Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis
Dear Soren, What I try to say is that the Piercean triadic pragmatic semiotics includes ‘meaning’ as generated by the Interpreter but does not tell much about the nature of that meaning. And this lack makes difficult to adress questions like: what is the reason of being of a meaning?, what can be its content? its purpose?, what are its relations with information?, how can it be applied to animals and humans (and to AAs)?, is a meaning always meaningful? and for which entities?, ... Theses questions should be part, I feel, of a transdiciplinarity semiotic process philosophy. And I don’t see very well how they can be taken into account without the availability of a description or modeling of the Interpreter. Did I miss something? Best Christophe De : Søren Brier Envoyé : vendredi 25 mai 2018 13:13 À : Christophe Menant; fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : RE: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis Dear Christoph I am not sure what you mean. In my understanding the important dynamics in Peirce’s pragmaticist semiotics is that symbols grow and create habits in a web of signs in nature as well as in culture viewing the central dynamic process in the cosmos as well as man to be of symbolic nature that through evolution and history develops reasoning in many interlocking dimension. Best Søren From: Christophe Menant Sent: 25. maj 2018 09:08 To: Søren Brier ; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: RE: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis Dear Soren, You are right to recall that a transdisciplinary theory of cognition and communication has to include meaning. But I’m not sure that the Peircean approach is enough for that. The triad (Object, Sign, Interpretant) positions the Interpretant as being the meaning of the Sign created by the Interpreter. But Peirce does not tell much about a possible content of the Interpreter. He does not tell what is for him a process of meaning generation. And this, I feel, should bring us to be cautious about using Peirce in subjects dealing with meaning generation. Best Christophe De : Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> de la part de Søren Brier mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>> Envoyé : jeudi 24 mai 2018 17:44 À : Loet Leydesdorff; Burgin, Mark; Krassimir Markov; fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> Objet : Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis Dear Mark, Loet and others My point was that all the aspects I mention are part of a reality that is bigger than what we can grasp under the realm of physical science. Reality is bigger than physicalism. Quantitative forms of information measurements can be useful in many ways, but they are not sufficient for at transdisciplinary theory of cognition and communication. As Loet write then we have to include meaning. In what framework can we do that? The natural science do not have experience and meaning in their conceptual foundations. We can try to develop a logical approach like Mark and Peirce do. Where Mark stays in the structural dimension and Loet wants to enter res cogitans by probability measures, , maybe because a philosophical framework that does not allow meaning to be real. But Peirce keeps working with the metaphysical stipulations until he reaches a framework that can integrate experience, meaning and logic in one theory, namely his triadic pragmaticist semiotics. I am fascinated by it because I think it is unique, but many researcher do not want to use it, because its change in metaphysics in developing out of Descartes dualism, all though most of us agrees that it is too limited to work in the modern scientific ontology of irreversible time, that Prigogine developed. Who other than Peirce has developed on non-dualist non-foundationalist transdisciplinary semiotic process philosophy integrating animal (biosemiotics), human evolution, history and language development in a consistent theory of the development of human consciousness? Best Søren From: l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> mailto:leydesdo...@gmail.com>> On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: 24. maj 2018 07:45 To: Burgin, Mark mailto:mbur...@math.ucla.edu>>; Søren Brier mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>>; Krassimir Markov mailto:mar...@foibg.com>>; fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis Dear Mark, Soren, and colleagues, The easiest distinction is perhaps Descartes' one between res cogitans and res extensa as two different realities. Our knowledge in each case that things could have been different is not out there in the world as something seizable such as piece of wood. Similarly, uncertainty in the case of a distribution is not seizable, but it can be expressed in bits of information (as one measu
Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis
Dear Soren, You are right to recall that a transdisciplinary theory of cognition and communication has to include meaning. But I’m not sure that the Peircean approach is enough for that. The triad (Object, Sign, Interpretant) positions the Interpretant as being the meaning of the Sign created by the Interpreter. But Peirce does not tell much about a possible content of the Interpreter. He does not tell what is for him a process of meaning generation. And this, I feel, should bring us to be cautious about using Peirce in subjects dealing with meaning generation. Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Søren Brier Envoyé : jeudi 24 mai 2018 17:44 À : Loet Leydesdorff; Burgin, Mark; Krassimir Markov; fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis Dear Mark, Loet and others My point was that all the aspects I mention are part of a reality that is bigger than what we can grasp under the realm of physical science. Reality is bigger than physicalism. Quantitative forms of information measurements can be useful in many ways, but they are not sufficient for at transdisciplinary theory of cognition and communication. As Loet write then we have to include meaning. In what framework can we do that? The natural science do not have experience and meaning in their conceptual foundations. We can try to develop a logical approach like Mark and Peirce do. Where Mark stays in the structural dimension and Loet wants to enter res cogitans by probability measures, , maybe because a philosophical framework that does not allow meaning to be real. But Peirce keeps working with the metaphysical stipulations until he reaches a framework that can integrate experience, meaning and logic in one theory, namely his triadic pragmaticist semiotics. I am fascinated by it because I think it is unique, but many researcher do not want to use it, because its change in metaphysics in developing out of Descartes dualism, all though most of us agrees that it is too limited to work in the modern scientific ontology of irreversible time, that Prigogine developed. Who other than Peirce has developed on non-dualist non-foundationalist transdisciplinary semiotic process philosophy integrating animal (biosemiotics), human evolution, history and language development in a consistent theory of the development of human consciousness? Best Søren From: l...@leydesdorff.net On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: 24. maj 2018 07:45 To: Burgin, Mark ; Søren Brier ; Krassimir Markov ; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis Dear Mark, Soren, and colleagues, The easiest distinction is perhaps Descartes' one between res cogitans and res extensa as two different realities. Our knowledge in each case that things could have been different is not out there in the world as something seizable such as piece of wood. Similarly, uncertainty in the case of a distribution is not seizable, but it can be expressed in bits of information (as one measure among others). The grandiose step of Shannon was, in my opinion, to enable us to operationalize Descartes' cogitans and make it amenable to the measurement as information. Shannon-type information is dimensionless. It is provided with meaning by a system of reference (e.g., an observer or a discourse). Some of us prefer to call only thus-meaningful information real information because it is embedded. One can also distinguish it from Shannon-type information as Bateson-type information. The latter can be debated as physical. In the ideal case of an elastic collision of "billard balls", the physical entropy (S= kB * H) goes to zero. However, if two particles have a distribution of momenta of 3:7 before a head-on collision, this distribution will change in the ideal case into 7:3. Consequently, the probabilistic entropy is .7 log2 (.7/.3) + .3 log2 (.3/.7) = .86 – .37 = .49 bits of information. One thus can prove that this information is not physical. Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, 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.html> Beijing; Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en -- Original Message -- From: "Burgin, Mark" mailto:mbur...@math.ucla.edu>> To: "Søren Brier" mailto:sbr@cbs.dk>>; "Krassimir Markov" mailto:mar...@foibg.
Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory
Yes Guy, Unconsciously I take communications as related to meaning generation. But, as you say, we could use the word for the two beams attached to each other with bolts and that ‘communicate’ relatively to the strength of the building. The difference may be in the purpose of the communication, in the constraint justifying its being. The ‘communication’ between the two beams is about maintaining them together, satisfying physical laws (that exist everywhere). It comes from the decision of the architect who is constrained to get a building that stands up. The constraint is with the architect, not with the beams that only obey physical laws. In the case of living entities the constraints are locally present in the organisms (‘stay alive’). The constraint is not in the environment of the organism. And the constraint addresses more than physico-chemical laws. If there is meaning generation for constraint satisfaction in the case of organisms, it is difficult to talk the same for the two beams. This introduces the locality of constraints as a key subject in the evolution of our universe. It is an event that emerged from the a-biotic universe populated with physico-chemical laws valid everywhere. Another subject interesting to many of us All the best Christophe De : Guy A Hoelzer Envoyé : mardi 13 février 2018 18:18 À : Foundations of Information Science Information Science Cc : Terry Deacon; Christophe Menant Objet : Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory 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 we have such confidence that this premise is correct that it is safe to assume it is true. However, the word “communication” is sometimes used in ways that do not comport with this premise. For example, it can be said that in the building of a structure, two beams that are attached to each other with bolts are “communicating” with each other. This certainly fits my notion of communication, although there are no “agents” or “meanings” here. Energy (e.g., movement) can be transferred from one beam to the next, which represents “communication” to me. I would personally define communication as the transfer of information, and I prefer to define “information” without any reference to “meaning”. If the claim above had been written as a contingency (e.g., “If we assume that communications exist…”), then I could embrace the rest of Christophe’s post. I think the effectiveness of our FIS posts is diminished by presuming everybody shares our particular perspectives on these concepts. It leads us to talk past each other to a degree; so I hope we can remain open to the correctness or utility of alternative perspectives that have been frequently voiced within FIS and use contingent language to establish the premises of our FIS posts. Regards, Guy On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:19 AM, Christophe Menant mailto:christophe.men...@hotmail.fr>> wrote: Dear Terry and FISers, It looks indeed reasonable to position the term 'language' as ‘simply referring to the necessity of a shared medium of communication’. Keeping in mind that communications exist only because agents need to manage meanings for given purposes. And the concept of agent can be an entry point for a ‘general theory of information’ as it does not make distinctions. The Peircean triadic approach is also an available framework (but with, alas, a limited development of the Interpreter). I choose to use agents capable of meaning generation, having some compatibility with the Peircean approach and with the Biosemiotics Umwelt.(https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Frec%2FMENCSA-2&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7Cdec1da68a04040bfb90708d572e4a3cf%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=USUkVdQNSqloH2YAzJEtn23n8ouS17Wfe3RMHPDNZho%3D&reserved=0>) All the best Christophe ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory
Dear Soren, Thanks for your comments. Interpretation and agency are indeed key items. An approach based on internal constraint saisfactiont allows to address them together, with autonomy also. In a few words: An agent is an entity submitted to internal constraints and capable of actions for the satisfaction of the constraints (ex: animals submitted to a ‘stay alive’ constraint). An autonomous agent can satisfy its internal constraints by its own. Interpretation is meaning generation by an agent when it receives information that has a connection with a constraint. The generated meaning is precisely that connection. It will be used for the determination of an action that the agent will implement to satisfy the constraint. Normativity and teleology can also be added to the ‘internal constraints’ thread. More details on these subjects at https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2 where the contributions of Peirce and Uexkull are highlighted. However, the concept of internal constraint is not enough to understand the relations between animals and human minds. Philosophy of mind makes available several entry points (the hard problem, phenomenal consciousness, qualia, first person perspective, transcendental/empiric self, transitive/untransitive self-consciousness, .. ). What is interesting is that these entry points need to consider more or less explicitly some aspect of self-consciousness. This is why I look at a possible evolutionary nature of self consciousness based on an evolution of meaningful representations where meaning generation comes in again (in above ref also). A lot is to be done on these interesting subjects.. All the Best Christophe De : Søren Brier Envoyé : mardi 13 février 2018 15:22 À : Christophe Menant; Terrence W. DEACON Cc : FIS Group Objet : RE: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory Dear Christophé I think you hit on a most interesting problem of how to establish interpretation and agency in a philosophical framework that is compatible trans disciplinarily from the natural over the social and into the human sciences, here especially encompassing phenomenological and hermeneutical descriptions of meaningful perception, cognition and communication. The interpreter in Peirce is described as a phenomenological triadic process, but I agree with you that the embodiment is not well described in the Peircean framework. Therefore biosemiotics are integrating Peircean semiotics with Bateson concept of mind, Uexkülls funktionskreis and Maturana’ and Varela’s autopoietic models. Uexküll has similarities with the cybernetics that inform autopoiesis theory. Neither has a full philosophy with a phenomenological grounding as Peirce. I do not think that cybernetics have a theory of experiential mind, Von Foerster has a few reflections on cognition in his establishing of second order cybernetics not encompassing the experiential aspect, the quality problem or the problem of spontaneity that must be there to establish agency, which are all theory in Peirce’s idea of the self as a symbolic process. Uexküll seems to have a phenomenological idea of experiential mind in order to establish his Umwelt concept, but how that is related to the biologically described body is still not clear for me. Uexküll seem to be an anti-evolutionary sort of Platonist. The relation between animals and human are not clear to me. I do not think he has a full philosophy. So the problem is how we establish an ontological view encompassing natural science, evolution and the phenomenology of experiential mind’s agency. Process philosophy seems to be a way out and so far only Peirce and Whitehead has produced acceptable ones and of those only Peirce has produced a semiotics. I wonder in which ontology you establish your concept of agency? Best Søren From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Christophe Menant Sent: 13. februar 2018 14:20 To: Terrence W. DEACON Cc: FIS Group Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory Dear Terry and FISers, It looks indeed reasonable to position the term 'language' as ‘simply referring to the necessity of a shared medium of communication’. Keeping in mind that communications exist only because agents need to manage meanings for given purposes. And the concept of agent can be an entry point for a ‘general theory of information’ as it does not make distinctions. The Peircean triadic approach is also an available framework (but with, alas, a limited development of the Interpreter). I choose to use agents capable of meaning generation, having some compatibility with the Peircean approach and with the Biosemiotics Umwelt.(https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2) All the best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Terrence
Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory
Dear Terry and FISers, It looks indeed reasonable to position the term 'language' as ‘simply referring to the necessity of a shared medium of communication’. Keeping in mind that communications exist only because agents need to manage meanings for given purposes. And the concept of agent can be an entry point for a ‘general theory of information’ as it does not make distinctions. The Peircean triadic approach is also an available framework (but with, alas, a limited development of the Interpreter). I choose to use agents capable of meaning generation, having some compatibility with the Peircean approach and with the Biosemiotics Umwelt.(https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2) All the best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Terrence W. DEACON Envoyé : mardi 13 février 2018 06:33 À : Sungchul Ji Cc : FIS Group; Jose Javier Blanco Rivero Objet : Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory To claim that: "without a language, no communication would be possible" one must be using the term "language" in a highly metaphoric sense. Is scent marking a language? Music? Sexual displays, like a peacock's tail? How about a smile or frown? Is the pattern of colors of a flower that attracts bees a language? Was the evolution of language in humans just more of the same, not something distinct from a dog's bark? When a person is depressed, their way of walking often communicates this fact to others; so is this slight modification of posture part of a language? If I get the hiccups after eating is this part of a language that communicates my indigestion? Is this usage of the term 'language' simply referring to the necessity of a shared medium of communication? Is it possible to develop a general theory of information by simply failing to make distinctions? — Terry On 2/12/18, Sungchul Ji wrote: > Hi FISers, > > > (1) I think language and communication cannot be separated, since without a > language, no communication would be possible (see Figure 1). > > > >f >g > Sender ---> Message > > Receiver > | >^ > | > | > | > | > > |_| > > h > > “Language and communication are both irreducibly triadic; i.e., the three > nodes and three edges are essential for communication, given a language or > code understood by both the sender and receiver.” f = encoding; g = > decoding; h = information flow. > > Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the irreducibly triadic nature > of communication and language. > > > > > (2) I think it may be justified and useful to distinguish between > anthropomorphic language metaphor (ALM) and non-athropomorphic language > metaphor (NLM). I agree with many of the members of this list that we > should not apply ALM to biology uncritically, since such an approch to > biology may lead to unjustifiable anthropomorphisms. > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus) and the anthropocentric theory of [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Alchemische_Vereinigung_aus_dem_Donum_Dei.jpg/1200px-Alchemische_Vereinigung_aus_dem_Donum_Dei.jpg]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus> Homunculus - Wikipedia<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus> en.wikipedia.org A homunculus (/ h oʊ ˈ m ʌ ŋ k j ʊ l ə s /; Latin for "little man") is a representation of a small human being. Popularized in sixteenth-century alchemy and ... > creatiion. > > > (3) Table 1 below may represent one possible example of NLM. Although the > linguistic terms such as letters, words, sentences, etc. are used in this > table, they are matrially/ontologically different from their molecular > coutner parts; e.g., letters are different from nucleotides, protein > domians , etc.,and words are different from genes, proteins, etc., but > there are unmistakable common formal features among them. > > Table 1. The formal and material aspects of the cell language (Cellese). > > \ Material Aspect > \(Function) > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > Formal Aspect \ >(Function) \ > \ > > DNA Language > (DNese; > Information transmission in time) > > RNA Language > (RNese; > Information transmission
[Fis] TR: some notes
Thanks for that Pedro, Just a few comments. All the best, Christophe De : Fis de la part de Pedro C. Marijuan Envoyé : lundi 13 novembre 2017 14:30 À : 'fis' Objet : [Fis] some notes Dear All, Herewith some notes on the exchanges of past weeks (sorry, I was away in bureaucratic tasks). 1. Agents & Information. There were very good insights exchanged; probably both terms make a fertile marriage. Actually I have been writing about "informational entities" or "subjects" as receivers/builders of information but taking into account the other disciplines around, "agents" look as the most natural companion of information. The only thing I don't quite like is that they usually appear as abstract, disembodied communicative entities that do not need self-producing. Their communication is free from whatever life maintenance... Yes, agents naturally go with information as they are the source of meaning generation, of sense making. Agents can be organic, human and artificial. (I look at agents as identifyable entities submitted to internal constraints and capable of actions for the satisfaction of the constraints). Artificial agents can be looked at as disembodied but their being is derived from our human ones. So their self (if any) is part of the human designer's self. 2. Eigenvectors of communication. Taking the motif from Loet, and continuing with the above, could we say that the life cycle itself establishes the eigenvectors of communication? It is intriguing that maintenance, persistence, self-propagation are the essential motives of communication for whatever life entities (from bacteria to ourselves). With the complexity increase there appear new, more sophisticated directions, but the basic ones probably remain intact. What could be these essential directions of communication? Perhaps it could be interesting here to highlight that physics/chemistry and biology/psychology cannot address information the same way. Physics and chemistry use tools with precise definitions allowing to model our environment in a deterministic and predictable way (QM and Chaos deserving more investigations). Biology/psychology do not benefit of such rigorous mathematical support. We do not even know how to define life or consciousness, and our models are incomplete. So what about separating the two domains and looking at their relations as a third domain? 1) Thermodynamics, entropy, quantity of information, channel capacity, data transmission. 2) Meaning generation, biology and self-consciousness 3) Emergence and locality of constraints, emergence of meanings This puts again the focus on meaning generation, a key evolutionary step without which we would not be here. Also, let's not forget that data transmission and quantification of information are about meaningful information. So why not consider internal constraint satisfaction, the source of meaning generation, as an essential direction of communication? 3. About logics in the pre-science, Joseph is quite right demanding that discussion to accompany principles or basic problems. Actually principles, rules, theories, etc. are interconnected or should be by a logic (or several logics?) in order to give validity and coherence to the different combinations of elements. For instance, in the biomolecular realm there is a fascinating interplay of activation and inhibition among the participating molecular partners (enzymes and proteins) as active elements. I am not aware that classical ideas from Jacob (La Logique du vivant) have been sufficiently continued; it is not about Crick's Central Dogma but about the logic of pathways, circuits, modules, etc. Probably both Torday and Ji have their own ideas about that-- I would be curious to hear from them. 4. I loved Michel's response to Arturo's challenge. I think that the two "zeros" I mentioned days ago (the unsolved themes around the cycle and around the observer) imply both multidisciplinary thinking and philosophical speculation... Best wishes--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 0 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ [https://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/_/rsrc/1468865628625/home/DSC00254-1.JPG?height=420&width=346]<http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/> Pedro.C.Marijuan<http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/> sites.google.com Personal Webpage of Pedro C. Marijuán - ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Fis Info Pa
[Fis] TR: What is “Agent”?
