Re: [Fis] Season Greetings / Merry Christmas

2017-12-24 Thread HowlBloom

may all of us information theory enthusiasts have a merry xmas and a new  
year of health, wealth, and insight.
 
with warmth and oomph--howard
 
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
author of : The  Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History  ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), Global Brain: The 
Evolution of Mass Mind  from the Big Bang to the 21st Century  ("reassuring and 
sobering"-The New  Yorker), The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of 
Capitalism  ("Impressive, stimulating, and tremendously enjoyable."James 
Fallows, National  Correspondent, The Atlantic), The God Problem: How A Godless 
Cosmos Creates  ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I  Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a monumental,epic, glorious 
literary  achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The Muhammad Code:  How a Desert 
Prophet  Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram--or How Muhammad Invented 
Jihad (
“a  terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam,” David Swindle, PJ  
Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting  Scholar
—Graduate Psychology Department, NewYork University
co-founder: and  chair, Asian Space Technology Summit; founder 
International Paleopsychology  Project; founder and chair, Space Development 
Steering 
Committee; Founding Board  Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board 
Member, The Darwin Project;  Board Of Governors, National Space Society; 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media  Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, 
American Association for the  Advancement of Science, American Psychological 
Society, Academy of Political  Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 
International Society for Human  Ethology,  Scientific Advisory Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation. Editorial  board member, Journal of Space 
Philosophy. International Advisory Board Member,  Knowledge 
Futures:Interdisciplinary 
Journal of Futures Studies.  

 
In a message dated 12/23/2017 10:58:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
m...@aiu.ac.jp writes:

Dear  Pedro and Colleagues,
Merry Christmas and a Happy New  Year!
Marcin

Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D.
Professor & Dean of  Academic Affairs
Akita International University
Akita,  Japan
m...@aiu.ac.jp
Editor-in-Chief
Philosophies  (MDPI-Basel-Switzerland)
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/philosophies  


 


From: "Pedro C. Marijuan"  
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017  05:58:21
To: "'fis'" 
Subject:  [Fis] Season Greetings / Merry Christmas


Dear FIS  Colleagues,

Herewith the customary Christmas scene at El Pilar Basilica  of Zaragoza.
It is a really beautiful place that you should visit... I  promise not to 
be a bad amphitryon ;)

As for the next sessions, we will  have the traditional New Year Lecture, 
and then another two sessions on  data-driven science and on combinatorial 
logics in biological information. 

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New  Year!

All the best--Pedro


_
-- 

-

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.iacs@aragon.es_ (mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es) 

http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/

-


 

___ 
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


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


Re: [Fis] mind-mind

2017-11-01 Thread HowlBloom

mind to mind experiments have been done in the field of  brain-machine 
interface since 2014.
 
see: 
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/11/05/uw-study-shows-direct-brain-interface-between-humans/
 
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
author of : The  Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History  ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), Global Brain: The 
Evolution of Mass Mind  from the Big Bang to the 21st Century  ("reassuring and 
sobering"-The New  Yorker), The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of 
Capitalism  ("Impressive, stimulating, and tremendously enjoyable."James 
Fallows, National  Correspondent, The Atlantic), The God Problem: How A Godless 
Cosmos Creates  ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I  Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a monumental,epic, glorious 
literary  achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The Muhammad Code:  How a Desert 
Prophet  Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram--or How Muhammad Invented 
Jihad (
“a  terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam,” David Swindle, PJ  
Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting  Scholar
—Graduate Psychology Department, NewYork University
co-founder: and  chair, Asian Space Technology Summit; founder 
International Paleopsychology  Project; founder and chair, Space Development 
Steering 
Committee; Founding Board  Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board 
Member, The Darwin Project;  Board Of Governors, National Space Society; 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media  Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, 
American Association for the  Advancement of Science, American Psychological 
Society, Academy of Political  Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 
International Society for Human  Ethology,  Scientific Advisory Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation. Editorial  board member, Journal of Space 
Philosophy. International Advisory Board Member,  Knowledge 
Futures:Interdisciplinary 
Journal of Futures Studies.  

 
In a message dated 11/1/2017 8:13:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
mar...@foibg.com writes:

Dear  Alex and FIS Colleagues,

Thank you for the nice remark.

I had  listen about such hypothesis but till now I had no participate in
any  experiment of transferring ideas mind-mind. Maybe you had taken place
in  such experiments. Please, give link to publications in scientific
issues  about this very interesting phenomenon.

Simple question: If it is  possible to transfer ideas mind-mind, why you
use FIS List to send your  ideas to us?

Friendly greetings
Krassimir

PS: Unfortunately,  this is my second post for this week and I please to
excuse me for  answering the next posts after week.



From: Alex Hankey
Sent:  Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:21 PM
To: Krassimir Markov
Cc: FIS  Webinar
Subject: Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles

RE: P1. Information  is information, neither matter nor energy.

M1. Information is a class  of reflections in material entities. Not every
reflection is information.  Only subjectively comprehended reflections are
information.


ME:  Ideas can be transmitted directly from Mind to Mind - as in  Rupert
Sheldrake's 7th Sense Communication.
Lots of Quantitative  Evidence that Materialists Prefer to Ignore.


The Experience  Information model of the Cognitive States shows that such
Information  States Are Not Material Entities.
They are based round instabilities in  Networks of Neurons.


The ability to model Seventh Sense  Communication means that this
phenomenon becomes one of
Four Separate  Ways to Generate Empirical Evidence in support of them.


Hence  Information is Not Matter or Energy.


This is but one example of how  Principles 1 to 5 can be  supported.



___
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] Further Discussion . . .

2017-02-14 Thread HowlBloom

brilliant summation, Pedro.
 
we are missing the metaphors with which to explain the difference between  
death and life or between smart communities like bacterial colonies and  
consciousness.
 
in The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates, i tell the tale of the  
origin of the term "emergent property."  But, alas, over 140  years after the 
concept's introduction, we still lack the tools that would  help us 
understand life and consciousness in scientific ways.
 
i suspect the key will come from adding to the bottom  up vocabulary  of 
reductionism by looking at top down  approaches.  and i suspect that certain 
emergent properties are  possibilities of the cosmos waiting for matter to 
find them.  very a la  wagner in his Arrival of the Fittest.
 
but if emergent properties exist in an implicit future, in possibility  
space, how did they get there?  a hint:  god is not the answer.   god is a way 
of dodging the question.
 
i've hit all these issues in The God Problem.  and i ache for the new  
metaphors.
 
with warmth and oomph--howard
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
author of : The  Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History  ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), Global Brain: The 
Evolution of Mass Mind  from the Big Bang to the 21st Century  ("reassuring and 
sobering"-The New  Yorker), The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of 
Capitalism  ("Impressive, stimulating, and tremendously enjoyable."James 
Fallows, National  Correspondent, The Atlantic), The God Problem: How A Godless 
Cosmos Creates  ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I  Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a monumental,epic, glorious 
literary  achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The Muhammad Code:  How a Desert 
Prophet  Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram--or How Muhammad Invented 
Jihad (
“a  terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam,” David Swindle, PJ  
Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting  Scholar
—Graduate Psychology Department, NewYork University
Founder:  International PaleopsychologyProject; founder and chair, Space 
Development  Steering Committee; Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution 
Society; Founding  Board Member, The Darwin Project; Board Of Governors, 
National Space Society;  Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New 
York 
Academy of  Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
American  Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior 
and  Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology,  Scientific 
 Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation.  

