Re: [Fis] A MATHEMATICAL APPROACH TO BIOLOGICAL ISSUES

2018-02-22 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

Dear Arturo

Thank you for the reference. You say:
>the sole language able to describe in quantitative terms scientific issues is 
>the mathematical one.

How about language of computing such as executable biology?
Computing can provide real-time, dynamical, even interactive and beautifully 
visualised and analysable models:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/NBT07.pdf

Best wishes,
Gordana


__
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology
https://www.chalmers.se/en/staff/Pages/gordana-dodig-crnkovic.aspx
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/



From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of "tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>" 
<tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>>
Date: Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 21:42
To: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
<fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: [Fis] A MATHEMATICAL APPROACH TO BIOLOGICAL ISSUES


Dear FISers,

Generally I do not like to put my own manuscript on the FIS list, but this time 
I have to let you understand what is my concept of biology... it is a 
mathematical-framed one.

As I write in the first Section, the sole language able to describe in 
quantitative terms scientific issues is the mathematical one. If we leave apart 
math, we do not have observables, and living dynamics are made by observables.



http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0317



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
___
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

2018-02-13 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Hello Terry, Sung, FIS colleagues

There is a notion of “body language”.

Perhaps it might be possible to develop a general theory of language that can 
take into account bacteria and dogs (according to Nature 
http://www.nature.com/news/dogs-can-tell-when-praise-is-sincere-1.20514) as 
well as plants https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634130/ & 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688289/ cognitive agents with 
different levels of cognition which communicate and process information in 
order to survive.

One may build a theory of communication of information by just paying attention 
to what has been sent with respect to the cognitive structures of a sender and 
what has been received with respect to the cognitive structure of a receiver. 
Here cognitive means embodied and should include all sensors, actuators, memory 
and information processing mechanisms. As in biology thre are different kinds 
of organisms there are also different kinds of “languages”. There are small 
languages communicated in relatively simple ways between simple agents (like 
cells) and big languages used by complex agents like humans.

Why not?

Best wishes,
Gordana




On 2018-02-13, 06:33, "Fis on behalf of Terrence W. DEACON" 
 on behalf of 
dea...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

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
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 in space, from DNA to proteins)

Protein Language
(Proteinese;
Energy transduction
from chemical to mechanical; i.e., conformon production)

Chemical Language
(Moleculese;
Source of free energy)

Letters*
(To build)

4n nucleotides
n = 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .
Exons (?)



Protein domains

Partial chemical reactions

Words
(To denote)

Genes



Proteins

Full chemical reactions

Sentences

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

2018-02-07 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
In agreement with Sung I see the value of “language metaphor" that can be 
applied to physical objects when they are used for communication.
Description of “chemical language” used by bacteria can be found e.g. here 
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1468.full.pdfStephan and number of 
other articles by Bonnie Bassler or Eschel Ben-Jacob on quorum sensing, or in a 
popular talk here http://wagner.edu/newsroom/founders-day-2012-1/

This idea of information processing performed by natural systems is parallell 
to natural computing – cell computing, bacterial cognition, DNA computing, 
membrane computing, etc.

Best wishes,
Gordana


From: Fis > 
on behalf of Sungchul Ji 
>
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 14:46
To: FIS FIS >
Subject: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the 
cateogry theory


Hi  FISers,


On 10/8/2017, Terry wrote:


" 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.

. . . . . . 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."

I agree with Terry's concern about the often overused linguistic metaphor in 
defining "information".  Although the linguistic metaphor has its limitations 
(as all metaphors do), it nevertheless offers a unique advantage as well, for 
example, its well-established categories of functions (see the last column in 
Table 1.)

The main purpose of this post is to suggest that all the varied theories of 
information discussed on this list may be viewed as belonging to the same 
category of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) diagrammatically represented as 
the 3-node closed network in the first column ofTable 1.

Table 1.  The postulated universality of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) as 
manifested in information theory, semiotics, cell language theory, and 
linguistics.

Category Theory

   fg
   A -> B --> C
|   ^
||
|__|
   h

ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation)

Deacon’s theory of information

Shannon’s
Theory of
information

Peirce’s theory of signs

Cell language theory

Human language
(Function)

A

Intrinsic information

Source

Object

Nucleotides*/
Amion acids

Letters
(Building blocks)

B

Referential information

Message

Sign

Proteins

Words
(Denotation)

C

Normative information

Receiver

Interpretant

Metabolomes
(Totality of cell metabolism)

Systems of words
(Decision making & Reasoning)

f

?

Encoding

Sign production

Physical laws

Second articulation

g

?

Decoding

Sign interpretation

Evoutionary selection

First and Third articulation

h

?

Information flow

Information flow

Inheritance

Grounding/
Habit

Scale   Micro-Macro?Macro   Macro   Micro   Macro


*There may be more than one genetic alphabet of 4 nucleotides.  According to 
the "multiple genetic alphabet hypothesis', there are n genetic alphabets, each 
consisting of 4^n letters, each of which in turn consisting of n nucleotides.  
In this view, the classical genetic alphabet is just one example of the n 
alphabets, i.e., the one with n = 1.  When n = 3, for example, we have the 
so-called 3rd-order genetic alphabet with 4^3 = 64 letters each consisting of 3 
nucleotides, resulting in the familiar codon table.  Thus, the 64 genetic 
codons are not words as widely thought (including myself until recently) but 
letters!  It then follows that proteins are words and  metabolic pathways are 
sentences.  Finally, the transient network of metbolic pathways (referred to as 
"hyperstructures" by V. Norris in 1999 and as "hypermetabolic pathways" by me 
more recently) correspond to texts essential to represent 
arguement/reasoning/computing.  What is most exciting is the recent discovery 
in my lab at Rutgers that the so-called "Planck-Shannon plots" of mRNA levels 
in living cells can identify function-dependent "hypermetabolic pathways" 
underlying breast cancer before and after drug treatment (manuscript under 
review).

Any comments, questions, or suggestions would be welcome.

Sung

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


Re: [Fis] some notes

2017-11-19 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Francesco,
Thank you so much for your enlightening post on logic that is rising the topic 
one level up.
You refer to Hegel who recognised complementary relationship between quality, 
quantity and their synthesis – measure, which is very central for the current 
discussion.
I made English translation of your mail (below) and I hope it is adequate 
enough.

However, in your mail, if I understand it correctly, and in the rest of the 
current discussion, it is assumed that mathematics is quantitative science.
As we are in the beginning of the era of big data that makes people believe 
that “data speak for themselves” and that sciences just collect and 
summarise/systematically represent data, it is very important to point out that 
mathematics is much, much more than data and its processing.
It is qualitative science in the same sense that logic is. Algebra is not 
quantitative science. Algebra is the study of mathematical symbols and the 
rules for manipulating these symbols. Topology is not quantitative science. 
Topology is the study of qualitative properties of topological spaces that are 
invariant under certain kinds of transformations.

Here is an explanation why it is essential not to identify quantitative 
literacy with mathematics.
https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/qr/qr_and_the_disciplines.html

All the best,
Gordana



From: Fis > 
on behalf of Francesco Rizzo 
<13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 07:56
To: "y...@pku.edu.cn" 
>
Cc: FIS Group >
Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes



Dear colleagues,
existence implies articulate knowledge in the various sciences of nature, human 
and social. So the "Science of Logic", not the logic of science, by Georg 
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1812-1816) applies to any kind of science. In fact, 
pure science of reason is divided into three doctrines of:
- being (quantity, quality and their unity - measure) 
https://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slbeing.htm;
- essence, which studies thought in its reflection or mediation, that is, the 
concept as it is "per se" and thus appears;
- concept, study of the concept "in itself and for itself".
The first presentation of reality takes place in the immediate, intuitive forms 
of quality, quantity and measure, but one must grasp what is hidden origin in 
the reality of being: the essence that represents the "truth of being".
Hegel's reinterpretation provides ontological foundations to (the theory of) 
economic value conceived as a combination or energy / information relationship 
based on dialectical quantity / quality and "qualitative quantity" or measure. 
Hegel does not contrast the quantity with quality, but tries to gain 
complementarity by deriving the first from the second. Quantity is the denial 
of quality. Quantity and quality vary continuously, they are characterized by 
variability, but quantitative variation is indifferent to the quality that does 
not change with the change in the quantitative dimension. If the quantity is a 
time of outwardness indifferent to the sphere of quality, it justifies or 
explains Hegel's lack of consideration for purely quantitative considerations 
and therefore for those quantitative or hard mathematical sciences. He believes 
that the propositions of geometry and arithmetic have an exclusively analytical 
and therefore tautological nature, denying them all heuristic efficacy.
This strong criticism of the rigor and scientific validity of mathematical 
models does not prevent him from carrying out an analysis that highlights the 
inadequacy of determinations,
quantitative for the same mathematics, in which, according to this 
philosophical approach that strongly influences scientific epistemology, it 
raises qualitative criteria making it become "sweet." If maths are forced to 
incorporate qualitative or ordinal criteria, they have to move to the sphere of 
measure or "qualitative quantity".
Of course, the science of logic has served me to elaborate the New Economy (see 
in particular Rizzo F., "Science can not be human, civil, social, economics 
(c), enigmatic, noble, prophetic", Aracne , Rome, 2016, pp. 604-615; or Rizzo 
F., "The City of Man, Subordinated to Faith", in Human Rights and the City 
Crisis by Corrado Beguinot et al., Giannini, Naples, 2012).
So, to make it short, "qualitative quantity", "emo-rationality" and "meaning, 
information, communication" are fundamental to the whole of knowledge.
I apologize for being overdue and thank you in advance for your critical 
attention.
Francis.


From: Fis > 
on behalf of Francesco Rizzo 
<13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 07:56
To: 

Re: [Fis] R: Re: some notes - on the nature of science and communication

2017-11-18 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

Dear All,
In the discussion about the nature of science and the role of quantitative and 
qualitative methods I would like to add the following statement:
Logic is the science of rational thinking or reasoning.
http://www.math-inst.hu/~nemeti/whatislogic.html
Logic is not a quantitative science.

This connects to ancient Greek science that sprung out of philosophy of nature 
(even Newton was still natural philosopher) which relied more on reason than on 
observation/experience. And where they indeed made quantitative predictions 
like Eratosthenes who calculated the circumference of the Earth, the central 
part of his prediction was based on logical reasoning.

The main works of Aristotle were the Prior Analytics (Logic), the Physics, the 
Animal History, the Rhetorics, the Poetics, the Metaphysics, the Ethics, and 
the Politics. Today we consider Logic, Physics and Biology to be sciences, 
while Rhetorics, Poetics, Metaphysics, Ethics and Politics are not. How 
compulsory is it for something to be “science” in order to be a respectable 
form of knowledge?
Perhaps it is useful at some point in the development of human knowledge to 
have a holistic view bridging across sciences and other fields? Rational, 
logical view.
Science itself is not everywhere quantitative in its various layers and 
branches. There are theoretical non-observables in quantum mechanics and other 
physical theories and they play important role in their construction and 
operation.

Regarding the other discussion point, the necessity to differentiate between 
"the difference that makes the difference" for a machine and for a living 
organism I would say that the difference exists but is becoming less and less 
clear-cut the more machines become cognitive and intelligent. It is not 
difficult to imagine a limit case where intelligent machine talks to other 
intelligent machine. Would that be then mixing Shannon with (bio)semiotics?

The notion of communication might be constructed in a useful way to cover 
different levels of organisation of phenomena.
As growth of a crystal is different from a growth of a plant is different from 
a growth of a child – and yet it makes sense to talk about growth.
So I see using the word “communication” to machines or why not simplest 
physical systems that interact with other physical systems causing "the 
difference that makes the difference” for the system itself.
Definitions indeed are just the question of making good sense – they are matter 
of choice.

All the best,
Gordana


PS
Mark Burgin and I have sent invitations to contribute to World Scientific 
books: http://is4si-2017.org/publications/
Vol 1 Philosophy and Methodology of Information (G. Dodig-Crnkovic and M. 
Burgin, edts.)
Part 1. Philosophy of information
Part 2. Methodology of information
Part 3. Philosophy of information studies
Part 4. Methodology of information studies

Vol 2 Theoretical Information Studies (M. Burgin and G. Dodig-Crnkovic, edts.)
Part 1. Foundations of information
Part 2. Information theory
Part 3. Information as a natural phenomenon
Part 4. Cognition and intelligence in natural and artificial systems
Part 5. Social, economic and legal aspects of information
Part 6. Technological aspects of information

Please let us know as soon as possible if you intend (and even if you do not 
intend) to contribute, in order to help us keep the deadlines.



https://www.chalmers.se/en/staff/Pages/gordana-dodig-crnkovic.aspx



From: Fis > 
on behalf of "tozziart...@libero.it" 
>
Reply-To: "tozziart...@libero.it" 
>
Date: Friday, 17 November 2017 at 17:44
To: Sungchul Ji >, 
"fis@listas.unizar.es" 
>
Subject: [Fis] R: Re: some notes


Dear Sungchul,
I do not have anything against you, therefore sorry for my words, but your 
propositions gave me the opportunity to demonstrate the weirdness of such 
approaches for science.

YOU find it convenient to define communication as an irreducibly triadic 
process (physical, chemical, biological, physiological, or mental).  YOU 
identify such a triadic process with the Peircean semiosis (or the sign 
process) often represented as the following diagram which is isomorphic with 
the commutative triangle of the category theory.  Thus, to YOU, communication 
is a category.

I do not agree at all: therefore, could your proposition be kept as science?
All the scientists agree on the definition (even if operational) of an atom, or 
agree that E=mc^2.  If we are talking of something qualitative, that one agrees 
and another do not, we are not in front of Science.

Sorry,
Nothing personal.



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, 

Re: [Fis] INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF INFORMATION

2017-11-05 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

Dear Emanuel,
It is good that you rise this question, as it is of common interest (and you 
are sending it to the fis list).
MDPI journals have independent review process.
As an editor of a special issue, you can only invite papers that you would like 
to have in your special issue.
Then MDPI journal organises review process choosing three independent 
reviewers. If all of them reject the paper, scientific editor cannot get paper 
published, as it is assumed that peer review reflects the judgment of the 
competent research community.
As author I am always prepared to be subject to peer review, and as editor I 
respect decisions of the peer review process.
Given steadily increasing number of specialised disciplines and much smaller 
number of available reviewers, what we can do to increase the quality of peer 
review is to bring right specialities of reviewers onboard, and MDPI is always 
willing to consider new proposals.
In our community peer review is still closed/blind (which e.g. in some journals 
in biology is not - instead with each published article they provide 
information about three reviewers) which is also a topic one might discuss in 
this forum, and people in other fora discuss currently.
What kind of peer review would be the best one for a journal, a book, a 
conference?

Thank you for your kind words about is4si summit in Gothenburg 2017, and I hope 
you will join the next edition in 2019 at Berkeley.
I also noticed that Proceedings of the summit http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3 
have excellent visibility which is great for the community.