Yes Stan, the Moreno-Mossio book is an interesting and recent treatment of autonomy but, as the title indicates, it is focused on biological autonomy. FYI there is also a 2009 paper by Barandiaran & all (some from the Moreno IAS team) that addresses agency and autonomy in a different way, allowing to consider artificial agents: "Defining Agency individuality, normativity, asymmetry and spatiotemporality in action". The paper is available at: https://xabierbarandiaran.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/barandiaran_dipaolo_rohde_-_defining_agency_v_1_0_-_jab_20091.pdf Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Stanley N Salthe Envoyé : jeudi 19 octobre 2017 21:47 À : Terrence W. DEACON; fis Objet : Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”? Here is an interesting recent treatment of autonomy. Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio: Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical and Theoretical Enquiry (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences 12); Springer, Dordrecht, 2015, xxxiv + 221 pp., $129 hbk, ISBN 978-94-017-9836-5 STAN On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Terrence W. DEACON mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>> wrote: AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT IS A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM ORGANIZED TO BE CAPABLE OF INITIATING PHYSICAL WORK TO FURTHER PRESERVE THIS SAME CAPACITY IN THE CONTEXT OF INCESSANT EXTRINSIC AND/OR INTRINSIC TENDENCIES FOR THIS SYSTEM CAPACITY TO DEGRADE. THIS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE WORK THAT IS SPECIFICALLY CONTRAGRADE TO THE FORM OF THIS DEGRADATIONAL INFLUENCE, AND THUS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO BE INFORMED BY THE EFFECTS OF THAT INFLUENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENT’S CRITICAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Koichiro Matsuno mailto:cxq02...@nifty.com>> wrote: On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote: the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe. This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem (2006). If (a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise their free will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and molecules lack their share of the similar capacity. For our bodies eventually consist of those atoms and molecules. Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent atoms and molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob Ulanowicz at long last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case would have to forcibly be dismissed. This has been my second post this week. Koichiro Matsuno From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] On Behalf Of Alex Hankey Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42 AM To: Arthur Wist mailto:arthur.w...@gmail.com>>; FIS Webinar mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>> Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”? David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they are as fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass. Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those emphasized by complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe. Alex ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto: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] TR: What is ³Agent²?
Dear Gordana, Your proposal for elementary particles and social institutions as two limit cases for agency is interesting as it also positions limit cases for normative/teleological properties highlighted as implicit parts of agency by Terry. And it brings in perspectives on your subject. Social institutions clearly have final causes (a long and complex list..) but associating agency and teleology to elementary particles may be problematic as it introduces final causes in a material universe. This looks close to an "intelligent design" option that we prefer to avoid. Why not introduce a possible "trend to increasing complexity" (TIC) in our universe, with steps since the big bang: energy => elementary particles=> atoms=>molecules=> life=>humans=> (perhaps pan-computationalism has a say there?). Agency and normative/teleological properties can then be looked at as emerging during the TIC at the molecules=>life transition (Terry's morphodynamics). Rather than being a limit case for agency, elementary particles are then part of the thread leading to teleology/agency via the TIC. How would you feel about such wording? Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic Envoyé : vendredi 20 octobre 2017 11:02 À : Terrence W. DEACON; 'Bob Logan'; l...@leydesdorff.net; 'fis' Objet : Re: [Fis] What is ³Agent²? Dear Terry, Bob, Loet Thank you for sharing those important thoughts about possible choices for the definition of agency. I would like to add one more perspective that I find in Pedro’s article which makes a distinction between matter-energy aspects and informational aspects of the same physical reality. I believe that on the fundamental level of information physics we have a good ND simplest example how those two entangled aspects can be formally framed. As far as I can tell, Terrys definition covers chemical and biological agency. Do we want to include apart from fundamental physics also full cognitive and social agency which are very much dominated by informational aspects (symbols and language)? Obviously there is no information without physical implementation, but when we think about epistemology and the ways we know the world, for us and other biological agents there is no physical interaction without informational aspects. Can we somehow think in terms those two faces of agency? Without matter/energy nothing will happen, nothing can act in the world but that which happens and anyone registers it, has informational side to it. For human agency (given that matter/energy side is functioning) information is what to a high degree drives agency. Do you think this would be a fruitful path to pursue, with “agency” of elementary particles and agency of social institutions as two limit cases? All the best, Gordana __ Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers University of Technology School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ [http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/IMG_1101-20150801-G.jpg]<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc> Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc> www.mrtc.mdh.se GORDANA DODIG-CRNKOVIC Professor of Computer Science. gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se. Mobile MDH: +46 73 662 05 11 General Chair of is4si summit 2017 http://is4si-2017.org<http://is4si-2017.org/> [http://media.is4si-2017.org/2016/06/IS4SI-2017-2.jpg]<http://is4si-2017.org/> IS4SI-2017 - International Society for Information Studies<http://is4si-2017.org/> is4si-2017.org IS4SI-2017 Summit - International Society for Information Studies - DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY Embodied, Embedded, Networked, Empowered... From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>> Organization: University of Amsterdam Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>" mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>> Date: Friday, 20 October 2017 at 08:40 To: 'Bob Logan' mailto:lo...@physics.utoronto.ca>>, 'fis' mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”? Dear Bob and colleagues, I agree with the choice element. From a sociological perspective, agency is usually defined in relation to structure. For example, in terms of structure/actor contingencies. The structures provide the background that bind us. Remarkably, Mark, we no longer define these communalities philosophically, but sociologically (e.g., Merton, 1942, about the institutional norms of science). An interesting extension is that we nowadays not only perceive communality is our biological origins (as species), but also in terms of communicative layers that
[Fis] TR: What is “Agent”?
Resent to FIS correct address De : Christophe Menant Envoyé : jeudi 19 octobre 2017 11:15 À : is Cc : Krassimir Markov Objet : RE: [Fis] What is “Agent”? Dear FIS colleagues, Looking at defining agency is an interesting subject, somehow close to information and meaning. Thank you Krassimir for bringing it up. Let me propose here an approach based on what we can call ‘agents’ in our everyday life. This can highlight characteristics possibly leading to a definition.for agents. Based on laymen’s understanding of the world most of us would agree about items that can be considered as agents and items that cannot. Obviously, animals, humans and plants are agents (Natural Agents). Also, robots and most of our programmable builds up are agents (Artificial Agents). But stones, puddles, smokes (inert items) are not generally considered as agents (‘non-agents’). In terms of characteristics it is pretty obvious that both agents and non-agents obey physico-chemical laws that exist everywhere. But in contrast it is worth noticing that agents are local entities submitted to internal constraints. Natural Agents are submitted to ‘intrinsic constraints’ like ‘stay alive’ (individual & species) and ‘live group life’, with other specific constraints for humans. AAs are different as they have to satisfy ‘derived constraints’ coming from their designer. All these internal constraints are satisfied by actions implemented by the agents. These actions can be physical, biological or mental and take place in or out the agent. Inert items (non-agents) are not submitted to internal constraints and do not act for constraint satisfaction. Such characterization of agents as different from non-agents brings us to the following: Agents are local entities. Agents are submitted to internal constraints. Agents are capable of action for constraint satisfaction. This leads to a possible definition for an agent as being ‘an identifiable entity submitted to internal constraints and capable of actions for the satisfaction of the constraints’ (a more detailed presentation of that definition is available at https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCSA-2). Such definition of an agent focused on action for internal constraint satisfaction positions meaning generation at the core of agency (a meaning is generated as being the connection between received information and an internal constraint). And such relations between agency and meaning allow to look at some AI concerns in quite simple terms. Characterizing agents and meanings by intrinsic or derived constraints leads to positions on the Turing Test, on the Chinese Room Argument and on the Symbol Grounding Problem (short paper on subject at https://philpapers.org/rec/MENTTC-2). Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Krassimir Markov Envoyé : dimanche 15 octobre 2017 23:27 À : Foundation of Information Science Objet : [Fis] What is “Agent”? Dear FIS Colleagues, After nice collaboration last weeks, a paper Called “Data versus Information” is prepared in very beginning draft variant and already is sent to authors for refining. Many thanks for fruitful work! What we have till now is the understanding that the information is some more than data. In other words: d = r i = r + e where: d => data; i => information; r => reflection; e => something Else, internal for the Agent (subject, interpreter, etc.). Simple question: What is “Agent”? When an entity became an Agent? What is important to qualify the entity as Agent or as an Intelligent Agent? What kind of agent is the cell? At the end - does information exist for Agents or only for Intelligent Agents? Thesis: Information exists only for the Intelligent Agents. Antithesis: Information exists at all levels of Agents. Friendly greetings Krassimir ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Fis Info Page - unizar.es<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> listas.unizar.es The FIS initiative (Foundations of Information Science) started in 1994 with a first meeting in Madrid (organized by Michael Conrad and Pedro Marijuan), and was ... ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] TR: Data - Reflection - Information
Thanks for these comments Terry. We should indeed be careful not to focus too much on language because 'meaning' is not limited to human communication. And also because starting at basic life level allows to address 'meaning' without the burden of complex performances like self-consciousness or free will. (The existing bias on language may come from analytic philosophy initially dealing with human performances). Interestingly, a quite similar comment may apply to continental philosophy where the 'aboutness' of a mental state was invented for human consciousness. And this is of some importance for us because 'intentionality' is close to 'meaning'. Happily enough 'bio-intentionality' is slowly becoming an acceptable entity (https://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2). Regarding Peirce, I'm a bit careful about using the triadic approach in FIS because non human life was not a key subject for him and also because the Interpreter which creates the meaning of the sign (the Interpretant) does not seem that much explicited or detailed. The divisions you propose look interesting (intrinsic, referential, normative). Would it be possible to read more on that (sorry if I have missed some of your posts)? Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Terrence W. DEACON Envoyé : lundi 9 octobre 2017 02:30 À : Sungchul Ji Cc : foundationofinformationscience Objet : Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information Against "meaning" I think that there is a danger of allowing our anthropocentrism to bias the discussion. I worry that the term 'meaning' carries too much of a linguistic bias. By this I mean that it is too attractive to use language as our archtypical model when we talk about information. Language is rather the special case, the most unusual communicative adaptation to ever have evolved, and one that grows out of and depends on informationa/semiotic capacities shared with other species and with biology in general. So I am happy to see efforts to bring in topics like music or natural signs like thunderstorms and would also want to cast the net well beyond humans to include animal calls, scent trails, and molecular signaling by hormones. And it is why I am more attracted to Peirce and worried about the use of Saussurean concepts. Words and sentences can indeed provide meanings (as in Frege's Sinn - "sense" - "intension") and may also provide reference (Frege's Bedeutung - "reference" - "extension"), but I think that it is important to recognize that not all signs fit this model. Moreover, A sneeze is often interpreted as evidence about someone's state of health, and a clap of thunder may indicate an approaching storm. These can also be interpreted differently by my dog, but it is still information about something, even though I would not say that they mean something to that interpreter. Both of these phenomena can be said to provide reference to something other than that sound itself, but when we use such phrases as "it means you have a cold" or "that means that a storm is approaching" we are using the term "means" somewhat metaphorically (most often in place of the more accurate term "indicates"). And it is even more of a stretch to use this term with respect to pictures or diagrams. So no one would say the a specific feature like the ears in a caricatured face mean something. Though if the drawing is employed in a political cartoon e.g. with exaggerated ears and the whole cartoon is assigned a meaning then perhaps the exaggeration of this feature may become meaningful. And yet we would probably agree that every line of the drawing provides information contributing to that meaning. So basically, I am advocating an effort to broaden our discussions and recognize that the term information applies in diverse ways to many different contexts. And because of this it is important to indicate the framing, whether physical, formal, biological, phenomenological, linguistic, etc. For this reason, as I have suggested before, I would love to have a conversation in which we try to agree about which different uses of the information concept are appropriate for which contexts. The classic syntax-semantics-pragmatics distinction introduced by Charles Morris has often been cited in this respect, though it too is in my opinion too limited to the linguistic paradigm, and may be misleading when applied more broadly. I have suggested a parallel, less linguistic (and nested in Stan's subsumption sense) way of making the division: i.e. into intrinsic, referential, and normative analyses/properties of information. Thus you can analyze intrinsic properties of an informing medium [e.g. Shannon etc etc] irrespective of these other properties, but can't make sense of ref
Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS
Dear John, It is interesting you bring us to the Interpretant in the Peircean triad where “meaning” is indeed key. The Interpretant is understood as the meaning of a sign, created by the mind of the Interpreter (Nöth, Handbook of Semiotics). But the triad Sign/Object/Interpretant does not explicit the Interpreter and considers it as somehow implicit. The many writings about the Object, the Sign and the Interpretant tell almost nothing about the Interpreter. This is surprising. The Interpreter looks to me as key as it is the place where the meaning generation happens in the Peircean triad, allowing the Interpretant to exist. Your knowledge of Peirce being much higher than mine, could you tell us how you feel about the neglected Interpreter? All the best Christophe De : Fis de la part de John Collier Envoyé : lundi 2 octobre 2017 08:28 À : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS Dear list, As Floridi points out in his Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. A volume for the Very Short Introduction series. data is often taken to be information. If so, then the below distinction is somewhat arbitrary. It may be useful or not. I think that for some circumstances it is useful, but for others it is misleading, especially if we are trying to come to grips with what meaning is. I am not sure there is ever data without interpretation (it seems to me that it is always assumed to be about something). There are, however, various degrees and depths of interpretation, and we may have data at a more abstract level that is interpreted as meaning something less abstract, such as pointer readings of a barometer and air pressure. The pointer readings are signs of air pressure. Following C.S. Peirce, all signs have an interpretant. We can ignore this (abstraction) and deal with just pointer readings of a particular design of gauge, and take this to be the data, but even the pointer readings have an important contextual element, being of a particular kind of gauge, and that also determines an interpretant. Just pointer readings alone are not data, they are merely numbers (which also, of course, have an interpretant that is even more abstract. So I think the data/information distinction needs to be made clear in each case, if it is to be used. Note that I believe that there is information that is independent of mind, but the above points still hold once we start into issues of observation. My belief is based on an explanatory inference that must be tested (and also be useful in this context). I believe that the idea of mind independent information has been tested, and is useful, but I am not going to go into that further here. Regards, John PS, please note that my university email was inadvertently wiped out, so I am currently using the above email, also the alias coll...@ncf.ca<mailto:coll...@ncf.ca> If anyone has wondered why their mail to me has been returned, this is why. On 2017/09/30 11:20 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote: Dear Christophe and FIS Colleagues, I agree with idea of meaning. The only what I would to add is the next: There are two types of reflections: 1. Reflections without meaning called DATA; 2. Reflections with meaning called INFORMATION. Friendly greetings Krassimir -- Krassimir Markov Director ITHEA Institute of Information Theories and Applications Sofia, Bulgaria presid...@ithea.org<mailto:presid...@ithea.org> www.ithea.org<http://www.ithea.org> Dear FISers, A hot discussion indeed... We can all agree that perspectives on information depend on the context. Physics, mathematics, thermodynamics, biology, psychology, philosophy, AI, ... But these many contexts have a common backbone: They are part of the evolution of our universe and of its understanding, part of its increasing complexity from the Big Bang to us humans. And taking evolution as a reading grid allows to begin with the simple. As proposed in a previous post, we care about information ONLY because it can be meaningful. Take away the concept of meaning, the one of information has no reason of existing. And our great discussions would just not exist. Now, Evolution + Meaning => Evolution of meaning. As already highlighted this looks to me as important in principles of IS. As you may remember that there is a presentation on that subject (http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/211, https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2) The evolution of the universe is a great subject where the big questions are with the transitions: energy=> matter => life => self-consciousness => ... And I feel that one way to address these transitions is with local constraints as sources of meaning generation. Best Christophe De : Fis <mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> de la part de tozziart...