 
In a message dated 2/13/2017 10:32:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:

Dear Howard,

In any extent, your beautiful  questions are beyond my reach. I think that 
the physical characterization of  life cannot even provide a whim on your 
demands; but something of the  informational might provide some limited 
inroads: prokaryots could not achieve  any significant progress in 
morphological 
or differentiation capabilities  within their "colonies". Conversely, 
eukaryotes developed multicellularity due  to their far higher information 
content 
(genome), their far improved signaling  resources, their endless energy 
supply in support of the general combinatoric  problem-solving tools 
(mitochondria), and the incorporation of a new locus  (cytoskeleton) capable of 
feeling 
the force field and reacting to it. A chain  of amazing inventions is 
behind any of the existing branches of complex  life... can do they admit a 
general explanation, not just based on natural  selection, but on the improved 
evolvability that has been obtained by being  able to explore any 
molecular-recognition contraption (within partially  collapsed solution 
state-spaces, a 
la Wagner?). Otherwise we are lead to admit  a deep enigma, still uncharted, 
or to look for external "intelligence"  solutions outside the limits of 
current scientific paradigms.

What is  your own opinion??

Best wishes--Pedro

El 09/02/2017  a las 22:44, _HowlBloom@aol.com_ (mailto:howlbl...@aol.com)  
escribió:



fascinating thinking, pedro.
 
it triggers this:
 
 
The stages of development  are far more than real-world problem solvers.  
They set artificial challenges, then  achieve them.  Making a  caterpillar 
that works is an   enormously complex challenge.   Making a working butterfly 
is also immensely more complex than any  simple challenge mounted by the 
environment.  Changing from caterpillar to  butterfly in one lifetime is 
unachievable beyond all belief.  And these grotesquely artificial  goals can’t 
be 
accounted for by a simple goal of survival.  The goal, if anything, seems to 
be  to accomplish the ornate, the unnecessary, the flamboyant, and the  
impossible.  How does a drive  toward impossible flamboyance get built into  
life?  How does  it get built into the  cosmos?
with warmth 

Re: [Fis] Further Discussion . . .

2017-02-09 Thread HowlBloom

fascinating thinking, pedro.
 
it triggers this:
 
 
The stages of development are  far more than real-world problem solvers.  
They set artificial challenges, then achieve them.  Making a caterpillar that 
works is  an  enormously complex  challenge.  Making a working  butterfly 
is also immensely more complex than any simple challenge mounted by  the 
environment.  Changing from  caterpillar to butterfly in one lifetime is 
unachievable beyond all belief.  And these grotesquely artificial goals  can’t 
be 
accounted for by a simple goal of survival.  The goal, if anything, seems to 
be to  accomplish the ornate, the unnecessary, the flamboyant, and the 
impossible.  How does a drive toward impossible  flamboyance get built into  
life?  How does  it get built into the  cosmos?
with warmth and oomph--howard
--
Howard  Bloom
Howardbloom.net
author of : The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific  Expedition Into the Forces 
of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post),  Global Brain: The 
Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st  Century  ("reassuring and 
sobering"-The New Yorker), The Genius of the  Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of 
Capitalism ("Impressive, stimulating, and  tremendously enjoyable."James 
Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic),  The God Problem: How A Godless 
Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock your  world." Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a  monumental,epic, glorious 
literary achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The  Muhammad Code:  How a Desert 
Prophet Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko  Haram--or How Muhammad Invented 
Jihad (
“a terrifying book…the best book I’ve  read on Islam,” David Swindle, PJ 
Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The  Graduate Institute; Former Visiting Scholar
—Graduate Psychology Department,  NewYork University
Founder: International PaleopsychologyProject; founder and  chair, Space 
Development Steering Committee; Founding Board Member: Epic of  Evolution 
Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project; Board Of  Governors, 
National Space Society; Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media  Lab; member: New 
York 
Academy of Sciences, American Association for the  Advancement of Science, 
American Psychological Society, Academy of Political  Science, Human Behavior 
and Evolution Society, International Society for Human  Ethology,  Scientific 
Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation.  

 
In a message dated 2/9/2017 3:22:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:

Dear Marcus and Colleagues,

Thanks for your  interest. The Chengdu's Conference represented for me an 
occasion to return to  my beginnings, in the 80's, when I prepared a PhD 
Thesis: "Natural  Intelligence: On the evolution of biological information 
processing". It was  mostly following a top down approach. But in some of the 
discussions outdoors  of the conference (a suggestion for the next one in 
Shanghai: plenary  discussion sessions should also be organized) I realized 
that 
biomolecular  things have changed quite a lot. One could go nowadays the 
other way around:  from the molecular-informational organization of cellular 
life, to  intelligence of the cell's behavior withing the environment. The 
life cycle es  essential. It provides the source of "meaning" (as I have often 
argued in  discussions in the list) but it is also the reference for 
"intelligence".  Communicating with the environment and self-producing by means 
of 
the  environmental affordances have to be smoothly organized so that the 
stages of  the life cycle may be advanced, and that the "problems" arising from 
the  internal or the external may be adequately solved. It means signalling 
and  self-modifying in front of the open-ended environmental problems, 
sensing and  acting coherently... It strangely connects with the notion of 
human 
"story"  and the communication cycle in the humanities. Relating 
intelligence to goal  accomplishment or to an architecture of goals as usually 
done in 
computational  realms implies that the real life course (or the surrogate) 
is reduced to a  very narrow segment. True intelligence evaporates. 
These were some of my  brute reflections that I have to keep musing around 
(I saw interesting  repercussions for cellular signaling "narratives" too). 
Maybe this is also a  good opportunity for other parties of that conference 
to expostulate their own  impressions --very exciting presentations both 
from Chinese and Western  colleagues there.

Thanks again,
--Pedro

El 08/02/2017 a las  14:14, Marcus Abundis escribió:


> In next weeks some further discussion might be started,  but at the time 
being, the slot is empty (any ideas?)<  


Hi Pedro,


For my part I would appreciate a chance to hear more about the thoughts  
you have been developing (even if they are very rough) as related to the  talk 
you gave in China last summer.


Alternatively, further thoughts on Gordana's talk would be nice to  hear.



Re: [Fis] FIS Survey for PhD research.

2016-07-22 Thread HowlBloom

i'm swamped but i will do my best to help.
 
with warmth and oomph--howard
 
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
author of : The  Lucifer Principle: AScientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History  ("mesmerizing"-TheWashington Post), Global Brain: The Evolution 
of Mass Mind  from the Big Bang tothe 21st Century  ("reassuring and 
sobering"-The New  Yorker), The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of 
Capitalism  ("Impressive, stimulating, and tremendously enjoyable."James 
Fallows, 
National  Correspondent, The Atlantic), The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos 
Creates  ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), How 
I  Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a monumental,epic, glorious literary  
achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The Muhammad Code:  How a Desert Prophet  
Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram--or How Muhammad Invented Jihad (“a 
 terrifyingbook…the best book I’ve read on Islam,” David Swindle, PJ  
Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting  Scholar
—Graduate Psychology Department, NewYork University
Founder:  International PaleopsychologyProject; founder and chair, Space 
Development  Steering Committee; Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution 
Society; Founding  Board Member, The Darwin Project;, Board Member and Member 
Of 
Board Of  Governors, National Space Society; Founder: The Big Bang Tango 
Media  Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the 
 Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of  
PoliticalScience, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society  
for 
Human Ethology,  Scientific Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation.   