With best regards,
Gordana



From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Emanuel Diamant <emanl@gmail.com<mailto:emanl@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, 6 November 2017 at 05:43
To: 'Gordana Dodig Crnkovic' 
<gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se<mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se>>
Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
<fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF 
INFORMATION

Dear Gordana,
I received your invitation letters (dated Nov. 5 and Nov. 1). However, I think, 
I will not be able to accept your kind offer.
For the following reason: After the Vienna 2015 Summit, I was invited (by MDPI 
Information journal) to submit an extended version of my conference paper to 
the journal’s Special Issue: Selected Papers from the ISIS Summit Vienna 
2015<http://www.mdpi.com/journal/information/special_issues/ISIS-2015>.
A few days after I have submitted my paper, I was informed “that your 
manuscript has been declined for publication in Information”. No further 
explanation or editorial comments were provided (Guest Editors of the Issue 
were M. Burgin and W. Hofkirchner).
As it follows from your invitation letter, M. Burgin will again be the Chief 
Editor for all volumes of the Gothenburg Summit selected papers.
As you understand, I cannot allow myself to be subjected again to M. Burgin’s 
editorial customs. Therefore, I am sorry but I must turn down your kind 
proposal.
My publication ambitions are pretty well satisfied with the publication in the 
MDPI Proceedings, 2017, Vol. 1, Issue 3, and the attention the two of my papers 
have achieved among the readers: Wu Kun’s paper – 148 reads / 56 downloads, 
Burgin’s paper – 216 reads / 67 downloads. (Not so bad, as you see).
I appreciate your efforts in Gothenburg Summit organization.
Best regards,
Emanuel.
--------
From: Gordana Dodig Crnkovic [mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@chalmers.se]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:17 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Cc: markburgin
Subject: INVITATION TO WORLD SCIENTIFIC VOLUME ON THE STUDY OF INFORMATION


Dear Emanuel,

As a result of Gothenburg meeting of the International Society for the study of 
information, Mark Burgin and I are preparing two volumes with World Scientific.
We would be very happy if  you could contribute to the volume addressing 
Philosophy and Methodology of Information.
We would expected a contribution on the topic you presented on the summit.

This is the first volume of two, the second one being dedicated to Theoretical 
Information Studies.
The books aim to chart the new interconnected territory and thus to set the 
foundation for the emerging research field of The study of information, 
presenting within the same context contemporary research in theoretical, 
philosophical and methodological aspects of information, with the goal of 
enabling new insights coming from cross-fertilization among the research 
fields. The structure of the books is given in the end of this message.
The schedule for the book project is defined by the following deadlines:
Expression of intention to contribute: November 15, 2017
Paper submission: January 15, 2018
Notification of acceptance/rejection:

Re: [Fis] What is ³Agent²?

2017-10-24 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear All,

>From the philosophical/epistemological and particularly theory of science
point of view, Mark¹s remark is essential.
What conceptual primitives do we use and how do we undersand them?
Mark reminds us that even basic concepts of a basic science of physic such
as space, time and matter/energy are complex cognitive constructions.
Words which we agree upon (I hope there are such) are conventional by
origin, like physical units.
That might be an insight from the perspective of cognitive science - if
something is not strictly agreed upon by construction, there are different
interpretations of it.
And that which we have agreement about are procedures defining how we
behave in order to observe something or construct something.
Is there anything else that is self-evident in such a way that everybody
immediately can agree about it?

Best wishes,
Gordana




On 2017-10-23, 22:04, "Fis on behalf of Mark Johnson"
<fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es on behalf of johnsonm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>There are some terms from physics which we use continually and assume
>we all know what they mean. I'm taking my cue from Peter Rowland's
>physics - see http://anpa.onl/pdf/S36/rowlands.pdf - in asking some
>fundamental questions not only about information, but about physics
>itself.
>
>1. "Dimension" - what is a dimension? We are told in school that
>height, width and depth are three "dimensions", or that time is a
>fourth. At the same time, we understand that a value in one dimension
>is called a "scalar", and that in two dimensions we have "vectors"
>(and also in more dimensions).
>
>2. "Vector" - this gets used in all sorts of contexts from cartography
>to text analysis. But we have bivectors, trivectors, psuedovectors and
>then the weird rotational asymmetry of quaternions, octonions, nonions
>(see Peirce's work on these in the collected papers: his emphasis on
>triadic forms seems to derive from his interest in quaternions). It's
>important to be clear about what we mean by "vector".
>
>4. "Matter" and "Mass" - do we mean "mass" when we say "matter"? It's
>worth noting that mass is a scalar value.
>
>5. "Energy" - isn't this a combination of mass, space and time? (e.g.
>1/2mv^2) So... a scalar, a vector and time?
>
>6. "Time" - Is time "real" in the same way as we might consider mass
>to be real?... It is perhaps surprising that mass and energy are
>connected: Nuclear reactors turn scalars into vectors! Is time
>imaginary? is time i? That would make it a pseudoscalar.
>
>7. "Conservation" - some things are conserved and other things aren't.
>Time isn't conserved. Mass is. Energy is conserved. Space isn't
>conserved, is it? Something weird happens with conservation...maybe
>this is agency? Is information conserved?
>
>8. "Information" - Shannon information involves counting things. On
>the face of it, it's a scalar value - but in the counting process,
>there is work done - both by the thing observed and by the body that
>observes it. Work, like energy, is (at least) a combination of mass,
>time and space. This applies to *any* counting: there is an imaginary
>component, the dimensions of space and scalar mass. It probably
>involves charge too.
>
>9. "Agency" - Turning to Terry's definition of "agency", it involves
>"work", "conservation" and "organisation". The definition hides some
>complexities relating to the nature of work, and the ways in which
>mass and charge might be conserved, but time and space isn't. Implicit
>in the relation between extrinsic and intrinsic tendencies (what are
>they?) is symmetry. Is agency a principle of conservation which
>unfolds the symmetry between conserved and non-conserved dimensions?
>That means we are in a symmetry: "a pattern that connects" - to quote
>Bateson.
>
>Personally, I find the value of these questions is that they render
>less certain the dogmatically asserted principles of modern physics.
>Maybe we need this uncertainty in order to get closer to
>"information".
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Mark
>
>
>On 23 October 2017 at 17:39, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> Dear Gordana,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 Oct 2017, at 11:02, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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 Pedro¹s article
>> which makes a distinction between matter-energy as

Re: [Fis] What is ³Agent²?

2017-10-20 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

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/
General Chair of is4si summit 2017
http://is4si-2017.org<http://is4si-2017.org/>


From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
<l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Organization: University of Amsterdam
Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>" 
<l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Date: Friday, 20 October 2017 at 08:40
To: 'Bob Logan' <lo...@physics.utoronto.ca<mailto:lo...@physics.utoronto.ca>>, 
'fis' <fis@listas.unizar.es<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 we construct and reproduce as inter-agency 
(interactions).

The relation with the information issue is not obvious. I worked on this a bit 
in the first half of the 90s:

  *   "Structure"/"Action" Contingencies and the Model of Parallel Distributed 
Processing, <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jtsb93/index.htm> Journal for the 
Theory of Social Behaviour 23 (1993) 47-77.
  *   The Production of Probabilistic Entropy in Structure/Action Contingency 
Relations, <http://www.leydesdorff.net/jses95/jses95.pdf> Journal of Social and 
Evolutionary Systems 18 (1995) 339-56.
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=en


From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 6:11 AM
To: Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu<mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>>
Cc: fis <Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

Dear Terry and FIS friends - I agree with all that Terry has said about agency. 
I do wish to however to point out that an agent has choice and a non-agent has 
no choice. I would suggest that the defining characteristic of an agent is 
choice and therefore an agent must be a living organism and all living 
organisms are agents. Agents/living organisms have choice or are capable of 
choice or agency and they are the only things that have choic

Re: [Fis] Fw: TEN PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION, FROM YET ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. A Newer Kind of Science. Logic and Principle 4

2017-10-06 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Joseph and All,

Just to make my point on “New Kind of Science” clear.
I am not saying that we should attempt Wolfram’s New Kind of Science (NKS) 
applied to information studies.
In the spirit of inclusiveness, thinking primarily about what NKS did achieve, 
instead of what it did not,
I would say that NKS is a remarkable and valuable project, but it is not what I 
proposed for information  or study of information.

My idea was to propose a new kind of < natural philosophy> with human included*.
That is a completely new kind of project, and very different .

Regarding all particular and very important contributions, mentioned in this 
list,  including LIR, I can hardly as a human, understand them all into a 
detail. What all of us who cannot know the detail of everything that is being 
produced at increasing rate, the only viable way is to network and delegate the 
specialist knowledge to dedicated specialists. This presupposes that we are 
able to speak on some level in some common language.
That might be the language of natural philosophy with human included.
In short, that was what I proposed. Not to be forced to choose one single 
approach but to make shared sense of as much as possible of what we know as a 
research community.

Best
Gordana

*Natural philosophy was science of Newtons days, and Newton was natural 
philosopher.


From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Joseph Brenner 
<joe.bren...@bluewin.ch<mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>>
Reply-To: Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch<mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>>
Date: Friday, 6 October 2017 at 13:49
To: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: [Fis] Fw: TEN PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION, FROM YET ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. 
A Newer Kind of Science. Logic and Principle 4

Dear Gordana and Friends,

In 2002, the cybernetician Stephen Wolfram published a massive book with the 
title, A New Kind of Science. For me, it was not: it was an attempt to explain 
the simplest, quasi-non-living structures of living systems by recourse to 
simple algorithms and a multitude of formal logics whose meaning in relation to 
reality was largely non-existent. It was deconstructed in a review in Science.

We should not duplicate this error, and that is why I was and still am put off 
by Arturo's introductory comment and in fact by all attempts to explain the 
information and the world only by numbers and equations.

Regarding transdisciplinarity, I am sure that Sören will agree that his 
Multiple Square diagram is only one part of one possible transdisicplinary 
approach to information and other complex phenomena. The founding of the active 
International Center for Transdisciplinary Research by Lupasco, Nicolescu, 
Morin and Varela, among others in 1984 is of interest not only historically. 
One of the 'pillars' (principles) of transdisciplinary in the acceptation of 
Nicolescu is the Logic of the Included Third of Lupasco. In my view view, only 
such a logic of processes is adequate "for the world and reality in all its 
richness", since it is based on science and not on Peircean reductive 
classifications.

I therefore welcome Gordana's double reference, in the same highly significant 
short paragraph, to axioms and principles. Both can be part of our Newer 
science. I will go farther and say that the axioms of the Lupasco logic, which 
I have renamed Logic in Reality (LIR), fit in our New Science or Pre-Science at 
Principle 4:

4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production 
processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy 
flows.

LIR talks directly to the "saw-tooth" evolution of such real processes, seeing 
their elements as energy as well. I strongly suggest that Principle 4 can be 
amended to read as follows:

4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-and 
hetero-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the 
accompanying energy flows. These processes follow a non-binary, 
non-truth-functional logic.

Criticisms welcome.

Best wishes,

Joseph


- Original Message -
From: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic<mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>
To: Pedro C. Marijuan<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> ; 
fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 12:22 PM
Subject: [Fis] TEN PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION, FROM YET ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE



Dear Colleagues,

Following this interesting and enlightening discussion I have got several 
thoughts that I would like to share with you. First of all it is a great 
pleasure to read variety of contributions, deep thoughts and insights, profound 
questions as well. This list so very often brightens my thoughts on information.

I agree with Arturo that what we have today is not a science (of information), 
I also agree with Terry and Joseph t

[Fis] TEN PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION, FROM YET ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE

2017-10-06 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
tructures, 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.






__
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/
General Chair of is4si summit 2017
http://is4si-2017.org<http://is4si-2017.org/>


From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
Date: Thursday, 5 October 2017 at 14:33
To: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
<fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

Dear FIS Colleagues,

There is no problem with heretics in this list. They are very welcome as they 
make us think on our favorite ideas in a different way or even from an opposed 
angle. We must always maintain the scholarly tone, that's the only condition! 
(well, apart from the "two messages per week" sacred rule)... From the many 
--exciting-- recent exchanges, let me pick from Lars: "assuming that 
Information is a property, an entity is not necessary. We can proceed with 
scientific research, using any information concept we think useful, without 
assuming it refers to anything." Something similar but perhaps less clearly 
formulated was in my proposal of the indefinability of information and the 
reference to notions such as "propagating influence" and "distinction on the 
adjacent."

Therefore I friendly disagree with Yixin below: "the definition of information 
is the real foundation of information science", although I acknowledge the 
value and interest of his whole approach from the background of 
formal/computational approaches to our problem/field. Somehow, defining 
information universally is like looking for the "red herring", but it doesn't 
mean that we must condemn the term to obscurity. We can develop the foundations 
of information science without that definition, and indeed the advancement 
during last ten years has been promising.

My personal strategy, beyond the 10 public points I formulated, consists on 
theoretical/empirical work about "informational entities". Those entities, the 
existence of which depends on a special relationship with the environment, are 
able to continuously distinguish - say - energy flows from information flows, 
intertwining both kinds of flows with their own survival and maintenance 
processes. An excellent parallel can be made with Harold Morowitz on the energy 
flow and Geoffrey West on scaling entities. The former for the 
micro-perspective (& ecological perspective) and the latter for the 
macro-perspective on the organizational dynamics of cells, organisms, 
enterprises, cities...

The closest realm we can consider, and acknowledge almost completely at the 
molecular scale, is the living cell. That's the most strategic theater where we 
can define a series of essential concepts: first the information flow, then the 
signaling system, the life cycle, the cell-cell communication, the complexity 
growth, etc. etc. This was the origins of the genuine existential openness to 
tiny informational signals from the environment. I bet that there is something 
fundamental to learn about this bio-informational way of existence that can be 
usefully carried on to physical quarters and also to the social. There is a 
common informational philosophy of organization, e.g. reminding Josep

[Fis] Invitation to IS4SI summit 12-16 June, Gothenburg, Sweden

2017-01-30 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic


Dear colleagues,

This year the International Society for Information Studies IS4SI is organizing 
the summit under the motto:

DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. Embodied, Embedded, Networked, 
Empowered through Information, Computation & Cognition!
The event will take place in Gothenburg, 12-16 June.

We will explore both foundations of information and its connections to other 
theoretical and applied fields in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary 
setting, including four conferences:

Foundations of Information Science, Philosophy of Information, The Difference 
that makes a Difference and International Forum on Ecology of Information 
Studies

Apart from conferences, there will be number of symposia (Doctoral symposium, 
Theoretical information studies, Morphological computing and cognitive agency,  
Cognitive distributed computing, etc. ) workshops (Distributed responsibility 
in time of big data, Transhumanism, Digital netizens, Habits and rituals, 
etc.), tutorials and variety of panels addressing topics ranging from the 
future of work to good information society and machine consciousness.

Our keynote speakers include Terrence Deacon, Bo Dahlbom, Jack Copeland, 
Catherine Mulligan, Yixin Zhong, Schahram Dustdar, Mark Burgin, Olle Häggström 
and Sarah Spiekermann.

For more details, please have a look at the summit web page: 
http://is4si-2017.org

Many members of FIS community are already involved in the organisation of 
Gothenburg summit.
We hope you will join us and contribute with your work, meeting colleagues from 
this community and others.

Submission deadline for extended abstracts: 1 March.

Sweden is fantastic, and Gothenburg represents the best of Sweden, especially 
in summer.
Looking forward to meeting you in Gothenburg!

Gordana
for IS4SI organisation


_____
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Vice Dean of Graduate Education
Department of Applied IT
Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden
http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
President of the International Society for Information Studies
http://is4si-2017.org/



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


[Fis] What if consciousness is an Euclidean n-space?