[Fis] TR: : Principles of IS
Dear Krassimir, Thanks for highlighting that aspect of the subject. However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate information from data. A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data. But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctly demodulated. I would say that: 1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent. - A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (human voice, ant pheromone). - A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise). - A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal (interpretation/meaning generation). 2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received by different agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings for someone walking on the beach or for a person in a house). 3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account (human beings, ant-hill). Regarding your positioning of data, I'm not sure to understand your "reflections without meaning". Could you tell a bit more ? All the best Christophe De : Krassimir Markov Envoyé : samedi 30 septembre 2017 11:20 À : christophe.men...@hotmail.fr Cc : Foundation of Information Science Objet : Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS Dear Christophe and FIS Colleagues, I agree with idea of meaning. The only what I would to add is the next: There are two types of reflections: 1. Reflections without meaning called DATA; 2. Reflections with meaning called INFORMATION. Friendly greetings Krassimir -- Krassimir Markov Director ITHEA Institute of Information Theories and Applications Sofia, Bulgaria presid...@ithea.org www.ithea.org<http://www.ithea.org> ITHEA<http://www.ithea.org/> www.ithea.org ITHEA ISS; Membership; Awards; Photogalery; Credits Dear FISers, A hot discussion indeed... We can all agree that perspectives on information depend on the context. Physics, mathematics, thermodynamics, biology, psychology, philosophy, AI, ... But these many contexts have a common backbone: They are part of the evolution of our universe and of its understanding, part of its increasing complexity from the Big Bang to us humans. And taking evolution as a reading grid allows to begin with the simple. As proposed in a previous post, we care about information ONLY because it can be meaningful. Take away the concept of meaning, the one of information has no reason of existing. And our great discussions would just not exist. Now, Evolution + Meaning => Evolution of meaning. As already highlighted this looks to me as important in principles of IS. As you may remember that there is a presentation on that subject (http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/211, https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2) The evolution of the universe is a great subject where the big questions are with the transitions: energy=> matter => life => self-consciousness => ... And I feel that one way to address these transitions is with local constraints as sources of meaning generation. Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de tozziart...@libero.it Envoyé : vendredi 29 septembre 2017 14:01 À : fis Objet : Re: [Fis] Principles of IS Dear FISers, Hi! ...a very hot discussion... I think that it is not useful to talk about Aristotle, Plato and Ortega y Gasset, it the modern context of information... their phylosophical, not scientific approach, although marvelous, does not provide insights in a purely scientific issue such the information we are talking about... Once and forever, it must be clear that information is a physical quantity. Please read (it is not a paper of mine!): Street S. 2016. Neurobiology as information physics. Frontiers in Systems neuroscience. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108784/ In short, Street shows how information can be clearly defined in terms of Bekenstein entropy! Sorry, and BW... Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android venerdì, 29 settembre 2017, 01:31PM +02:00 da Rafael Capurro raf...@capurro.de: Dear Pedro, thanks for food for thought. When talking about communication we should not forget that Wiener defines cybernetics as "the theory of messages" (not: as the theory of information) (Human use of human beings, London 1989, p. 15, p. 77 "cybernetics, or the theory of messages" et passim) Even for Shannon uses the (undefined) concept of message 'as' what is transmitted (which is not information) is of paramount importance. And so also at the level of cell-cell communication. The code or the difference message/messenger is, I think, a key for interpreting biological processes. In this sense, message/
[Fis] TR: Principles of IS
Dear FISers, A hot discussion indeed... We can all agree that perspectives on information depend on the context. Physics, mathematics, thermodynamics, biology, psychology, philosophy, AI, ... But these many contexts have a common backbone: They are part of the evolution of our universe and of its understanding, part of its increasing complexity from the Big Bang to us humans. And taking evolution as a reading grid allows to begin with the simple. As proposed in a previous post, we care about information ONLY because it can be meaningful. Take away the concept of meaning, the one of information has no reason of existing. And our great discussions would just not exist. Now, Evolution + Meaning => Evolution of meaning. As already highlighted this looks to me as important in principles of IS. As you may remember that there is a presentation on that subject (http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/211, https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2) The evolution of the universe is a great subject where the big questions are with the transitions: energy=> matter => life => self-consciousness => ... And I feel that one way to address these transitions is with local constraints as sources of meaning generation. Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de tozziart...@libero.it Envoyé : vendredi 29 septembre 2017 14:01 À : fis Objet : Re: [Fis] Principles of IS Dear FISers, Hi! ...a very hot discussion... I think that it is not useful to talk about Aristotle, Plato and Ortega y Gasset, it the modern context of information... their phylosophical, not scientific approach, although marvelous, does not provide insights in a purely scientific issue such the information we are talking about... Once and forever, it must be clear that information is a physical quantity. Please read (it is not a paper of mine!): Street S. 2016. Neurobiology as information physics. Frontiers in Systems neuroscience. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108784/ In short, Street shows how information can be clearly defined in terms of Bekenstein entropy! Sorry, and BW... Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android venerdì, 29 settembre 2017, 01:31PM +02:00 da Rafael Capurro raf...@capurro.de<mailto:raf...@capurro.de>: Dear Pedro, thanks for food for thought. When talking about communication we should not forget that Wiener defines cybernetics as "the theory of messages" (not: as the theory of information) (Human use of human beings, London 1989, p. 15, p. 77 "cybernetics, or the theory of messages" et passim) Even for Shannon uses the (undefined) concept of message 'as' what is transmitted (which is not information) is of paramount importance. And so also at the level of cell-cell communication. The code or the difference message/messenger is, I think, a key for interpreting biological processes. In this sense, message/messanger are 'archai' (in the Aristotelian) sense for different sciences (no reductionism if we want to focus on the differences between the phenomena). 'Archai' are NOT 'general concepts' (as you suggest) but originating forces that underline the phenomena in their manifestations 'as' this or that. >From this perspective, information (following Luhmann) is the process of >interpretation taking place at the receiver. When a cell, excuse me these >thoughts from a non-biologist, receives a message transmitted by a messenger, >then the main issue is from the perspective of the cell, to interpret this >message (with a special address or 'form' supposed to 'in-form' the cell) 'as' >being relevant for it. Suppose this interpretation is wrong in the sense that >the message causes death (to the cell or the whole organism), then the >re-cognition system (its immune system also) of the cell fails. Biological >fake news, so to speak, with mortal consequences due to failures in the >communication. best Rafael Dear FISers, I also agree with Ji and John Torday about the tight relationship between information and communication. Actually Principle 5 was stating : "Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales." However, let me suggest that we do not enter immediately in the discussion of cell-cell communication, because it is very important and perhaps demands some more exchanges on the preliminary info matters. May I return to principles and Aristotle? I think that Rafael and Michel are talking more about principles as general concepts than about principles as those peculiar foundational items that allow the beginning of a new scientific disc
Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH
Interesting points Guy, Let me proposed a few things that can come in addition. “Fitness” could be worded “conformance to a demand”, or “satisfaction of a constraint”. And there we are talking about existing relations, like satisfying a ”stay alive” constraint for animals, a ”look for happiness “ one for humans and an “avoid obstacles “ one for a robot. Also distinguishing between ‘information’ and ‘meaning’ is indeed key. I believe that we have first to agree that the concept of information exists by the meanings that can be associated to information. Humans have invented 1+1=2 because 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples to avoid starving. The modeling of reality is not for free. Take away the concept of meaning, the one of information disappears. The relations between the two can be pretty complex but a thread is that meanings are the results of interpretation of information by agents. So the concept of “meaning generation” by an agent submitted to an internal constraint, as already addressed in our FIS forum. Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Guy A Hoelzer Envoyé : vendredi 15 septembre 2017 20:25 À : Foundations of Information Science Information Science Cc : tozziart...@libero.it Objet : Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH 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 without the goal of identifying real phenomena. I think the freedom to create and use such heuristic concepts is essential for many reasons, but we are constantly challenged as scientists with distinguishing between these terms and those we think and hope approximate real phenomena. A grad student I worked with suggested the term “tool words” to label terms we recognize as mainly heuristic. As an evolutionary biologist, I would suggest the term “fitness” has been a very useful heuristic term, but that “fitness” does not actually exist. This statement might surprise or even put off many of my colleagues, which I think illustrates the problem caused by failing to make this distinction explicit. As I have argued before, I think clearly distinguishing between ‘information’ and ‘meaning’ would be a good first step in this direction. Regards, Guy Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor Department of Biology University of Nevada Reno Phone: 775-784-4860 Fax: 775-784-1302 On Sep 15, 2017, at 6:16 AM, tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it> wrote: Dear FISers, I'm sorry for bothering you, but I start not to agree from the very first principles. The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is mathematics. Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable. Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one). And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is subjective and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been already tackled by the math of physics: science already predicts that information can be "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both relativity and quantum dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation. Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY physical context of matter and energy. Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on the basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math). Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farturotozzi.webnode.it%2F&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7C97485102689b43316b2308d4fc3c1d76%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=zC9isQ6gnnAJWc3ZKGqZh6YWPC4x7kiQ%2BAuKKa2WZ3g%3D&reserved=0> Messaggio originale Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> Data: 15/09/2017 14.13 A: "fis"mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Ogg: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS Dear FIS Colleagues, As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple of previous comments may be in order. First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory" (posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information science seems to be very different from other
Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS
Dear Pedro, The 10 principles cover indeed a lot regarding information science for humans. But I don't see very well an evolutionary coverage highlighting the progressive complexity of information management, from basic life up to humans and also artificial agents. Principles 4 & 5 contain the word "life" and the 5 addresses "biological organizations at all scales". But I'm not sure to see there the evolutionary spectrum allowing to begin with the simple and also to differentiate humans from animals & AAs in information science. (You may remember the IS4SI presentation addressing part of that subject https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2). I should have talked more on that with you at Goteborg (where we had a great meeting). All the best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Pedro C. Marijuan Envoyé : vendredi 15 septembre 2017 14:13 À : 'fis' Objet : [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS Dear FIS Colleagues, As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple of previous comments may be in order. First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory" (posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information science seems to be very different from other sciences, rather multifarious in appearance and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What could be the specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these information principles would appear as a sort of "portals" that connect with essential topics of other disciplines in the different organization layers, but at the same time they should try to be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the information world. And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier, Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments / criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival end to this info principles discussion (both attended the Madrid bygone FIS 1994 conference)... But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and the chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with the only customary limitation of two messages per week. Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro 10 PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy. 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or flows. 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed (either computationally or non-computationally). 4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy flows. 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales. 6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social nature." 7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by applying rigorous methodologies. 8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies." 9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna. 10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the information and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with profound consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social governance. -- - 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 0 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@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
Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
Dear Terry, Are you really sure that looking at linking Shannon to higher-order conceptions of information like meaning is a realistic ambition? I compare that to linking the width of a street to the individual motivations of the persons that will walk in the street. As we know, Shannon is to measure a communication channel capacity. It is not about the possible meanings of the information that may transit through the channel. Information goes through a communication channel because agents want to communicate, to exchange meaningful information (the 'outside perspective' as you say). And meanings do not exist by themselves. Meaningful information are generated by agents that have reasons for that. Animals manage meanings in order to stay alive (as individual & as species). Human motivation/constraints are more complex but they are the sources of our meaning generations. We agree that information is not to be confused with meaning. However, on a pragmatic standpoint the two cannot be separated. But this does not imply, I feel, that Shannon is to be linked to the meaning of information. For me the core of the subject is with meaning generation. Why and how is meaningful information generated? (https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI) All the best to all for 2017. Christophe De : Fis de la part de Terrence W. DEACON Envoyé : samedi 7 janvier 2017 20:15 À : John Collier Cc : Foundations of Information Science Information Science; Dai Griffiths Objet : Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life? Leot remarks: "... we need a kind of calculus of redundancy." I agree whole-heartedly. What for Shannon was the key to error-correction is thus implicitly normative. But of course assessment of normativity (accurate/inacurate, useful/unuseful, significant/insignificant) must necessarily involve an "outside" perspective, i.e. more than merely the statistics of sign medium chartacteristics. Redundancy is also implicit in concepts like communication, shared understanding, iconism, and Fano's "mutual information." But notice too that redundancy is precisely non-information in a strictly statistical understanding of that concept; a redundant message is not itself "news" — and yet it can reduce the uncertainty of what is "message" and what is "noise." It is my intuition that by developing a formalization (e.g. a "calculus") using the complemetary notions of redundancy and constraint that we will ultimately be able formulate a route from Shannon to the higher-order conceptions of information, in which referential and normative features can be precisely formulated. There is an open door, though it still seems pretty dark on the other side. So one must risk stumbling in order to explore that space. Happy 2017, Terry On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, John Collier mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote: Dear List, I agree with Terry that we should not be bound by our own partial theories. We need an integrated view of information that shows its relations in all of its various forms. There is a family resemblance in the ways it is used, and some sort of taxonomy can be constructed. I recommend that of Luciano Floridi. His approach is not unified (unlike my own, reported on this list), but compatible with it, and is a place to start, though it needs expansion and perhaps modification. There may be some unifying concept of information, but its application to all the various ways it has been used will not be obvious, and a sufficiently general formulation my well seem trivial, especially to those interested in the vital communicative and meaningful aspects of information. I also agree with Loet that pessimism, however justified, is not the real problem. To some extent it is a matter of maturity, which takes both time and development, not to mention giving up cherished juvenile enthusiasms. I might add that constructivism, with its positivist underpinnings, tends to lead to nominalism and relativism about whatever is out there. I believe that this is a major hindrance to a unified understanding. I understand that it appeared in reaction to an overzealous and simplistic realism about science and other areas, but I think it through the baby out with the bathwater. I have been really ill, so my lack of communication. I am pleased to see this discussion, which is necessary for the field to develop maturity. I thought I should add my bit, and with everyone a Happy New Year, with all its possibilities. Warmest regards to everyone, John From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: December 31, 2016 12:16 AM To: 'Terrence W. DEACON' mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>>; 'Dai Griffiths' mailto:dai.griffith...@gmail.com>>; 'Foundations of Information
[Fis] What is information? and What is life?
Dear Loet, You nicely illustrate the problem as a “hole“ in the center of the various perspectives. All these current and futures perspectives are indeed needed but it is true that “a general theory of information” remains terrribly challenging, precisely due to the sometimes orthogonal perspectives of the different theories, as you say. Now, perhaps the “hole” can be used as a image leading us far back in time when our universe was only about matter and energy. The evolution of our universe could then be used as a reference frame for the history of information. Such time guided background can be used for all the various perspectives and also highlights pitfalls like the mysterious natures of life and human mind. This brings us to take life as a starting point for the being of meaningful information (as said, information should not be separated from meaning. Weaver rightly recomended not to confuse meaning with information. It is not about separating them). So we could begin by positioning our investigations between life and human mind to address the natures of information and meaning, which are realities at that level and can there be modeled in quite simple terms. Then, being carefull with human mind, we could go to human management of information and consider human acheivements and current works: the measurement of quantity (channel capacity, Shannon), the formalizations (physical, referential, normative, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, constraint satisfaction oriented, your communcation/sharing of meaning or information, ...). This does not really fill the “hole” but it brings in evolution as a thread which leads to start with the simplest task. Wishing you and all FISers the best for this year end and for the coming 2017. Christophe De : Fis de la part de Loet Leydesdorff Envoyé : lundi 26 décembre 2016 14:01 À : 'Terrence W. DEACON'; 'Francesco Rizzo'; 'fis' Objet : Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life? In this respect Loet comments: "In my opinion, the status of Shannon’s mathematical theory of information is different from special theories of information (e.g., biological ones) since the formal theory enables us to translate between these latter theories." We are essentially in agreement, and yet I would invert any perspective that prioritizes the approach pioneered by Shannon. Dear Terrence and colleagues, The inversion is fine with me as an exploration. But I don’t think that this can be done on programmatic grounds because of the assumed possibility of “a general theory of information”. I don’t think that such a theory exists or is even possible without assumptions that beg the question. In other words, we have a “hole” in the center. Each perspective can claim its “generality” or fundamental character. For example, many of us entertain a biological a priori; others (including you?) reason on the basis of physics. The various (special) theories, however, are not juxtaposed; but can be considered as other (sometimes orthogonal) perspectives. Translations are possible at the bottom by unpacking in normal language or sometimes more formally (and advanced; productive?) using Shannon’s information theory and formalizations derived from it. I admit my own communication-theoretical a priori. I am interested in the communication of knowledge as different from the communication of information. Discursive knowledge specifies and codifies meaning. The communication/sharing of meaning provides an in-between layer, which has also to be distinguished from the communication of information. Meaning is not relational but positional; it cannot be communicated, but it can be shared. I am currently working (with coauthors) on a full paper on the subject. The following is the provisional abstract: As against a monadic reduction of knowledge and meaning to signal processing among neurons, we distinguish among information and meaning processing, and the possible codification of specific meanings as discursive knowledge. Whereas the Shannon-type information is coupled to the second law of thermodynamics, redundancy—that is, the complement of information to the maximum entropy—can be extended by further distinctions and the specification of expectations when new options are made feasible. With the opposite sign, the dynamics of knowledge production thus infuses the historical (e.g., institutional) dynamics with a cultural evolution. Meaning is provided from the perspective of hindsight as feedback on the entropy flow. The circling among dynamics in feedback and feedforward loops can be evaluated by the sign of mutual information. When mutual redundancy prevails, the resulting sign is negative indicating that more options are made available and innovation can be expected to flourish. The relation of this cultural evolution with the computation of anticip
[Fis] TR: Something positive
Dear Arturo, You are right, we need models. But why not use the natural one during which all this has happened: the evolution of our universe. And taking the evolution of the universe as a reference frame allows to highlight a few pitfalls. Basically the natures of life and human mind which are still mysteries for today science and philosophy. This should bring us to accept the difficulties encountered with a definition of life. So we can begin by positioning our investigations betwen life and human mind to address the natures of information and meaning, which are realities at that level. But first a preliminary point. I feel that information should not be separated from meaning. We care only about meaningful information. Weaver rightly said that information should not be confused with meaning because a channel capacity is independent of the meaning of information going thru it. But this does not mean that information should be separated from meaning. Nobody would care about a channel transferring meaningless information. Now, taking life as a given with its performances allows us to look at definitions for information and meaning for living entities, and also can bring in a thread for a definition of self-consciousness (part of human mind). This has been addressed in a 2011 book to which several FISers have participated with Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic and Mark Burgin as editors (http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/7637). The chapter defining information and meaning for living entities is at https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI (with extension to artificial agents). I would recommend you have a look at it. All the Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de tozziart...@libero.it Envoyé : jeudi 22 décembre 2016 07:51 À : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : [Fis] Something positive Dear FISers, it's excruciating... We did not even find an unique definition of information, life, brain activity, consciousness... How could the science improve, if it lacks definitions of what itself is talking about? It seems that we depicted a rather dark, hopeless picture... However, there is, I thing, a light in front of us. I think that the best way to proceed, at least the most useful in the last centuries, is the one pursued by Einstein: to build an abstract, rather geometric , mathematical model, make testable previsions and then to check if it works in the real world. Therefore, I think, we need novel, fresh models and theories, more than experiments aiming to demonstrate theory-laden, pre-cooked, previsions of scientists. It is the old problem of science: from above, or from below? Which is the best approach? The knowledge of the most elementary biological and physical issues is so scarce, as demonstrated by this FIS discussion involving foremost scientists from all over the world, that the right approach, I think, is to start from above... from topology, of course Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ Arturo Tozzi<http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/> arturotozzi.webnode.it Formally MD, PhD, Pediatrician (ASL NA2 Nord, Caivano, Naples, Italy), Adjunct Assistant Professor in Physics (Department of Physics, Center for Nonlineas Science ... ___ 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] Intelligence & Meaning & The Brain