 
In a message dated 7/22/2016 12:07:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:




 
 
Dear FIS Colleagues,


A member of our list, Moises Andre Nisenbaum, is investigating for his  PhD 
the interdisciplinary links between Physics and Information Science. One  
of the data sources of his empirical research is the FIS mailing list itself. 
 Because of this, he wants to directly ask list members, as well as filling 
in  a questionnaire. Would you help him to make this request? He will 
publish the  directions in the list.


Thanks in advance,


--Pedro
 
 
 
 
 












___
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


[Fis] _ Re: _ Re: Otto--re closing lecture

2016-02-05 Thread HowlBloom
Pedro,
 
your list of disciplines that information theory needs to ponder is  
brilliant--active matter, coupled oscillators, pharmacology, physiology, and  
developmental biology.
 
to go back to the abiotic universe for a moment:
 
here's one implication of the theory of a communicative cosmos i've  been 
outlining to you.
 
The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates is now out in  paperback.  
The  God Problem says that we live in a social cosmos,  a  communicative 
cosmos, a cosmos in which societies of atoms gossip and whisper to  each other. 
  
there's a critical implication of this  theory of a conversational cosmos 
for physics. 
current quantum physics is dedicated to the notion that a particle can  
exist in multiple states as long as it's in isolation, as long as it's not 
being  observed, as long is it’s not being measured.  but because this  
universe 
is profoundly communicative and because communicative forces like  gravity 
exist in every distant nook and cranny of the cosmos, no particle is  ever 
completely alone. 
other particles or, more important, other societies of particles,  
including mega societies like stars and galaxies, are taking a particle's  
measure 
and the particle is taking theirs.  everywhere. 
so the basic assumption of the Copenhagen school of quantum physics is  
wrong.  which  means no quantum physics will be real until it takes the social, 
communicative,  gossipy nature of the cosmos into account, the massively 
networked aspect of the  cosmos.  what does that mean for information  theory? 
among other things, it means we have to delve into the mystery of what  
Luis Villareal calls group identity, the mystery of how masses of collaborating 
 particles put out messages bigger than their individual powers would  
predict.  we,  like quantum physicists, need to delve into the mystery of 
emergent  properties. 
which is where my book The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates  comes 
in.
  
with warmth and oomph--howard
 
 
 
In a message dated 2/5/2016 8:33:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:

Dear FISers,

Just a  couple of brief comments to Howard and Jerry.

To Howards: thanks for  the exciting New Year Lecture closure! However, 
your text below to Otto makes  irresistible for me indulging in a final 
criticism. It is clear in the text  that the boundaries of force are the very 
determinants of  information/communication. Forces everywhere. From quark 
forces 
to the forces  of history. It is exactly the 20th century dominant 
physicalism with an  info/comm. aggiornamento. I cannot blame it all, of 
course, as 
your historical  analysis is very original, but all the other physicalist 
conglomerate is not  so useful/interesting. When life romps in this tiny corner 
of the universe, a  new set of info-dynamics are set into motion, 
completely different, and  capable of overcoming the boundary conditions of 
force.  

hb: well  put, Pedro.
 
The life cycle dominates  and commands the environment: selfproducing, 
communicating, engaging with  other life cycles, transforming everything,  etc.
 
hb:  another good point.
 
 This constructive  power goes beyond anything seen in the cosmos. It is an 
informational  constructivism  that  does not follow smoothly from the 
atomistic narrative--there is a big  divide... 
 
hb: yes,  true.
 
Historically  it is a similar trend of informational constructivism what 
leads to overcome  the Luciferine solvent power. See France and Germany: after 
300 years of wars,  treaties, armistices, hostilities, etc. finally are 
efficiently united in a  common European purpose (or look at the endless wars 
between Spain and the  United Kingdom). Thanks to collective intelligence in 
action (wisdom, justice,  kindness) a group of enlightened politicians after 
WWII achieved a great  design, like Founding Fathers in US 18th Century. 
These grand designs are the  key to overcome so many contemporary Luciferine 
catastrophes around... But we  would continue arguing for too long, so I stop 
 and thank you again for  the  Lecture!



hb: the book of mine that shows the creative forces in human  history and 
their ability to radically upgrade humanity is The Genius of the  Beast: A 
Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism.  

To Jerry: you are quite  right in the demand for some "scientific meat" 
around the notion of  communicating, interconnected life cycles. I will try to 
provide a few  portions:

1. "Active Matter", it is a new scientific field that is  getting more and 
more fashionable. Basically it consists on computer  simulations and real 
experimental molecular settings where active molecules  (usually 
enzyme/proteins) interact with some motive power (ATP,  electrical/magnetic 
fields, metal 
beads) and get interconnected in their "work  cycles", with the emergence 
of amazing collective patterns apparently only  restricted to the biological. 
This interconnection of "working cycles" is the  genuine 

[Fis] _ Otto--re closing lecture

2016-02-02 Thread HowlBloom
 
Otto, an interesting call, for a theory that  brings together the brute 
force of an abiotic universe and  information. 
Here's a short timeline that pulls the  brute force elements together as 
informational exchange: 
The evolution of  information, sociality, social structure, and the 
emergent properties of  societies 
(all dates ABB, After the Big  Bang) 
10(-31) ABB  primitive communication between quarks via the strong force.  
The  first informational language: attraction and  repulsion. 
10(-31) ABB the first social groups, threesomes of quarks, produce two  
shocking emergent  properties—protons and  neutrons 
10,000 ABB massive social dances, pressure  waves, ring the cosmos like a 
gong.  With, yes, music.  What communicative force organizes trillions of  
trillions of particles into pressure waves—into rhythmically coming together 
in  aggregations that span the universe?  Do information exchange and  
communication choreograph pressure waves in which masses of particles  
rhythmically separate just a tiny bit, then come together  again? 
380,000 ABB  emerging from a plasma, slowing down, and giving each other a 
bit of  breathing room, elementary particles use the electromagnetic force 
to  communicate.  And they discover something odd.  Tiny  particles have an 
inanimate longing.  And their inanimate longing precisely  fits the inanimate 
longing of particles 1,800 times their size.  The  tiny particles join with 
the hulking monsters.  The  result?  Another emergent property, another 
supersized  surprise: atoms.  Hydrogen, helium, and lithium, properties wildly 
unpredictable from just  the properties of an electron and a proton.  
Properties that emerge from a  communicative exchange.  An informational 
exchange 
between protons and  electrons. 
380,000 ABB the atom reveals a basic of cosmic structure—hierarchy.  
Protons dominate.  They  determine where the team goes.   Electrons subjugate 
themselves.  They meekly go along.  They subordinate.  They humbly circle the 
proton  nucleus. 
380,000 ABB atoms communicate via gravity. 
400,000 ABB more communication via gravity, but mass communication.  The  
result?  Competition.  The era of the great gravity crusades.  Wisps,  
plumes, and clots of atoms have showdowns, faceoffs in which the  bigger 
swallows 
the smaller whole.  Then the winner goes off to another  showdown, another 
competitive confrontation.  In  which it either eats or is eaten.  The result 
of these showdowns between  gravity balls?  Galaxies, stars, planets, and 
moons.  A  galaxy is, guess what, a social swirl organized in a hierarchy—
black holes at  the center, stars circling the black holes, planets circling 
the stars, and  moons circling the planets.  All via communication and  
information.  All via receivers interpreting the messages of  senders and 
acting 
on them. 
one bottom line: communication,  information, music, competition, and 
hierarchy are not the products of  post-agricultural, post industrial, or post 
capitalist societies.  they are  at work even in dead stuff.  even pre-living 
nature. 
hope that helps. 
thanks again for letting me parade such  strange ideas in such august 
company. 
Dear all,
Just a quick reply to Howard's fascinating account of  cosmic history. 
It seems what is crucially needed is a theory that brings together  "brute 
force" on the one hand - laws of nature "blindly" colliding and  colluding, 
from quarks to planets - and "information" on the other - from  pre-human 
codes (perhaps including quantum computation) and communication to  advanced 
human and cybernetic networks. 
The former seems to be able to do away with everything except a few  simple 
rules of operation (gravity, natural selection, will-to-power),  everything 
more complex being the unfolding of the interaction between these few  
simple rules (eternal or emergent is beside the point here). The latter seems 
to 
 depend upon subjective interpretation, the retention of systems memory, 
symbolic  coding-decoding, and other processes that compose only a subset of 
the  (creatures and processes) of the universe. Never the twain shall meet. 
Or perhaps brute force can be analyzed as equivalent to information? Or  
vice versa? Or as two sides of the same coin? 
Best, 
Otto  Lehto,
Tampere, Finland 
On  2 Feb 2016 13:46, "Krassimir Markov" <_markov@foibg.com_ 
(mailto:mar...@foibg.com) > wrote:


 
 
Dear Howard,
 
Thank you very much for your great effort and nice  explanation!
I like it!
 
Only what I needed to see is a concrete answer to the  question “what it 
the Information?”
You absolutely clearly described it and I totally agree with  your 
considerations.
Only what is needed is to conclude with a short  definition.
I think it may be the next:
 
The Information is a reflection which may be interpreted by  its receiver 
in the context the receiver has in his/her memory.
 
>From this definition many consequences follow. In future we  may discuss 
them.
 

[Fis] _ Closing lecture

2016-02-02 Thread HowlBloom

 
First, a few responses.  I agree with Hans von Baeyer.  Pedro’s kindness is 
magic.   
I agree with Gyorgy Darvas that  quarks communicate. 
I also agree with Jerry  Chandler.  Brute force is not the  major mover of 
history.  Values and  virtues count.  A lot.  In fact, a culture organizes 
itself by  calling one way of doing things evil—brute force—and another way 
of doing things  a value  and a virtue.  Our way is the value and the  
virtue.  The ways of others are  brute force and evil.  We see  cooperation  
and 
warmth among  us.  But only enmity  and destruction among them.   
The  brute force is not  within groups, where values, virtues, and 
compassion  prevail.  It’s  between groups.  It’s in the pecking order battles 
between groups.   
Which means, in answer to Marcus  Abundis, yes, groups struggle for 
position in inter-group hierarchies like  chickens in a barnyard.  For  
example, 
America and China are vying right now for top position in the barnyard  of 
nations.  Russia’s in that  battle, too.  On a lower level, so  are Saudi 
Arabia and Iran, whose proxy war in Syria for pecking order dominance  has cost 
a 
quarter of a million lives.  That’s brute force.  Between  groups whose 
citizens are often lovely and loving to each other.  Whose citizens are proud 
of their values  and virtues. 
Now for a final  statement. 
Information exists in a  context.  That’s not at all  surprising.  
Information is all  about context.  As the writings of  Guenther Witzany hint.  
And 
as  Ludwig Wittgenstein also suggested.  Information is relational.  
Information does not exist in a vacuum.  It connects participants.  And it 
makes 
things happen.  When it’s not connecting participants,  it’s not information 
FIS gets fired up to a high  energy level when discussing the definition of 
information and its relationship  to Shannon’s entropic information 
equation.  Alas, these discussions tend  to remove the context.  And context is 
what gives information  its indispensable ingredient, meaning. 
There are two basic approaches  in science:   
·the abstract mathematical;  
·and the observational empirical.   
Mathematical abstractionists  dwell on definitions and equations.  
Empirical observers gather facts.  Darwin was an observational empiricist. I’d 
like 
to see more of Darwin’s  kind of science in the world of information theory. 
One of Darwin’s most important  contributions was not the concept of 
natural selection.  It was an approach that Darwin got from  Kant and from his 
grandfather Erasmus.  That approach?  Lay out the  history of the cosmos on a 
timeline and piece together its story.  In chronological order.  Piece 
together the saga of how this  cosmos has created itself.  Including the 
self-motivated, self-creation of life. 
Communication plays a vital role  in this story.  It appears in the  first 
10(-32) of a second of the cosmos’ existence, when quarks communicated  
using attraction and repulsion cues.  OK, it’s not quite right to call the cues 
attraction and repulsion  cues.  When two quarks sized each  other up, they 
interpreted the signals of the strong force differently.  If you were a 
quark, another quark might  size you up and promptly speed away.  But a quark 
of 
a different variety might detect the same signals, find  them wildly 
attractive, and speed in your direction.  One quark’s meat was another’s 
poison,  
even in that first form of communication in the cosmos.   
Information is not a  stand-alone.  Again, it’s  contextual.  It’s ruled 
by what  Guenther Witzany calls syntax, semantics, and, most important of 
all,  pragmatics.  Its meaning comes from  where it fits in a bigger picture. 
Were the signals quarks  exchanged information?  Not  according to many of 
the definitions in FIS.  Some of those definitions say that to be  regarded 
as information, a sender must deliberately signify something  symbolically.  
She must, for  example, want to warn you about a poisoned apple.  She must 
put that message in symbols,  like the words “poisoned apple,” then convey 
that signal to a receiver.  If she doesn’t want to see you poisoned,  she 
might text you, “watch out for poisoned apples.”  I’m not sure whether the 
definitions  extant in FIS demand that you look at her text or not.  Much less 
whether you act on  it. 
In my latest book, The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos  Creates, I 
propose a different definition of information.  Information is anything a 
receiver 
can  decode, anything he can decipher.  How do you know a receiver has 
decoded a message?  Through the decoder’s actions.  If you are a quark and you 
detect my  strong force, you either scoot away or you rush over and join me.  
You act.  If you are a neurosurgeon looking at an  mri, you make internal 
decisions, mental decisions.  You don’t move physically.  Not at first.  But 
you move mentally.  You imagine your scalpel poised over a  different spot 
than you might have picked 

Re: [Fis] Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

2016-01-16 Thread HowlBloom
re: quarks
 
the big question for FIS is this: do quarks communicate?  and can  their 
communications be called informational?
 
are quarks more than just the first bits of matter in the cosmos?  are  
they also the first socializers? the first  team-makers?
 
with oomph--howard

Howard Bloom
Author of: The Lucifer Principle:  A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History ("mesmerizing"-The  Washington Post),
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The  Big Bang to the 21st 
Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New  Yorker),
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of  Capitalism ("A 
tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National  Correspondent, The 
Atlantic),
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos  Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock 
your world." Barbara  Ehrenreich),
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties ("Wow! Whew!  Wild!
Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and
The Mohammed Code ("A  terrifying book…the best book I've read on Islam." 
David Swindle, PJ  Media).
www.howardbloom.net
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate  Institute; Former Visiting 
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York  University.
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space  Development 
Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad; Founding  Board 
Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin  Project; 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of  
Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American  
Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and  
Evolution 
Society, International Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory  Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space  
Philosophy; Board member and member of Board of Governors, National Space  
Society.