2016-11-26 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear colleagues,

Krassimir makes very important point that I would like to expand on.

It is vital to be aware under which assumption model/theory has been made. One 
might wish that this be accepted as a fundamental rule among researchers 
presenting their models – first declare fundamental assumptions (preferably 
also implicit ones).

Only if we clearly understand the assumptions can we compare different models 
and approaches. What happens all too often is that this fundamental part is 
unclear and big discussions are taking place for no reason as theories are 
built under different assumptions and refer to different domains, have 
different level of abstraction etc. but they are assumed to somehow give the 
same results.

For example if we make our models under assumption that light has corpuscular 
nature, we will see certain classes of phenomena. On the contrary, if we assume 
that it is a wave, we will see something else.

The same goes even here. We should see the assumptions and ask ourselves:

What does it imply if we assume that consciousness is a continuous function of 
reflected reality?

What does it imply if assume that consciousness is Euclidean n-space?


With best wishes,
Gordana




_
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Vice Dean of Graduate Education
Department of Applied IT
Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden
http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
President of the International Society for Information Studies
http://is4si-2017.org/




From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com<mailto:mar...@foibg.com>>
Organization: ITHEA
Reply-To: Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com<mailto:mar...@foibg.com>>
Date: Saturday 26 November 2016 at 18:23
To: FIS <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: [Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???


Dear FIS colleagues,

I think, it is needed to put discussion on mathematical foundation. Let me 
remember that:



The Borsuk–Ulam theorem (BUT), states that every continuous function from an 
n-sphere into Euclidean n-space maps some pair of antipodal points to the same 
point.

Here, two points on a sphere are called antipodal if they are in exactly 
opposite directions from the sphere's center.

Formally: if f: S n→ Rn is continuous then there exists an x∈ S n  such that: 
f( − x ) = f ( x ).

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borsuk%E2%80%93Ulam_theorem ]



Who may proof that consciousness is a  continuous function from reflected 
reality ???

Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???

After proving these statements we may think further.



Yes, discussion is interesting but, I am afraid, it is not so scientific.



Friendly regards

Krassimir






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


[Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu 2016, web page

2016-11-12 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

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

Still more information can be found at http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/

World Scientific is starting the series on Intelligence Science 
http://www.worldscientific.com/series/sis
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://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
http://is4si-2017.org/




From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
Date: Sunday 13 November 2016 at 03:01
To: "fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
<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 Western parties.

Best greetings from Xi'an Information Philosophy Institute, in Jiaotong 
University, one of the earliest and most fruitful Chinese initiatives in 
information studies...

--Pedro

PS. About meaning, what Malcolm says should be obvious: in central nervous 
systems meaning predates human language.
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

2016-04-02 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

Dear colleagues,
In my understanding, both Loet and Søren are right. Loet about how sciences 
look like today and Sören about the need of integrative processes in the future.


Sören:
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).


Loet:
The organization of bodies of knowledge in the sciences takes place at another 
level than the integration of cognition in the body of an individual. One 
cannot reduce the one level to the other, in my opinion. Which research program 
of these two has priority? How do they relate – potentially differently – to 
information?




On all levels, knowledge is a result of two opposed processes – integration and 
differentiation of information. Here data can be seen as atoms of information. 
I take it to be self-evident that knowledge is produced by all living 
organisms, individually and in groups, from bacteria or single cells in a 
multicellular organism up. So yes, knowledge is not only what individuals have 
in their bodies as saved data/ information/ knowledge (Here I think of the 
process of formation ever more complex structures from data to information to 
knowledge to wisdom (Tom Stonier). Knowledge is shared by communities of 
practice.

Interestingly, there is already today a body of knowledge about integrative 
research projects, especially developed in applied research such as one aiming 
at solving wicked, ill-defined, real-world problems such as problems of 
environment and sustainable development. Also, medicine is a field where more 
and more transdisciplinary approaches can be found such as in cancer research 
where models are made ranging from molecular up to macroscopic social 
structures, where all disparate research fields such as molecular biology and 
epidemiology contribute to build a complex, multi-faceted knowledge of the 
phenomenon. As an illustration, have a look at: 
http://www.transdisciplinarity.ch/td-net/Aktuell.html

Two handbooks are also of interest:

Hadorn, G.H. et al., 2008. Handbook of transdisciplinary research, Springer 
Netherlands.

Frodeman, R., Klein, J.T. & Mitcham, C. eds., 2010. The Oxford Handbook of 
Interdisciplinarity, OUP Oxford.

How does information enter this process of integration of knowledge from 
diverse research domains?

Dodig-Crnkovic G., Physical Computation as Dynamics of Form that Glues 
Everything Together<http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/2/204/pdf>,
Information<http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/2/204> 
(doi:10.3390/info3020204<http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info3020204>) Special Issue 
on Information: Its Different Modes and Its Relation to 
Meaning<http://www.mdpi.com/journal/information/special_issues/information_meaning/>,
 R. Logan Ed., 2012 3(2), 204-218

Best,
Gordana



________
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Vice Dean of Graduate Education
Department of Applied IT
Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden
http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> 
on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
<l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Organization: University of Amsterdam
Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>" 
<l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Date: Saturday 2 April 2016 at 13:04
To: "'Pedro C. Marijuan'" 
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>, 
"fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>" 
<fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS


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 multidimensio

[Fis] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

2016-02-22 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
To me the miracle is not so much order, as it is relation, and thus as Loet 
says "order is always constructed (by us)"-
but the miracle is the very existence of anything (us, the rest of the 
universe).
Why there is something rather than nothing (that would be much simpler)?
To me miracle is how it all started. From vacuum fluctuations? But where the 
vacuum comes from?
But then, why should we call it a miracle?
Perhaps the better name is just natural law, finally equally inexplicable and 
given,
but sounds more general and less mystic.

Best,
Gordana


From: Fis > 
on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
>
Organization: University of Amsterdam
Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net" 
>
Date: Monday 22 February 2016 at 20:36
To: 'Bruno Marchal' >, 'fis 
Science' >
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24


All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions.

I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and can, minimize the miracle.

Why would one need a worldview? The whole assumption of an order as a Given (in 
a Revelation) is religious. Order is always constructed (by us) and can/needs 
to be explained.

No "harmonia praestabilita", but ex post. No endpoint omega. No cosmology, but 
chaology.

With due respect for those of you who wish to hold on to religion or nature as 
a given; however, vaguely defined.

Best,
Loet

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


[Fis] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY AND FOUR GREAT SCIENTIFIC DOMAINS Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11

2015-01-18 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
. In the similar way as an autogen, as a 
self-organizing unit that preserves itself dynamically and grows via a 
combination of autocatalysis and self-assembly, our knowledge grows dynamically 
and the meaning of pieces changes accordingly. In other words, it is not only 
self-organizing but also self-generating. Different scientific domains support 
and regulate each other; different “domain-specific” (or “science-specific”) 
models can help better construction or generation of knowledge of the whole as 
well as of the details. Specifically, it might be useful to connect to 
computing (as information dynamics), as Pedro suggests.

Computing (Rosenbloom, “The Fourth Great Scientific Domain”) seen as 
information dynamics, goes together with the physical, the biological, and the 
social. The project of naturalization proceeds by connecting all four domains. 
(Dodig-Crnkovic, 2014) The attractiveness of the project as Terry’s (as 
presented in the Incomplete Nature) is in its contribution to the 
naturalization of reference and significance – concepts that still are highly 
mystified in the eyes of many.

At the end, I have two questions.

First the particular one. I would like to know what exactly is the difference 
between autogenesis and autopoiesis? It seems to me that autogenesis as it 
looks like from Terry’s Opening Essay is a step before the whole system can be 
integrated and said to be alive. On the other hand autopoiesis is the process 
of life of an organism such as cell with all properties of a living organism. 
Autogen seems to me as a chemical automaton while autopoetic system is alive. 
The theory of autopoiesis is descriptive and qualitative. It does not make the 
insights made by Maturana and Varela less important. Understanding autopoiesis 
as cognition makes a vital connection between mind and matter. Like Pedro, I 
also believe that study of the behavior of prokaryotic cells such as bacteria 
is useful as it can reveal a lot about information processing as social 
cognition (Ben-Jacob, Becker,  Shapira, 2004; Ben-Jacob, Shapira,  Tauber, 
2006, 2011; Ben-Jacob, 2008, 2009a, 2009b) (Ng  Bassler, 2009; Waters  
Bassler, 2005).

There is a lot we don't know about such complex systems as bacteria but we can 
learn relevant things even if we apply “lazy evaluation” strategy for many 
parts in the model. In other words, it should be possible and reasonable to 
build knowledge even though we do not know (enough) about parts we build from 
and their mutual interactions.

My second question, the general one, goes back to Pedro’s post:  how the New 
Year’s Essay connects to the big picture with four great scientific domains?

With best regards,
Gordana



References
Ben-Jacob, E. (2008). Social behavior of bacteria: from physics to complex 
organization. The European Physical Journal B, 65(3), 315–322.
Ben-Jacob, E. (2009a). Bacterial Complexity: More Is Different on All Levels. 
In S. Nakanishi, R. Kageyama,  D. Watanabe (Eds.), Systems Biology- The 
Challenge of Complexity (pp. 25–35). Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.
Ben-Jacob, E. (2009b). Learning from Bacteria about Natural Information 
Processing. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1178, 78–90.
Ben-Jacob, E., Becker, I.,  Shapira, Y. (2004). Bacteria Linguistic 
Communication and Social Intelligence. Trends in Microbiology, 12(8), 366–372.
Ben-Jacob, E., Shapira, Y.,  Tauber, A. I. (2006). Seeking the Foundations of 
Cognition in Bacteria. Physica A, 359, 495–524.
Ben-Jacob, E., Shapira, Y.,  Tauber, A. I. (2011). Smart Bacteria. In L. 
Margulis, C. A. Asikainen,  W. E. Krumbein (Eds.), Chimera and Consciousness. 
Evolution of the Sensory Self. Cambridge Boston: MIT Press.
Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2014). Modeling Life as Cognitive Info-Computation. In A. 
Beckmann, E. Csuhaj-Varjú,  K. Meer (Eds.), Computability in Europe 2014. LNCS 
(pp. 153–162). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Kurakin, A. (2011). The self-organizing fractal theory as a universal discovery 
method: the phenomenon of life. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 
8(4). Retrieved from http://www.tbiomed.com/content/8/1/4
Ng, W.-L.,  Bassler, B. L. (2009). Bacterial quorum-sensing network 
architectures. Annual Review of Genetics, 43, 197–222.
Waters, C. M.,  Bassler, B. L. (2005). Quorum Sensing: Cell-to-Cell 
Communication in Bacteria. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 21, 
319–346.




http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/



From: Jeremy Sherman 
mindreadersdiction...@gmail.commailto:mindreadersdiction...@gmail.com
Date: Sunday 18 January 2015 03:41
To: fis fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11

It would be satisfying perhaps to think of our collective work as at the 
forefront of the development of what will become A Grand Domain of Science, but 
I would say the better trend in current science is toward careful integration 
between domains

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

2014-12-03 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Very interesting. It might also be useful to connect information to
computation as information dynamics.
Information self-structuring and morphological computing are of interest.
See for example:

http://www.indiana.edu/~cortex/ICDL05_paper.pdf Information
Self-Structuring: Key Principle for Learning
and Development 

This type of computation (biological, neurocomputation) is richer both
temporally and spatially than Turing Machine model ca capture. See:
http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~cmg/papers/Crutchfield.CHAOSIntro2010.pdf Santa Fe
Institute Working Paper 10-11-024
Beyond the Digital Hegemony. A Focus Issue on Intrinsic and Designed
Computation: Information Processing in Dynamical Systems


So if brain structures compute, this computation is much more complex than
a simple mechanical clockwork-type process.

Conferences in the series http://www.neuroinformatics2013.org and
http://www.neuroinformatics2014.org are also closely related.
Neuroscientists talk about information processing in the brain and mutual
information (see the first article).

Information can be seen as structures and computation as the dynamics of
those structures. 
Both are complex in case of brain - the structures are fractal and
processes are parallel concurrent and distributed.

We are still trying to develop suitable frameworks both in information
theory and in theory of computation,
at the same time with learning more about brain - it is a two-way
development process.

There is a beautiful article: Lila Kari, Grzegorz Rozenberg: The many
facets of natural computing - that addresses those new developments.
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/141/1400200/p72-kari.pdf?ip=129.16.219.
106id=1400200acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICEkey=74F7687761D7AE37%2E3C5D6C4574200C81
%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35CFID=460437900CFTOKEN=86096657__ac
m__=1417615447_3795fbeab8c8723f1f2fb7884c2936b2


With best regards,
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic





Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
Chalmers University of Technology  University of Gothenburg, Sweden
http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic/
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/








On 03/12/14 13:55, Lars-Göran Johansson
lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se wrote:

I suggest that you take a look at Floridis book 'Philosophy of
Information' where he distinguishes three senses of the word
'information' and one of which seems to fit what you are asking about ,
viz., 'Neuroinformation'.
regards 
Lars-Göran Johansson

3 dec 2014 kl. 13:46 skrev Carolina Isiegas cisie...@gmail.com:

 Dear list,
 
 I have been reading during the last year all these interesting
exchanges. Some of them terrific discussions! Given my scientific
backgound (Molecular Neuroscience), I would like to hear your point of
view on the topic of neuroinformation, how information exists within
the Central Nervous Systems. My task was experimental; I was interested
in investigating the molecular mechanisms underlying learning and
memory, specifically, the role of the cAMP-PKA-CREB signaling pathway in
such brain functions (In Ted Abel´s Lab at the University of
Pennsylvania, where I spent 7 years). I generated several genetically
modified mice in which I could regulate the expression of this pathway
in specific brain regions and in which I studied the effects of
upregulation or downregulation at the synaptic and behavioral levels.
However, I am conscious that the information flow within the mouse
Nervous System is far more complex that in the simple pathway that I
was studying...so, my concrete question for you Fishers or Fisers,
how should we contemplate the micro and macro structures of information
within the neural realm? what is Neuroinformation?
 
 Best wishes,
 
 
 -- 
 Carolina Isiegas
 ___
 Fis mailing list
 Fis@listas.unizar.es
 http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

--
Lars-Göran Johansson
professor
filosofiska institutionen
Uppsala Universitet




___
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] The Interaction Man Cognitive Informatics

2014-02-01 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

John,

Ideas from the following article may also be of interest in this context:

Yingxu Wang (2003)  On Cognitive Informatics, Brain and Mind, Volume 4, Issue 
2, pp 151-167
 http://www2.enel.ucalgary.ca/IJCINI/ICfCI/JBM-Vol4-No2-CI.pdf

All the best,
Gordana


From: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.zamailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za
Date: Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:26 AM
To: Bob Logan lo...@physics.utoronto.camailto:lo...@physics.utoronto.ca
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es 
fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man

Bob,

Sometimes ignored in the mathematics of Shannon's approach are the coding and 
decoding steps, which he does not put in mathematical form, but appear in his 
diagrams.