Dear Pedro, Thanks for the copy of your ICIS 2016 presentation which covers a lot of evolutionary aspects regarding intelligence and the information flow. Perhaps one aspect of that subject may deserve a bit more. It is “human mind”. For instance, your chart (N°39) on the four domains of science (physical, biological, social, informational) could contain a 5th component: “humanities” in order to explicitly take into account human mind. This because it is a key step in the evolution of our universe (energy, matter, life, human mind) that cannot be today deduced from the other domains. And also because an understanding of human mind could introduce possible evolutions of human motivations for the better of mindkind (you remember the evolutionary scenario where the proposed interactions of anxiety management with self-consciousness introduce possibilities for new understandings on human nature in terms of motivations and actions. I think (and hope) that human evolution is not over and this is in the direction of sheding some light on a possible maturing of human self-consciousness for the better of mankind). (http://philpapers.org/rec/MENPFA-3). [http://philpapers.org/assets/raw/philpapers-plus250.jpg]<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENPFA-3> Christophe Menant, Proposal for an evolutionary approach ...<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENPFA-3> philpapers.org Christophe Menant (2010). Evolutionary Advantages of Inter-Subjectivity and Self-Consciousness Through Improvements of Action Programs (2010). Dissertation, Tucson ... Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Pedro C. Marijuan Envoyé : jeudi 17 novembre 2016 14:09 À : 'fis' Objet : [Fis] Intelligence & Meaning & The Brain Dear FIS Colleagues, Herewith the dropbox link to the Chengdu's presentation on Intelligence and the Information Flow (as kindly requested by Christophe and Gordana). https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0 About the ongoing exchanges on language and meaning, there could be some additional arguments to consider: 1. Evolutionary origins of language (Terry can say quite a bit about that). It is difficult to establish a clear stage into which well formed oral language would have emerged. That the basis was both gestural (Susan Goldin Meadow) and emotional utterances seems to be more and more accepted. Alarm calls for instance in some monkeys contain distinct sound codes that clearly imply an associated meaning on what is the specific predator to take care of (aerial, felines, snakes) with differentiated behavioral escape responses in each case. Pretty more complex in human protolanguages. 2. Nervous Systems functioning. The action-perception cycle in advanced mammals would be the engine of information processing and meaning generation. The advancement of the life cycle would be the source and sink of the communicative exchanges and the ultimate reference for meaning. (This connects with the info flows and intelligence of my presentation). 3. Human "sociotype" maintenance. As the natural social groups of humans grew out of proportion regarding other Anthropoidea (see Dunbar's number), a new form of "grooming" and group consensus was established around language and other emotional utterances (importance of laughter). Paradoxically, language's meaning becomes downsized to the level of small talk, just chattering to keep social bonds afloat. The "social brain hypothesis" on the origins of language developed by Robin Dunbar and other scholars points in this direction. In my opinion, points 1 and 3 have already appeared in this list. But point 2 has been very rarely discussed among us (how the brain fabricates meaning). So, tentatively, the next discussion session will deal with some of this neurodynamic stuff (in preparation yet: "The Topological Brain"). In the meantime, Maybe Mark would like to make some concluding comments in order to close the present session... Thanks are due to him both for his preparation-work and for his patience regarding all the tangents in this session! Best wishes --Pedro El 16/11/2016 a las 15:51, Dai Griffiths escribió: > Many (most?) linguistic interactions are not propositional in the > sense that you imply. > > There is no verifiable equivalent to opening the fridge door for > utterances like "Cool", "Give us a hand won't you", "You're welcome", > "Justin Bieber is wonderful", "You go and sneak in round the back > while I distract them at the front door", and so on. > > So I doubt your 'usually', and the application to natural language. > > Dai > > > On 15/11/16 15:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> A model is a mathematical structure making a sentence (proposition) >> true or false, and this, in my opinion applies to
Re: [Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu 2016, web page
Thanks Gordana and Pedro for this interesting set of information and presentations. Would it be possible, Pedro, that you make available the content of your presentation "Intelligence and the information flow: An evolutionary perspective"? An evolutionary perspective to information looks indeed as a natural and promising thread that deserves, I feel, more developments. You may remember Gordana the chapter addressing part of that subject "computation on information, meaning and representations. An evolutionary approach" in your 2011 book. ( http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI) [http://philpapers.org/assets/raw/philpapers-plus250.jpg]<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI> Christophe Menant, Computation on Information, Meaning and ...<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI> philpapers.org Understanding computation as “a process of the dynamic change of information” brings to look at the different types of computation and information. Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic Envoyé : dimanche 13 novembre 2016 06:08 À : PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ; fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : [Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu 2016, web page Thank you Pedro! For those of FIS colleagues who might be interested in the details of ICIS2016 conference on Intelligence Science, including the presentations, here is the web page: http://www.intsci.ac.cn/ICIS2016/speaker.jsp ICIS2016, October 31 - November 1, Cheng Du, China<http://www.intsci.ac.cn/ICIS2016/speaker.jsp> www.intsci.ac.cn Biography. Yixin Zhong, Professor from the Center for Intelligence Science research, University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China. Still more information can be found at http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/ Intelligence Science Website - intsci.ac.cn<http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/> www.intsci.ac.cn Intelligence science is an interdisciplinary subject which is jointly studied by brain science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence and others. World Scientific is starting the series on Intelligence Science http://www.worldscientific.com/series/sis Series on Intelligence Science (World Scientific)<http://www.worldscientific.com/series/sis> www.worldscientific.com By (author): Shi Zhongzhi (Chinese Academy of Sciences, China). Volume 2 Intelligence Science edited by Zhongzhi Shi, who was part of ICIS2016 http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/shizz/ So the new field is in its beginnings and the feeling is very hopeful. Best wishes, Gordana http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/ [http://ait.gu.se/digitalAssets/1502/1502605_gordana.jpg]<http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic> Gordana Dodig Crnkovic - Tillämpad informationsteknologi ...<http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic> www.ait.gu.se Gordana Dodig Crnkovic Associate Professor at the Department of Applied IT. Vice Head at the department responsible for graduate education. Professor of Computer ... http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ [http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/IMG_1101-20150801-G.jpg]<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc> Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic - MDH<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc> www.mrtc.mdh.se GORDANA DODIG-CRNKOVIC Professor of Computer Science. School of Innovation, Design and EngineeringMälardalen University, Sweden http://is4si-2017.org/ [http://media.is4si-2017.org/2016/06/IS4SI-2017-2.jpg]<http://is4si-2017.org/> IS4SI-2017 - International Society for Information Studies<http://is4si-2017.org/> is4si-2017.org IS4SI-2017 Summit - International Society for Information Studies - DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY Embodied, Embedded, Networked, Empowered... From: Fis mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> on behalf of PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> Date: Sunday 13 November 2016 at 03:01 To: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Subject: [Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu Dear FIS Colleagues, During past days a conference on Intelligence Science was hold in Chengdu. It was organized by Zhao Chuan (fis member, who presented in this list about the same topic last year), and was chaired by Yixin Zhong (well known in this list too). Western FIS parties who attended were Gordana, Joseph Brenner (although finally read in absentia), and myself. Chinese FIS colleagues Wu Kun, Xiaohui, Bi Lin, and others were also attending or presenting. Well, it was quite interesting an experience. Rethinking the basic ideas on intelligence, both "natural" and "artificial", in parallel to FIS and IS4SI efforts around information science looks a promising complementary strategy. A second conference will take place next year, in another Chinese city. It will be more widely publicized so to facilitate the attendance of
Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
Bob, Perhaps it is time to recall a concept we have already addressed about information. It is the concept of meaning, the nature of which is related to the entity managing the information (generating it or receiving it). It goes with meaningful information as related to life and also to artificial agents. You may remember the proposed definition of meaning in the framework of a relation between an information processing entity submitted to an internal constraint and information received by that entity. A meaning is meaningful information that is created by an entity submitted to an internal constraint when it receives information that has a connection with the constraint. The meaning is formed of the connection existing between the received information and the constraint. The function of the meaningful information is to participate to the determination of an action that will be implemented in order to satisfy the constraint. Ex : mouse (submitted to a stay alive constraint) perceiving a cat and escaping it. The received information can be already meaningful as an alert signal coming from a conspecific. Also, information received by entities submitted to different constraints can generate different meanings. Such approach applies to entities (agents) submitted to internal constraints and needs more developments to address human constraints (look for happiness, avoid anxiety, valorize ego ...). Artificial agents are covered by derived constraints coming from the designer. More on this at http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI. [http://philpapers.org/assets/raw/philpapers-plus250.jpg]<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI> Christophe Menant, Computation on Information, Meaning and ...<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI> philpapers.org Understanding computation as “a process of the dynamic change of information” brings to look at the different types of computation and information. With such perspective the text of a book is meaningful for the writer of the book and for a reader that knows the language used in the book (different meanings are possible as writer and reader may have different constraints). And the text should be meaningless for a reader not knowing the language. As also presented here some time ago, the differentiation between intrinsic and derived constraints brings to introduce artificial life as a step toward artificial intelligence (see http://philpapers.org/rec/MENTTC-2 ). [http://philpapers.org/assets/raw/philpapers-plus250.jpg]<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENTTC-2> Christophe Menant, Turing Test, Chinese Room Argument ...<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENTTC-2> philpapers.org The Turing Test (TT), the Chinese Room Argument (CRA), and the Symbol Grounding Problem (SGP) are about the question “can machines think?” We propose to look at ... Best Christophe De : Fis de la part de Bob Logan Envoyé : vendredi 4 novembre 2016 15:42 À : Andrei Khrennikov; Gyorgy Darvas; John Collier; fis Objet : Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime? Hello Andrei - I am with you - sharing you sentiment. Information only pertains to living organisms and entails some signals that help them make a choice. A black hole makes no choices - it is ruled by the laws of physics. Abiotic systems have no information. A book is a set of signals that a reader can convert into information if they know the language which the book is written. A book written in Urdu contains no information for me other than this appears to be a set of signals that contains information for a reader in the language in which this book was written. Who reads a black hole. How does it contain information that makes a difference. When we launch a satellite to orbit the earth we do not say that the sun is informing the satellite how to behave. The satellite is just following the laws of physics. It has no choice and so it is not being informed. There are many different forms of information (biotic and Shannon as found in the 2007 paper Propagating Organization: An Inquiry by Kauffman, Logan et al. in Biology and Philosophy 23: 27-45) so we do not need to complicate things even more by ascribing the laws of physics as the communication of information. __ 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 Robert K. Logan | University of Toronto - Academia.edu<http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan> utoronto.academia.edu Robert K. Logan, University of Toronto, Physics Department, Emeritus. Studies Media Ecology, Media, and Information Theory. Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae of Robert K ... www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan<http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan> www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications<http://www.researchgate.net/prof
[Fis] _ RE: _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS
Dear Soren, To avoid a possible misunderstanding let me say that the MGS has no ambition to reach a ’full Peircean semiotic framework’. The Meaning Generator System has been designed to introduce what looked to me as missing in the young ‘science of cognition’ in the mid 90’s. ‘Meaning’ was a key concept without any model for meaning generation in an evolutionary perspective. The MGS was designed to fill the gap. At that time I did not know about Peirce (was at IBM on very different subjects). Information on Peirce work came in later. The MGS has some compatibility with the Peircean approach as both rely on interpretation. But two key points of the MGS are not really present in the Peircean framework: the evolutionary story from animals to humans and the development of a meaning generation process (Peirce tells about the generated meaning (the Interpretant) but does not tell much about a meaning generation process (the Interpreter)). So my question about the MGS as a possible introduction to the concepts of meaning and experience is not to be understood as strictly part of the Perceian semiotic framework. And the question is still being asked. Best Christophe De : Søren Brier Envoyé : mercredi 6 avril 2016 02:04 À : 'Christophe' Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : SV: [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS Dear Christophe Never the less we consider that cats and dogs or dolphins –I have played with them all – to have an inner experimental life in order also to support their perceptual skills for instance and they have memory and recognition capabilities. I do appreciate that you work with these things and try to move your modelling more towards a Peircean biosemiotic paradigm. But in what I have seen from you so far I do not think you have moved to a full Peircean semiotic framework. But even if, then biosemiotics is certainly not (yet?) accepted as a natural science, which for instance is the reason that Barbieri left biosemiotics and is trying to establish his own code-biology. But of cause we need to work with growing amounts and quality of awareness. Frederick Stjernfelt sometimes with Kalevi Kull and Jesper Hoffmeyer has tried to flesh out a hierarchy of semiotics levels in the plant and animal kingdoms in several articles. Best Søren Fra: Christophe [mailto:christophe.men...@hotmail.fr] Sendt: 3. april 2016 14:06 Til: Søren Brier Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Emne: RE: [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS Dear Soren, Thanks for these details on the Peircean approach. You write that ‘the concept of experience and meaning does not exist in the vocabulary of the theoretical framework of natural sciences'. Would you consider the modeling of meaning generation (MGS in previous post) and the linking of intentionality to meaning generation (2015 Gatherings presentation http://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2) as introducing such a framework ? [http://philpapers.org/assets/raw/philpapers-plus250.jpg]<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2> Christophe Menant, Biosemiotics, Aboutness, Meaning and ...<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2> philpapers.org The management of meaningful information by biological entities is at the core of biosemiotics [Hoffmeyer 2010]. Intentionality, the ‘aboutness’ of mental states ... Looking at another part of your presentation, you write. My conclusion is therefore that a broader foundation is needed in order to understand the basis for information and communication in living systems. Therefore we need to include a phenomenological and hermeneutical ground in order to integrate a theory of interpretative/subjective and intersubjective meaning and signification with a theory of objective information, which has a physical grounding (see for instance Plamen, Rosen & Gare 2015). Thus the question is how can we establish an alternative transdisciplinary model of the sciences and the humanities to the logical positivist reductionism on one hand and to postmodernist relativist constructivism on the other in the form of a transdisciplinary concept of Wissenschaft (i.e. “knowledge creation”, implying both subjectivism and objectivism)? The body and its meaning-making processes is a complex multidimensional object of research that necessitates trans-disciplinary theoretical approaches including biological sciences, primarily biosemiotics and bio-cybernetics, cognition and communication sciences, phenomenology, hermeneutics, philosophy of science and philosophical theology (Harney 2015, Davies & Gregersen 2009). I’m not sure that introducing ‘the basis for information and communication in living systems’ should be done by referring to complex notions like phenomenology, hermeneutics, inter-subjectivity or philosophical theology. The relations of most animals with their environment can be addressed i
[Fis] _ RE: _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS
Dear Soren, Thanks for these details on the Peircean approach. You write that ‘the concept of experience and meaning does not exist in the vocabulary of the theoretical framework of natural sciences'. Would you consider the modeling of meaning generation (MGS in previous post) and the linking of intentionality to meaning generation (2015 Gatherings presentation http://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2) as introducing such a framework ? [http://philpapers.org/assets/raw/philpapers-plus250.jpg]<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2> Christophe Menant, Biosemiotics, Aboutness, Meaning and ...<http://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2> philpapers.org The management of meaningful information by biological entities is at the core of biosemiotics [Hoffmeyer 2010]. Intentionality, the ‘aboutness’ of mental states ... Looking at another part of your presentation, you write. My conclusion is therefore that a broader foundation is needed in order to understand the basis for information and communication in living systems. Therefore we need to include a phenomenological and hermeneutical ground in order to integrate a theory of interpretative/subjective and intersubjective meaning and signification with a theory of objective information, which has a physical grounding (see for instance Plamen, Rosen & Gare 2015). Thus the question is how can we establish an alternative transdisciplinary model of the sciences and the humanities to the logical positivist reductionism on one hand and to postmodernist relativist constructivism on the other in the form of a transdisciplinary concept of Wissenschaft (i.e. “knowledge creation”, implying both subjectivism and objectivism)? The body and its meaning-making processes is a complex multidimensional object of research that necessitates trans-disciplinary theoretical approaches including biological sciences, primarily biosemiotics and bio-cybernetics, cognition and communication sciences, phenomenology, hermeneutics, philosophy of science and philosophical theology (Harney 2015, Davies & Gregersen 2009). I’m not sure that introducing ‘the basis for information and communication in living systems’ should be done by referring to complex notions like phenomenology, hermeneutics, inter-subjectivity or philosophical theology. The relations of most animals with their environment can be addressed in quite simple terms. A paramecium avoiding a drop of acid or a mouse escaping a cat can be modeled quite simply (see previous post). Of course it is pretty obvious that an elaborated philosophical vocabulary comes as a needed tool for the human living system where complex characteristics like self-consciousness and free will are to be considered. But using such a vocabulary for basic life may run against an evolutionary framework which looks to me as mandatory when addressing information and communication in living systems. Animals and humans are at different levels of living complexity. They should be differentiated in terms of meaning generation as they are not submitted to the same constraints. And an evolutionary thread looks as naturally introducing such a differentiation in terms of increasing complexity. But perhaps you want to include such a differentiation in your approach. Pls let us know Best Christophe De : Søren Brier Envoyé : samedi 2 avril 2016 00:43 À : 'Christophe' Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : SV: [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS Dear Christophe I agree in your argument that where we should rather focus on the natures of life and of consciousness. This is also where I have been going with my research on Peircean biosemiotics and the development of Cybersemiotics. Let me make a first introduction to how Peirce formulate a different approach. If you then want I can go into further detail. References can be found in the long version of my target article. Many analytical philosophers of science might argue that meaning and experience are not central notions while truth, objectivity, scientific method, observation, theory, etc are (Carnap 1967, Bar-Hillel and Carnap’ s (1953) and Bar-Hillel (1964)). In the view of many researchers this is seen as due to a lack of accept of phenomenology and hermeneutics (for instance Plamen, Rosen & Gare 2015 and Brier 2010). Husserl’s early phenomenology had a problem with getting out to the outer world (Harney 2015), where Peirce develops his pragmaticism as a way to unite empirical research, meaning and experience (Ransdell,1989). His phaneroscopy makes it clear that his ontology is not only materialistic science using only mechanistic explanatory models but does also include meaning through embodied interaction through experiential living bodies and thereby the social as well as the subjective forms of cognition, meaning and interpretation (Brier 2015 a+b). Thereby Peirce goes further than P
[Fis] TR: _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS
Dear Soeren, Looking for the ‘definition of a universal concept of information’ is indeed a key subject, but I’m not sure that focusing on the Peircean approach as you do is the best thread for that. Positioning ‘life as meaning’ looks as a good starting point in an evolutionary perspective. But Peirce does not tell us much about the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of meaning in life. Most of us would agree that meanings do not exist by themselves but have reasons of being that are closely related to the entity managing them. Life builds up meanings to maintain its living status, to stay alive (individual constraint) and to reproduce (species constraint). As far as I know, Peirce did not develop these perspectives that much. The same can probably be said about the ‘how’ of meaning making. On that last point FISers may remember a simple model introduced in FIS in 2002 (and published in Entropy in 2003http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/5/2/193), the Meaning Generator System used to support an evolutionary approach [http://img.mdpi.org/img/journals/entropy-logo-sq.png?c749711c57fbc121]<http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/5/2/193> Entropy | Free Full-Text | Information and Meaning<http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/5/2/193> www.mdpi.com We propose here to clarify some of the relations existing between information and meaning by showing how meaningful information can be generated by a system submitted ... (http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI) and to position some limits to AI (http://philpapers.org/rec/MENTTC-2). But as you know Peirce better than I do, perhaps you can recall some Peircean writings close to modeling of meaning generation that I have missed. Pls let us know. Whatever, we would probably agree that a modeling of meaning generation is at the core of an ‘evolutionary theory of the emergence of experiential consciousness’. And that such a theory applies differently to animals and to humans. Experiential consciousness in animals needs an understanding of life that we do not currently have. Human experiential consciousness calls in addition for self-consciousness which is also a mystery for today science and philosophy. But the Science of Consciousness is making some progresses in this area where meaningful representations can have a say (http://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOO). I of course agree on the enormous added values brought by Pierce on logic, philosophy, mathematics and various sciences. But I’m not sure that he is the best choice for ‘the definition of a universal concept of information’ where we should rather focus, I feel, on the natures of life and of consciousness. But I may be wrong... Christophe De : Fis de la part de Pedro C. Marijuan Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2016 14:00 À : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS Dear FIS Colleagues, I am attaching herein Soeren's presentation. If you have any trouble with the attachment, the file is in fis web pages too: http://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/ By clicking on Soeren Brier's session (highlighted in red) you can immediately obtain it. Nevertheless, below there is a selection of more general ideas from the paper. For those interested in FIS "archeology", Soeren presented in January 2004 a discussion session on Information, Autopoiesis, Life and Semiosis. It can be found by scrolling in the same above link. Best greetings--Pedro - Infobiosemiotics Søren Brier, CBS This discussion aims at contributing to the definition of a universal concept of information covering objective as well as subjective experiential and intersubjective meaningful cognition and communication argued in more length in Brier (2015a). My take on the problem is that information is not primarily a technological term but a phenomenon that emerges from intersubjective meaningful sign based cognition and communication in living systems. The purpose of this discussion is to discuss a possible philosophical framework for an integral and more adequate concept of information uniting all isolated disciplines (Brier, 2010, 2011, 2013a+b+c). The attempts to create objective concepts of information were good for technology (Brilliouin 1962) and the development of AI, but not able to develop theories that could include the experiential (subjective) aspect of informing that leads to meaning in the social setting (Brier 2015b). The statistical concept of Shannon (Shannon and Weaver 1963/1948) is the most famous objective concept but it was only a technical invention based on a mathematical concept of entropy, but never intended to encompass meaning. Norbert Wiener (1963) combined the mathematics statistical with Boltzmann’s thermodynamically entropy concept and defined information as neg-entropy. Wiener then saw the statistical information’s entropy as a representation for mind and t
Re: [Fis] Information and Locality.