In a message dated 1/16/2016 11:48:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
lo...@physics.utoronto.ca writes:

Stan et  al - you honour me by asking the question. We know that matter 
(and here I do  not include dark matter or dark energy) is made up of a small 
number of quarks  and gluons. As we go higher and higher energy we will 
continue to create these  "freaks of nature" freaks in the sense that we create 
the conditions for them  to come into existence using our high energy 
colliders. I am sure they  sometimes occur naturally in stars from time to time 
but 
they do not have any  long term effects - they are a passing fancy, a 
novelty, and an amusing one at  that. Perhaps they will help us understand the 
quark gluon interaction. The  analogy I see with the transition from 
prokaryotes to eukaryotes that I sent  to Malcolm was my indulging in 
scientific 
based poetry. BTW I teach an  undergrad course since 1971 called the Poetry of 
Physics (also the title of a  book available on Amazon) to teach physics to 
humanities students without  using math to promote science literacy among 
humanists.  


Another analogy that came to mind was that of proliferation of nucleic  
acids made up of the same 4 elements: C, G, A, and T.  They are the  quarks of 
biology and their chemical bonds the gluons.  


Metaphorically your - Bob Logan  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
__













Robert K. Logan   
 
 
Prof.  Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto   
Fellow  University of St. Michael's College
Chief  Scientist - sLab at OCAD   
 
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan   
_www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan_ 
(http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan) 
_www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications_ 
(http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications) 









On 2016-01-16, at 10:33 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote:


One way to complicate anything is to smash it into bits.   I wonder, Bob, 
if you would comment on this point as a former particle  physicist!  


STAN


On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Malcolm Dean <_malcolmdean@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:malcolmd...@gmail.com) > wrote:


Yes. I don't know enough  about Biology, but I noticed the 3+2 business 
some time ago. I'm  automatically suspicious of theories which are "vexingly 
complex" (QCD)  and only "beautiful" (String Theory) to a few people with 
certain math  backgrounds. But the Two and the Three have been important to 
humans for  thousands of years. I think Nature is actually very simple, but we 
get  overwhelmed and confused by its enormous scales and by our attempts to  
manage observation by (necessarily) creating over-simplified  Objects.


M.



Malcolm  Dean
Member, _Higher Cognitive Affinity Group, BRI_ 
(http://www.bri.ucla.edu/research/affinity-groups/higher-cognitive-function-in-neural-integration-affinit
y-group) 
Research  Affiliate, _Human Complex Systems, UCLA_ 
(http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Malcolm_Dean)   
Member, _BAFTA/LA_ (http://baftala.org/) 
On _Google Scholar_ 
(http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZopY3eQJ=en) 




On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 

Re: [Fis] January Lecture--Information and the Forces of History

2016-01-13 Thread HowlBloom

Pedro,
 
re:  Do we need a new interpretation of history, info based?
 
hb: we definitely need a few new tools with which to see the patterns of  
history.  whether those patterns are informational or not, I'm not  sure.  I 
lean toward the tools you cite, the ones emerging from  biology.  
superorganism, ideas, and the pecking order, for example, come  from 
evolutionary 
biology.  so do hormonal interpretations of history, some  of which are in my 
books.
 
the real challenge is in the puzzle you pose:  how do we make insights  
that come from  "inspiration and metaphor" more rigorous.  one tiny  
suggestion.  forget mathematics.  it has been consistently misleading  in the 
realm of 
the living.
 
instead look at the example of darwin.  darwin used a metaphor--the  sort 
of selection a pigeon breeder uses to achieve new characteristics.  he  
imagined nature as the picky, choosy selector, not the pigeon  breeder.  so he 
called his metaphor "natural selection." 
 
yet he used not a single equation.  the validity of his metaphor was  
judged by the number of facts it explained.  and by the extent to which  facts 
fit into another of his tools, one his grandfather had pioneered, an  
evolutionary story, a timeline, that began with a big bang (his grandfather's  
starting point) and worked its way up to the present.
 
if the timeline fit the facts and the facts fit the timeline, the  timeline 
was worth employing as a tool.  in the 157 years since  Darwin's 
publication of On the Origin of Species, more and more facts have  fit.  And 
more and 
more predictions based on the timeline have proven  true.
 
I'd suggest the same approach to concepts like the secular trio of the  
forces of history, the unholy trinity of the lucifer principle: superorganism,  
ideas, and the pecking order.  the pecking order, in fact, can be traced  
back to hierarchies within atoms 380,000 years after the big bang and to the  
hierarchies within galaxies and solar systems 400 million years after the 
big  bang.  
 
emergent group identities, the pre-biotic equivalent of superorganisms, can 
 be traced back to the first quark trios in the initial 10(-32) of a second 
of  the cosmos existence, and to the first galaxies, solar systems, stars, 
and  planets.
 
replicators are totally unique to life.  and ideas are totally unique  to 
minds.
 
my insistence on finding the basic patterns in the abiotic cosmos that  
reappear in the forces of history is my humble attempt to do a darwin--to see  
what basic organizing principles emerge from the timeline of the cosmos'  
existence, from the big bang to what you and i are doing at this minute in our 
 exchange.
 
information may or may not be a primary tool of this understanding.   but 
surely communication, which has been around from the instant when  the first 
quarks precipitated from a speeding, expanding  space-time manifold 10(-32) 
seconds into the cosmos' existence, is  crucial.
 
which puts us back to where we left off in my previous  email:  does 
abiotic communication qualify  as information?  and if it is disqualified, are 
those performing the  disqualification weakening the potential explanatory 
power of their  chosen discipline?
 
with warmth and oomph--howard
 

Howard Bloom
Author of: The Lucifer Principle:  A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History ("mesmerizing"-The  Washington Post),
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The  Big Bang to the 21st 
Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New  Yorker),
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of  Capitalism ("A 
tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National  Correspondent, The 
Atlantic),
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos  Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock 
your world." Barbara  Ehrenreich),
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties ("Wow! Whew!  Wild!
Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and
The Mohammed Code ("A  terrifying book…the best book I've read on Islam." 
David Swindle, PJ  Media).
www.howardbloom.net
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate  Institute; Former Visiting 
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York  University.
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space  Development 
Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad; Founding  Board 
Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin  Project; 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of  
Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American  
Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and  
Evolution 
Society, International Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory  Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space  
Philosophy; Board member and member of Board of Governors, National Space  
Society.


In a message dated 1/13/2016 3:38:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:

Thanks  for the positive comment, Marcus. Actually there 

Re: [Fis] January Lecture--Information and the Forces of History

2016-01-05 Thread HowlBloom

good commentary, pedro.
 
where do compassion and love--the archangel principle--fit into  the   
lucifer principle?  and why have groups progressed in  complexity since the end 
of the last ice age eleven thousand years ago?
 
to form a superorganism, a cohesive group, you need huge amounts of  
collaboration and cooperation.  love is one cohesive force, one bonding  
element, 
one form of social glue.  justice is another.  
 
justice resolves differences in the group without violence.  justice  is at 
work in chimpanzee societies, where new leaders are required to uphold the  
weak and the downtrodden and to settle disputes.  if a new leader doesn't  
understand this imperative and is a mere bully, the females in the group 
oust  him from power.
 
justice is at work in !Kung San societies, where the days are devoted to  
hunting and gathering and the nights are devoted to story telling and dispute 
 resolution.
 