There has been some work in this area, the best of which I think to be 
Information Flow by Barwise and Seligman. It is a difficult book, and could 
have been a lot more clear. In any case there is a potential solution to the 
coding issue in the idea of infomorphisms being relations between two sets of 
classifications. The classifications don't have to be the same for information 
transfer, but they do have to satisfy certain conditions. The work is grounded 
in work in the 30s by engineers looking at distributed systems. My 
understadning is that there is a group at Stanford working on reconciling this 
approach with Shannon, but I haven't heard anything from them recently. Ted 
Gorenson, who was on fis some time ago, was giving reports. I have been making 
some progress of my own here, on the specific problem from my PhD thesis on 
commensurability across scientific theories with differing classifications. I 
have given a few talks on this, and will give a more advanced one at a meeting 
on New Approaches to Scientific Realism near Cape Town in August. 
Unfortunately, what initially looked promising is now leading me to some 
serious doubts about whether information transferred from one theoretical 
context to another can solve the problem, and I am going back to my thesis 
hypothesis that pragmatics are required to solve the problem, and that this 
cannot be formalized (the basis of a couple of papers I have on pragmatics -- 
the formal pragmatists really don't like it) I have done with a former student.

Sorry for the vagueness, but this is not an easy problem, and to go into more 
detail would take far too much space right now.

Incidentally, I had a massive hard drive problem, and lost much of my in box, 
hence the late reply. I hope it is still useful.

John

At 04:37 PM 2013-12-08, Bob Logan wrote:
Dear John - I agree with your distinction between information and 
communication. What is essential for communication is the interpretation of the 
information. If I cannot interpret the information there is no communication. 
What Shannon leave out of his theory of signals (this is not a typo, I believe 
that the notion of Shannon's work as information theory is a category error) is 
the interpretation of the receiver. The notion that a random set of numbers is 
the maximum amount of information seems ludicrous to me as what interpretation 
can one make of a random set of numbers. John, one slight quibble. You refer to 
Shannon's model of communication. How can he have a model of communication if 
he makes now allowance for interpretation. He was concerned with the accuracy 
of transmitting a set of signs from point A to point B. Krassimir wrote: 
Communication is a process of exchanging of signals, messages with different 
degree of complexity (Shannon). Without the ability to interpret the signals 
there is no communication. If someone speaks to me in Navaho or Mandarin they 
will exchange signals with me but their level of communication will be close to 
nil. All I will be able to infer is that they want to communicate with me.

I hope that my exchange of signals is interpretable and that I have 
communicated with you, John and other members of FIS.

The expression of this hope leads to the following thought. In an exchange 
between two intelligent agents who speak the same language but have made 
different assumptions about an issue they are discussing there is often a 
breakdown in communication because their interpretation of the assumptions upon 
which their exchange of signals are based are so different. This brings to mind 
I. A. Richards notion that in order for communication to occur one has to 
feedforward the context of what one wants to say. He once suggested that 
perfect communication only occurs if the two communicants have identical 
experiences and since this is not possible absolutely perfect communication is 
not possible. However one can improve one's communication by feedforwarding the 
context. So my feedforward to you and the FIS audience is that I worked with 
Marshall McLuhan from 1974 to his passing in 1980, he was a student of I. A. 
Richards and he (McLuhan) believed communication is effected by both the 
content of the message 

[Fis] Frequentists, Bayesians and Jaynesians - assumptions and consequentces

2014-01-22 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear colleagues,

Encouraged by your recent exchanges, which show that the topic of Hans' New 
Year Lecture is
far from exhausted, I would like to think a bit more on the fundamental change
from Frequentist to Bayesian statistics. Hans writes:

“On the one hand each individual agent assembles the totality of her experiences
(experimenting, reading, talking, calculating...) into a web of probability
assignments that is as coherent and comprehensive as possible. That's the easy
part, and, as usual, physicists have picked it as their domain. But the hard
part is the effort of agents to correlate their private experiences -- i.e. to
communicate with each other in order to develop a common scientific worldview.
Agent A's description of an experience serves as input for updating B's personal
probability assignments via Bayes' law. And this is done through language as
well as math.” (Hans mail from Saturday, January 18, 2014 6:47 PM)

Reading the above I conclude that QBist change of perspective is not only 
relevant for quantum
physics, or physics in general. It is relevant for all sciences based on 
observations and experiments.
And indeed, among others, brain researchers are using Bayesian statistics.
However, there are brain researchers arguing for the necessity of going beyond 
Bayes:

http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/3/2/175 Beyond Bayes: On the Need for a Unified 
and Jaynesian
Definition of Probability and Information within Neuroscience by Christopher D. 
Fiorillo

Are there any comments to this claim?
Would Jaynesian statistics make a difference for Qbism?
I would like to learn more.

With best wishes,
Gordana




http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc/


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


Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

2013-11-02 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion 
(bottom-up--top-down—and-back-again)?
Just a thought.

All the best,
Gordana

http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc/

From: Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.netmailto:l...@leydesdorff.net
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM
To: 'Stanley N Salthe' ssal...@binghamton.edumailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu, 
'fis' fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Cc: Инга inga@mail.rumailto:inga@mail.ru
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.)  A nice example for you might be 
communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse code.  The 
actual local operations here may not be the best framework to view this 
(including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this example into my 
above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is communicating, not 
individual persons.  It takes two positions for this communication to occur, 
and this makes the system a large scale one, and so its speed of communication 
is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy principles.

I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would then be 
subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size and speed), 
but it is a social construction on top of the individuals, isn’t it? Is there 
room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of the second law?) such 
as the generation of redundancy?

Best,
Loet



・Inga Ivanova and Loet Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in 
University-Industry-Government Relations: The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, 
and Simulated.http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3836


・Loet Leydesdorff and Inga Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human 
Communication Systems: Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing 
Meaninghttp://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849, Journal of the American Society for 
Information Science and Technology (in press).
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] reply to Loet, Stan, Joseph

2013-11-02 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Joseph and Stan, Loet, Inga, FIS,

Stan's description seems to me fine when it comes to the relationship between a 
system/group/society and its single constituent/part/individual.
But one may also be interested in another relationship, between a system and a 
group of all individuals/constituents that constitute it, such as for example 
the difference between FIS and a group {Stan, Loet, Joseph, Inga, Pedro, …} of 
all its members.
Individuals constitute different groups for different reasons, through 
different interactions.
In that case a set of individuals is not less than a system, they are 
potentially even more,
as the same individuals/parts can form different groups/systems - depending on 
circumstances.

I agree with Joseph's description of dynamics as a spiral motion and the 
process of complexification through alternating actualization and 
potentialization.

All the best,
Gordana



http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc/


From: Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
Reply-To: Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 5:40 PM
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.semailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se, Loet 
Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.netmailto:l...@leydesdorff.net, 'Stanley N 
Salthe' ssal...@binghamton.edumailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu, 'fis' 
fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Cc: Инга inga@mail.rumailto:inga@mail.ru
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

Dear Gordana and Loet,

I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of the 
hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially very 
important. In reality, it is the processes in the hierarchy that have been 
moving and continue to move partly in a non-univocal manner, countercurrently 
if you like. My logic gives a framework for such
movement in a spiral, not circular manner by alternating actualization and 
potentialization.

Of course it is persons, and not systems, in their complexity, that are 
communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to 
communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more 
complete understanding of communication should be able to take such 
complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion.

Best,

Joseph
- Original Message -
From: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovicmailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se
To: Loet Leydesdorffmailto:l...@leydesdorff.net ; 'Stanley N 
Salthe'mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu ; 'fis'mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Cc: Ингаmailto:inga@mail.ru
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet


Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion 
(bottom-up--top-down—and-back-again)?
Just a thought.

All the best,
Gordana

http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

From: Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.netmailto:l...@leydesdorff.net
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM
To: 'Stanley N Salthe' ssal...@binghamton.edumailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu, 
'fis' fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Cc: Инга inga@mail.rumailto:inga@mail.ru
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet

S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.)  A nice example for you might be 
communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse code.  The 
actual local operations here may not be the best framework to view this 
(including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this example into my 
above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is communicating, not 
individual persons.  It takes two positions for this communication to occur, 
and this makes the system a large scale one, and so its speed of communication 
is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy principles.
I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would then be 
subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size and speed), 
but it is a social construction on top of the individuals, isn’t it? Is there 
room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of the second law?) such 
as the generation of redundancy?
Best,
Loet

!--[if !supportLists]--・!--[endif]--Inga Ivanova and Loet 
Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government Relations: 
The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, and 
Simulated.http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3836

!--[if !supportLists]--・!--[endif]--Loet Leydesdorff and Inga 
Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: Steps 
Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaninghttp://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849, 
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (in 
press).



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es

Re: [Fis] Madrid Meeting

2013-09-16 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Thank you Karl for this information!
I didn't know about it, or I somehow missed it in all the other information.
It looks very interesting!
I had two conferences in three weeks in September and teaching this semester, 
so I should have been planning long in advance.
Hope you will have a great conference!

Best wishes,
Gordana


From: Karl Javorszky karl.javors...@gmail.commailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com
Reply-To: karl.javors...@gmail.commailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com 
karl.javors...@gmail.commailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:24 PM
To: fis fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es, Pedro C. 
Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, 
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.semailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se, Joseph 
Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
Subject: Madrid Meeting


Hope to see you at the NIT conference.
Karl
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] [ITHEA ISS] Computer Science Open Educational Resources Portal

2013-08-30 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

Dear Karl,
It was an interesting thought about nuomenon as Musil's man without properties.
Also about natural information that is not Shannon information as Shannon 
information is abstract and natural information is physical.
To me (as a physicist) it looks like plausible to think about nuomenon as a 
thing with many more properties than we know.
If I do not think of nuomenon as abstraction but as the concrete physical world 
before anyone interacts with it.
Before we observe the world, it is untouched in its original state. We change 
the world through interactions.
Quantum mechanics and chaotic systems are good examples how observation causes 
changes.

Physically, nuomenon exists and it is not without properties but with 
properties which we cannot know directly through our senses.
We only imagine that the color we see is property of the world. It is the 
property of our interaction with the world.
We found many ways around the problem of learning about properties of the 
world, not only via our senses but through extended cognition -
instruments and theories. However we can never be sure how much more there is 
to uncover.

By our increasingly more complex relationships with the nuomenon we capture 
completely new phenomena
that without our interaction would newer be uncovered. We co-produce phenomena 
through the interaction with nuomenon.
Physical nuomenon (unlike the concept of nuomenon) can be seen as an 
inexhaustible source of possible phenomena.
What do you think?

Best regards,
Gordana



From: Karl Javorszky karl.javors...@gmail.commailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com
Reply-To: karl.javors...@gmail.commailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com 
karl.javors...@gmail.commailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com
Date: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:26 AM
To: Pedro C. Marijuan 
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, Krassimir 
Kostadinov Markov i...@foibg.commailto:i...@foibg.com, John Collier 
colli...@ukzn.ac.zamailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za, Joseph Brenner 
joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.semailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se, Michel 
Petitjean ptitj...@itodys.jussieu.frmailto:ptitj...@itodys.jussieu.fr, fis 
fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es, Gara Péter 
g...@eik.bme.humailto:g...@eik.bme.hu, Gyorgy Darvas 
darv...@iif.humailto:darv...@iif.hu
Subject: Re: [ITHEA ISS] Computer Science Open Educational Resources Portal


Dear Colleagues,

maybe there is a European institutoion, or a collection of European 
individuals, whoi can manage and cooperate in a projecdt of science? If not, 
the development of this approach to - among other concepts - dark matter, dark 
energy, unified field theory, genetic information transfer, atc. will be 
offered to those who have a tradition of seeing advantages in action.

I'm prepared to contribute to a workshop on how to use tha accounting machine 
in Madrid.

Hoping that there is a spirit of entrepreneurship also in Europe, I look 
forward your suggestions.

Karl


Letter to Darina (not yet sent)

Dear Darina,

Thank you for the informative link to your institution. I'd like to ask you a 
question re your resources and willingness to participate inb a development 
project.

Your post has reached me as I am a member of ITHEA. Into ITHEA I got included 
by reason of being a founding member of FIS (Foundations of Information 
Science). This is a  chat room dedicating itself to - well - information 
science.

There is a new algorithm that appears to be rather useful. (Being its inventor, 
I'm of course less than exactly impartial in judging its possible and potential 
uses.) The basic idea is combining the use of the logical operators {|=|} and 
{+} on the same data set. (This is the idea that got discouraged at Elementary 
School, as we were instructed to disregard the differences between additions as 
long as their result is the same.)

There is a literature to this idea and also some tables, computer graphics and 
so on. The project is presently at the nerd-working-in-garage-level, as its 
novelty has prevented mainstream institutions from dedicating resources to it. 
(Some may also hint at human nature being such as it is, not really flexible in 
some respects.)

Now the time appears to become ripe for actually contemplating something 
different to the methods used so far; a Conference titled Natural Information 
Technologies being called for end September in Madrid. My Essay was accepted 
for presentation at this Conference.

Although I'd prefer to have as partners in development a European setup, for 
many reasons, there is no denying that entrepreneurship and open-mindedness is 
a more general strait in the US than in the EU.

So, I'd like to make you the offer to participate in the development of the 
idea. I'll enclose the Essay; in there you will find a link to a series of 
e-lectures I had given to FIS last semester titled Learn to Count in Twelve 
Easy Steps, and the site where

[Fis] Natural Philosophy? -- RE: [Fwd: SV: Science, Philosophy and Information. An Alternative Relation] S.Brier

2013-02-11 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear colleagues,

Could it be so that Philosophy of Statistical Mechanics does not make much 
sense without Philosophy of Cognition 
and philosophy of the rest?

Could it be so that what we need is Natural Philosophy as it was before it has 
fallen apart into specialist sciences?

With best regards,
Gordana

-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of John Collier
Sent: den 11 februari 2013 18:38
To: Loet Leydesdorff; 'Pedro C. Marijuan'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: Science, Philosophy and Information. An 
Alternative Relation] S.Brier

I guess I am at a loss to see them as separate discourses.  Especially in the 
domain of Information.

Contrary to what Stan said, I think that many of the major advances in science 
from Statistical Mechanics, to Relativity Theory to Quantum Mechanics did and 
continue to have a major philosophical component, and professional philosophers 
work with scientists directly in each of these fields, It used to be true in 
Computer Science, but is less so now. In Cognitive Science there is currently 
virtually now separation. In Biology there are many philosophers who work with 
biologists, and vice versa, but far too many who do not.

I think that technology is much more linked to industry than it is to the 
sciences above.

John

At 06:03 PM 2013/02/11, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
How does one measure the synergy among three discourses?
That is an interesting question within information theory (as part of 
both science and philosophy).

Best,
Loet


-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:29 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: Science, Philosophy and Information. An 
Alternative Relation] S.Brier

 Original Message 
Subject:SV: [Fis] Science, Philosophy and Information. An
Alternative
Relation
Date:   Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:32:04 +0100
From:   Søren Brier sb@cbs.dk
To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch, Pedro Clemente
Marijuan Fernandez pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis@listas.unizar.es 
fis@listas.unizar.es, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za
References: 6043399.89641360255002322.javamail.webm...@bluewin.ch



Dear Joseph



I go for each of the three nominally independent disciplines are not 
independent, but that each provides a dynamic ontological and 
epistemological link to the other two, more or less strong or actual
depending on the extent to which one wishes to emphasize certain 
aspects of knowledge. Science without philosophy is stupid but 
philosophy without science is blind. I am for a synergetic interaction.