Steven, The relations between meaning and information have been addressed several times in the FIS forum. I agree with Francesco that these relations should be explicited in your approach. Your wording: ‘meaning refers to the responsive behavior of an apprehension’ does not tell that much about origin and nature of meaning. It would be interesting you address the meaningful/meaningless aspect of information for an agent as well as their relations with the behavior of the agent. Regarding meaningful information and locality, I agree that they are tightly linked. Interpretation (meaning generation) is done by an agent that has a locality. More can be said. You may remember about an evolutionary perspective on locality starting within an abiotic universe populated with ubiquist physico-chemical laws applying averywhere. Life emerged in that universe as a far from thermodynamical equilibrium status that maintained itself localy. The satisfaction of a local constraint was something new in a universe submitted to ubiquist laws. And such local constraint satisfaction naturaly introduces meaning generation with links to teleology, agency, autonomy, and of course life (see Chart 10 in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279941646_Biosemiotics_Aboutness_Meaning_and_Bio-intentionality._Proposal_for_an_Evolutionary_Approach). But I’m not sure how that fits with your approach. best Christophe_ From: ste...@iase.us Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:17:41 -0700 To: 13francesco.ri...@gmail.com CC: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Information and Locality. On Sep 21, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com> wrote:Assisted translation to English:I bring the thought of Chilean neuro-biologist Maturana: "The experience of the physical, that deals with classical physics, relativity or quantum, does not reflect the nature of the universe, but the 'ontology of the observer as a living system, because he "operates linguistically" while achieving physical entities and the operational coherences of their domains of existence. As Einstein said' theories (explanations) of science are free creations of the human mind ‘" (Maturana, 1993). In this context, "operate linguistically" means being and living in language, cooperating behavior, recursive and described semantically. Everything exists and takes place within the communication, not outside. And that is why one can not ignore the relationship between information and meaning. It is important to have a clear epistemology. Einstein, in fact, said many things of epistemic merit and he was very clear to draw the distinction between existence (ontology) and merely language. So for me your presentation here does not hold. I have no doubt, however, that he said that theories are the "free creations of the human mind.” But he did not intend to imply that physics arises as a consequence, he clearly believe in the process of empirical science. Now he is known to engage in speculation, for example asking the question is the moon still there if no one is looking. Einstein was very much a determinist and absolutely did believe in a world independent of our ideas. Maturana seems too vague to me, but his idea of autopoiesis is interesting. I started this discussion with a very clear description of the relation between information and meaning. To recap, meaning refers to the responsive behavior of an apprehension. Even referential meanings are captured by this definition. We have no need to say that “this does that” or “A is a B” and suggest anything in the world. We may say, for example, that "this train takes me to the city” and the meaning of this sentence is that I get onto the train and am taken to the city. I may say that “pretty flowers grow in spring” but the meaning of this sentence is that I pick those flowers in spring and give them to someone I love, for you it may simply mean that you have an allergic response when in their proximity. In this way we can, for example, determine the meaning of the Spanish text you sent me, for my case - its meaning is that I immediately translated it to English text and then wrote this email. In short, the sentence alone holds no meaning, it is merely a sentence, marks upon paper. Interpretation cannot be fixed. Meaning is only present when we act upon the apprehension of such a mark. Language is simply a convention that tells me how to treat marks of this kind and provides some social pragmatics. When I hear the sentence that “this train takes me to the city” I know that it means I may act and use the train to travel to the city. If I ignore the sentence then it has no meaning to me, it has no effect. A = B, only has meaning to those who act upon apprehending it. Also note that, for me, communication is simply a way of speaking about the engineering of machines an
[Fis] TSC 2014: Meaning Generation for Animals and Humans
Dear FISers, The MGS (Meaning Generator System) has been presented several times in this forum. You remember that it is about a system submitted to an internal constraint that generates a meaning to satisfy the constraint. This note is to let you know that there will be at TSC2014 a poster using the MGS for animals and humans. The poster is about an evolution of self-consciousness from pre-human primates to humans where the MGS is used for the build up of meaningful representations (the poster is presented in the attachment). Evolution of meaningful information, of inter-subjectivity and of anxiety management play key roles in the proposed scenario where evolutionary advantages come more from the scenario than from self-consciousness. If some of you come to TSC 2014, I’ll be happy to talk on all that with you. (The attachment has also been posted in Academia Edu: https://www.academia.edu/6654973/TSC_2014_poster_presentation_Final_version_Consciousness_of_oneself_as_object_and_as_subject._Proposal_for_an_evolutionary_approach). All the best Christophe TSC2014-Poster-Final.Presentation.docx Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fw: Responses
Dear Bob U, If your are talking about resident information, as available for usage, I take it as being part of information that can be used by the agent. Let me go through John's paper (thanks John). Best Christophe > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 14:45:15 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Responses > From: u...@umces.edu > To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr > CC: lo...@physics.utoronto.ca; fis@listas.unizar.es > > > > The reason of being of information, whatever its content or quantity, is > > to be used by an agent (biological or artificial). > > Dear Christophe, > > In making this restriction you are limiting the domain of information to > communication and excluding all information that inheres in structure > per-se. John Collier has called the latter manifestation "enformation", > and the calculus of IT is quite effective in quantifying its extent. > Perhaps John would like to comment? > > Cheers, > Bob U. > > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] FW: FW: social flow
Yes John, there can be conflicts between levels in the organization of life. Ex: the “stay alive” constraint applies to individual and to species, and there can be some conflicts: The satisfaction of individual constraints can become incompatible with the satisfaction of species constraints. For an ant colony to cross water, several ants may sacrifice themselves and get drowned to allow the build up of a bridge usable for the ant colony. The species constraints are here stronger than the individual ones. And true also that human mind can create ends that are in conflict with human life. I tend to believe that if Freud could have developed his concepts on life & death drives a bit further he would have met the possibility of a dual rooting in anxiety limitation. Best Christophe Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:46:27 +0200 To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr; pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es; fis@listas.unizar.es From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za Subject: Re: [Fis] FW: social flow Folks, On issue that I don't think Christophe deals with adequately in his otherwise excellent post is that the organization of life is hierarchical, and can therefore lead to conflicts between levels. For example, reproduction and heredity are important to life, so linage extinction resistance is also important. This can lead to conflicts between traits that are good for resisting death in organisms but not in the lineage, and vice versa. Also, sometimes groups are subject to selection, and resistance to group extinction becomes a factor independent of the resistance to death of individual organisms. This can also lead to conflicts between levels. I might as well add that human mind can create ends that are in conflict with human life (it is another level, but not part of some easy hierarchy that might combine features I mentioned above). Best, John At 01:17 AM 11/24/2013, Christophe wrote: Dear Pedro, The framework you present is interesting and deserves some comments. You write: “Without entering self-production of the living there can be no sense, no meaning”. I agree. You positions meaning generation with the coming up of life in evolution, assuming there is no meaning generation in the world of inert matter. But what is life? The best definition I know: “the sum of the functions by which death is resisted” [Bichat]. So life is organized around maintaining its nature, around satisfying a “stay alive” constraint (not that circular if you position the constraint as local vs ubiquist laws). But we should keep in mind that the nature of life is a mystery for today science and philosophy. Then come humans: “But, little problem, how can the gap to the human dimension be crossed?" Humans are indeed living entities, but with self-consciousness and free-will in addition. And these performances also are mysteries for today science & philosophy. Also comes in language ” amorphously structured around the advancement of one's life”. And, key point: ”most of our social exchanges are supradetermined by status, self-image, ambitions, affinity, collective identities, deception, self-deception, attraction, etc. Rather than noise, it is life itself!” The only point I would disagree with you is the last part of the sentence, as human behavior is much more than life itself. The constraints that humans have to satisfy contain some specificities like valorize ego and limit anxiety. The field of human constraints is not that well understood. Probably because it is closely linked to these mysterious human specificities. So we are looking at a difficult subject: understand information flow within entities that we do not understand. The former can indeed feed the latter but I feel that an evolutionary thread should be explicitly considered in order to make available a background that we understand. (More on this in http://philpapers.org/archive/MENCOI ). Best Christophe From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; avi...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 20:52:58 + CC: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow Dear FIS colleagues, Many thanks for the comments exchanged. Welcome to Roly, the first party of the Xian's conference publishing in the list (I mean concerning the invited speakers, as Bi-Lin who also posted recently was a Xian participant too). I agree with Roli's interpretation and Joseph's points, and also with the direction started by John. It is one of the few times we are producing interesting ideas on social information infrastructures. Perhaps at the time being the "received wisdom" on communication & social information is not working terribly well. For instance, Jakobson six communication functions could be perfectly collapsed into three, or expanded into nine... I have found a similar "relativity" in the not so many approaches to cellular / biological communication. One of the essential points to reconsider i
[Fis] FW: social flow
Dear Pedro,
The framework you present is interesting and deserves some comments.
You write: “Without
entering self-production of the living there can be no sense, no meaning”. I
agree. You positions meaning generation with the coming up of life in evolution,
assuming there is no meaning generation in the world of inert matter. But what
is life? The best definition I know: “the sum of the functions by which death
is resisted” [Bichat]. So life is organized around maintaining its nature,
around
satisfying a “stay alive” constraint (not that circular if you position the
constraint as local vs ubiquist laws). But we should keep in mind that the
nature
of life is a mystery for today science and philosophy.
Then come humans: “But, little problem, how can the gap to the human dimension
be crossed?" Humans are indeed living entities, but with self-consciousness
and free-will in addition. And these performances also are mysteries for today
science & philosophy. Also comes in language ” amorphously structured around
the advancement of one's life”. And, key point: ”most of our social exchanges
are
supradetermined by status, self-image, ambitions, affinity, collective
identities,
deception, self-deception, attraction, etc. Rather than noise, it is life
itself!”
The only point I would disagree with you is the last part of the sentence, as
human behavior
is much more than life itself. The constraints that humans have to satisfy
contain
some specificities like valorize ego and limit anxiety. The field of human
constraints is not that well understood. Probably because it is closely linked
to these mysterious
human specificities.
So we are looking at a difficult subject: understand information
flow within entities that we do not understand.
The former can indeed feed the
latter but I feel that an evolutionary thread should be explicitly considered in
order to make available a background that we understand.
(More on this in http://philpapers.org/archive/MENCOI ).
Best
Christophe
From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; avi...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 20:52:58 +
CC: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow
Dear FIS colleagues,
Many thanks for the comments exchanged.
Welcome to Roly, the first party of the Xian's conference publishing in the
list (I mean concerning the invited speakers, as Bi-Lin who also posted
recently was a Xian participant too). I agree with Roli's interpretation and
Joseph's points, and also with the
direction started by John. It is one of the few times we are producing
interesting ideas on social information infrastructures. Perhaps at the time
being the "received wisdom" on communication & social information is not
working terribly well. For instance,
Jakobson six communication functions could be perfectly collapsed into three,
or expanded into nine... I have found a similar "relativity" in the not so many
approaches to cellular / biological communication.
One of the essential points to reconsider is, in my opinion, the lack of
connection between communication and life itself. Without entering
self-production of the living there can be no sense, no meaning. The notion of
information flow (rather than the "signal")
has helped me to cohere the cellular intertwining scheme. But, little problem,
how can the gap to the human dimension be crossed? Essentially human
communication is not logical, but bio-logical... amorphously structured around
the advancement of one's life,
and that includes masterminding well organized motor apparatuses, as those
involved in language production and language interpretation ("cerebellar
computation"). Logics is a byproduct of this motor/perceptual system underlying
our concepts and the interlinking
of our exchnges, which becomes mastermined by the fitness demands within
social groups --responding to Bi-Lin's off line comments too. Actually most of
our social exchanges are supradetermined by status, self-image, ambitions,
affinity, collective identities,
deception, self-deception, attraction, etc. Rather than noise, it is life
itself!
Haven't we a lot of work to be done in these essential matters?
best ---Pedro
De: Joseph Brenner [joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]
Enviado el: jueves, 21 de noviembre de 2013 20:22
Para: Roly Belfer; PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Asunto: Re: [Fis] social flow
Dear Roly, Dear Pedro,
Thank you for taking this thread in a for me very interesting direction. As you
know, interesting means what I find my logical system can confirm, improve,
validate, etc. The two notes share one feature that one might criticize, namely,
that they deal essentially with present, conscious material, whereas
"information flow" almost by defintion seems to involve components that are
absent, potential, unconscious, etc.
[Fis] FW: The Information Flow
Thanks Gordana for this clarification. When we look at the computing universe and try to understand how physical laws compute we indeed have to focus on computational modeling more than on computing. And looking at computational modeling may even bring us beyond algorithmic computation in the sense that our causal laws are not always able to link items and events (matter, life, consciousness, evolution). This recalls Pedro writing that part of our problem with reaching some “more consistent foundations for human knowledge” comes from the too many aspects we have to put into line. Mechanics, biology and human mind are different levels (to make it short) that are linked more by emergences than by causal relations. Human knowledge is at the highest level and has no simple causal relations with life or with matter. With such a picture, finding an entry point into “professional science” is indeed a challenge. But when looking for something linking the levels, we can consider two backgrounds that are common to the different levels and somehow link them: increasing complexity and increasing locality of laws. As there is a law of gravity in the universe, we can accept that there is a “trend in increasing complexity” that applies at the different levels and between the levels (particles, atoms, molecules, living cells, organisms, mankind, …). Regarding the laws, there is also a trend in increasing complexity per level and between levels (physics, chemistry, biological survival, search of happiness, …). And in addition there is an increase in locality (gravity everywhere, strong nuclear force between close particles only, survival at organism location, free will as strictly individual, …). These comments do not bring entry points but what looks important is that the trends to increasing complexity and to increase in locality of laws apply both between levels and in levels. And I feel that the limitations in the usage of causality should bring us to look at what may exist beyond or beside algorithms and computation. All the best Christophe (As some of you know, part of this subject has been addressed in the Biosemiotics forum http://biosemiotics.lefora.com/2010/06/28/theses-on-biosemiotics-prolegomena-to-a-theoretica/ From: gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; lo...@physics.utoronto.ca; ssal...@binghamton.edu Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:10:43 +0100 CC: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] The Information Flow Dear Joseph and FIS colleagues, “I will not argue here for or against computationalism (digital mechanism), because I do not understand how complex biological, cognitive and social processes can be computable, if no algorithm can be written for them. I speak of the processes themselves, not models of them.I would be grateful if someone (Bruno?) could explain this to me - I apologize if I have missed where this was done. “ (Joseph) It seems to me that the answer to Joseph’s question is given in the following passage by Roger Penrose: “(S)ome would prefer to define “computation” in terms of what a physical object can (in principle?) achieve (Deutsch, Teuscher, Bauer and Cooper). To me, however, this begs the question, and this same question certainly remains, whichever may be our preference concerning the use of the term “computation”. If we prefer to use this “physical” definition, then all physical systems “compute” by definition, and in that case we would simply need a different word for the (original Church-Turing) mathematical concept of computation, so that the profound question raised, concerning the perhaps computable nature of the laws governing the operation of the universe can be studied, and indeed questioned.” Penrose in the Foreword to Zenil H. (Ed.): A Computable Universe, Understanding Computation & Exploring Nature As Computation, World Scientific Publishing Company/Imperial College Press, (2012) In the field of Natural Computing the whole of nature computes. Nature is a network of networks of computing processes.For many of such processes there are no simple single algorithms (like for human mind which also is a process – a network of processes) There is a complex computational architecture and not a single algorithm. “Nature indeed can be seen as a network of networks of computational processes and what we are trying is to compute the way nature does, learning its tricks of the trade. So the focus would not be computability but computational modeling. How good computational models of nature are we able to produce and what does it mean for a physical system to perform computation, computation being implementation of physical laws.” From the Introduction to the book Computing Nature, forthcoming in SAPERE book series: http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/work/COMPUTING-NATURE-20121028.pdf In a computing nature complex biological, cognitive and social processes are (naturally) computable, even if no algorithm can be wri
Re: [Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S.
Dear Steven, It is precisely the lack of a good definition for the term “meaning” that brought me to propose a systemic approach to meaning generation. A system submitted to a constraint generates meanings to satisfy its constraint. To stay alive, an animal will generate meanings when sensing food (or predators). The generated meanings will be used to determine actions: eat the food (or run away from danger). The proposed definition of meaning is (see 2.1 hereunder): “A meaning is a meaningful information that is created by a system submitted to a constraint when it receives an incident information that has a connection with the constraint. The meaning is formed of the connection existing between the received information and the constraint of the system. The function of the meaningful information is to participate to the determination of an action that will be implemented in order to satisfy the constraint of the system”. This definition allows to model meaning generation by the Meaning Generator System –MGS- (Fig 1). Meanings do not exist by themselves. A meaning is about a constraint and about an entity of the environment. It is generated by and for a system. Meaning generation links the system to its environment (2.2). Agents contain several MGSs. An entity of the environment sensed by an agent will generate several meanings. All these interrelated meanings will build up networks of meanings relative to the entity. These networks of meanings lead to the notion of meaningful representations that avoid the combinational explosion (2.5) The MGS is simple. It can be used as a building block for agents (animals, humans, robots) assuming we correctly identify the constraints with their intrinsic or derived nature (living entities vs artifacts. See 4). The case of humans is the most complex and difficult as we do not know the nature of human mind. Human constraints are difficult to identify, but some hypothesis can be made and bring perspectives on an evolutionary nature of human mind (3). Much more is to be done in this area. Best Christophe > Subject: Re: [Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S. > From: ste...@iase.us > Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:53:19 -0700 > CC: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > > Dear Christophe, > > I don't buy this overloading of the term "information" by the > "uoward/downward" argument. > > I also lament the lack of rigor concerning the definition of the term > "information," but I lament more the lack of rigor concerning the definition > of the term "meaning." What is the definition of the term in the chapter you > reference? > > The best that I could guess in terms of my own work is that it refers to some > action potential that is altered by information, although this does not > exactly fit your description. This, as opposed to my own use of the term > "meaning" as the term speaking about the behavior produced by the > apprehension of a sign (Peirce's pragmaticism). In my terms the action > potential to which you seem to refer is called "knowledge." By this > definition "representations" do not have a fixed associated meaning, they do > not always produce the same behavior. In apprehension by individuals they can > be said to have an action potential that is additive to the current potential > in the organism. This would be consistent with a claim that representations > "mean" different things to different individuals in different contexts. > > We also appear to disagree concerning the term "semantics," that I take in > the spirit of logic (with Carnap) to refer only to the rules of language > transformation. > > With respect, > Steven > > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Christophe Menant wrote: > > > Dear FISers, > > Indeed information can be considered downwards (physical & meaningless) and > > upwards (biological & meaningful). The difference being about > > interpretation or not. > > It also introduces an evolutionary approach to information processing and > > meaning generation. > > There is a chapter on that subject in a recent book > > (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Information-Computation-Philosophical-Understanding-Foundations/dp/toc/9814295477). > > > > “Computation on Information, Meaning and Representations.An Evolutionary > > Approach” > > Content of the chapter: > > 1. Information and Meaning. Meaning Generation > > 1.1. Information.Meaning of information and quantity of information > > 1.2. Me
[Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S.