but where does the increasing complexity of human societies come  from?  
humans are drawn to the sight of other humans.  when architects  in the 1960s 
tried to fashion contemplative spaces around office buildings so  the 
buildings'  inhabitants could get a touch of calm during lunch hours,  it 
didn't 
work.  the buildings' workers shunned the contemplative spots and  sat on the 
buildings' outdoor steps.  why?  to watch the sight of  other people going 
by on the sidewalk.
 
we love the sight of others.  and the more others, the better.   from that 
impulse came cities.  from that impulse came smartphones and  facebook.
 
but guess what?  the more communication and the more information  exchange, 
the more collaboration.  and the richer and more long-distance  that 
collaboration becomes.  the more global.
 
the more we communicate, the more group iq we add to the global  brain.  
(the topic of my second book, Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass  Mind from 
the Big Bang to the 21st Century)
 
one more thing.  nature seems to have  an inexorable itch for  novelty.  
and we, nature's children, are novelty hunters too.  from  our itch for 
novelty comes, guess what?   innovation.
 
put innovation and increasing group size together and you get a long-term  
march forward, a march in which humans do the cosmos' work--helping her 
reinvent  herself.  helping her lift herself up the staircase of shock and  
creativity. the staircase of complexity. the staircase of the  supersized 
surprise.
 
with warmth and oomph--howard
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/5/2016 12:23:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:

Dear Howard and Colleagues,  


Many  thanks for your contribution! This is the third time we have a New 
Year  Lecture, and the first one devoted to humanities. Well, to the 
"inhumanities"  should I say, as what you have depicted succinctly with the 
Lucifer 
Principle  describes the main evil that has been torturing human history. 


There are matters of  detail to comment (as previous messages have already 
pointed out), but also of  general perspective. First about the apparent 
simplicity. The LP scheme looks  simple, too simple... but at the same time it 
may be powerful, really powerful in explanatory  capabilities. I really do 
not particularly like any of the three components  involved (super-organism, 
pecking order,  meme/group-identity), and do not  trust much about their 
respective "scientificity", but their combination is chilling. It reminds some 
of the Marxian  strictures about class struggle, partially  right but 
missing and transposing essential ingredients of human life.  Presumably some 
more 
objectivity in this case  --but also missing some counterpart, say the 
"Archangel Principle", that has  confronted and resisted the solvent forces of 
the Luciferian complex and, in the  long trend, supported the complexity 
growth of societies and  improved their structural decency. 


With only the action of LP, history would not  go beyond barbaric empires 
briefly raising from a mosaic of ever  fighting tribes... That's plausible, 
and some parties may remind Tom  Stonier in this list, late 90's I think, on 
warfare as part of the adaption  scenario of human evolution. Then, what 
could be the AP "bright forces" of  history that have counteracted LP? The 
Pantheon of politheistic cultures could give a hint... I venture to  single out 
three components of AP:  knowledge, justice, and the third... what about  
love/compassion? 


Anyhow, both the details of your LP scheme and the general canvas  of human 
history need an informational perspective, we completely agree. And  it is 
interesting that the whole trinity of LP have biological/informational  
origins; but disentangling the info physics from the info bios has not been  
done yet (and so your final comment is well  intended but  still confusing in 
my view). Let me ad, looking  both at the achievements of our times and at 
the open intractable conflicts,  that it is amazing the absence of a real 

[Fis] January Lecture--Information and the Forces of History

2016-01-03 Thread HowlBloom

The Force of History--Howard Bloom
 
 
In 1995, I published my first  book, The Lucifer Principle: a Scientific 
Expedition Into the Forces of  history.  It sold roughly 140,000  copies 
worldwide and is still selling.  Some people call it their Bible.  Others say 
that it was the book that predicted 9/11.  And less than two months ago, on  
November 13, 2015, some current readers said it was the book that explained  
ISIS’ attacks on Paris.  Why?  What are the forces of history?  And what do 
they have to do with  information science? 
The Lucifer Principle uses  evolutionary biology, group selection, 
neurobiology, immunology, microbiology,  computer science, animal behavior, and 
anthropology to probe mass passions, the  passions that have powered historical 
movements from the unification of China in  221 BC and the start of the 
Roman  Empire in 201 BC  to the rise  of the Empire of Islam in 634 AD and that 
empire’s modern manifestations, the  Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran 
and ISIS, the Islamic State, a group  intent on establishing a global 
caliphate.  The Lucifer Principle concludes that the passions that swirl, 
swizzle, 
 and twirl history’s currents are a secular trinity.  What are that trinity’
s three  components?  The superorganism, the  pecking order, and ideas. 
What’s a superorganism?  Your body is an organism. But it’s also  a 
massive social gathering.  It’s  composed of a hundred trillion cells.  Each of 
those cells is capable of living on its own.  Yet your body survives thanks to 
the  existence of a collective identity—a you.  In 1911,_[i]_ 
(file:///C:/cnt/the%20new%20forces%20of%20history%20for%20pedro%20marijuna%20and%20the%20f
oundations%20of%20information%20science%2012-24-2015.docx#_edn1)   Harvard 
biologist William Morton Wheeler noticed that ant colonies pull off the  
same trick.  From 20,000 to 36  million ants work together to create an 
emergent property, a collective  identity, the identity of a community, a 
society, 
a colony, or a  supercolony.  Wheeler observed how  the colony behaved as if 
it were a single organism.  He called the result a  “superorganism.”_[ii]_ 
(file:///C:/cnt/the%20new%20forces%20of%20history%20for%20pedro%20marijuna%2
0and%20the%20foundations%20of%20information%20science%2012-24-2015.docx#_edn
2)  
Meanwhile in roughly 1900, when  he was still a child, Norway’s Thorleif 
Schjelderup Ebbe got into a strange  habit: counting the number of pecks the 
chickens in his family’s flock landed on  each other and who pecked whom.  By 
 the time he was ready to write his PhD dissertation in 1918, Ebbe had 
close to  20 years of data.  And that data  demonstrated something strange.  
Chickens in a barnyard are not egalitarian.  They have a strict hierarchy.  At 
the top is a chicken who gets special  privileges.   All others step  aside 
when she goes to the trough.  She is the first to eat.  And  she can peck 
any other chicken in the group.  Then comes chicken number two.  She is the 
second to eat.  And she can peck anyone in the flock  with one notable 
exception.  She  cannot peck the top chicken.  Then  comes chicken number 
three, 
chicken number four, and so on.  Each one cannot peck the chickens above  her 
on the social ladder.  But each  has free rein to peck the chickens below.  
Finally, there’s the bottom chicken, a chicken everyone is free to peck  but 
who is free to peck no one.  Ebbe called this a “peck order,” a pecking 
order, a dominance  hierarchy. 
And in 1976, Oxford evolutionary  biologist Richard Dawkins coined two new 
terms._[iii]_ 
(file:///C:/cnt/the%20new%20forces%20of%20history%20for%20pedro%20marijuna%20and%20the%20foundations%20of%20information%20science%2012-24-2
015.docx#_edn3)   He observed that biological life, all of  it from 
bacteria to bathing beauties, depends on the evolution  of what Dawkins called “
replicators,”  molecules that can make copies of themselves. Then Dawkins 
spotted a newer kind  of replicator at work.  The first  biological replicators—
genes--did their thing in primordial puddles.  The new replicator worked in a 
puddle of  a radically different kind—the puddle of the human mind.  
Dawkins observed that we see replicators  at work when our mind fixates on a 
song 
we hate and plays it over and over  again, no matter how vigorously we wish 
it away. That song is using our mind to  make more copies of itself.  But 
the  most important replicators in the soup of the human mind are not pop 
songs,  they’re ideas.  Dawkins called these  mind-based replicators “memes.” 
Superorganism, the pecking  order, and ideas—memes--that’s the holy 
trinity of The Lucifer Principle.  That’s the holy trinity that drives the  
forces 
of history. 
Here’s how it works.  Social groups compete.  They battle for pecking order 
position  in a hierarchy of groups.  They  strive to be at the top of that 
hierarchy and to avoid the fate of the chicken  at the bottom.  What’s the 
main  thing over which 

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Information is a linguistic description of structures]--T...