Best wishes



   Søren Brier



Professor in the semiotics of information, cognition and commmunication 
science,

department of International Business Communication, Copenhagen Business 
School,

Dalgas Have 15, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark,









*Fra:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *På vegne af 
*joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
*Sendt:* 7. februar 2013 17:37
*Til:* Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez; fis@listas.unizar.es; John 
Collier
*Emne:* [Fis] Science, Philosophy and Information. An Alternative 
Relation



Dear FIS Colleagues,

The formation of the the Society for the Philosophy of Information at 
the University of Hertfordshire is announced in the link in John's note.
It includes the announcement and Call for Papers of the International 
Conference on the Philosophy of Information to be held in Xi'An, China 
in October, 2013, sponsored by both the above Society, led by Professor 
Luciano Floridi and the Institute for the Philosophy of Information in 
Xi'An under the direction of Professor Wu Kun.

This increased activity in the area of the philosophy of information 
(another major Workshop is planned this Spring) raises the issue of the 
relation between the science and philosophy of information as well as 
of the philosophy of science. I am aware of and agree with the position 
expressed by Pedro that information science in the FIS framework should 
emphasize scientific research in the sense of knowledge that is 
quantifiable and/or provable. However, I do not believe that either he 
or others of you intend to exclude rigorous qualitative knowledge, 
especially as it concerns the dual nature of information.

The ubiquitous presence of information in all disciplines, as 
emphasized by Wu, suggests an alternative relation linking philosophy, 
science and information that is NOT one of simple hierarchical 
inclusion or possession (of). One possibility is to say that it is 
information that links philosophy and science, but this formulation 
perhaps fails to recognize the general properties of the latter two.

Another possibility is to say that each of the three nominally 
independent disciplines are not 

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner

2013-01-03 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Gyorgy, Pedro, Stan, Joe, Karl, Igor, and other FIS colleagues,
With thankfulness for all of your enlightening comments
which strengthen my feeling that there is a lot of exciting work in front of us,
and that we witness all but the end of science,
I wish you all
A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR 2013!
Best,
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Gyorgy Darvas
Sent: den 3 januari 2013 11:28
To: fis@listas.unizar.es; Pedro C. Marijuan
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner

Ladies and Guys,

I do not understand fully, why the problematic of dark matter is so much 
important from the aspect of information.

We, physicists either, cannot agree what is dark matter.
Several physicists interpret the notion in different ways, and this ambiguity 
is reflected in the Fis discussion as well.
I have my own interpretation as well, what differs from that of most 
physicists. (I do not want to bore you with my interpretation.)
We do not agree even in that, whether dark matter and dark energy are the same. 
(According to me, they aren't. cf., e.g. my paper linked in my signo)

From my aspects of symmetry/invariance, I'd add only one, I think so, important 
issue:
all physicists agree in the conservation of mass in the universe, but
- we do not agree which mass is conserved (i.e., it may be the gravitational 
mass, or may be the sum of the gravitational and inertial masses);
- many physicists are not aware that although the mass (which?) is conserved, 
the value of the conserved quantity depends on the reference frame from which 
we observe it.
The latter has two important consequences:
- once, there must be such a reference frame, in which the conserved quantity 
of mass - counted on the basis of the first Noether theorem - is minimal; in 
this case that reference frame is distinguished from all other reference 
frames; and this distinction would contradict to one of the basic principles of 
the relativity theory, according to which all reference frames are equivalent.
- at second, if we would like to avoid this contradiction, there must be such a 
gauge field, in the presence of which all reference frames lead to the same 
amount of conserved mass. This means, there is not the Lorentz transformation 
alone under which the mass will be conserved in the universe, but the Lorentz 
transformation plus another transformation in that gauge field (which should 
depend on velocity). (I proved the existence of such combined transformation in 
a series of papers in 2009-12. It holds not only for mass.)

In short, I think, it is not our task to solve the problem of what is dark 
matter.
However, this remark does not mean a constraint to wish a happy new year to all 
of you,
Gyuri

.
Symmetry Festival 2013, Delft, 2-7 http://symmetry.hu/festival2013.html 
Augusthttp://symmetry.hu/festival2013.html
Download and print the poster in A3 
sizehttp://symmetry.hu/SYMMETRY2013_poster_printable.pdf, post it at your 
department,
throughout your parent institution, and distribute among colleagues outside.
Thank you for your contribution to publicize the event!
.
A recent publication online:
Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded conservation 
lawhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/g28q43v2112721r1/
.
__
Gyorgy Darvashttp://members.iif.hu/darvasg/
E-mail mailto:%20darv...@iif.hu ; Skype: darvasgy; S Y M M E T R I O 
Nhttp://symmetry.hu/
Mailing address: c/o G. Darvas; 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067 Hungary
Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965;
Monograph: 
Symmetryhttp://books.google.hu/books?id=UYdsSrZF0mgCdq=darvas+symmetryprintsec=frontcoversource=bnhl=huei=UKx7TP3XEpDIswaMmOSxDQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=5ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepageqf=false;
  Course of lectures on http://hps.elte.hu/courses/darvas.htm#English 
Symmetryhttp://hps.elte.hu/courses/darvas.htm#English,
Course of lectures on 
http://hps.elte.hu/oktaeder/atmeneti/darvas2.htm#English Interactions in 
Kinetic Fields and the Conservation of 
IFCShttp://hps.elte.hu/oktaeder/atmeneti/darvas2.htm#English
___
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

2012-11-13 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
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 written for them.
But then computable is a more general term, as Penrose points out.

With best regards,
Gordana



From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
Sent: den 13 november 2012 18:24
To: Bob Logan; Stanley N Salthe
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

Dear FIS Friends and Colleagues,

Sometimes I feel as if I have been whistling Dixie, to use an American 
expression for futility, for the last four years. I have tried to call 
attention to the fact that there is at least one way of doing logic, that of 
Stéphane Lupasco as up-dated in my Logic in Reality (LIR), that is not bounded 
by linguistic constraints, but allows one to make inferences about the real 
states of a system, actual and potential.

LIR is thus a logic that is relevant to the discussion, offering a considerably 
more complex picture of causality than a simple reversal of cause and effect. 
Ditto for emergence. It is thus a new but still rigorous, if partly qualitative 
way of mediating certainly philosophical and some scientific efforts, for 
example information-as-process.

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.

A contrario, if anyone does not understand Logic in Reality, I would be happy 
to send some references that explain it. This might make possible its inclusion 
in the discussion.

Thank you and best wishes,

Joseph

- Original Message -
From: Bob Loganmailto:lo...@physics.utoronto.ca
To: Stanley N Salthemailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu
Cc: fismailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

Hey Stan - I agree with the way you characterize the role of logic as a 
linguistic mechanism. Logic connects one set of statements, the premises, with 
another set of statements, the conclusion. Without challenging your remarks I 
would suggest that like the case with the poets it is sometimes useful to set 
aside the dictates of logic. McLuhan talked about the reversal of cause and 
effect. By this he meant in the case of artists that they start with the effect 
they wish to create and then find the causes that 

Re: [Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday

2012-05-15 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Bob,

I am not sure if I have right to reply, but you make a very important remark.

The answer is: computing nature performs much more than existing computers.

What is computable in computing nature is what nature is able to perform 
through its continuous changes.
Dialectical processes are also typical in nature and thus in the framework of 
computing nature, those also are computations.

In short the question is: what kind of computations are those dialectical 
processes?

That is what we want to learn.

All the best,
Gordana


-Original Message-
From: Robert Ulanowicz [mailto:u...@umces.edu] 
Sent: den 15 maj 2012 15:36
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Cc: Bruno Marchal; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday

Quoting Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se:


 2.   Whatever changes in the states of the physical world there  
 are, we understand them as computation.

Dear Gordana,

I'm not sure I agree here. For much of what transpires in nature (not  
just in the living realm), the metaphor of the dialectic seems more  
appropriate than the computational. As you are probably aware,  
dialectics are not computable, mainly because their boundary value  
statements are combinatorically intractable (sensu Kauffman).

It is important to note that evolution (which, as Chaisson contends,  
applies as well to the history of the cosmos [and even the symmetrical  
laws of force]) is driven by contingencies, not by laws. Laws are  
necessary and they enable, but they cannot entail.

Regards,
Bob


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


Re: [Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday

2012-05-12 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Bruno and FIS colleagues,

Here are my three comments on the current discussion:
(1)
It seems to me that one thing should be taken into account: computationalism is 
not a monolithic body of theory,
and old approaches should not be mixed with the current ones.

Here is what Matthias Scheutz says (and I agree) in Computationalism: New 
Directions:

Classical computationalism -- -the view that mental states are computational 
states -- -has come under attack in recent years. Critics claim that in 
defining computation solely in abstract, syntactic terms, computationalism 
neglects the real-time, embodied, real-world constraints with which cognitive 
systems must cope.

Instead of abandoning computationalism altogether, however, some researchers 
are reconsidering it, recognizing that real-world computers, like minds, must 
deal with issues of embodiment, interaction, physical implementation, and 
semantics.

This book lays the foundation for a successor notion of computationalism. It 
covers a broad intellectual range, discussing historic developments of the 
notions of computation and mechanism in the computationalist model, the role of 
Turing machines and computational practice in artificial intelligence research, 
different views of computation and their role in the computational theory of 
mind, the nature of intentionality, and the origin of language.
http://books.google.se/books?id=Y59zyNWnNfYCprintsec=front_coverredir_esc=y

(2)
The usual critics always assume type of first person/third person identity 
thesis which are incompatible both with computationalism or with quantum 
mechanics. (Bruno)

All we know with confidence about the first person is from the third persons 
accounts about first persons.
When it comes to first person accounts on the same first person, the person 
telling the story anyway is not the same person experiencing the world,
because those two exist in different instants of time. (Here I refer to 
Minsky's view of dynamical societies of mind)
So my account about my experiences comes from my memory and is a 
reconstruction. Psychologists know how unreliable self- accounts are.

Why not simply admit that all the knowledge about the first person simply comes 
from the third persons accounts about first persons?

(3)
When it comes to digital/analog and discrete/continuous debate, it must be 
pointed out that some of computationalist approaches are purely discrete (what 
here is called digital) while others allow for both discrete and continuous 
representations.*

I also agree with Hector and Wolfram that physics has primacy.
If at some level of abstraction such as quantum mechanics one observes both 
continuum and discrete states, that means understanding the nature as a 
computational system at that level of abstraction, computations are both 
discrete and continuous (like computations of an analog computer).

Our models of reality are not the same thing as reality. It is not the reality 
that is continuous or discrete - it is our best models of reality that are 
continuous or discrete. Reality is always more than our models. We are 
discussing our models.
We are always in a search for the best (richest, most productive, most general 
etc.) models of reality, and we learn through the process and we will continue 
to learn. Learning does not depend only on the nature of reality, it also 
depends on human effort invested in our interactions with the world and the 
construction of increasingly better models.

Best regards,
Gordana



*A very good and elucidating account of the discrete, continuous, analog, 
digital will be found in:
Maley, C.J. Analog and digital, continuous and discrete. Philos. Stud. 2010, 
155, 117-131.

Also here:
http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/2/3/460



From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: den 12 maj 2012 11:03
To: Hector Zenil
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Information Science
Subject: Re: [Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday


On 12 May 2012, at 00:55, Hector Zenil wrote:


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Bruno Marchal 
marc...@ulb.ac.bemailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 11 May 2012, at 13:10, Hector Zenil wrote:

Information that readers may find interesting:


Stephen Wolfram has written the first in a series of blogs posts about

NKS titled It's Been 10 Years; What's Happened with A New Kind of

Science?: 
http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/its-been-10-years-whats-happened-with-a-new-kind-of-science/


Stephen will also be hosting an Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit, where

he will be taking questions  about NKS and his research program on

Monday, May 14 at 3pm EST.


I think it is a good opportunity to start an interesting discussion

about several topics, including of course information and computation.


It looks like advertising for a type of universal system, the cellular
automata.

Coincidently, Wolfram wrote today

[Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK - PRESENTED BY DEACON

2012-05-02 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Hector,

This might be a good way, Terry Deacon presenting his book:
http://fora.tv/2012/04/18/Incomplete_Nature_How_Mind_Emerged_From_Matter 

What I find fascinating with this book is the whole dynamical framework,
from thermodynamics, to morphodynamics and teleodynamics.
See also: 
http://www.american.edu/cas/economics/info-metrics/pdf/upload/Beavers-Oct-2011-presentation.pdf

For sure, Deacon is not computationalist and his ideas of information and 
computation are pretty classical ones.
But it does not matter in this context. For a computationalist all three kinds 
of dynamics are computational processes,
and corresponding structures are informational structures.

With best wishes,
Gordana


-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Hector Zenil
Sent: den 27 april 2012 22:40
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK

Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is such a presumed
breakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among FIS
enthusiasts?

Thanks.


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:
 Dear colleagues,

 Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have a
 FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the new info
 avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffman
 and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular
 discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple of
 voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob Logan
 could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh
 discussion session for the coming months.

 Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list; the
 filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together.
 Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated or as
 as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one.

 best

 ---Pedro
 (fis list coordination)

 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -


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


Re: [Fis] Physics of computing

2012-04-16 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Pedro and FIS colleagues,

When connecting information to physics, I believe you may like the following 
view, from the abstract of an invited article
for a special issue of the journal Information on Information and Energy/Matter 
(currently in review):

INFORMATION PHYSICS—TOWARDS A NEW CONCEPTION OF PHYSICAL REALITY
Philip Goyal
Department of Physics, University at Albany (SUNY), 1400 Washington Av., 
Albany, NY 1, USA
Version April 10, 2012 submitted to Information.

Abstract: The concept of information plays a fundamental role in our everyday 
experience, but is conspicuously absent in framework of classical physics. Over 
the last century, quantum theory and a series of other developments in physics 
and related subjects have brought the concept of information and the interface 
between an agent and the physical world into increasing prominence. As a 
result, over the last few decades, there has arisen a growing belief amongst 
many physicists that the concept of information may have a critical role to 
play in our understanding of the workings of the physical world, both in more 
deeply understanding existing physical theories and in the formulation of new 
theories. In this paper, I explicate the origin of the informational view of 
physics, illustrate some of the work inspired by this view, and give some 
indication of its implications for the development of a new conception of 
physical reality.

Goyal talks about all of physics, reformulated in terms of information, not 
only one part of it like quantum mechanics.
If you combine this approach with Mark Burgin’s view that computation in 
general is information processing,
then Philip Goyal’s article can be understood in terms of computation.

I am looking forward to see the complete special issue which is taking shape 
these days, several articles are in review,
and there are several already published interesting contributions on to the 
relationship between information and physics:
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/information/special_issues/matter/

With best regards,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012




From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: den 16 april 2012 17:54
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Physics of computing

Dear Joseph and FIS collegues,

The only item I can remember formally addressing the topic is La logique du 
vivant, by Francois Jacob in very early 70's. But it was perhaps more a 
philosophy of life than a rigorous approach or overall theoretical description 
of life processes. In any case it was original (bricolage) and inspiring. 
Nowadays my main criticism to visions inspired in physics would run as follows: 
imagine we are dealing with computers; any general approach to their 
performances, should it be based on solid state physics? Nope. You would need 
a theoretical, brand new vision, eg Turing machine on universal computation, or 
something similar attending to structures of computing processes and computing 
machinery. It would extend completely beyond physics, as the informatics realm 
is situated... pure technological creativity due to software and hardware 
engineers (of course, always mastering and slaving natural processes at the 
bottom, but in artful ways and multilevel purposes).