Dear FISers, Indeed information can be considered downwards (physical & meaningless) and upwards (biological & meaningful). The difference being about interpretation or not. It also introduces an evolutionary approach to information processing and meaning generation. There is a chapter on that subject in a recent book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Information-Computation-Philosophical-Understanding-Foundations/dp/toc/9814295477). “Computation on Information, Meaning and Representations.An Evolutionary Approach” Content of the chapter: 1. Information and Meaning. Meaning Generation 1.1. Information.Meaning of information and quantity of information 1.2. Meaningful information and constraint satisfaction. A systemic approach 2. Information, Meaning and Representations. An Evolutionary Approach 2.1. Stay alive constraint and meaning generation for organisms 2.2. The Meaning Generator System (MGS). A systemic and evolutionary approach 2.3. Meaning transmission 2.4. Individual and species constraints. Group life constraints. Networks of meanings 2.5. From meaningful information to meaningful representations 3. Meaningful Information and Representations in Humans 4. Meaningful Information and Representations in Artificial Systems 4.1. Meaningful information and representations from traditional AI to Nouvelle AI. Embodied-situated AI 4.2. Meaningful representations versus the guidance theory of representation 4.3. Meaningful information and representations versus the enactive approach 5. Conclusion and Continuation 5.1. Conclusion 5.2. Continuation A version close to the final text can be reached at http://crmenant.free.fr/2009BookChapter/C.Menant.211009.pdf As Plamen says, we may be at the beginning of a new scientific revolution. But I’m afraid that an understanding of the meaning of information needs clear enough an understanding of the constraint at the source of the meaning generation process. And even for basic organic meanings coming from a “stay alive” constraint, we have to face the still mysterious nature of life. And for human meanings, the even more mysterious nature of human mind. This is not to discourage our efforts in investigating these questions. Just to put a stick in the ground showing where we stand. Best, Christophe Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:47:28 +0100 From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S. Mensaje original Asunto: Re: [Fis] Physics of computing Fecha: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:24:38 +0100 De: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov Para: Pedro C. Marijuan Referencias: <20120316041607.66ffc68000...@1w8.tpn.terra.com> <4f6321c3.5000...@aragon.es> +++ Dear All, I could not agree more with Pedro's opinion. The referred article is interesting indeed. but, information is only physical in the narrow sense taken by conventional physicalistic-mechanistic-computational approaches. Such a statement defends the reductionist view at nature: sorry. But information is more than bits and Shanno's law and biology has far more to offer. I think we are at the beginning of a new scientific revolution. So, we may need to take our (Maxwell) "daemons" and (Turing) "oracles" closer under the lens. In fact, David Ball, the author of the Nature paper approached me after my talk in Brussels in 2010 on the Integral Biomathics approach and told me he thinks it were a step in the right direction: biology driven mathematics and computation. By the way, our book of ideas on IB will be released next month by Springer: http://www.springer.com/engineering/computational+intelligence+and+complexity/book/978-3-642-28110-5 If you wish to obtain it at a lower price (65 EUR incl. worldwide delivery) please send me your names, mailing addresses and phone numbers via email to: pla...@simeio.org. There must be at least 9 orders to keep that discount price.. Best, Plamen On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear discussants, I tend to disagree with the motto "information is physical" if taken too strictly. Obviously if we look "downwards" it is OK, but in the "upward" direction it is different. Info is not only physical then, and the dimension of self-construction along the realization of life cycle has to be entered. Then the signal, the info, has "content" and "meaning". Otherwise if we insist only in the physical downward dimension we have just conventional computing/ info processing. My opinion is that the notion of absence is crucial for advancing in the upward, but useless in the downward. By the way, I already wrote about info and the absence theme in a 1994 or 1995 paper in BioSystems... best ---
[Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: FW: Meaning Information Theory] ---From Gavin
Dear Gavin, As you find some interest for a "Theory of Meaningful Information", it may be pertinent to recall a systemic approach to meaning generation: When a system submitted to a constraint (stay alive, avoid obstacle, ...) receives from its environment an information that has a connection with the constraint , it generates a meaning (a meaningful information) that willl be used to implement an action aimed at satisfying the constraint. The approach makes available a simple Meaning Generator System applicable to all cases where you can define the system and the constraint. Is not Shannon information theory. It links with Dretske and philosophy of mind. It has been used in several evolutionary approaches. 2003 Entropy paper on subject: http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf 2010 short paper: http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf Part of IACAP 2011 presentation: http://cogprints.org/7584/ Best Christophe Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:22:08 +0200 From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: FW: Meaning Information Theory] ---From Gavin Message from Gavin Ritz On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote: Stan, John list members I have had a number of off list email dialogue with list members, from this list and others. There seems to be a group of listers that have a Theory of Meaningful Information (It’s not Shannon’s mathematical Information theory), it’s all about meaning and electrical communication (I guess in this case neurological). The common links seem to be Dawkins, Dennett, Searle and a few others. Does anyone have any clear propositions, with their logical arguments, evidence. tests, corroboration, modeling, conceptual mathematics, proofs, for this Meaning Theory of Information. It also seems to include memes. I am unable to find any clear propositions with their proofs, it all seems like smoke and mirrors too me. At one point it becomes sort of Shannon’s mathematical theory then it spoofs into something like Philosophy meaning arguments (Like Ogden Richards), then it spoofs into living matter and DNA, then reappears as cultural units, then energy/matter representations. Is The Meaning Information Theory a shape shifter. Is it the one size fits all, theory. What exactly is this Theory, where did it come from, what is it, what is its proposition, and if there is one how can it be tested, corroborated, where and how can we gather the evidence. Regards Gavin -- ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] meaningful inforamtion
Dear Anthony, Let me read your book where you address interesting questions. I remember our emails discussions a couple of years ago. Despite different approaches, our subjects of interest are quite similar regarding an evolutionary appraoch to the notion of meaningful information. If you are interested, the Meaning Generator System you know about has been recently applied to the evolution of cognition (IACAP 2011 presentation: http://crmenant.free.fr/IACAP2011/C.Menant-Presentation.pdf All the best Christophe Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:03:03 -0500 From: aread...@verizon.net To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] meaningful inforamtion I emailed an earlier version of the following contribution to the listserve a few days ago and am interested in finding out if it is suitable for dissemination and, if os, when it might be included. My main interest is in promoting discussion about the approach it takes to dealing with the observer-dependent aspects of information. My book " Meaningful Information: The BridgeBetween Biology, Brain and Behavior' has just been published by Springer. Itintroduces a radically new way of thinking about information and the importantrole it plays in living systems. Thiså opens up new avenues for exploring howcells and organisms change and adapt, since the ability to detect and respondto meaningful information is the key that enables them to receive their geneticheritage, regulate their internal milieu, and respond to changes in their environment.The types of meaningful information that different species and different celltypes are able to detect are finely matched to the ecosystems in which theylive, for natural selection has shaped what they need to know to functioneffectively within them. Biological detection and response systems range fromthe chemical configurations that govern genes and cell life to the relativelysimple tropisms that guide single-cell organisms, the rudimentary nervoussystems of invertebrates, and the complex neuronal structures of mammals andprimates. The scope of meaningful information that can be detected andresponded to reaches its peak in our own species, as exemplified by our specialabilities in language, cognition, emotion, and consciousness, all of which areexplored within this new framework. The book's home page can be found at: http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/book/978-1-4614-0157-5 I am eager tofind out what members think about it. Anthony Reading ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] replies to several
Loet, Commenting the points 2 to 5, you write: “Yes, but the differentia specifica is that meaning can be communicated using human language as an evolutionary achievement. Biological systems generate meaning, but cannot communicate it.” Human language is indeed a great evolutionary advantage. It is a human specificity involving human consciousness and free will by means we do not understand that well. Regarding communication of meaning as related to constraints satisfaction, I feel it can be introduced for a group of agents sharing a group constraint. The animal world makes available some examples. Alert signals can be looked at as a communication implemented to satisfy the species “stay alive” constraint (ex Vervet monkey alarm calls informing conspecifics about presence of danger, so corresponding protective action can be implemented). More generally, communication of meanings can be looked at as a transmission of meaningful information from an agent that generated it to another agent that will generate a meaning with the received information. The meaning generated by the receiving agent can be different from the one transmitted (different constraints, ..). Systemic approach allows to apply this to any kind of system submitted to a constraint. Best Christophe (let me share this with the List) From: l...@leydesdorff.net To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr Subject: RE: [Fis] replies to several Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 07:43:07 +0200 1) A “meaning” does not exist by itself. It is a “meaningful information” (Shannon type information) related to a system that creates it or uses it in order to satisfy some constraint (ex: stay alive for species by ADN transmission, stay alive for organism by catching food, be happy for humans). And it is true that “mathematically derived “meaning” for antibodies is a pale representation of meaning in the human context”. This is why trying to understand what is a “meaning” by a systemic approach can be interesting. I fully agree. 2) Any meaning has an origin, more or less iterated from other meanings. As already expressed at FIS, a basic meaning generation process can be modeled through the MGS (Meaning Generator System) where a system submitted to a constraint generates a meaning when it receives an information from its environment that has a connection with the constraint. The generated meaning is precisely the connection existing between the received information and the constraint (http://crmenant.free.fr/FIScience/Index.htm , http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf). The received information can already be meaningful. 3) The MGS is a building block populating agents that have different constraints to satisfy (http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/10-Menant.pdf). 4) Networks of meanings for an agent about an item of its environment constitute a meaningful representation of the item for the agent. Meanings link agents to their environments (“ “). 5) Meaning generation by the MGS can be used as an evolutionary tool beginning with bacteria. It brings to highlight the specificities of organisms and humans in terms of systems and constraints where our understanding is sometimes limited (“ “). Yes, but the differentia specifica is that meaning can be communicated using human language as an evolutionary achievement. Biological systems generate meaning, but cannot communicate it. Best wishes, Loet Best Christophe From: l...@leydesdorff.net To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 21:16:01 +0200 Subject: Re: [Fis] replies to several Dear Joe: 1. If I follow Loet, I must accept that Information Theory is essentially a mathematical theory that requires abstractions for extension to complex contexts. But Bob says that the mathematically derived “meaning” for antibodies is a pale representation of meaning in the human context and only reflects how wanly quantitative models in general prefigure more complicated human situations. CONCLUSION: something else that is non-mathematical and non-abstract beyond IT as so defined is required to capture meaning. Yes, I would agree. Shannon-type information is yet meaningless. Information can only be provided with meaning by the substantive specification of a system of reference. For this reason, one needs not only a formal theory of the exchange, but also substantive theories. For example, a theory about the exchange of molecules in biology, and of atoms in chemistry, or of transactions in economy. These theories of specific communications cannot be expected to be unified because the substances (of “what is communicated and why”) are different. The formal theory of communication serves us, among other things, for moving from one substantive theory to another and for developing metaphors that can thus heuristically be transported, because of the abstraction involved. Additionally, these confrontations can lead to
Re: [Fis] replies to several
Dear Loet, Joe and all, We are reaching again the question of “meaning” as attached to information. Let me remind a few points addressed more or less explicitly in some previous posts: 1) A “meaning” does not exist by itself. It is a “meaningful information” (Shannon type information) related to a system that creates it or uses it in order to satisfy some constraint (ex: stay alive for species by ADN transmission, stay alive for organism by catching food, be happy for humans). And it is true that “mathematically derived “meaning” for antibodies is a pale representation of meaning in the human context”. This is why trying to understand what is a “meaning” by a systemic approach can be interesting. 2) Any meaning has an origin, more or less iterated from other meanings. As already expressed at FIS, a basic meaning generation process can be modeled through the MGS (Meaning Generator System) where a system submitted to a constraint generates a meaning when it receives an information from its environment that has a connection with the constraint. The generated meaning is precisely the connection existing between the received information and the constraint (http://crmenant.free.fr/FIScience/Index.htm , http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf). The received information can already be meaningful. 3) The MGS is a building block populating agents that have different constraints to satisfy (http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/10-Menant.pdf). 4) Networks of meanings for an agent about an item of its environment constitute a meaningful representation of the item for the agent. Meanings link agents to their environments (“ “). 5) Meaning generation by the MGS can be used as an evolutionary tool beginning with bacteria. It brings to highlight the specificities of organisms and humans in terms of systems and constraints where our understanding is sometimes limited (“ “). Best Christophe From: l...@leydesdorff.net To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 21:16:01 +0200 Subject: Re: [Fis] replies to several Dear Joe: 1. If I follow Loet, I must accept that Information Theory is essentially a mathematical theory that requires abstractions for extension to complex contexts. But Bob says that the mathematically derived “meaning” for antibodies is a pale representation of meaning in the human context and only reflects how wanly quantitative models in general prefigure more complicated human situations. CONCLUSION: something else that is non-mathematical and non-abstract beyond IT as so defined is required to capture meaning. Yes, I would agree. Shannon-type information is yet meaningless. Information can only be provided with meaning by the substantive specification of a system of reference. For this reason, one needs not only a formal theory of the exchange, but also substantive theories. For example, a theory about the exchange of molecules in biology, and of atoms in chemistry, or of transactions in economy. These theories of specific communications cannot be expected to be unified because the substances (of “what is communicated and why”) are different. The formal theory of communication serves us, among other things, for moving from one substantive theory to another and for developing metaphors that can thus heuristically be transported, because of the abstraction involved. Additionally, these confrontations can lead to further developments of the algorithms that are relevant for studying the dynamics. The dynamics in the communication of meaning is different from the communication of information! Information can also circulate as noise (without meaning). I doubt it that meaning can be communicated without communication of information. Meaning is generated when information can be related by “an observing system” or more precisely in a discourse. It seems to me that semioticians focus exclusively on the communication of meaning without relating it to the communication of information. The latter, for example, has to confirm to the entropy law, while the former does not. The possibility of generating negative information has first been discussed by Brillouin as negentropy (- Delta H). Meaning circulation generates redundancies because the historical case is one of possible cases from the perspective of hindsight and thus the maximum entropy (of possible states) can be continuously enlarged. This is further reinforced when meanings are codified in terms of models. Models enable us to consider more possible case in the future. Such systems – e.g., scientific discourses – can be considered as strongly anticipatory. They act against the axis of time. […] 3. Two aspects of the exchange between Koichiro and Loet merit attention: 1) Loet said that his point of replacing “why” with “what” did not seem necessary to him. In my mind, however, when Koichiro refers to “what is communicated by what
[Fis] FW: BBC Doco; Cell
Gavin, Let me put it a bit differently, in terms of systems and types of laws. Prior the emergence of life in evolution we have only physico-chemical laws. Energy exchanges just obey these laws. There is no purpose, just matter in the interaction of laws (putting aside the question of the trend to increasing complexity in our universe). When life appears in evolution, something new is to be taken into account in terms of law: the final causes law. A living entity is not only submitted to the existing physico-chemical laws, but also to the constraint; “stay alive”. Behaviors of organisms are guided by this constraint (look for food/energy, avoid predators, …). Behaviors are goal directed. The concept of final causes has been introduced by Aristote. Cybernetics has built up a model to apply the concept to artefacs (the constraint of the system is to reach the goal, hit the target). In a guided missile, the information collected by the infrared sensors is used (data processing) to control the energy guiding the missile. In a frog looking for food to stay alive, the visual information of a moving black dot is used to control the tongue flicking in order to catch the fly. We can compare the systems in terms of data processing and energy control for constraint satisfaction. Both the missile and the frog process information to control their energy and actions in order to satisfy their constraint. But we must be careful when comparing artificial systems to organisms: living entities have performances that we do not understand and that we can only partially transpose to artefacts, like autonomy. Autonomy is a performance of life that we do not understand as of today. The pseudo autonomy of a robot is only derived from ours. So I feel that comparing living and artificial systems brings to consider that they both process information to control their energy in order to satisfy their constraints. Christophe From: garr...@xtra.co.nz To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr CC: ssal...@binghamton.edu; colli...@ukzn.ac.za Subject: RE: [Fis] BBC Doco; Cell Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:54:00 +1300 Hi Christofe Gavin, Perhaps to be introduced here is the evolution from matter to life. Prior to life in the universe, there are only physicochemical laws valid everywhere. When life comes in, something local to the living entity is added: a “stay alive” constraint that applies only to the living entity, not elsewhere. Such constraint that is to be locally satisfied by the entity carrying it goes with the process of interpretation, or meaning generation, that links the living entity (the organism) to its environment. Organisms have the possibility to receive information incident from their environment (light, sound, information from other organism, ….) and process it. This is the problem living organisms do not have anything to do with processing information. It seems to me that many people clever and astute have been hoodwinked into thinking this is the case. There is not one piece of evidence to show that organisms process information. Let’s break it down. Using Occam’s Razor. Sight (photons), sound (phonons and energy waves in air), taste, smell (chemical energy), touch (pressure and heat energy). All transduced at the sensory processing-structures (eyes, ears etc) into an electrical signal in the neural system. There is no information energy at the transduction processing-structure. The ears do not contain any organ that transduces information only energy. The bottom line is this “It’s the shape, hues and intensities of energy that we control biologically that gives this false sense of something else called information. And so famously found on spectrums, the very basis of our understanding of matter. Even language is really a control of sight and sound energies. The difference between a biological organism and dead matter is not information (so famously touted by Richard Dawkins), but the ability of a living organism to control its own energies. No such thing as information as being exchanged by living organism. Sure we can use information theory to analyze some of these things, but saying a living organisms processes information is false. Regards Gavin The information processing exists so it can initiate action aimed at satisfying the constraint. Easy for a “stay alive” constraint that will bring a paramecium to move away from acid water. Much more complex for humans exchanging language where other constraints and performances come in. But I feel that the basic notion of constraint satisfaction coming during evolution in addition to physico-chemical laws can be a simple and useful tool (see http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf) Christophe > From: garr...@xtra.co.nz > To: colli...@ukzn.ac.za; fis@listas.unizar.es > Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:09:02 +1300 > Subject: Re: [Fis] BBC Doco; Cell > > Well then we tot
[Fis] FW: BBC Doco; Cell
Gavin, Perhaps to be introduced here is the evolution from matter to life. Prior to life in the universe, there are only physicochemical laws valid everywhere. When life comes in, something local to the living entity is added: a “stay alive” constraint that applies only to the living entity, not elsewhere. Such constraint that is to be locally satisfied by the entity carrying it goes with the process of interpretation, or meaning generation, that links the living entity (the organism) to its environment. Organisms have the possibility to receive information incident from their environment (light, sound, information from other organism, ….) and process it. The information processing exists so it can initiate action aimed at satisfying the constraint. Easy for a “stay alive” constraint that will bring a paramecium to move away from acid water. Much more complex for humans exchanging language where other constraints and performances come in. But I feel that the basic notion of constraint satisfaction coming during evolution in addition to physico-chemical laws can be a simple and useful tool (see http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf) Christophe > From: garr...@xtra.co.nz > To: colli...@ukzn.ac.za; fis@listas.unizar.es > Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:09:02 +1300 > Subject: Re: [Fis] BBC Doco; Cell > > Well then we totally agree on that. > > The second part of your response then, if some energy transduction has the > properties of information flow where is it (what are these properties) and > if it's there how do we measure it either qualitatively or qualitatively. > > Because it looks like to me, any exchange language or otherwise is really > only energy transduction albeit a mix of sight and sound (and the other > senses) which is really shape and hues (both nouns) of different energy > patterns. Which is really just the basis of scientific thought, made of > patterns of energy. Spectrums, chromatography, etc > > No information here. Just energy patterns. > > Gavin > > Gavin, > > Everything is energy transduction, even your thinking. Some energy > transduction has the properties of information flow, sensu Barwsie and > Seligman, Information Flow: the Logic of Distributed Systems (Cambridge UP, > 1997 or so). > > John > > > At 01:05 AM 2011/03/28, Gavin Ritz wrote: > > I watched a BBC documentary on the weekend with a friend who recommended it. > It was a really interesting and well presented programme. > > Some very far out stuff about the creation of life. > > However what I observed again (now more than ever before) that the DNA > molecule is an information carrying molecule. Simple, all we have to do is > decipher this information. Richard Dawkins also says this in a number of his > publications. "living matter is just matter plus information" > > I'm no biologist or biochemist (I'm an engineer). There's something wrong > here. > > Even at the most basic level of an organism's communication with its > environment. There is no discernable information exchange. Every single one > of our senses is an energy transduction structure-processing unit. All we do > is transduce say light and sound energy to electrical energy. This much is > pretty well established. > > Unless information is just a colloquial way of saying energy transduction > (or conversion). I doubt this though; information seems to be containing > much more than just this. It's almost as if commentators are saying behind > all this energy (and conversions, and work) lies a new and more powerful > notion. > > All of chemistry is the reaction of structures with other structures, there > are no informational exchanges. > > If there are informational exchanges where is the science? > > I'm not talking about computing machines or old fashioned telephony > (of-course we have created information here). > > These informational exchanges about organisms seemed to have crept into our > thinking around the 1950's circa cybernetics. Prior to this very little on > living organism and information exchange. > > Regards > Gavin > > > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > Professor John Collier, Acting HoS and Acting Deputy HoS >colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa > T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 > http://collier.ukzn.ac.za/ > > > > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Closing Comments?
