[Fis] A general question about your experience on this list.
I've not been active on this list though I've looked in on it from time to time. I'm curious to know if members can remember a time when they experienced a fundamental shift in their assumptions, methodology or questions through interactions on this list. If you're willing to share what that shift was I'd welcome a brief description. Also if you have any insights into why you had that shift, for example, what someone said. Thanks, Jeremy Sherman Author, Neither Ghost Nor Machine: The emergence and nature of selves. ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Neither Ghost Nor Machine: The emergence and nature of selves
Hi all, For 20 years I've collaborated with Terry Deacon on his approach to information. This week, my new book distilling it is published with Columbia University Press. *Neither Ghost Nor Machine: the emergence and nature of selves* https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neither-ghost-nor-machine/9780231173339 30% discount with the promo code: cup30 I've been further distilling our approach in short videos. *Book summary* https://youtu.be/8JwefpId97Y *What is trying and how did it start?* https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U_id=VtSOU9ewlGI *What is value and how did it start?* https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U_id=cr7ZNLLltQ4 *What is mind and how did it start?* https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U_id=VJ5kXPrjXxc Deacon's approach is easy to misunderstand. Given widely-, and deeply-held assumptions, it's also way too easy to dismiss. My distillations are a new way to get clear about what he's actually proposing. Best, Jeremy Sherman ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
Deacon addressed this all very clearly in his January paper. I'm guessing
for most FIS members his argument changed little or nothing.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu
wrote:
Loet -- Well, so you favor the definition of information as an invention
of Western technology related to communication. Others prefer to define
information in such a way that it emerges into the world with biology -- in
the genetic system. Still others define information in such a way that it
can be viewed as a physical quantity, perhaps a measure of the importance
of context in any physical interaction. As a generalizer, I prefer the
latter, giving us the subsumptive hierarchy:
Information ~ {context {material code {uncertainty}}}
STAN
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net
wrote:
I would add another possibility -- information does not appear in the
universe until it is manipulated by modern human society as a commodity.
Yes, Stan, this makes sense to me: information (in bits) can be
considered as a measurement of the expected uncertainty. It is *yet*
meaning-free, but it can be provided with meaning in a system of reference
– such as a discourse.
For example, {50%,50%} contains 1 bit of information. Thus, if we mix 50
euro coins with 50 coins of a dollar or we group 50 black cats with 50
white ones, the uncertainty is one bit of information. This does not tell
us anything about the cats themselves as in a biology.
During the recent conference in Vienna, I was amazed how many of our
colleagues wish to ground information in physics. However, the
information-theoretical evaluation seems mathematical to me. The
mathematical notion of entropy is different from the physical one. The
physical one is only valid for the physico-chemical system of momenta and
energy.
When I exchange the 50 dollars into 50 euros, the expected information
content of the distribution of coins goes from one to zero bits, but this
is not thermodynamic entropy. The physics of the exchange process are
external to the informational-theoretical evaluation.
I know that you wish to express this with hierarchies. Information can be
measured at each level or as mutual information between them. But what the
information means, depends on the specific systems of reference.
Best,
Loet
--
Loet Leydesdorff
*Emeritus* University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/University of
Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/,
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.htmlBeijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of
London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en
*From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley
N Salthe
*Sent:* Sunday, June 14, 2015 3:14 PM
*To:* fis
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
Krassimir -- Thanks. Now I see what your objection is. You do not agree
with the Wheeler concept that information was he basis upon which
everything else was founded. Rather, you see it as appearing along with
matter. Or you might consider that it appeared 'along with form', in which
case information doesn't appear in the universe until life makes it
appearance. I would add another possibility -- information does not appear
in the universe until it is manipulated by modern human society as a
commodity.
STAN
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com
wrote:
Dear John and Stan,
What is cause, and what is result? This is the question.
If we not assume information and informational processes as secondary
effect from activity of living mater, it is not possible to proof anything
and we have to believe that proposed models maybe are truth. We have to
trust to Author but not to experiments.
Information has to be included not in the beginning of the hierarchy – at
least in the middle where living mater appear.
Sorry that my post was apprehended as careless!
Friendly regards
Krassimir
*From:* Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu
*Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 3:30 PM
*To:* Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
Krassimir -- ??? I fail to understand your assertion. This (and any
hierarchy) is a logical formulation, allowing us to allocate influences
from various aspects of nature in an orderly manner.
So, please explain further your careless assertion!
STAN
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com
wrote:
Dear John and Stan,
Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
But this is
Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . .
Amen. On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Marcus Abundis 55m...@gmail.com wrote: From Loet's post: During the recent conference in Vienna, I was amazed how many of our colleagues wish to ground information in physics. I would say that I was disappointed . . . For me this exchange on It from Bit is problematic as its seems to simply revisit the same problem introduced with Shannon's use of the term “information“ in his Mathematical Theory of Communication – but dressed with a slightly different face. I had this same problem with “lack of precise thinking“ (or terminology?) in the It from Bit video from last month. This endless(?) debate around an old issue of “meaningful information“ versus “meaningless information“ (aka DATA awaiting MEANINGFUL interpretation) I find unhelpful in addressing FOUNDATIONAL issues. If we cannot keep our terms straight I am not sure how progress is made. Yes, of course physics has a place in the conversation, but the needless blurring of basic terms does not, I think, advance the project. If a basic nomenclature and/or taxonomy cannot be agreed and then abided in these conversations, it leaves me wondering how I might contribute. I am new to this group, but this seems like it should have been dealt with from the start in agreeing the FIS group goals. [image: --] Marcus Abundis [image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig ___ 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] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11
It would be satisfying perhaps to think of our collective work as at the forefront of the development of what will become A Grand Domain of Science, but I would say the better trend in current science is toward careful integration between domains rather than toward established grand divisions, which seems a more a classical approach. Doesn't information play out in the biological and the social domains? Isn't our most ambitious goal here to explain scientifically the relationship between information and the physical domain? Whether modest or foolhardy as Terry suggests or of some other stature, Terry's approach addresses the source of the great schism in all academic and intellectual circles: Physical scientists are appropriately barred from explaining behavior in terms of the value of information for some end-directed self about, or representative of anything. But biological and social scientists can't help but explain behavior in those terms. Focusing, precisely on possible transitions from the physical domain to the living and social domains is exactly what a scientific approach demands. Lacking an explanation for the transition from mechanism to end-directed behavior (which is inescapably teleological down to its roots in function or adaptation--behaviors of value to a self about its environment), science is stuck, siloed into isolated domains without a rationale. To my mind, this makes the implications of meticulous work at the very border between mechanism and end-directed behavior anything but modest in its possible implications. In this I agree with Pedro. With what we now know about self-organization-- how it is footing on the physical side for a bridge from mechanism to end-directed behavior but does not itself provide the bridge, we are perfectly poised to build the bridge itself, through an integrated science that explains the ontology of epistemology, providing solid scientific ground over the absolutely huge gaping hole in the middle of the broadest reaches of scientific and philosophical endeavor. Whether Terry's work or someone else's work bridges that gap, I predict that, at long last, the gap can and will be finally filled, probably within the next decade. As ambitious researchers this would be a lousy time for any of us, Terry included, to stick to our guns in the face of substantial critique revealing how a theory we embrace merely provides a new, more clever way way to hide or smear over the gap pretending it isn't there, which is why I would love to see this discussion refocus on the article's detailed content. Though the implications of this research at the borderline may be grand, the research, in the doing, is as Terry implies as modest any careful scientific work. Jeremy Sherman On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Moisés André Nisenbaum moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br wrote: Hi, Pedro. I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science) Would you please send it again? Thank you. Moises 2015-01-17 9:00 GMT-02:00 fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es: Send Fis mailing list submissions to fis@listas.unizar.es To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es You can reach the person managing the list at fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Fis digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference significance (Pedro C. Marijuan) -- Mensagem encaminhada -- From: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: 'fis' fis@listas.unizar.es Cc: Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:43:40 +0100 Subject: Re: [Fis] Beginnings and ends---Steps to a theory of reference significance Dear Terry and FIS colleagues---and pirates, Just a brief reflection on the below. (From Terry's last message)... So my goal in this case is quite modest, and yet perhaps also a bit foolhardy. I want to suggest a simplest possible model system to use as the basis for formalizing the link between physical processes and semiotic processes. Perhaps someday after considerably elaborating this analysis it could contribute to issues of the psychology of human interactions. I hope to recruit some interest into pursuing this goal. In my view, any research endeavor is also accompanied by some ultimate goals or ends that go beyond the quite explicit disciplinary ones. In this case, say, about the destiny of the constructs that would surround the information concept (or the possibility of framing an informational perspective, or a renewed information science, or whatever), wouldn't it be interesting discussing in extenso what could that ultimate vision? I mean, most of us may agree in quite many points related to the microphysical ( thermodynamic