Regarding bio, the new theoretical integrated or unified approach (logic or 
whatever) would be similar to the above creativity. Grounded on some central 
bio characteristic, in my opinion self construction, as von Neumann started 
with his unfinished theory of self-constructing machines. Cells (and organisms) 
are the only entities rigorously selfconstructing themselves. Actually biology 
would be the science of selfconstruction... where a new notion of info related 
to the impact of communication on selfconstructing processes (meaning) would 
be central. It may look challenging, but without protein synthesis there is no 
meaning!

My criticism to current bio-doctrines extends to systems biology and other 
fashions (synthetic biology, bioinspired computing, artificial life...). Some 
ideas thrown in Inbiosa meetings could enter into the discussion too, I think.

best wishes

---Pedro

joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch escribió:
Dear Pedro,

Thank you, Pedro, for bringing up the question of logics. My suggestion of a 
Logic in Reality is to open the debate, rather than to claim it is the only 
over-arching logic possible. Nevertheless, it would be useful for me and 
perhaps others if you could make your critique more specific by pointing to at 
least one logic that is used biologically that addresses the dynamics of 
complex processes. So far, I have not identified any such logical system that 
is more than a metaphorical use of the term logic or refers to some more or 
less reproducible characteristics of such processes. Otherwise, logics seem to 
me to refer only 

Re: [Fis] Physics of Computing

2012-03-16 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Kevin and FIS,
Searching for Andrei's articles, I found 
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4952.pdf
and in the abstract there is a claim:
 Therefore, mental states, during perception cognition of ambiguous figures, 
follow quantum mechanics.

I am not an expert by any means but I find this claim very plausible from my 
personal experience as a cognitive agent in case of ambiguous figures.
When I cannot decide what an ambiguous figure actually is I keep number of 
plausible hypotheses actual in mind waiting for contextual clues to help me 
make disambiguation.
The state of mind about an ambiguous figure can be written as a superposition 
of possible states with corresponding weights and that superposition
can be likened with a quantum mechanical superposition of states.
It seems to me that there could be very natural mechanisms for this phenomenon, 
and really nothing non-physical.
Maybe Andrei can help elucidate the exact meaning of similar statistical forms 
found in several different fields, as the title of his book says:
Ubiquitous quantum structure: from psychology to finance.


Best,
Gordana

PS
Back to Pedro's original reference to physical levels of information, Deacon 
made a useful distinction between three different levels of information.

Deacon's three types of information parallel his three levels of emergent 
dynamics which in Salthe's notation looks like:
[1. thermo- [2. morpho- [3. teleo-dynamics]]] with corresponding mechanisms

 [1. mass-energetic [2. self-organization [3. self-preservation (semiotic)]]] 
and corresponding Aristotle's causes

 [1. efficient cause [ 2. formal cause [ 3. final cause]]]

In the above, thermodynamics and semiotic layers of organization are linked via 
intermediary layer of morphodynamics (spontaneous form-generating processes), 
and thus do not communicate directly (so it looks like mind communicating with 
matter via form).
Of course there is physics at the bottom.


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012




From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Kevin Clark
Sent: den 16 mars 2012 21:56
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Physics of Computing

Dear FISers:

Pedro and Plamen raise good and welcomed points regarding the nature of 
physics, information, and biology. Although I believe in a strong relationship 
between information and physics in biology, there are striking examples where 
direct correspondences between information, physics, and biology seem to 
depart. Scientists are only beginning to tease out these discrepancies which 
will undoubtedly give us a better understand of information.

For example, in the study of cognition by A. Khrennikov and colleagues and J. 
Busemyer and colleagues, decisional processes may conform to quantum statistics 
and computation without necessarily being mediated by quantum mechanical 
phenomena at a biological level of description. I found this to be true in 
ciliates as well, where social strategy search speeds and decision rates may 
produce quantum computational phases that obey quantum statistics. In such 
cases, a changing classical diffusion term of response regulator 
reaction-diffusion parsimoniously accounts for the transition from classical to 
quantum information processing. Thus, there is no direct correspondence between 
quantum physicochemistry and quantum computation. Because the particular 
reaction-diffusion biochemistry is not unique to ciliates (i.e., the same 
phenomena is observed in plants, animals, and possibly bacteria), this 
incongruity may be widespread across life.

Best regards,

Kevin Clark
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] Common Ground - Discussion of Information Science Education

2011-12-10 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Marcin,

To me the idea about FIS web page with resources for teaching about Foundations 
of Information is a right step forward.
That is also a way for the community as a whole to become more visible and 
formally established, and a means to plant
new ideas into generations of future researchers.

That is the minimum we can do at this stage.


With best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc



-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of m...@aiu.ac.jp
Sent: den 10 december 2011 09:00
To: Pedro C. Marijuan; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Common Ground - Discussion of Information Science Education

Dear all,
Thank you for sharing experience regarding your teaching on 
the subject related to information. I think it would be a good 
idea to create a FIS web page with resources for teaching 
about information. It could have either materials or links to 
materials which could be used in preparation of courses. 
It could include examples of syllabi. 

At this point, I can see the following main points emerging in 
the discussion:

1. Differences in opinion regarding the use of the name 
Information Science in teaching about information in the 
broad FIS spirit of inquiry: 
AGAINST
- The name was already used for disciplines of more specific 
interests.
- Doubts whether it is possible to consider the studies of 
information uniform enough to form a discipline.
- Doubts whether there is justified reason to use the term 
information, which has been abused in the past. 
- Need for more clear definition of the concept of 
information, before the term information is used in the name 
of the discipline. 
- Different name will help in developing an identity for the 
discipline

FOR
- The value of the idea of FIS is in looking at information in 
a very general way integrating multiple perspectives, thus the 
goal is to set foundations for an authentic Information 
Science.
- Establishing conventional borders for the discipline (based 
on particular definition of information) can only harm its 
development. Different conceptualizations of information 
should compete and that which allows to develop theory (or 
theories) of information which serves best in understanding 
reality will emerge as a standard. 
- Diversity of perspectives on information does not preclude 
unity of Information Science consisting in the methods of 
inquiry. 

NEUTRAL
- For teaching about information the name of discipline is 
irrelevant.

2. Concept of information has a great potential in integration 
of curriculum, in particular its part related to sciences, but 
also in more general sense. 

There was I think consensus on this integrative power of 
information studies. I agree wholeheartedly with this point of 
view. Actually, I already published some papers on this 
subject five years ago. 
However, here we have a paradox putting this consensus in 
jeopardy. If the issues of the definition of information, or 
of the use of name Information Science are so polarizing for 
FIS community (people who have so much in common), how can we 
believe that information can function as an integrative 
concept for education? 

Can we try to identify the territory which we all agree is our 
own? Is our common ground just a place where we are coming to 
fight? Or is it actually a place where we want to build 
something together? 
Once we have an understanding of what we all share, it will be 
easier to decide about the view propagated among students.

Regards,
Marcin
___
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] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

2011-12-06 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Hi All,

One way of looking at the question of curriculum would be from the point of 
view of what already exists
of education in the Foundations of Information.

Are there any courses which might be a part of such a curriculum?

To start with I can tell about the course I have, which does not cover much of 
Science of information, but there are several connections.
As I work at the computer science department, my perspective is computational.
For me computing is information processing and information is that which is 
processed, and that which is a result of processing.
Processing may be done by a machine or by an organism or anything else - the 
whole of nature computes (processes information) in different ways.
As info-computationalist, I believe that information is unthinkable without 
computation.
So the course is on Computing and Philosophy but addresses Philosophy of 
Information and Science of Information as well and topics on evolution of life, 
intelligence (natural and artificial), consciousness, etc.  
http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil

I believe it would be good to have a course on the foundations of information 
science for people in the computing.
Information and computation are completely entangled! And this gives also an 
opportunity to introduce other fields into computing, to contribute to building 
bridges and
facilitating inter-disciplinary/ cross-disciplinary/ trans-disciplinary  
learning.

This is not as ambitious as the original question, but can help understanding 
where we are now and where we want to be.

Best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: den 5 december 2011 20:53
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education

And it could feature in 'Science for Non-Majors' courses as well.

STAN
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Guy A Hoelzer 
hoel...@unr.edumailto:hoel...@unr.edu wrote:
Hi All,

I agree with those who are suggesting that Information Science makes sense
as a widely useful way to think about different scientific disciplines
even if we don't have a strong consensus on how to define 'information'.
I think there is enough coherence among views of 'information' to underpin
the unity and universality of the approach.  Perhaps Information Science
is less a discipline of its own and more of a common approach to
understanding that can be applied across disciplines.  While I can imagine
good courses focusing on Information Science, it might be most productive
to include a common framework for information-based models/viewpoints
across the curriculum.

Guy Hoelzer


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.esmailto: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] Discussion of Information Science Education

2011-12-03 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
 important that we are convinced about the 
authentic existence of a large enough common ground. Can we develop a map of 
this territory?

Can we pool resources to establish foundations for a standard, Information 
Science curriculum?



Marcin and Gordana



Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D.

Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs

Akita International University

Akita, Japan

m...@aiu.ac.jpmailto:m...@aiu.ac.jp





Gordana Dodig Crnkovic,

Associate Professor

Head of the Computer Science and Networks Department School of Innovation, 
Design and Engineering Mälardalen University Sweden http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/



Organizer of the Symposium on Natural/Unconventional Computing, the Turing 
Centenary  World Congress of AISB/IACAP

https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012





___

fis mailing list

fis@listas.unizar.esmailto: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

2011-07-20 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Hello FIS,

On mentioning of Braitenberg’s book “Information - der Geist in der Natur”, 
Søren Brier made me aware of an older work in a similar spirit -
Danish physicist’s Hans Christian Ørsted’s (1777-1851) “The soul in nature”, 
here digitalized by Google:
http://www.archive.org/stream/soulinnaturewit00horngoog#page/n0/mode/1up

Best wishes,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Robin Faichney
Sent: den 20 juli 2011 14:49
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] meaningful inforamtion

Hi Pedro and Anthony,

Valentino Braitenberg has a book out this year in German: Information - der 
Geist in der Natur

My knowledge of German is dismal, but it seems to be about information as the 
spirit or mind of nature. This would be consistent with a quotation of his 
from Luciano Floridi, editor, Philosophy of Computing and Information: Five 
Questions, 2008, p16:

The concept of information, properly understood, is fully sufficient to do away 
with popular dualistic schemes  invoking spiritual substances distinct from 
anything in physics. This is Aristotle redivivus, the concept of matter and 
form united in every object of this world, body and soul, where the latter is 
nothing but the formal aspect of the former. The  very term “information” 
clearly demonstrates its Aristotelian origin in its linguistic root.

Anthony talks about form too, of course, but I'm afraid I find his concept of 
meaningful information to be somewhat dualistic -- but maybe I just haven't 
understood his view of the relationship between meaningful information and 
material form.

Robin

Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 12:38:03 PM, Pedro wrote:

Thanks, Anthony, for the info on your book. As you will see during future 
discussion sessions (currently we are in the vacation pause) some parties in 
this list maintain positions not far away from your own views. In our archive 
you can check accumulated mails about the matter you propose --e.g. discussions 
during the last spring. But I think you are right that the whole biological 
scope of information has been rarely discussed.  best wishes ---Pedro

FIS website and discussions archives: see http://infoscience-fis.unizar.es/


aread...@verizon.netmailto:aread...@verizon.net escribió:
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.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-




--
Robin Faichney
http://www.robinfaichney.org/
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es

Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering Principles

2011-04-01 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Stan,



Ø  The key is whether the trait involved can be modeled; on these grounds it 
has not yet been shown that 'qualia' can be generalized beyond the human 
experience, yet even  a child can see, for example, that a mother hen is very 
unhappy when her chicks are threatened.

Being a computer scientist I don't really know enough about qualia, so I 
checked Wiki and read:

Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, the 
experience of taking a recreational drug, or the redness of an evening sky.

I believe that hen and other animals have some sort of qualia, of course not 
human qualia, but their own, animal qualia.

Am I wrong in my believe that animals can feel pain, have headache, feel taste 
of drink and food, can see colors and can even get drunk (Animals Are Beautiful 
People,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDknJ6KPLxc ) and that pain, headache etc. that 
they experience represent their qualia?

With best regards,
Gordana



http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: den 1 april 2011 21:39
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering 
Principles

It seems obvious to me that any property held by a very complex entity (e.g., 
human being), IF it can be modeled, then that model can be used to generalize 
that property ANYWHERE we wish to.  On these grounds I have been busy working 
on 'physiosemiosis' using the triadic formulation of semiosis of Charles 
Peirce.  I have proposed that the 'sign' emerges from the context of an 
interaction between object and system.  If context has no effect on the 
interaction, there is no semiosis.  If, on the contrary, context affects the 
interaction, then we have semiosis, even in a pond.

The key is whether the trait involved can be modeled; on these grounds it has 
not yet been shown that 'qualia' can be generalized beyond the human 
experience, yet even a child can see, for example, that a mother hen is very 
unhappy when her chicks are threatened.

STAN
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Pridi Siregar 
pridi.sire...@ibiocomputing.commailto:pridi.sire...@ibiocomputing.com wrote:
Hi all !

Maybe the term « observer » in Pedro's « non-human observer » term is what bugs 
some of you because it seems to imply some non-human cogitum that by habit we 
may want to equate to human thinking. Of course trying to understand the 
psychology of a bacteria may be a bit hard for humans so perhaps the term 
observer should be given a broader meaning and the challenge would be to 
define the nature/ boundaries/mechanics of this semantic 
extension/redefinition. The same may hold for defining language  and 
meaning... But for lack of time I really haven't followed all the debates and 
I'm no philosopher.  As a business person I am much more practical and I do 
have one practical concern/question: are we trying to lay down a new theory of 
living systems or are we going (in some not too distant future) towards 
devising a computational framework that (even modestly) may go beyond projects 
such as the VHP?Sorry to be so down to earth but I suppose that in this 
forum everyone is allowed to express himself/herself...:)

Pridi




De : fis-boun...@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] De 
la part de joe.bren...@bluewin.chmailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2011 19:38
À : l...@leydesdorff.netmailto:l...@leydesdorff.net; 'Pedro C. Marijuan'; 
fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering 
Principles

Dear Pedro,

I do not quite recognize myself in the statement:

Basically, their informational subject looks like the abstract, disembodied, 
non-situated, classical observer, equipped in a
Cartesian austerity --and outside, just the Order or maybe the Disorder.

I thought my implicit observer was very much real, embodied and non-classical, 
fully participating (and in part constituting) the order and disorder.

However, I rather tend to agree with you that Loet's, Rosen's and Dubois' 
models of communication, anticipation, etc. are somewhat too abstract. The 
models, as I think Loet may agree, are created for analysis, and do not define 
the physical, dynamic relation between the models, the creation of models and 
what is being modeled as processes.