Dear Colleagues, In a few sentences, a summary of my contribution addressing some of Pedro’s formulations of Yixin's questions: It is difficult to consider a unique perspective on the relations between intelligence and information as they depend upon the agent being considered (bacteria, human, robot, ..). An evolutionary approach can provide a thread as it allows starting with easy cases. Considering agent meaning generation for constraint satisfaction as an elementary case of intelligence, we can start by a simple systemic model linking meaning generation and information (1, 2) An evolutionary approach can then be addressed through the evolutions of agents and of constraints (3,4). Meaningful information and representations (intelligence) link the agents to their worlds (4). However, some characteristics of agents, like being alive, autonomous or conscious, are badly understood or still mysterious. Such lack of understanding needs to be explicated in our evolutionary route (4). All the best for this year end Christophe (1) http://crmenant.free.fr/FIScience/Index.htm (2) http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf (3) http://crmenant.free.fr/Biosemiotics3/INDEX.HTM (4) http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/10-Menant.pdf ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] FW: Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION
Resent to the correct address From: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr To: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es Subject: FW: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:33:12 +0100 Dear Colleagues, Looking at relations between information and intelligence brings in the need to explicit the agents we are considering, as the intelligence of a unicellular organism has not much to do with the intelligence of a human being. An evolutionary approach may be a usable path. Begin with simple organisms and progressively chain on more complex ones. In order to begin with simple enough a definition of intelligence, we can use Gordana’s one where the intelligence of an agent is «the ability to face the world in a meaningful way», and also use Stan's linking of this point to a process of interpretation by the agent relatively to its needs. Putting these two perspectives together can lead to define intelligence as the «interpretation of a received information to generate a meaningful information (a meaning) that will be used by the agent to satisfy its needs thru action implementation ». The agent can be a simple organism or a human being, with of course different needs to satisfy. So the evolutionnary perspective, where intelligence is linked with information (using an already presented approach: http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf). Needs of a paramecium, like «stay alive» are much simpler to define than human needs like «increase happyness». But in both cases we have information (coming from the environment or from the organism) that is related to the needs in order to generate meaningful information used to produce an action (physical or mental) aimed at the satisfaction of the needs (i.e. behave intelligenly by «facing the world in a meaningful way»). (more on meaning generation vs needs/contraints satisfaction at http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf ). But there is an important difference between animals and humans that brings in heavy concerns. It is human consciousness, be it first person type (phenomenal consciousness: "what it is like to experience something") or third person type (self-consciousness: perceiving oneself as existing in the environment). The problem is that the nature of human consciousness is today a mystery for science and philosophy. So the nature of human intelligence (with its relations with information and knowledge) has to be considered as unknown. Only its behavioral consequences are understandable to some extend. However, we can work on the relations between information and intelligence for animals and limit the human case to intelligent behaviour. All the best Christophe From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:09:52 +0100 Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION: A Charicature. Psychology Dear Loet, You have opened up what may be an important box, and we need to see if it is Pandora's or Sophia's! Does not your note imply the following questions: 1. Intelligence is a well-defined subject of studies in psychology, but is it a well-defined subject? 2. If intelligence is a well-defined subject of studies, should not this be part of the solution, rather than the problem? 3. Are we to conclude that all we non-psychologists can know is that, with due respect to your wife, psychologists know better what intelligence "is"? Is there a process view of intelligence in psychology? 4. Since we have more or less agreed that consciousness, information and knowledge are all critical to the understanding of intelligence, do we conclude that psychologists also have appropriate, adequately complex notions of these that we can learn from or contribute to? 5. Thus, are you saying that if "we" are using an inappropriate paradigm for studying intelligence, psychology is the appropriate one? 6. If so, that is, if psychology is the most appropriate paradigm, what support does it have or require from other disciplines that are relative to point 4 above, especially information? Shall we see where this track might lead? Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Loet Leydesdorff To: 'Joseph Brenner' ; 'fis' Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 10:39 PM Subject: RE: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION: A Charicature Dear Joseph, It seems to me that part of the problem is that “intelligence” is a well-defined subject of studies within psychology. (I happen to be married with a psychologist.) Perhaps, this is an example of scholars discussing a subject using an inappropriate paradigm. J Best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Yes Joseph, you are right. As the satisfaction of the constraint is mandatory for the system to maintain its nature, system and constraint are indeed tightly linked. The “stay alive” constraint came up on earth with the first organisms that had to maintain a local far from equilibrium status. The existence of the constraint goes with the being of the living entity. As we are all more or less Cartesian networked, we are naturally brought to identify components. (“divide each of the problems I was examining in as many parts as I could”). More on this in a wider perspective at http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/MenantChristophe.pdf All the best Christophe From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:01:35 +0100 Dear Christophe, I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Christophe Menant To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal Dear all, As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective. Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information being transmitted thru the channel. The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, … As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or uses it in order to satisfy a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are then organic (stay alive, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look for happiness, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usable for animals and humans and robots (1), (2). This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in simple terms. All the best Christophe (1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf (2) http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200 > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es > From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote: > >Dear Joseph, > > > >Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! > > > >I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. > >In addition to a mathematical theory of communication, we need substantive > >theories of communication. This became clear to me when Maturana formulated > >life as a consequence of the communication of molecules. If atoms are > >communicated, one obtains a theory of chemical evolution (Mason), etc. All > >these special theories of communication can usefully be matched with a > >mathematical theory of communication (or perhaps more generally non-linear > >dynamics). > > > >The special case, of course, is when one multiplies H with k(B) that one > >obtains S (Joule/Kelvin). John seems to imply that there is another unit of > >information in physics which is a conserved entity. John: Can you perhaps > >provide the dimensionality of this unit and provide the derivation? > > Dear Loet, > > It is usually defined as a bit, which is understood as a binary distinction, > wherefore the "it from bit" formulation found in a number of places, but > the term is due, I believe, to John Wheeler. More typically the term is > related to entropy considerations (as in the black hole case). My > derivation is by dimensional analysis. Entropy is the compliment > of information. If we take the maximal entropy of a system by > relaxing all constraints with no other change in macrosc
Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal
Dear all, As the notion of information is again (and interestingly) put on the forefront, let’s not forget the evolutionary approach that naturally introduces the notion of meaning and allows to bring in a system oriented perspective. Assuming we put aside the reason of being of the universe, there is no entity to care about information before the coming up of life on earth. Information is a notion that we humans have invented as a set of tools to help the understanding and managing of our world. And animals also manage information. A basic tool is the measurement of the quantity of information with the Shannon transmission capacity of a channel, whatever the meaning of the information being transmitted thru the channel. The meaning of an information can be called many names: content, purpose, aboutness, goal, target, sense, aim, … As already presented in the FIS discussions, I feel that the meaning of information (whatever it’s naming) exists because there is a system that needs this meaning, a system that creates this meaning or uses it in order to satisfy a constraint. The system being an animal, a human or an artificial system. The constraints guiding the meaning generation can be very many. Constraints are then organic (stay alive, maintain the species, …), human (valorise ego, look for happiness, …), artificial (obey a process, …). And following such an approach allows to model meaning generation by a simple system usable for animals and humans and robots (1), (2). This does not pretend answering all the questions related to the complex subject of meaningful information, but it introduces that needed notion in simple terms. All the best Christophe (1) http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf (2) http://www.eucognition.org/uploads/docs/First_Meeting_Hamburg/Workshop_A__menant-web.pdf > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:53:48 +0200 > To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es > From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za > Subject: Re: [Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal > > At 11:13 PM 2009/11/27, you wrote: > >Dear Joseph, > > > >Be my guest and have some Irish children for breakfast! > > > >I did not mean my intervention as directed against substantive theorizing. > >In addition to a mathematical theory of communication, we need substantive > >theories of communication. This became clear to me when Maturana formulated > >life as a consequence of the communication of molecules. If atoms are > >communicated, one obtains a theory of chemical evolution (Mason), etc. All > >these special theories of communication can usefully be matched with a > >mathematical theory of communication (or perhaps more generally non-linear > >dynamics). > > > >The special case, of course, is when one multiplies H with k(B) that one > >obtains S (Joule/Kelvin). John seems to imply that there is another unit of > >information in physics which is a conserved entity. John: Can you perhaps > >provide the dimensionality of this unit and provide the derivation? > > Dear Loet, > > It is usually defined as a bit, which is understood as a binary distinction, > wherefore the "it from bit" formulation found in a number of places, but > the term is due, I believe, to John Wheeler. More typically the term is > related to entropy considerations (as in the black hole case). My > derivation is by dimensional analysis. Entropy is the compliment > of information. If we take the maximal entropy of a system by > relaxing all constraints with no other change in macroscopic > parametres (impossible in practice, but possible in the imagination), > and subtract from this the statistical entropy using Boltzman's > formulation based on the number of complexions of the system, > we get negentropy, which can be identified with the information > in the system. This will break up into two parts, configurational > and statistical. The it from bit view is usually talking of configurational > information. The difference between the two is largely a matter of relative > time scale, butt the time scale differences are typically large, so > there is a qualitative difference. So negentropy (physical information) > should be in entropy units. Entropy, as you point out, can be measured > as joules per degree Kelvin. Going back to basics, joules are energy, > and degrees Kelvin as average energy per degree of freedom. > Dividing through by the energy, and correcting for the double denominator, > we get information in units of degrees of freedom. I submit that bits > are an excellent measure of degrees of freed, both being pure numbers. > > So that is it, information (and entropy) are pure numbers with dimensions > of degrees of freedom. Boltzman's constant relates this to energy > measures and other physical values. However
[Fis] FW: Fw: Definition of Knowledge?
Dear FIS colleagues, Knowledge is a wide and interesting subject as applied to us humans. But what about knowledge in the world of animals ? What about an evolutionary approach to knowledge that takes into account simpler forms of knowledge management as existing in animals ? We Humans can consciously manage knowledge. But the performance of human consciousness does not imply that knowledge is absent in animals. We also manage knowledge unconsciously. And knowledge is a personal and social construction. It is a tool we use all the time in our everyday life to satisfy various constraints. For finding our way in a city as well as for doing math. We acquire and use knowledge automatically as well as consciously by introspection. But the difference is more about complexity than about nature. In both cases we manage meaningful information for some purpose. Animals also have constraints to satisfy, the key one being to stay alive. Most animals miss a conscious self to be in a position of conscious introspection (perhaps some of our cousins like chimpanzee or bonobo have a minimum sense of conscious self that allow them a minimum of introspection). So I feel that the concept of knowledge deserves being addressed in an evolutionary background in order to allow a bottom-up approach highlighting simpler cases than human one (just to work as long as possible without the “hard problem”, and bring it back in explicitly later). Animals are submitted to constraint satisfaction processes as we humans are (with different constraints coming in addition). So the foundations of knowledge look to me as constraint satisfaction driven. Such a bottom-up approach allows to bridge knowledge with meaning generation, and perhaps what is available for the latter can be used for the former (http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf). Following the same thread, let me tell you also about an extension of the notion of meaningful information to the one of meaningful representation. It is proposed that a meaningful representation of an entity for an agent submitted to constraints is the network of meanings relative to that entity. These networks of meanings contain the dynamic aspect of meaning generation with the consequences of implemented actions, as well the action scenarios with past experiences or simulations making available anticipation performances. We are far from the GOFAI types of representations. Such meaningful representations are interactive and imbed the agent in its environment (more on this at http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/MenantChristophe.pdf). To echo Jose Maria, we could consider that meaningful information and representations are somehow ‘nourishing’ knowledge. All the best Christophe > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:32:46 +0200 > From: jnaf...@uax.es > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: [Fis] Fw: Definition of Knowledge? (FIS Digest, Vol 530, Issue 1) > > -- Mensaje reenviado -- > De: Rafael Capurro > Fecha: 6 de octubre de 2009 02:28 > Asunto: Re: [Fis] Definition of Knowledge? (FIS Digest, Vol 530, Issue 1) > Para: José María Díaz Nafría > > > dear jose maria and fis colleagues, > > greetings from japan > > I very much agree with pedro's suggestions about naturalizing the > concept of knowledge i.e. of not reducing it to the propositional > traditional (platonic and partly arisotelian) concept (as suggested > also by floridi building a hierarchy where the top is propositional > scientific knowledge). the concept of implicit knowldge or > fore-knowledge in hermeneutic terms is a key issue that links in some > way the 'typical' human propositional knowledge with knowledged in > non-human agents. we should diversify our concepts and avoid > hierarchical and dogmatic human-centered views also through a classic > connection of data becoming information becoming knowledge, where > 'becoming' is some kind of black box that explains nothing. > > kind regards > > rafael > > > > > Zitat von José María Díaz Nafría : > > > Dear FIS colleagues: > > > > I apologize for being so quiet, considering the interesting topics > > arisen with the occasion of our proposal to the COST open call of past > > March, which we thank once again. This proposal as revisited by FIS > > came to coincide in time with a call for themes proposal by the > > European Science Foundation (Eurocores Theme Proposal), which we also > > presented with a short timing. We may not succeed in the first > > attempt, but anyhow it aims at opening a new scientific topic in the > > ESF. If the proposed theme were selected, new projects in the > > delimited field (well fitted to FIS interests) from any European state > > could be presented to joint the research network. I say that, t
Re: [Fis] The notion of "meaning"... (impredicativity)
Real interesting, Pedro. Regarding impredicativity, I was quite simply expecting quantum mechanics to answer (encapsulate) the question. But I don’t know really if unpicturability of enzyme function can somehow hooked at quantum randomness. When you write that “living cells are enacting a new way of existence”, I follow you but would be careful about the concept of self being still active as it is key for the nature of organisms and (I feel) deserves some more development in philosophical terms. The best I have in this area is D. Legrand thesis (1). But more is needed. Anything available from your side ? Also, as you may know, the Enactive approach is highly demanding in terms of meaning generation (2, 3, 4, 5). But coming back to the reason of my post, I’m surprised that the notion of meaning is not an explicit item in a proposal entitled “Interdisciplinary elucidation of the information concept. Theories, Metaphores and Applications“ If I have missed something, pls let me know. Best Christophe (1) http://sites.univ-provence.fr/wceperc/sem-epist-perm/Legrand_D/doroth%E9elegrandattache/Legrand%20These.pdf (2) T. Froese, T Ziemke « Enactive Artificial Intelligence » (3) S. Torrance “In search of the enactive: Introduction to special issue on Enactive Experience » Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4) December 2005, pp. 357-368 (4) Di Paolo, E., Rohde, M., and De Jaegher, H. 2007. “Horizons for the Enactive Mind: Values, Social Interaction, and Play” To appear in Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science, J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, and E. A. Di Paolo (Eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, forthcoming. (5) * Colombetti, G. 2008 « Enaction, sense-making and emotion » (To appear in Stewart, J., Gapenne, O. & Di Paolo, E. (eds). Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 2008. Forthcoming.) . > Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:18:30 +0200 > From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr > CC: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: Re: [Fis] The notion of "meaning"... (impredicativity) > > Thanks, Christophe. > > These days I am involved in a paper on "prokaryotic intelligence", and > have laterally approached the problem of cellular meaning. I am copying > a fragment below (not corrected yet). Rosen's "impredicativity" looks to > me an important concept to clarify things. However, rather than > establishing it based on dynamic, open systems (boundary conditions) as > he does, I would join Michael Conrad's viewss, in that protein folding > and unpicturability of enzyme function are the deep causes of factual > impredicativity in living cells... but perhaps my Conradian > interpretation is forced. > > Anyhow, the overall idea may be that the "signal" becomes "symmetry > breaking" for the cell, and the elaboration of meaning becomes "symmetry > restoration". > > best ---Pedro > > > > "...Along this view, living cells are enacting a new way of existence, > an active “informational” one that is based on the capability to keep > the own structures in a permanent state of flow. Cells would respond to > signals from the environment, and produce the “meaning” they imply, by > letting the signals themselves interfere with the ongoing molecular > dynamics of the cellular self-production flow. Completion of the cell > cycle would always appear as the fundamental reference... And on the > other side, the/ impredicative /nature of biological information has to > be taken into account (Rosen, 1993). It conduces to realizing that the > information processing of living cells is not of the same class than the > processes of formal, predicative nature (computation). Rather, > biomolecular processing is a “tactilizing” phenomenon based on a myriad > of specific “molecular recognition” events (Conrad, 1998; Marijuán, > 2003); and there is no syntactic procedure or amount of computation that > can fill in the modelling gap, in formal terms, between the sequences > found in genomes and the emergent dynamics of protein & enzyme & RNA > networks. The degree to which biological complexity can be efficiently > fathomed in computational terms is a highly debatable question; it has > also practical implications regarding the mentioned integration of > signaling processes within the life cycle, and the cut-offs and > trade-offs to establish in the models. Whatever the modelling option, > the "real" biomolecular elaboration of meaning in the living cell and in > the living brain would always keep the upper hand of complexity with > respect any syntactic, computational procedures..." > > > > > Christophe Menant escr
[Fis] The notion of "meaning" in the COST proposal
Thanks Stan, Biosemiotics can indeed be part of the story (http://crmenant.free.fr/Biosemiotics3/INDEX.HTM ), but part only. My point is about the importance of the notion of ”meaning” when talking about information. Interpretation of information (meaning generation) is key when information is processed by finalized systems. Our lives are embedded in meaning generation, from auto-immune disease to the smile of the Joconde. Meaning generation has probably an evolutionary story, and can deserves (I feel) a systemic approach (http://cogprints.org/6279/ ). So I’m just kind of surprised not to see the notion of meaning explicited in the proposal. Perhaps Pedro could tell us more on this point. All the best Christophe Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:28:54 -0400 To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr From: ssal...@binghamton.edu Subject: Re: [Fis] FW: Denumerability of information (II) For your interest, I think you are tending towards semiotics -- in particular, Biosemiotics. You could look at the web pages of the Biosemiotics journal. STAN Dear all, Comments from Michel and Rafael bring up an aspect of the proposal that has perhaps been underestimated. It is the interpretation of information which generates its content, its meaning. From "Information in cells" to "information for cells" we precisely have the interpretating function where an agent creates meaning for its own usage. Different agents generate different meanings. And information in antennas is not for antennas as they contain no interpretating function. Can the paragraph "Semantics" cover this point? Perhaps, but I'm not sure that "semantics for bioinformation" is currently used. The concept of interpretation looks to me as key when talking about information in agents. If the proposal takes it into account from a different perspective, perhaps it would be worth expliciting it. Best regards Christophe > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:57:53 +0200 > From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: [Fis] Denumerability of information (II) > > > (message II, responses from Díaz Nafría and Rafael Capurro) > > -- > > Dear Michel: > > Thank you for your good remarks. I agree about both. Of course, data > banks may be considered in the list. In any case, that list should be > too long if it were exhaustive. That is to say, "Š" concern to a much > larger list that the enunciated one (and considering length I may say > that there were only 1 character left to fulfil the "text of > proposal" and we use them all). Anyway, data banks are certainly a > relevant case so they will be mentioned in next submissions. > > About (2), I remember the controversy which arose from a question you > stated in December -I think-. I also keep in mind the interesting > answer from Rafael. I wrote him some remarks about the controversy. I > will try to find them to give you my point of view about that > interesting question. > > Grateful and cordial greetings, > > José María Díaz Nafría > > - > > Dear Michel and all, > > yes, the formulation "there is information in cells..." could be > misleading as it means, IMO, there is information "for" cells or > messages that cells are able to process "as" information, i.e., through > a process of selection and integration "in" them according to their > specific way of life. What is stored in data banks is in fact not > information but potential information for a system capable of > understanding or "processing" it. The question of numerability is one > possible framework of interpretation which means particularly since > modern science, that "we" think we understand something as far as we are > able to interpret it as countable using particularly digital media. In > the 19th century this framework was mainly related to "matter" (what is > not "material" is not understandable). Of course different frameworks or > (metaphysical) "paradigms" compete with each other unless they are > viewed as the only "true" ones... And: they have consequences for > society, politics etc. as we can see everyday > > kind regards > > Rafael > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Votre correspondant a choisi Hotmail et profite d'un stockage quasiment illimité. Créez un compte Hotmail gratuitement ! ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://we
[Fis] FW: Denumerability of information (II)
Dear all, Comments from Michel and Rafael bring up an aspect of the proposal that has perhaps been underestimated. It is the interpretation of information which generates its content, its meaning. From “Information in cells” to “information for cells” we precisely have the interpretating function where an agent creates meaning for its own usage. Different agents generate different meanings. And information in antennas is not for antennas as they contain no interpretating function. Can the paragraph “Semantics” cover this point? Perhaps, but I’m not sure that "semantics for bioinformation" is currently used. The concept of interpretation looks to me as key when talking about information in agents. If the proposal takes it into account from a different perspective, perhaps it would be worth expliciting it. Best regards Christophe > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:57:53 +0200 > From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: [Fis] Denumerability of information (II) > > > (message II, responses from Díaz Nafría and Rafael Capurro) > > -- > > Dear Michel: > > Thank you for your good remarks. I agree about both. Of course, data > banks may be considered in the list. In any case, that list should be > too long if it were exhaustive. That is to say, “…” concern to a much > larger list that the enunciated one (and considering length I may say > that there were only 1 character left to fulfil the “text of > proposal” and we use them all). Anyway, data banks are certainly a > relevant case so they will be mentioned in next submissions. > > About (2), I remember the controversy which arose from a question you > stated in December –I think-. I also keep in mind the interesting > answer from Rafael. I wrote him some remarks about the controversy. I > will try to find them to give you my point of view about that > interesting question. > > Grateful and cordial greetings, > > José María Díaz Nafría > > - > > Dear Michel and all, > > yes, the formulation "there is information in cells..." could be > misleading as it means, IMO, there is information "for" cells or > messages that cells are able to process "as" information, i.e., through > a process of selection and integration "in" them according to their > specific way of life. What is stored in data banks is in fact not > information but potential information for a system capable of > understanding or "processing" it. The question of numerability is one > possible framework of interpretation which means particularly since > modern science, that "we" think we understand something as far as we are > able to interpret it as countable using particularly digital media. In > the 19th century this framework was mainly related to "matter" (what is > not "material" is not understandable). Of course different frameworks or > (metaphysical) "paradigms" compete with each other unless they are > viewed as the only "true" ones... And: they have consequences for > society, politics etc. as we can see everyday > > kind regards > > Rafael > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _ Téléphonez gratuitement à tous vos proches avec Windows Live Messenger ! Téléchargez-le maintenant ! http://www.windowslive.fr/messenger/1.asp___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] FW: [iacap-announce] InPhO for Philosophers
Dear FISers,You will find hereuder a browser for searches on philosophical topics. Christophe > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 > 14:34:08 -0500> Subject: [iacap-announce] InPhO for Philosophers> > November, > 2008: The Indiana Philosophy Ontology project (InPhO) is > pleased to > announce the release of the beta version of its Taxonomy > Browser at > http://inpho.cogs.indiana.edu/taxonomy/. This web-based > service provides a > simple navigation scheme for investigating related > philosophical concepts, > and provides an easy single-click interface > for conducting focused searches > on philosophical topics at the > Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Noesis, > Google Scholar, and the > entire web via Google. We welcome comments and > feedback on improving > this interface at [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The InPhO > project also requests YOUR help. By answering some simple > questions about > the ideas in the InPhO taxonomy and about key > philosophical thinkers, you > can help us verify and refine the software > that is used to build the InPhO. > This will assist our ongoing > development of new tools for representing > philosophy, including a > "thinker" browser and visualization tools for > exploring the networks > formed by ideas and thinkers.> > Request an account > through the "myinpho" link at either the taxonomy > browser page or on the > top level page at http:// > inpho.cogs.indiana.edu/. You'll be helping to > create the most powerful > and useful database of information about > philosophy and philosophers > anywhere.> > Please forward this message to > lists frequented by philosophy students > and faculty, link us to your > philosophy blogs and websites, and > download and post the flyer that can be > found at http://inpho.cogs.indiana.edu/flyer.pdf> > The Indiana Philosophy > Ontology Project has been built with the > support of Indiana University and > the National Endowment for the > Humanities.* We are committed to providing > open access to its data > and web interfaces. We welcome ideas for > collaborative projects.> > Colin Allen> Director, Indiana Philosophy Ontology > project> Professor, Department of History & Philosophy of Science> Professor, > Cognitive Science Program> Indiana University-Bloomington> > http://mypage.iu.edu/~colallen/> > --> * Any views, findings, > conclusions or recommendations reported on the > InPhO website do not > necessarily represent those of the National > Endowment for the Humanities.> > > > > To remove your address from this mailing list send a message to [EMAIL > PROTECTED]> _ Inédit ! Des Emoticônes Déjantées! Installez les dans votre Messenger ! http://www.ilovemessenger.fr/Emoticones/EmoticonesDejantees.aspx___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Information - Meaning - Knowledge
Robin, Wittgenstein’s “meaning as use” is mostly related to meaning of words and sentences. And analytic philosophy is not in favour of considering evolutionary approaches.As the systemic approach goes with a bottom-up perspective usable for simple organisms, I do not feel that it can be basically considered as a reformulation of W’s “meaning as use”. However, if we consider the application of the systemic approach to the case of human language precisely, then the generation of meaning by constraint satisfaction can be compared to W’s “meaning as use” assuming we know the corresponding constraints. And this brings us to another level of analysis: what are, for us humans, the constraints to be satisfied ?We have of course in the background all our biological constraints. But human specific constraints are not that well known (or ignorance about the nature of consciousness being a heavy contributor of the problem). On a general basis, we can say that a generic human constraint is the search of happiness which indeed conditions many of or meaning generations and actions. Various sub-constraints come from this generic one like combine pleasure & reality, limit anxiety, satisfy Maslow pyramid, valorise ego, … (1). This looks to me as an open subject because psychology of motivation is still in its infancy (also as a consequence of our ignorance regarding the nature of consciousness).All the best Christophe(1) http://crmenant.free.fr/Biosemiotics3/INDEX.HTM Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:56:43 +0100From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [Fis] Information - Meaning - Knowledge Friday, September 19, 2008, 12:27:06 AM, Christophe wrote: > Folks, Answering to Joseph, I relate meaning to information by a systemic approach based on constraint satisfaction that allows an evolutionary/bottom-up usage (http://cogprints.org/6014/). So with this, a meaning exists relatively to a system submitted to a constraint. A meaning (a meaningful information) is the result of an interpretation by a system that has a constraint to satisfy. Isn't this a reformulation or generalisation of Wittgenstein's "meaning as use"? -- Robin Faichney <http://www.robinfaichney.org/> _ Installez gratuitement les 20 émôticones Windows Live Messenger les plus fous ! Cliquez ici ! http://www.emoticones-messenger.fr/___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Information - Meaning - Knowledge
Folks, Answering to Joseph, I relate meaning to information by a systemic approach based on constraint satisfaction that allows an evolutionary/bottom-up usage (http://cogprints.org/6014/). So with this, a meaning exists relatively to a system submitted to a constraint. A meaning (a meaningful information) is the result of an interpretation by a system that has a constraint to satisfy. This notion of meaning can be used to define a representation for a system (http://cogprints.org/6108/). More to come on this. Regarding knowledge, I would look at it as a set of representations (made of meanings, including action scenarios) relative to an item. (This is not far from Stan’s “organization of meanings”).All the best Christophe (http://crmenant.free.fr/Home-Page/index.HTM) _ Téléphonez gratuitement à tous vos proches avec Windows Live Messenger ! Téléchargez-le maintenant ! http://www.windowslive.fr/messenger/1.asp___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] FW: fis post acknowledgement
It works> Subject: fis post acknowledgement> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:46:25 +0200> > Your message entitled> > FW: fis-spam-problem> > was successfully received by the fis mailing list.> > List info page: https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> Your preferences: https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/options/fis/christophe.menant%40hotmail.fr _ Retouchez, classez et partagez vos photos gratuitement avec le logiciel Galerie de Photos ! http://www.windowslive.fr/galerie/___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] FW: fis-spam-problem
Testing> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:53:29 +0200> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: fis-spam-problem> > Good News:> > 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 > to the fis list. Could you make a try please? So we will see whether the > solution effectively works. > > regards> > Pedro _ Retouchez, classez et partagez vos photos gratuitement avec le logiciel Galerie de Photos ! http://www.windowslive.fr/galerie/___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
TR: SV: [Fis] info & meaning
Steven, In a few words, what I understand by meaning. 1) We all agree that the Shannon theory of information addresses the capacity of transmission of a communication channel. It does not deal at all with the possible meaning associated with the information. A different approach is needed. 2) The notion of meaning associated to information is a complex subject as it covers a wide area of different applications (focusing on meaning associated to human language may be misleading as it is one of the most complex cases). First clarification is to define different domains of complexity. Gross sizing: matter, life, human. Then, put aside for a while the case of matter and focus on life and human in the context of a pragmatic approach. With this background, we can consider that a meaningful information (a meaning) does not exist per se but comes from a system submitted to a constraint that has generated the meaning in order to satisfy the constraint. (stay alive for an organism, valorize ego for a human ). A meaning can be defined only when a system submitted to a constraint is in relation with its environment. The environment of the system makes available a lot of information that the system can receive. Only the received information having a connection with the constraint of the system will generate a meaning within the system. And we can consider that the content of the meaning is precisely that connection existing between the received information and the constraint of the system. A systemic approach can be formalized on this subject with the introduction of a Meaning Generator System (MGS). See short paper http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/index.HTM 3) As you may have noted, such approach on meaning generation is triadic and can be part of the neighborhood of the Peircean theory of sign (in a much simpler and less elaborated form). The MGS is also in the domain of the Von Uexkull biosemiotics where a meaning is generated by the connection of the constraints of the organism (Internal world of the organism, Umwelt) with the external world. 4) Going from simple organisms to humans in the field of meaning generation is not an easy task. The constraints to satisfy cumulate and are more and more elaborated. The systems also become more complex and are inter-related. And the mysterious function of human consciousness comes in. However, looking at MGS as a building block can offers some possibilities (see http://cogprints.org/4531/ ). All the best Christophe -Message d'origine- De : Steven Ericsson-Zenith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : vendredi 5 octobre 2007 01:26 À : Christophe Menant Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: SV: [Fis] info & meaning I read Pedro's post differently. What definition of meaning are you using exactly? I was going to express agreement with Pedro too, but I do not agree with either Soren of Christophe's interpretation of Pedro's posting. Can Pedro clarify? And can we be more precise in what we mean when we use the term "meaning?" With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering http://iase.info http://senses.info On Oct 4, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Christophe Menant wrote: > Dear Soren, > I agree with your reading of Pedros proposal as to start with > cellular meaning, and then go thru the higher levels of evolution. > It has the advantage of beginning with the simplest case and then > look at more complex ones. See (1) for a corresponding approach. > But Im afraid I disagree with your point regarding first person > consciousness as not representing anything real, as just being a > bio-cultural artefact as you say. I take human consciousness as > being a reality resulting from an evolution of representations. But > this is not our today subject. > Coming back to it, Walter Riofrio, (New FIS member) has an > interesting approach to the notion of meaning where he groups > together the emergence of autonomy, function and meaning (2). I > understand his work as associating inside a system a meaningful > information with a function that needs it in order to use it, in a > background of autonomy. Such evolutionary link between meaningful > information and function looks as an interesting tool. > > All the best > Christophe > (1) - Short paper: http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/index.HTM > - Full paper: http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf > (2) http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00114521/en/ > > > > > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:13:27 +0200 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: SV: [Fis] info & meaning > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; fis@listas.unizar.es > > > > Dear Pedro > > > > Do I understand you right when I see your models a
FW: SV: [Fis] info & meaning
Dear Soren, I agree with your reading of Pedro’s proposal as to start with cellular meaning, and then go thru the higher levels of evolution. It has the advantage of beginning with the simplest case and then look at more complex ones. See (1) for a corresponding approach.But I’m afraid I disagree with your point regarding first person consciousness as not representing anything real, as just being a bio-cultural artefact as you say. I take human consciousness as being a reality resulting from an evolution of representations. But this is not our today subject. Coming back to it, Walter Riofrio, (New FIS member) has an interesting approach to the notion of meaning where he groups together the emergence of autonomy, function and meaning (2). I understand his work as associating inside a system a meaningful information with a function that needs it in order to use it, in a background of autonomy. Such evolutionary link between meaningful information and function looks as an interesting tool. All the best Christophe(1) - Short paper: http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/index.HTM - Full paper: http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf(2) http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00114521/en/> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:13:27 +0200> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: SV: [Fis] info & meaning> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; fis@listas.unizar.es> > Dear Pedro> > Do I understand you right when I see your models as:> > 1. There is no meaning in inanimate nature.> 2. Meaning is constructed on a first level by life in the form of single> cell life forms.> 3. Second level is (chemical) communication between cells.> 4. Third level is multicellular organisms as species with a gene pool.> 5. Fifth level is their communication.> 6. Sixth level human construction of meaning in 'life worlds'. > > But there is no object of meaning in itself. Energy and mathematical> information are the basic reality. First person meaningful consciousness is> a bio-cultural artifact useful for the construction of life and culture, but> it is not an image of anything real.> > Best wishes> > Søren> > > -Oprindelig meddelelse-> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På> vegne af Pedro Marijuan> Sendt: 4. oktober 2007 14:23> Til: fis@listas.unizar.es> Emne: Re: [Fis] info & meaning> > Dear colleagues,> > What if meaning is equivalent to "zero"?> > I mean, if we backtrack to the origins of zero, we find those obscure> philosophers related to Buddhism in India, many centuries ago (Brahmagupta,> 600 ad). It was something difficult to grasp, rather bizarre, the fruit of> quite a long and winding thought, and frankly not of much practicity. Then> after not many developments during a few centuries, another scholar in> central Asia (al-Kwarismi) took the idea and was able to algorithmize the> basic arithmetic operations. Mathematics could fly... and nowadays any> school children learns and uses arithmetics & algebra so easily.> > The idea is that if we strictly identify (we "zero" on) meaning as a> biological construct, work it rigorously for the living cell as a tough> problem of systems biology (and not as a flamboyant autopoiectic or> autogenic or selftranscence doctrines of Brahmaguptian style), then we work> for a parallel enactive action/perception approach in neuroscience, and> besides pen a rigorous view in social-economic setting under similar> guidelines --and also find the commonalities with quantum computing and> information physics... finally information science will fly.> > Otherwise, if we remain working towards the other direction, the> undergrounds of zero downwards, we will get confined into bizarre,> voluminous, useless discussions & doctrines on information. Cellular meaning> is our zero concept: we should go for it.> > best> > Pedro> > > > > > ___> fis mailing list> fis@listas.unizar.es> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis> > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 23-09-2007> 13:53> > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1025 - Release Date: 23-09-2007> 13:53> > > > ___> fis mailing list> fis@listas.unizar.es> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis _ Votez pour vos séries TV préférées et tentez de gagner un voyage à Hawaï ! http://messengerawards.divertissements.fr.msn.com/___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] art and meaning
Dear Pavel, The problem of the observer has for me one unique nature, be it applied to humans or to simple organisms. The difference is about complexity, not about nature. The Meaning Generator System covers this point by an evolutionary approach. It is clore to the Peircean triadic system (MGS has been discussed at the Peirce-l forum, and the paper Information and Meaning (1) is referenced as Peirce related paper (2)). Pls note that information is taken here in its basic form as a component of a signal, a signal being a variation of energy (sound vibration, presence of element like ink, ). Information is then the content of the energy variation of the signal (modulation of sound, ink density, ). These points are detailed in (1). So the position of the observer is well determined by the MGS approach. However, the grounding of the meaning is not only in the MGS. It is also in the received information coming from the environment (see the two components in/out of the grounding in last summer FIS2005 presentation (3)). But the MGS approach does not take the case of human as a starting point. And this is the point where it differs from the existing theories on meaning anchored in phenomenology or in analytic philosophy. In order to correctly chain the levels of analysis with an evolutionary approach, you have to explicitly consider what you know or dont know relatively to the systems you are considering. Basic reflex behaviour in simple living organisms match easily with a MGS having to satisfy a constraint like staying alive. The MGS introduces explicit causal relations. No animating spirit is assigning meaning to a substance. And at this level of evolution, there is no human entity to consciously understand the process. Like in all evolutionary approaches, it is just about proposing a reverse engineering scenario built up by us humans, after the facts. Going higher thru evolution of life brings us to the problems related to the nature of self-consciousness where there are still many open questions. At this level, the constraints of the MGS are much more complex to define because notions that we do not understand are to be introduced like conscious autonomy, freedom of action, conscious subjectivity and ethics. A lot of work is to be done in order to relate these new performances to constraints satisfactions. Will it even be possible ? I Like to consider that we will some day reach this level understanding, and I feel that such approaches can even introduce original views on the nature of self-consciousness. See abstract for TSC 2006 (4). Regarding your last point about heterogeneity of observers, the MGS allows to look at it in terms of heterogeneity of constraints and systems (same object, same sign, different interpreters). And going one step further, this subject is close to the transmission of meaningful information between systems when a meaningful information generated by a system is transmitted to another system. The receiving system can generate a meaning that will be consistent or not with the one generated by the transmitter, depending on the similarity of the systems and constraints. There we have to introduce the notion of domain of efficiency of a meaning (1) which brings us to subjects like share of values and ethics. Best Christophe (http://crmenant.free.fr/Home-Page/index.HTM) (1) http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf (2) http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/aboutcsp.htm (3) http://www.mdpi.org/fis2005/F.45.paper.pdf (4) http://crmenant.free.fr/TSC2006.Abstract/index.HTM From: "Pavel Luksha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Christophe Menant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: Subject: Re: [Fis] art and meaning Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 02:03:39 +0300 Dear Christophe [in response to your remark, and also in the relation to the upcoming session] concerning your remark that it is impossible to identify meaning precisely ONLY if we confine meaning to the realm of humans, and your suggestion that in more basic system (e.g. simple living organisms) it could be usably described. I wonder how do you get around the problem of observer. This meaning of interaction between elements of a basic living system (or even a complex chemical system) exists only for us humans. In respect to your paper: you identify behavioural regularities and constraints, and thus create a causal link between them. We could look at the living system in Cartesian manner, claiming that simple mechanical laws underlie what you called a 'meaningful behaviour': living organisms could be but automata conditioned to move in the presence of acid. Or, we can say there is an animating spirit that assigns meaning to the substance of acid as much as does to the action of an organism: could meaning be 'dissolved' in acid and 'absorbed' by organism placed into acid? Or, we can say that an organ
