive new information as rev
Hi Joseph,
This is an interesting topic having to do specifically with the way humans
process and weigh the validity of socially transmitted information. I would
like to add "entry order effects" to the positive/negative bias you describe.
I personally view cognition as a process that generat
Hi Michel,
You are correct about the use and concept of information in English.
General use of the term "information" refers to a fuzzy concept that is
continuously distributed from none to much, so the plural form
"informations" feels incorrect. Of course, in scientific discourses the
term has b
Hi Robin (and other FISers),
I hope this isn't just being picky.
I would argue that both booms and busts are driven by positive feedback.
Buying begets more buying in one instance and selling begets selling in the
other. Negative feedback tends to stabilize the dynamics of a system.
Regards,
G
Testing.
Guy Hoelzer
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez wrote:
finally the Computing Center here has established a solution for the false
spam cases of our list. In principle, the four addresses of the heading
(the last "spam" cases) have been granted unconditional access t
there being no orderliness, by this definition, is
> that natural laws are not universal and there is no primitive nature
> from which to derive them.
>
> With respect,
> Steven
>
> On May 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
>
>> Greetings all,
>>
>>
Greetings all,
I, too, like the seed of this new discussion; although I recommend slight
modifications of the question. Frankly, I think it is undeniable that there
is a degree of orderliness, and a degree of disorder, in Nature. I also
think we would all agree that Nature constantly constructs
Dear Giuseppe et al.,
I find the issues of meaning and interpretation very interesting, but I
think this FIS discussion needs to find some common ground if we are to get
anywhere. For example, Giuseppe wrote:
" There is no "purely physical" status of information, since a physical
structure yield
Bob,
If the notions of Entropy and Shannon Information are alternative approaches
to characterize the same phenomenon in Nature, then the ways they have been
modeled would not necessarily reveal an underlying and fundamental
commonality. I think that many of us suspect that this is the case and w
Greetings All,
In my view meaning¹ exists (or not) exclusively within systems. It exists
to the extent that inputs (incoming information) resonate within the
structure of the system. The resonance can either reinforce the existing
architecture (confirmation), destabilize it (e.g., cognitive
dis
Greetings,
I agree with Loet and Pedro that it seems important to distinguish between
environmental constraints (including material constraints emanating from the
qualities of components of a system) and self-imposed limitations associated
with the particular path taken as a dynamical system unfol
Stan,
Aren't all constraints a form of information? I see constraints as informing
the bounds of the adjacent possible and adjacent probable. If this is correct,
then it would seem to render the economy as "almosst pure information". In
fact, I think it would render all emergent systems as p
Greetings All,
I have a different take on the limits of complexity, and perhaps the process
of complexification, based on the Prigogine paradigm of dissipative systems.
>From this point of view, I would argue that the extent of complexification
that can be physically supported by a system depends
Dear Pedro and colleagues,
I want to respond only to the first paragraph of your recent post.
on 12/15/06 3:11 AM, Pedro Marijuan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> I disagree with the comments by Steven and Stan on the nature of
> complexity. How can one substantiate and qu
Dear Arne,
I count myself as a realist and, to paraphrase your statement, I see any
reason in what you wrote to convert me. Your points about limitations and
biases of the mind regarding our understanding of reality are good ones, and
I think it is important for realists to keep these cautions in
Fri 10/27/2006 1:47 AM
To: Guy A Hoelzer; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Laws of physics do NOT apply in biology
Hi Guy A Hoelzer,
the laws of Newton do not apply in biology. Or, have you ever seen a biologic
body that remains in an idle state or keeps its linear mov
Hi Bob,
I doubt we disagree in substance here, but I would take issue with the
statement that "there are no laws for biology in the same sense as the laws
of physics", because I think the laws of physics apply in all realms. In
other words, the laws of physics are not limited to physics in an
exc
55 matches
Mail list logo