2015-09-29 Thread HowlBloom

bob,
 
thanks for an extraordinary answer.  riddled with extraordinary  knowledge.
 
I've just bought your book from Amazon and it should be in my kindle  
momentarily.  if you'd like a copy of mine--The God Problem: How a Godless  
Cosmos Creates--i can email it to you.  and to anyone else on the FIS list  who 
wants it.  
 
our books intersect. we both attempt to lay out new assumptions for  
science.
 
most important, I agree with you and Terrence Deacon that our analysis of  
information should not be limited to the metaphors of language, code, and  
genomics.  a metaphor is a tool.  each metaphor opens a different  trove of 
insights.  so the more metaphors--the more tools--the  better.
 
with warmth and oomph--howard
 

Howard Bloom
Author of: The Lucifer Principle:  A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History ("mesmerizing"-The  Washington Post),
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The  Big Bang to the 21st 
Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New  Yorker),
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of  Capitalism ("A 
tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National  Correspondent, The 
Atlantic),
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos  Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock 
your world." Barbara  Ehrenreich),
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties ("Wow! Whew!  Wild!
Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and
The Mohammed Code ("A  terrifying book…the best book I've read on Islam." 
David Swindle, PJ  Media).
www.howardbloom.net
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate  Institute; Former Visiting 
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York  University.
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space  Development 
Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad; Founding  Board 
Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin  Project; 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of  
Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American  
Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and  
Evolution 
Society, International Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory  Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space  
Philosophy; Board member and member of Board of Governors, National Space  
Society.


In a message dated 9/29/2015 10:44:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
u...@umces.edu writes:

Howard:

I applaud your critique of our legacy attempts to  render life meaningful
in terms of what you call "necrophilia" and Hans  Jonas has called an
"ontology of death".

In my last book, "A Third  Window", I attempted to develop the metaphysics
of a process ecology of  relationships as an alternative starting  point.


I  especially resonated with your mention of the failure of conventional
and  relativistic physics to explain the spiral arms of some galaxies. This
I  believe is due to the constraints of the continuum assumption laid down
by  Euler and Leibniz, which conflates cause with effect. One can get away
with  this assumption so long as the interval between cause and effect  is
virtually immediate. In a galaxy 100,000 light years in diameter,  however,
this assumption begins to fray. It likely breaks down altogether  across
intergalactic distances.

The continuum assumption leads to  symmetrical laws of nature, and as
Noether taught us, symmetry and  conservation are joined at the hip. Is it
any wonder, then, that  inconsistencies leading to the postulation of
"dark" matter and energy  should arise if one uses only symmetrical laws?

What is known to few is  that Newton (who ironically gets a lot of the
blame for the Eulerian  assumption) inveighed strongly against equating
cause with effect.  Historian of science, Ed Dellian, gives the full story
on his website.   I offer
some  consequences in my talk at "Seizing an Alternative", which took place
back  in  June.


Having  thus waxed ebullient over your insights, I nonetheless tend to
agree with  Terry that discussion on communication or information should
not be  confined to language or genomics. In fact, I would contend that
information  should not be limited to association with communication. As
Stan Salthe  contends, it is more generally tied to any form of constraint.
John  Collier, for example, identifies such information as inheres in
structures  as "enformation", and this form is readily quantifiable using
the  information calculus of  Shannon.
 Such  reckoning permits
us to develop an alternative phenomenology to the "dead  objects moving
according to universal laws"  attempts to apprehend  life.


Prodded  by Jonas, we need to give intensive effort to 

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Information is a linguistic description of structures]--T...

2015-09-28 Thread HowlBloom

re: it is likely to be problematic to use language as the paradigm model  
for all communication--Terrence Deacon
 
Terry  makes interesting points, but I think on this one, he may be  wrong. 
Guenther Witzany is on to something.  our previous  approaches  to 
information have been what Barbara Ehrenreich, in her  introduction to the 
upcoming 
paperback of my book The God Problem: How a Godless  Cosmos Creates, calls 
"a kind of unacknowledged necrophilia."
 
we've been using dead things to understand living things.  aristotle  put 
us on that path when he told us that if we could break things down to their  
"elements" and understand what he called the "laws" of those elements, we'd  
understand everything.  Newton took us farther down that path when he said  
we could understand everything using the metaphor of the "contrivance," the 
 machine--the metaphor of "mechanics" and of "mechanism."  
 
Aristotle and Newton were wrong.  Their ideas have had centuries to  pan 
out, and they've led to astonishing insights, but they've left us blind  to 
the relational aspect of things. utterly blind.
 
the most amazing metaphor of relationality available to us is not math,  
it's not mechanism, and it's not reduction to "elements," it's language.   by 
using the metaphor of a form of language called "code," watson and  crick 
were able to understand what a strand of dna does and  how.   without language 
as metaphor, we'd still be in the dark  about the genome.
 
i'm convinced that by learning the relational secrets of the body of work  
of a Shakespeare or a Goethe we could crack some of the secrets we've been  
utterly unable to comprehend, from what makes the social clots we call a  
galaxy's spiral arms (a phenomenon that astronomer Greg Matloff, a  Fellow of 
the British interplanetary Society,  says defies the laws  of Newtonian and 
Einsteinian physics) to what makes the difference between  life and death.
 
in other words, it's time we confess in science just how little we know  
about language, that we explore language's mysteries, and that we use our  
discoveries as a crowbar to pry open the secrets of this highly contextual,  
deeply relational, profoundly communicational cosmos.
 
with thanks for tolerating my opinions.
 
howard
 

Howard Bloom
Author of: The Lucifer Principle:  A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History ("mesmerizing"-The  Washington Post),
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The  Big Bang to the 21st 
Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New  Yorker),
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of  Capitalism ("A 
tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National  Correspondent, The 
Atlantic),
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos  Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock 
your world." Barbara  Ehrenreich),
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties ("Wow! Whew!  Wild!
Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and
The Mohammed Code ("A  terrifying book…the best book I've read on Islam." 
David Swindle, PJ  Media).
www.howardbloom.net
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate  Institute; Former Visiting 
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York  University.
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space  Development 
Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad; Founding  Board 
Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin  Project; 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of  
Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American  
Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and  
Evolution 
Society, International Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory  Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space  
Philosophy; Board member and member of Board of Governors, National Space  
Society.


In a message dated 9/28/2015 11:47:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:

>From  Terry...

 Original Message  Subject:  Re: [Fis] Information is a 
linguistic description of  structures  Date:  Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:13:14 
-0700  From:  Terrence W. Deacon __ 
(mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu)   To:  Pedro C. Marijuan 
__ 
(mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es)   CC:  Günther Witzany __ 
(mailto:witz...@sbg.at) , __ 
(mailto:fa...@howardbloom.net) ,  fis 
__ (mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es) ,  Emanuel Diamant 
__ (mailto:emanl@gmail.com)   References:  
_<000201d0f68c$77d02b50$677081f0$@gmail.com>_ 
(mailto:000201d0f68c$77d02b50$677081f0$@gmail.com)   
_<0d34f6ef-19e6-4c9c-a9d3-aba4f5f2e...@sbg.at>_ 
(mailto:0d34f6ef-19e6-4c9c-a9d3-aba4f5f2e...@sbg.at)   
_<56053208.2000...@aragon.es>_ 
(mailto:56053208.2000...@aragon.es) 

As exemplified in Guenther's auxin example, and Pedro's worries  about the 
procrustean use of language metaphors in the discussion of 

Re: [Fis] Information and Locality Introduction

2015-09-11 Thread HowlBloom

 
 
In a message dated 9/11/2015 8:15:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:

Dear Steven and FIS colleagues,

Many thanks for this opening  text. What you are proposing about a pretty
structured discussion looks a  good idea, although it will have to
confront the usually anarchic  discussion style of FIS list! Two aspects
of your initial text have caught  my attention (apart from those videos
you recommend that I will watch along  the weekend).

First about the concerns of a generation earlier  (Shannon, Turing...)
situating information in the intersection between  physical science and
engineering. The towering influence of this line of  thought, both with
positive and negative overtones, cannot be  overestimated. Most attempts
to enlarge informational thought and to extend  it to life, economies,
societies, etc. continue to be but a reformulation  of the former ideas
with little added value. See one of the last creatures:  "Why Information
Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies"  (2015), by Cesar
Hidalgo (prof. at MIT).

In my opinion, the  extension of those classic ideas to life are very
fertile from the  technological point of view, from the "theory of
molecular machines" for  DNA-RNA-protein matching to genomic-proteomic
and other omics'  "big  data". But all that technobrilliance does not
open per se new avenues in  order to produce innovative thought about the
information stuff of human  societies. Alternatively we may think that
the accelerated digitalization  of our world and the cyborg-symbiosis of
human information and computer  information do not demand much brain
teasing, as it is a matter that social  evolution is superseding by itself.

The point I have ocasionally raised  in this list is whether all the new
molecular knowledge about life might  teach us about a fundamental
difference in the "way of being in the world"  between life and inert
matter (& mechanism & computation)---or not.  In the recent compilation
by Plamen and colleagues from the former INBIOSA  initiative,  I have
argued about that fundamental difference in the  intertwining of
communication/self-production, how signaling is strictly  caught in the
advancement of a life cycle  (see paper "How the living  is in the
world"). Life is based on an inusitate informational formula  unknown in
inert matter. And the very organization of life provides an  original
starting point to think anew about information --of course, not  the only
one.

So, to conclude this "tangent", I find quite exciting  the discussion we
are starting now, say from the classical info positions  onwards, in
particularly to be compared in some future with another session  (in
preparation) with similar ambition but starting from say  the
phenomenology of the living. Struggling for  a
convergence/complementarity of outcomes would be a cavalier  effort.

All the best--Pedro



Steven Ericsson-Zenith  wrote:
> ...The subject is one that has concerned me ever since I  completed my 
PhD in 1992. I came away from defending my thesis, essentially on  large scale 
parallel computation, with the strong intuition that I had  disclosed much 
more concerning the little that we know, than I had offered  either a 
theoretical or engineering solution. 
>
> For the  curious, a digital copy of this thesis can be found among the 
reports of CRI,  MINES ParisTech, formerly ENSMP,  
http://www.cri.ensmp.fr/classement/doc/A-232.pdf, it is also available as a  
paper copy on Amazon.
>
> Like many that have been involved in  microprocessor and instruction 
set/language design, using mathematical  methods, we share the physical 
concerns 
of a generation earlier, people like  John Von Neumann, Alan Turing, and 
Claude Shannon. In other words, a close  intersection between physical science 
and machine engineering.
>
>  ...I will then discuss some historical issues in particular referencing  
Benjamin Peirce, Albert Einstein and Alan Turing. And finally discuss the  
contemporary issues, as I see them, in biophysics, biology, and associated  
disciplines, reaching into human and other social constructions, perhaps  
touching on cosmology and the extended role of information theory in  
mathematical physics...
>
>
>  ___
> Fis mailing  list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>  http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>


-- 
-
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/
-


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


 
 

Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

2015-06-19 Thread HowlBloom
re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.
 
may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list: linguistic  
biology.  per the work of Guenther Witzany.  also reflected in my book  The 
God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.
 
each approach uses a helpful metaphor.  no one approach sees  the elephant 
in its entirety. so please let us use all three.
 
with oomph--howard
 
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
Author  of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History  (mesmerizing-The Washington Post), 
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass  Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st 
Century (reassuring and sobering-The New  Yorker), 
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism (A  
tremendously enjoyable book. James Fallows, National Correspondent, The  
Atlantic), 
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates(Bloom's argument  will rock 
your world. Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I Accidentally Started the  Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” 
Timothy Leary), and 
The Mohammed Code  (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” 
David Swindle, PJ  Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting  
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University
Founder:  International Paleopsychology Project. Founder: The Group 
Selection Squad;  Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Board Member 
and 
Member Of Board  Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding Board Member: 
Epic of Evolution  Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project. 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango  Media Lab. Member: New York Academy of Sciences, 
American Association for the  Advancement of Science, American Psychological 
Society, Academy of Political  Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 
International Society for Human  Ethology. Scientific Advisory Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation. Advisory Board  Member, The Buffalo Film Festival. 
Editorial board member, The Journal of Space  Philosophy. 


In a message dated 6/19/2015 9:22:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
emanl@gmail.com writes:

 
Dear Jerry,   
Thank you for responding to my  post. 
Thank you very much for an  attempt to read and to understand my Vienna 
Symposium related  publications. 
I apologize for a delay in my  response – I was trying to read and to 
understand your papers (“Algebraic  Biology” and “_Physical Foundations of  
Organic Mathematics”). Unfortunately, I did not  understand much of what you 
are 
talking there (about biological  computations)._ 
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_Organic_Mathematics_(Abstra
ct_August_26_2014))  
_Never mind, it is my fault, not  yours. To my shame, I often also do not 
understand what other people on the  forum are writing too. _ 
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_Organic_Math
ematics_(Abstract_August_26_2014))  
As to me, I think (and write)  that the era of a computational approach to 
science and nature studies is over  and we are gradually replacing it with a 
cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology,  
Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry,  
Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational  
linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology, Cognitive  
ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive endocrinology,  
Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even Cognitive  computing). 
By definition,  computational approaches imply intensive data processing, 
while Cognitive  approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is 
the difference?  Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue.  
I was pleased to hear from Prof.  Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna) 
that “By means of the reformation,  all scientific and philosophical 
domains are facing an integrative trend of  paradigm reform, which I name as “
informationalization of science”,  (The quotation is from one of his 
presentation slides).  
As you can see, my assertions  are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims, 
but far from what you (and other  mainstream FIS contributors) obey and 
adhere to.  
I am a newcomer to FIS and I do  not intend to preach in the others’ 
temple. But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the  founding fathers of the Philosophy of 
Information. Therefore, it would be wise  for you to be in an agreement with 
his 
postulates.  
Best  regards, 
Emanuel  Diamant. 
 
 
From: Jerry LR  Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 15,  2015 8:42 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS  newcomer

Dear Emanuel: 
 

 
Thanks for posting your views on Research  Gate.
 

 
Interesting perspective, but...  the essence of  biology / biological 
computation are empirical observations that are highly  irregular in nature. 
One 
must separate the concepts of structures