I have never understood why Maturana had to say that observers are 
operationally generated when it seems obvious that they exist, albeit at 
different levels of complexity and (and here we agree) capability of 
recursiveness. As I have said previously, autopoiesis, like spontaneity and 
self-organization are concepts that are very useful, but cannot be taken to 
describe, as fully as I anyway would like, the dynamics of the cognitive 
processes necessary for an understanding of 

Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror

2011-03-22 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Joseph,

Thank you for this precise clarification. I agree completely and I also follow 
tensions and changes in our discussions in the list.
Especially interesting to me is how theories or frameworks communicate, use 
each other and internalize each other.
(I believe that is essentially the same process as the one you mention for the 
change of Logic in Reality itself).
Currently there are ongoing paradigm shifts in computing, logic, biology, 
cognitive science, information science and several others.
Not all research fields get “updated” instantly, it takes time.
Interdisciplinary discussions sometimes contain criticisms built on 
presupposition about other research fields as they looked like some time before.
(I meet often the idea that computing is the same as the Turing Machine model.  
But there is strong development of new computational paradigms and even if they 
are not completely established, they already exist in some fragmentary form.)

“But I would rather risk such reproaches than accept the present situation,
in which philosophers argue only with dead biologists and biologists only with 
dead philosophers… “
Michael Morange,  Life Explained

So I think this list is a good example of living philosophers talking with 
living biologists and other living FISers which makes it much more exciting and 
difficult.

Best regards,
Gordana


From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch [mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]
Sent: den 22 mars 2011 21:08
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic; Loet Leydesdorff; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: AW: RE: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror

Dear Gordana,

Thank you for your very pertinent illustration of what Logic in Reality is. 
There are (at least) two dynamics possible, 1) the tension between two existing 
frameworks, from which a new one (jump) may emerge and 2) that between an 
existing framework, for example Logic in Reality itself and what it could 
potentially become. I would just emend your phrase the the world is more than 
a theory we have at hand to more than we have at hand in actual form to make 
clearer that what is potential is also at hand.

That these tensions are real is illustrated almost every day in these 
discussions . . .

Best regards,

Joseph
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se
Datum: 21.03.2011 08:40
An: Loet Leydesdorffl...@leydesdorff.net, 
joe.bren...@bluewin.chjoe.bren...@bluewin.ch, 
fis@listas.unizar.esfis@listas.unizar.es
Betreff: RE: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror


Dear Loet, Joe, Fis colleagues


Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free observations – e.g., Carnap – is much 
more doubtful. Most of us will have given up on this “realistic” position.

This is a very interesting issue. It seems to me very reasonable to claim that 
for any observation one has at least a rudimentary “theory” – as this process 
goes in a loop. Observation is done in time and during observation we act, 
which demands at least basic theoretical understanding. Of course sophisticated 
observations like those made in CERN are loaded with tons of theory. But there 
is a difference between acting within some system, or acting on a premise that 
what is studied maybe goes outside that systems box. One example is 
generalization of physics from Aristotelian to Newtonian. Within a system, one 
introduces more and more complicated assumptions in order to accommodate for 
observations, but at some point framework must change. There are jumps to more 
generalized frameworks in this process of learning. I see Joe’s logic in 
reality even here – a tension between an existing framework (which a is not 
enough) and the potential new one capable of accommodating for new knowledge. 
So realism would consist in not denying that the world is more than a theory we 
have at hands.

One would also wonder whether animals without language, would have the 
possibility to compose and perform music (without human orchestration).

Some birds are singing and birdsong sounds like music. Much of modern music is 
produced almost like a birdsong in a sense that it is not following any rules 
of composition, sometimes it is simply a collection of sounds found in nature. ☺

Best,
Gordana


http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 21 mars 2011 08:04
To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror

To paraphrase Antonio Salieri's famous Prima la musica, dopo le parole, I say 
first reality, then the signs.

Dear Joseph: “allegro, ma non troppo”!

In the 18th century, “nature” is still considered as God’s creation and 
therefore has priority to our (human) wordings and signings. Thus, one was 
interested in “natural philosophy” and “natural law” as manifestations. 
However, this has eroded. Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free observations 
– e.g., Carnap

Re: [Fis] On Stan's reply to Gavin

2011-02-01 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Robert,

 For example, information is continually being created and destroyed in 
 ecological systems.

Exactly! Even in simple physical artifacts such as computers, we delete/erase 
information regularly and generate information (as program outputs).

 ... to understand what the physicists are claiming.
It seems to me, given spatiotemporal distance big enough, one does not see such 
phenomena which generate/destroy information. Physics builds on laws of 
conservation.

Best,
Gordana



Dr Dr Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, 
Associate Professor 
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
Mälardalen University
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Box 883, SE-721 23 Västerås, Sweden




-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Robert Ulanowicz
Sent: den 1 februari 2011 01:10
To: ro...@robinfaichney.org
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] On Stan's reply to Gavin

 On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Robin Faichney  
 ro...@robinfaichney.orgwrote:

  Conservation  of information can be translated as
 meaning   that   physical   laws  do  not break down, and the state of
 affairs  at  one  time  can  be  considered  encoded in the state of
 affairs at another time. For instance, events within the event horizon
 of  a  black hole (or, on the holographic principle, on the surface of
 the  event  horizon) could, in principle, be determined by examination
 of the Hawking radiation that escapes as the hole diminishes.

Dear Robin,

I have always wondered what physicists meant when they talked about  
conservation of information, because Shannon-like measures are  
definitely not state variables, and hence not conserved. For example,  
information is continually being created and destroyed in ecological  
systems.

Even if the laws of nature do not break down, there simply are not  
enough of them to encode complex situations. While the laws themselves  
are all conservative, the implicit boundary value problem is  
*necessarily* contingent. This accounts for the reality and ubiquity  
of indeterminacy in complex systems.

I find it difficult to imagine how stochastic events such as occur  
within a black hole could possibly be determined by Hawking  
radiation, or even by anything more reliable.

Could you possibly guide me to some reference where I could attempt  
again to understand what the physicists are claiming.

Thanks,
Bob

-
Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: +1-352-378-7355
Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory  |  FAX: +1-352-392-3704
Department of Biology  |  Emeritus, Chesapeake Biol. Lab
Bartram Hall 110   |  University of Maryland
University of Florida  |  Email u...@cbl.umces.edu
Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA |  Web http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan
--


___
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] Closing Comments?

2010-12-20 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Hello FIS colleagues,

I like Igor's suggestion:

“Information is heterogeneity, stable for some definite time”.

A simpler general version is Bateson's:

Information is the difference that makes the difference 

Best wishes,
Gordana



Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, 
Associate Professor 
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
Mälardalen University
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Box 883, SE-721 23 Västerås, Sweden




-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Igor Gurevich
Sent: den 20 december 2010 12:28
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Closing Comments?

Dear Pedro C. Marijuan!
Dear Dear Colleagues!

DEFINITION OF CONCEPT “INFORMATION”

1) D. Doucette in work “Challenges for Those Constructing a Science of
Information as an Evolving Unique Discipline” presented at Fourth
International Conference on the Foundations of Information Science:
Towards a new science of information (FIS 2010), Beijing, China, 21-24
August 2010 (2010) has defined “Science of Information”: “In
establishing the new evolved information discipline, there should be
some initial awareness that information is a part of all elements,
systems, conditions and is therefore also an integral part of the
other individual disciplines and sciences. In studying information
phenomena, it is essential to look beyond the limitations of how human
use and perceive information, or even how living organisms' uses
information. It is proposed that information is a continuous evolving
process that exists in some simple to complex form in every stage of
development across all science and academia domains as well as being a
significant part of everything that exists. Information is a trigger
mechanism, emphasis and nutrient for not only information activities
but also all physical biological elements, systems and activities”.
2) If we want to create “Science of Information” we must use single,
unified, unique definition of the “information” concept. I suggested
it [Gurevich I.M. Law of informatics - a basis of researches and
designing of complex communication and management systems. (In
Russian). «Ecos». Moscow. 1989. 60 p.].
«Information is heterogeneity, stable for some definite time of the
arbitrary physical nature. Thereby, a letter in a book, an atom, a
molecule, an elementary particle, a star, a drawing, a pattern, a
ploughed field, a wood and other heterogeneities contain and carry the
information».
 “Information is heterogeneity, stable for some definite time”.
Regardless of the nature of heterogeneity, would be it letters, words,
phrases or - elementary particles, atoms, molecules, or - people,
groups, societies, etc.
The measure of the degree of heterogeneity or information is Shannon's
information entropy and other information characteristics (information
divergence, joint entropy, communication information).
The proposed definition and the Shannon information entropy and other
information characteristics can describe information (heterogeneity)
of any nature.
3) The definitions of homogeneity and heterogeneity.
Consider a set M of elements m. If the elements m are the same,
identical (not different from each other), then the set M is
homogeneous. If the elements m are not the same, no identical
(differing one from other), then the set M is no homogeneous.
4) Types of information.
4.1. Classical information. Time of existence of the heterogeneity is
infinite. This is absolutely stable heterogeneity.
4.2. Macroinformation (by Chernavsky). Time of existence of the
heterogeneity is not less than the time of existence of the system.
This is essentially stable heterogeneity.
I4.3. Information. Time of existence of the heterogeneity is less than
the time of existence of the system, but more then the time course of
processes in the system. This is stable for some definite time
heterogeneity.
4.4. Microinformation (by Chernavsky). Time of existence of the
heterogeneity is essentially less than the time of existence of the
system. This is unstable heterogeneity.
[Chernavsky D.S. Synergetics and Information (dynamic information
theory). Issue 2-e Corr. and add. Moscow. URSS. (In Russian). 2004.
288 p.].
5) The information (heterogeneity) is an objective reality. Its
existence does not depend on availability of Observer. For example:
heterogeneity (elementary particles, atoms, molecules) possess certain
information (and physical) characteristics, properties (properties of
the first order), in particular they contains certain volume of the
information.
6) Availability of Observer can give for the information
(heterogeneity) new properties (property of the second order) –
perception, content, sense, value, …
Note. Information properties of heterogeneity (properties of the first
order) determine the fundamental limitations on property of the second
order.
7) Observer perceives, locates, remembers the information

Re: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

2010-11-15 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
 is to try to figure out from where and how the most basic 
and primary cognitive processes arise.
The emergence of cognitive phenomena needs a network of specialized cells or is 
that each dynamical entity is “cognitive” in itself?

Sincerely,

Walter

-
Walter Riofrio
Researcher IPCEM, University Ricardo Palma. Lima-Perú
Chercheur Associé; Complex Systems Institute-Paris (ISC-PIF)
Theoretical and Evolutionary Biology
Email: walter.riof...@iscpif.fr
-



On dom 14/11/10 05:07 , Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch sent:
Dear Gordana, Stan and All,

Gordana wrote:
From an info-computational approach we may hope to provide a base for the 
construction of generative explanatory models for the development of 
intelligence by information processing in living organisms.

Stan wrote:
Intelligence, I think, lies more in reinterpretation than in the building more 
that may follow upon it.

There is nothing I radically object to in the above formulations, but they 
leave me dissatisfied from the following perspective: in the first by Gordana, 
intelligence is reified into some sort of output (to be expected from a 
computational approach) and the dynamic process or capacity aspects less 
visible. This is a general problem of mathematically tractable generative 
models, but that is for me not a virtue. Stan's is more congenial, as 
reinterpretation, seen as a real cogntive and not only epistemological 
process, corresponds better to what I see going on in the operation of 
intelligence, in intelligizing. The difficulty here, and this is my question 
to the group rather than an answer, is in the example used to illustrate 
reinterpretation. It seems to me to have been chosen from just about the 
lowest level of complexity at which we find information. At the highest 
cognitive levels, pushing things to the limit, we might find the relation 
between intelligence and information becoming as important as the limiting 
terms themselves.

Best wishes,

Joseph


- Original Message -
From: Stanley N Salthe
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE  INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

Gordana --

Interpretation of information builds more information, which again becomes 
interpreted.  In living systems each generation makes a new interpretation 
based upon changed conditions of life. But in this case there is not more 
(genetic) information, but rather recently altered information -- history 
rewritten according to the latest interpretation of recent conditions.  Some 
might call this process 'intelligence'. This is the (neo)Darwinian 
interpretation.  It does not address your point about increasingly complex 
patterns of information, which is indeed what appears in the fossil record (as 
well as in human discourse).  To build more requires preservation and 
interpretation. In the physical world, this image is captured in the asteroid 
impacts on the moon, with subsequent hits deforming, but not erasing, the 
original one.  Information here increases, but not, I think, intelligence.  
Intelligence, I think, lies more in reinterpretation than in the building more 
that may follow upon it.

STAN
(Pedro -- this is a new week, so this is my first)
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se wrote:
I suppose semioticians are interested in an individual human’s sense-making in 
a context of human society.
Or perhaps a social animal’s sense making.
What I think about is how life forms organize to produce increasingly complex 
patterns of information processing.
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: den 13 november 2010 23:03

To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE  INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

Concerning:

The minimal claim would be that there is no intelligence without information. 
For an agent, intelligence is the ability to face the world in a meaningful 
way and it increases with the number of different ways an agent is able to 
respond with.

  It seems to me that this implies, in any non-mechanistic system, semiosis -- 
that is to say, a process of interpretation by the agent.  Thus, intelligence 
would be related to the viewpoint of the agent, which would be located by its 
needs.  Semioticians, however, have not been much engaged by this concept.  
Hoffmeyer claims that it is especially a social skill.

STAN



On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

Relating information with intelligence seems to me important for several 
reasons. I will try to suggest that intelligence might be a good conceptual 
tool if we want to anchor our understanding of information and knowledge in the 
natural world.
Yixin mentions the problem

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

2010-11-13 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Colleagues,

Relating information with intelligence seems to me important for several 
reasons. I will try to suggest that intelligence might be a good conceptual 
tool if we want to anchor our understanding of information and knowledge in the 
natural world. 
Yixin mentions the problem of three approaches to AI which exist independently, 
based on the methodological doctrine of divide and conquer. We agree that 
divide and conquer is just not enough, it is the movement in one direction, 
and what is needed is the full cycle -bottom up and top down - if we are to 
understand biological systems. 

The appropriate model should be generative - it should be able to produce the 
observed behaviors, such as done by Agent Based Models (ABM) which includes 
individual agents and their interactions, where the resulting global behavior 
in its turn affects agents' individual behavior. Unlike static objects that 
result from a divide and conquer approach, agents in ABM are dynamic. They 
allow for the influence from bottom up and back circularly. Central for living 
organisms is the dynamics of the relationships between the parts and the whole.

Shannon's theory of communication is very successful in modeling communication 
between systems, but it is a theory that presupposes that communication exists 
and that mechanisms of communication are known. On the other hand if we want to 
answer the question why those systems communicate at all and what made them 
develop different mechanisms of communication we have to go to a more 
fundamental level of description where we find information processes and 
structures in biological systems. Natural computation such as described by 
Rozenberg and Kari in The many facets of natural computing 
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~lila/Natural-Computing-Review.pdf includes information 
processing in living organisms.

Generative models of intelligence may be based on info-computational approach 
to the evolution of living systems. Three basic steps in this construction are 
as follows:
. The world on its basic level is potential information. 
(I agree with Guy on his information realism)
. Dynamics of the world is computation which in general is information 
processing (natural computationalism or pancomputationalism)
. Intelligence is a potential for (meaningful) action in the world. (I agree 
with Josph)

The minimal claim would be that there is no intelligence without information. 
For an agent, intelligence is the ability to face the world in a meaningful way 
and it increases with the number of different ways an agent is able to respond 
with. (This is a statistical argument: in a dynamical world, ability of an 
agent to respond to a change in several different ways increases its chances 
for survival.)
Back to the question of Raquel: can a simple organism be ascribed intelligence? 
- which Pedro suggests to answer in the positive by broadening the concept of 
intelligence. I agree with this proposed generalization for several reasons.

Maturana and Varela conflate life itself with cognition (to be alive is to 
cognize). Similarly, we can connect the development of life (towards more and 
more complex organisms) with intelligence (if an organism acts meaningfully in 
the world, we say it acts intelligently; meaningfulness has degrees and so has 
intelligence). In that approach intelligence would be the property of an 
organism which gives it a potential to develop increasingly more complex 
informational structures and increasingly more complex (meaningful) responses 
to the environment. One can argue that increasing the repertoire of meaningful 
responses (interactions with the world) increases agents potential for survival 
and success.

As a consequence this approach makes way for a basic quantitative measure of 
intelligence as a level of complexity of an organism providing the diversity of 
its responses.( Of course this measure of intelligence is not in the sense of 
IQ or specific individual's smartness but of the species increasing 
capability to flourish.)

This view also agrees with the understanding that even in humans there are 
several different intelligences - linguistic, logical, kinesthetic, naturalist, 
emotional, interpersonal, intrapersonal, spatial, musical, etc. If the 
complexity of the information processing structures and diversity of 
interactions with the environment are the measure, then plants and by the same 
token even single cells may qualify as intelligent in the sense of naturalist 
and kinesthetic intelligence.

In sum, there are different ways to define intelligence and information 
dependent on what we want them to do for us. Concepts are tools used by 
theories. Theories are tools used by people. Many different concepts address 
different aspects of the world and seem to fill their purpose. 
From an info-computational approach we may hope to provide a base for the 
construction of generative explanatory models for the development of 

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

2010-09-25 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear all,

Regarding the very interesting discussion of it from bit and vice versa.

Usually each level of information processing (semantic, algorithmic, 
implementational) presupposes some it in which bit is implemented. In 
computing, recursions must have a bottom.

Could it be the case that on the very fundamental level, it and bit cannot 
be distinguished at all?
They simply are an it-bit like in Informational Structural Realism of Floridi 
who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an informational 
structure.

Fluctuons being quantum-mechanical phenomena have already dual wave-particle 
nature.
Why cannot they be it-bit as well?

Best,
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 25 september 2010 10:48
To: 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

Dear Joe,

Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are its, that is, 
energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is 
certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the 
same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a 
non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where 
something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the 
material-energetic and non-material aspects of information.

Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon's concept of 
information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, the 
Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality.

One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with the 
biologically inspired concept of information as a difference which makes a 
difference (Bateson). This is observed information by a system which can 
provide meaning to the information.

I would not call this anti-realist, but anti-positivist. The specification 
in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as different from res 
extensa). All of physics also has this epistemological status. All other 
science, too, but sometimes positivism is ideologically prevailing.

Best wishes,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/


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


Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

2010-09-25 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Rafael,


Ø  Otherwise bits turns into digital metaphysics



Not necessarily if we take that dual nature seriously. They are both waves and 
particles.

I have also written in that sense several times, among others in

http://mdh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:120541/FULLTEXT01


Dear Loet,



Ø  The it-part is in the structure which assumes the specification of a 
system of reference.

In evolutionary terms: structure is deterministic/selective; Shannon-type 
information measures only variation/uncertainty.



I agree with you. And complementary part bit comes from its dynamics.



Best,

Gordana




Best wishes,
Gordana

From: Rafael Capurro [mailto:raf...@capurro.de]
Sent: den 25 september 2010 11:55
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Cc: Loet Leydesdorff; 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

dear Gordana

just because the bit-view of reality one possible view is. Otherwise bits turns 
into digital metaphysics.
Floridi: he is contradictory. He says/said that the infosphere is not the 
cybetspace, then yes, then no... Then he says that forms are on a higher level 
of abstraction that bit-forms... which is what Plato would say and said (but 
much better than Floridi), the digital infosphere being only one possibility of 
forms, then he says...

best

Rafael


Dear all,

Regarding the very interesting discussion of it from bit and vice versa.

Usually each level of information processing (semantic, algorithmic, 
implementational) presupposes some it in which bit is implemented. In 
computing, recursions must have a bottom.

Could it be the case that on the very fundamental level, it and bit cannot 
be distinguished at all?
They simply are an it-bit like in Informational Structural Realism of Floridi 
who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an informational 
structure.

Fluctuons being quantum-mechanical phenomena have already dual wave-particle 
nature.
Why cannot they be it-bit as well?

Best,
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 25 september 2010 10:48
To: 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; 
fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

Dear Joe,

Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are its, that is, 
energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is 
certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the 
same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a 
non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where 
something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the 
material-energetic and non-material aspects of information.

Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon's concept of 
information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, the 
Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality.

One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with the 
biologically inspired concept of information as a difference which makes a 
difference (Bateson). This is observed information by a system which can 
provide meaning to the information.

I would not call this anti-realist, but anti-positivist. The specification 
in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as different from res 
extensa). All of physics also has this epistemological status. All other 
science, too, but sometimes positivism is ideologically prevailing.

Best wishes,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/







___

fis mailing list

fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es

https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis




--

Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro

Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany

Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics 
(http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org)

Director, Steinbeis-Transfer-Institute Information Ethics (STI-IE), Karlsruhe, 
Germany (http://sti-ie.de)

Distinguished Researcher in Information Ethics, School of Information Studies, 
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA

President, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) 
(http://icie.zkm.de)

Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) 
(http://www.i-r-i-e.net)

Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany

E-Mail: raf...@capurro.demailto:raf...@capurro.de

Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)

Homepage: www.capurro.dehttp://www.capurro.de
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?

2009-01-16 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Loet,

I agree with you.
The goal is not to reduce everything to physics and to stay at elementary 
particle level.
But the good thing is to be able to go down to elementary particle level with 
the same principle.
How to build up understanding of the whole architecture of existing things, 
physical objects (including biological ones),
minds, societies - is a question of complex systems and those all seem to be 
organized via exchange of information.
Best regards,
Gordana




From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 16 januari 2009 19:47
To: 'Pedro C. Marijuan'; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?

Dear Gordana, Pedro, and colleagues,

That would be unfortunate because a reduction of the information-theoretical 
approach to physics unnecessarily sacrifices explanatory power. (As would by 
the way, a reduction to biology or any other substantive theory.) At issue is 
--as you correctly note-- the autopoiesis model itself which allows for 
coordination at different systems level. The formalisms allow us to move from 
one level to another heuristically, and thus to specify if necessary 
counter-intuitively.

For example, the market can be considered as a social coordination system with 
its own dynamics. The coordination with other coordination mechanisms by 
various forms of couplings can also be studied using the 
information-theoretical approach because the expected information content of a 
distribution is yet content-free. The specification of a system of reference 
provides the (Shannon-type) information with meaning. For example, when H is 
multiplied with the Boltzmann constant, the entropy is expressed in 
Joule/Kelvin and physics is the system of reference. However, this is a special 
case. Joule and degrees have no clear meaning in the case of the operation of 
the market as a coordination mechanism.

Best wishes,


Loet




Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/



From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 2:46 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?
Dear Gordana and Loet,

This is what the editors of the book literally say:

The third main idea is that Coordination Dynamics deals with informational 
quantities that transcend the medium through which the parts communicate. 
Evidence shows that things may be coupled by mechanical forces, by light, by 
sound, by smell, by touch and by intention. In Coordination Dynamics, binding 
or coupling is mediated by information, not --or not only-- by conventional 
forces. Such information may not only be of a material but also of a structural 
or topological nature. It may cause qualitative changes in the dynamics of the 
coordinating parts and new states to emerge. Hence, bound coordinative states 
in Coordination Dynamics are informational, and information that changes bound 
states is meaningful to the system. (Preface, p. IX)


I agree with Gordana that it may support a pan-physicalist approach to 
information, and vice versa, a pan-informationalist approach to physics too. 
Besides, the ongoing conceptualization of meaning looks rather meager. From my 
view, another important objection to the 8 main ideas is the absence of any 
reference to self-production (very different from self-organization!); the 
life-cycle notion is also missing...

Linking with the discussion that Michel started weeks ago, rather than 
situating a similar recollection of main ideas about the term information, it 
could be  more interesting putting into question what it means being 
informational. Say, the adjective as more holistic than the name. The whole 
process around the message (generation  needs, coding, emission, transmission, 
reception, decoding, interpretation, action...) becomes the natural universe of 
information science, rather than the focus on any single conceptual item 
(wherever we may be willing to situate information). Curiously, 
informational in English  in Spanish does not exist (only informative, I 
think, but it means something completely different). What informational would 
be indicating, roughly, is that an entity self-constructs itself through the 
coupling of inner and environmental signals... as happens with cells, 
organisms, enterprises, etc.

best regards

Pedro



3.  Thereafter, the coordination dynamics deals with informational

quantities that transcend the medium through which the parts

communicate. The binding or coupling is mediated by information and

not by conventional forces (or not only)



But isn't that exchange of information carrier the way physical forces

conventionally are - 

Re: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?

2009-01-15 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Dear Pedro,

Happy New Year to you too.
Thank you very much for this interesting reference.
Fascinating how many fields converge nowadays!

Based on your mail and without having read the book yet,
I have one thought.

You say:
3.  Thereafter, the coordination dynamics deals with informational
quantities that transcend the medium through which the parts
communicate. The binding or coupling is mediated by information and
not by conventional forces (or not only)

But isn't that exchange of information carrier the way physical forces
conventionally are - exchange forces?
Particles that are exchanged in particle physics are information carriers
(or messages if one so will).

Best regards,
Gordana





Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Associate Professor
Mälardalen University
Sweden
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc



-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: den 15 januari 2009 14:20
To: fis
Subject: [Fis] Emerging Synthesis?

Dear FIS colleagues,

Notwithstanding the delay, Happy New Year to All!

Although the year has not started terrificly (there have been negative
news regarding the planned conference in Vienna, and also other
organizing initiatives seem to be in stand by), it does not mean that
things will go necessarily in the wrongway... Well, having a glance on a
relatively recent book (2004) about Coordination Dynamics edited by
V.K. Jirsa and Scott Kelso, it was a surprise finding a short and dense
Preface synthesizing the basic tenets of the proposed new field: most
contents were related to information (rather than a science of
coordination one wonders whether they were attempting a new science of
Information). I summarize their eight main ideas presented in a dense,
three pages text:

--
0. The goal of Coordination Dynamics, the science of coordination, is to
describe, explain and predict how patterns of coordination form, adapt,
persist and change in natural systems ultimately how things come
together in space and time, and how they split apart.

1. The basic patterns of coordination relate to self-organization
processes.

2. Those self-organization processes can be captured by coordination or
collective variables that evolve in time: patterns dynamics capable of
generating a rich repertoire of behaviors.

3.  Thereafter, the coordination dynamics deals with informational
quantities that transcend the medium through which the parts
communicate. The binding or coupling is mediated by information and
not by conventional forces (or not only)

4. Coordination Dynamics offers an explanation for the origin of
meaningful information, beyond the binary digits (bits),  by coordinated
states, metastability regimes, and coexisting tendencies.

5. It also provide foundations for explaining the biological origins of
agency and consciousness: information once created and stored can
direct, guide and modify  the existing coordination dynamics.

6. Information plays a specific and dual role: it may stabilize
coordination states under conditions in which they are unstable and
susceptible to global change; and it can also destabilize such states in
order to fit the need of the organism or the current demands of the
situation.

7. Coordination Dynamics offers a way to connect levels of organizations
out from the lawful coupling among components: it advocates a philosophy
of constructive reductionism.

8. Ubiquity of Coordination Dynamics: between genes and proteins, within
and between different regions of the brain, between an organism and its
environment, socially, etc. It offers the intriguing possibility that
what we learn about the Coordination Dynamics in one realm may aid in
understanding another.
-

One can easily disagree with some points, write them differently, or
change the focus; but the emerging synthesis looks brave, and has some
merit. At least, the impact it is achieving looks remarkable (previous
decades of synergetics and other similar fields help a bit). At FIS we
have rarely attempted the discussion of a succinct synthesis, and of
course not have appended a whole book with related works... it is not a
bad idea to keep in mind, maybe just as a New Year proposal.

best wishes

Pedro


Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50.009 Zaragoza. España
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

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



___
fis mailing list
fis

Re: [Fis] The Identity of Ethics and Integrity

2006-05-12 Thread Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic




At the very best, your definition/inference holds only when singular
societal value sets are the criteria for judgment. A general
attachment of 'integrity' with morals is improper. James Rose

Here I think we have an important distinction that is good to make
having in mind the rapid process of globalization that is going on. It
is also relevant for Alexs remarks.

It seems to me that one of the central issues right now is that of a
dialogue. There are importantly different ethical points of view within
different societies. There are different judgments dependent on how you
set your values/priorities. To me, the most reasonable way to solve
such problems is a dialogue. One way or the other human rules of the
game are negotiated. I agree with Steven that it is important to find
common denominators. If you want a dialogue between different value
systems (and what would be the alternative?) it is good to start from
what can be identified as common.

Lawrence Hinman for example identifies the three most fundamental
ethical principles as:
1. Value human life (not killing the members of your group)
2. Taking care of children
3. Trust (that establishes the stable rules for the system)

Naturally the central question is whom you experience as a member of
your group  humanity or your best friends.

Back to the need of defining (global) ethics, one might say that one
thing happens here, as often in the history of philosophy  philosophy
is progressing by leaving parts of its territories to the science. It
seems to me good at this stage to make scientific all that may be made
scientific, but not more than that (paraphrasing Einsteins advice to
make simple all the may be simplified, but not more than that). Part of
ethical judgment may be built into expert systems. Simulations may help
to predict the consequences of different ethical positions. (Here the
practical action - what can be done and how  is on focus).

The question of integrity that appears on many different scales 
integrity of a state related to other states, integrity of a group
among other groups, integrity of an individual in relation to other
individuals, groups, etc. What would be the value of those different
integrities? The answer is emerging as a result of interaction/dialogue
on different levels, and we hopefully are contributing to it. 

I like Michaels view:
The word "health" comes from the same root in language as the word
"wholeness". Psychological health comes from integration, and an
essential part of this is the process of remembering, i.e., bringing
the memory objects into an integrated structure of mind.  

It is a very general idea, and it can be applied in different value
systems and at different levels of granularity.

Best,
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/




James N Rose wrote:

  I would like to challenge this as a category error.
Integrity does not have to be linked with ethics
or morals.

A cannibal who remains true to his/her collective's
code of behavior and eats other people is outside
the coda of other society's "ethics or morals",
but has 'integrity' within his/her social order.

At the very best, your defnition/inference holds
only when singular societal value sets are
the criteria for judgement.  A general attachment
of 'integrity' with morals is improper.

James Rose
 





"Michael Leyton (by way of Pedro Marijuan )" wrote:
  
  
So it is by refusing to remember, that the
non-integrated person, i.e., the person without integrity,
becomes an unethical person.

best
Michael Leyton


  
  
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
  




___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis