Re: [Fis] If always n>0 why we need log
I am in agreement with Guy Hoelzer in his assessment of the use of log-transformed data. Since I regularly deal with biological growth processes, using log-transformed data is the clearest way to anaylyze proportional relationships in nonlinear sysrtems. By virtue of the way it compresses multiplicative relations log transformation makes scale-free comparison much more tractable and correlations much more obvious. And compression is one of the most important benefits of mathematical analysis. On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote: > Dear Sung et al., > > I appreciate human bias in terms of numerical scale, but I don’t think > that is what we actually achieve by using logarithms. If the universe of > possibility is fractal, using a logarithm does not eliminate the problem of > large numbers. I think the primary outcome achieved by using logarithms is > that units come to represent proportions rather than absolute (fixed scale) > amounts. It reveals an aspect of scale-free form. > > > > On Jun 3, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > Hi Krassimir, > > I think the main reason that we express 'information' as a logarithmic > function of the number of choices available, n, may be because the human > brain finds it easier to remember (and communicate and reason with) 10 > than 100, or 100 than 10. . . . 0, etc. > > All the best. > > Sung > > > > -- > *From:* Krassimir Markov > *Sent:* Sunday, June 3, 2018 12:06 PM > *To:* Foundation of Information Science > *Cc:* Sungchul Ji > *Subject:* If always n>0 why we need log > > Dear Sung, > > A simple question: > > If always n>0 why we need log in > > I = -log_2(m/n) = - log_2 (m) + log_2(n) (1) > > Friendly greetings > > Krassimir > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman% > 2Flistinfo%2Ffis=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu% > 7C82bf20333c6c4fd9707c08d5c97971b4%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd > 31d8%7C1=jOf1JAeFzo8p1ymXpGvzLgJ25ZBeFI6sVksQvbpQYhU%3D=0 > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
It is so easy to get into a muddle mixing technical uses of a term with colloquial uses, and add a dash of philosophy and discipline-specific terminology and it becomes mental quicksand. Terms like 'information' and 'meaning" easily lead us into these sorts of confusions because they have so many context-sensitive and pardigm-specific uses. This is well exhibited in these FIS discusions, and is a common problem in many interdisciplinary discussions. I have regularly requested that contributors to FIS try to label which paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information' in these posts, but sometimes, like fish unaware that they are in water, one forgets that there can be alternative paradigms (such as the one Søren suggests). So to try and avoid overly technical usage can you be specific about what you intend to denote with these terms. E.g. for the term "information" are you referring to statisitica features intrinsic to the character string with respect to possible alternatives, or what an interpreter might infer that this English sentence refers to, or whether this reference carries use value or special significance for such an interpreter? And e.g. for the term 'meaning' are you referring to what a semantician would consider its underlying lexical structure, or whether the sentence makes any sense, or refers to anything in the world, or how it might impact some reader? Depending how you specify your uses your paradox will become irresolvable or dissolve. — Terry On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the > following inference, I call it *Paradox of Meaning and Information* or > *Armenia > Paradox*. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below > and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. > > > > Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main > media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two > students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper > headline “*Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night*”: > > Q: What is the *MEANING* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Q: What is the *INFORMATION* contained in this sentence? > > A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. > > Thus we come to the conclusion that *MEANING is equal to INFORMATION*, or > strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In > Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In > Information Science, the study of human information is called Human > Informatics. > > Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of > human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or > Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human > language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions > here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. > > Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its > main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one > of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with > the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, > thus we have the following corollary: > > A: *Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics*. > > According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle > for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human > Informatics, so we have another corollary: > > B: *Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics*. > > Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a > paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement > about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a > subject, but how should we understand this paradox? > > > > Best wishes, > > Xueshan > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory
t;> 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 >> >> > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Biosemiotics
Dear colleagues, This coming June 2018 I will be hosting the 18th Annual Biosemiotics Gathering in Berkeley, California (June 17-20). The URL describing the conference and solicitiing abstracts for presentations is: http://www.biosemiotics.life The email address for submitting abstracts (titled with your name) is: biosemiotics2...@gmail.com The submission deadline is Feb. 20. I hope this announcement reaches any interested readers and doesn't violate any FIS restrictions. Feel free to write to me directly if you need more information at dea...@berkeley.edu Sincerely, -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul
gt;> molecualr biological, bioinformatic and linguistic implications. >> <http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Isomorphism1.pdf> >> *BioSystems* 44:17-39. PDF at http://www.conformon.net/wp >> -content/uploads/2012/05/Isomorphism1.pdf >> >> [6] Ji, S. (2017). The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and >> Matter. World Scientific, New Jersey. Chapter 5*. * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Emanuel Diamant < >> emanl@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 11:20 AM >> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es >> *Subject:* [Fis] I salute to Sungchul >> >> >> Dear FISers, >> >> >> >> I would like to express my pleasure with the current state of our >> discourse – an evident attempt to reach a more common understanding about >> information issues and to enrich preliminary given assessments. >> >> In this regard, I would like to add my comment to Sungchul’s post of >> January 12, 2018. >> >> >> >> Sungchul proposes “to recognize two distinct types of information which, >> for the lack of better terms, may be referred to as the "meaningless >> information" or I(-) and "meaningful information" or I(+)”. >> >> That is exactly what I am trying to put forward for years, albeit under >> more historically rooted names: Physical and Semantic information [1]. >> Never mind, what is crucially important here is that the duality of >> information becomes publicly recognized and accepted by FIS community. >> >> >> >> I salute to Sungchul’s suggestion! >> >> >> >> Best regards, Emanuel. >> >> >> >> [1] Emanuel Diamant, *The brain is processing information, not data. >> Does anybody care?, *ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract. >> http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842 >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciforum.net%2Fconference%2Fisis-summit-vienna-2015%2Fpaper%2F2842=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C89f81861ee684f05e46b08d559d86fe1%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636513708497810284=bMlZ324OoEHA5XMQibKiEFsm75NhcpkfIcSRUJbQZNg%3D=0> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> > > > -- > Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) > Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, > SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle > Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India > Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 <+44%207710%20534195> > Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 <+91%2090080%2008789> > > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] some notes
On communication: "Communication" needs to be more carefully distinguished from mere transfer of physical differences from location to location and time to time. Indeed, any physical transfer of physical differences in this respect can be utilized to communicate, and all communication requires this physical foundation. But there is an important hierarchic distinction that we need to consider. Simply collapsing our concept of 'communication' to its physical substrate (and ignoring the process of interpretation) has the consequence of treating nearly all physical processes as communication and failing to distinguish those that additionally convey something we might call representational content. Thus while internet communication and signals transferred between computers do indeed play an essential role in human communication, we only have to imagine a science fiction story in which all human interpreters suddenly disappear but our computers nevertheless continue to exchange signals, to realize that those signals are not "communicating" anything. At that point they would only be physically modifying one another, not communicating, except in a sort of metaphoric sense. This sort of process would not be fundamentally different from solar radiation modifying atoms in the upper atmosphere or any other similar causal process. It would be odd to say that the sun is thereby communicating anything to the atmosphere. So, while I recognize that there are many methodological contexts in which it makes little difference whether or not we ignore this semiotic aspect, as many others have also hinted, this is merely to bracket from consideration what really distinguishes physical transfer of causal influence from communication. Remember that this was a methodological strategy that even Shannon was quick to acknowledge in the first lines of his classic paper. We should endeavor to always be as careful. — Terry ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Adding dimensions
> > > > > > > ___ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Dr. Mark William Johnson > Institute of Learning and Teaching > Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > University of Liverpool > > Phone: 07786 064505 > Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com > Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The two very important operations of Infos
Adding a temporal dimension has often been offered as a way out of paradox in quasi-physical terms. This is because interpreting paradoxical logical relations or calculating their values generally produces interminably iterating self-contradicting or self-undermining results. Writers from G. S. Brown to Gregory Bateson (among others) have pointed out that one can resolve this in *process* terms (rather than assuming undecidable values) by focusing on this incessant oscillation itself (i.e. a meta-analysis that recognizes that the process of operating on these relations cannot be neglected).Using this meta-analysis one can take advantage of the dynamic that calculation or intepretation entails. It is also, of course, the way we make use of so-called imaginary values in mathematics, whose iteratively calculated results incessantly reverse sign from negative to positive. By simply accepting this fact as given and marking it with a distinctive token (e.g. "*i*" ) effectively generates an additional dimension that is useful in a wide range of applications from fourier to quantum analyses. So my question is whether using this mirror metaphor can be seen as a variant on this general approach. It also resonates with efforts to understand the interpretation of information in related terms (e.g. using complex numbers). — Terry PS A bit of reflection (no pun intended) also suggests that it is also relevant to our discussions about agency (which like the concept of "information" must be understood at different levels that need to be distinguished because they can easily be confused). My earlier point about the normative aspect of agency (and consistent with the previously posted URL to the paper by Barandiaran et al.) is that this implies the need for incessant contrary work to negate perturbation away from some "preferred" value or state. Although there can be many levels of displaced agency in both natural and artificial agents (like cybernetic systems such as thermostats and many biological regulative subsystems), there cannot be interminable regress of this displacement to establish these norms. At some point normativity requires ontological grounding where the grounded normative relation is the preservation of the systemic physical properties that produce the norm-preserving dynamic. This is paradoxically circular—a "strang loop" in Hofstadter's lingo. This avoids vicious regress as well avoiding assuming a cryptic "observer perspective." But it therefore requires that we treat different levels and degrees of "normative displacement" differently from one another. This both echoes Loet's point that we should not expect a single concept of agency, but it alternatively suggest that we may be able to construct a nested hierarchy of agency concepts (as Stan might suggest). So I glimpse that a set of parallel and converging views may underlie these superficially different domains of debate. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com> wrote: > Dear Lou, Bruno, and FIS Colleagues, > > Thank you for nice and polite comments to my post about “Barber paradox”. > > First of all, the main idea of the post was not to solve any paradox but > to point two very important operations of Infos: > - Direct reflection; > - Transitive (indirect) reflection. > There are no other ways for Infos to collect data from environment. > > Second, the example with paradox had shown the well known creative > approach in the modeling - adding new dimensions in the model could help > to better understand the modeling object or process. For instance: > > If our linear model contains a “paradox” point “X”: > > //X// > > by adding a new second dimension it may be explained and the paradox would > be solved: > > \ > / > - > //X// > > > Friendly greetings > Krassimir > > > ___________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
AUTONOMOUS AGENCY: The definition I propose for autonomous agency It is open to challenge. Of course, there are many ways that we use the term 'agent' in more general and metaphoric ways. I am, however, interested in the more fundamental conception that these derived uses stem from. I do not claim that this definition is original, but rather that it is what we implicitly understand by the concept. So if this is not your understanding I am open to suggestions for modification. I should add that it has been a recent goal of my work to describe an empirically testable simplest model system that satisfies this definition. Those of you who are familiar with my work will recognize that this is what I call an autogenic or teleodynamic system. In this context, however, it is only the adequacy of the definition that I am interested in exploring. As in many of the remarks of others on this topic it is characterized by strange-loop recursivity, self-reference, and physicality. And it may be worth while describing how this concept is defined by e.g. Hofstadter, von Foerster, Luhmann, Moreno, Kauffman, Barad, and others, to be sure that we have covered the critical features and haven't snuck in any "demons". In my definition, I have attempted to avoid any cryptic appeal to observers or unexamined teleological properties, because my purpose is instead to provide a constructive definition of what these properties entail and why they are essential to a full conception of information. CENTRALITY OF NORMATIVE PROPERTIES: A critical factor when discussing agency is that it is typically defined with respect to "satisfaction conditions" or "functions" or "goals" or other NORMATIVE properties. Normative properties are all implicitly teleological. They are irrelevant to chemistry and physics. The concept of an "artificial agent" may not require intrinsic teleology (e.g. consider thermostats or guidance systems - often described as teleonomic systems) but the agentive properties of such artifacts are then implicitly parasitic on imposed teleology provided by some extrinsic agency. This is of course implicit also in the concepts of 'signal' and 'noise' which are central to most information concepts. These are not intrinsic properties of information, but are extrinsically imposed distinctions (e.g. noise as signal to the repair person). So I consider the analysis of agency and its implicit normativity to be a fundamental issue to be resolved in our analysis of information. Though we can still bracket any consideration of agency from many analyses my simply assuming it (e.g. assumed users, interpreters, organisms and their functions, etc.), but this explicitly leaves a critical defining criterion outside the analysis. In these cases, we should just be clear that in doing so we have imported unexplained boundary conditions into the analysis by fiat. Depending on the goal of the analysis (also a teleological factor) this may be unimportant. But the nature and origin of agency and normativity remain foundational questions for any full theory of information. On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu> wrote: > Here is an interesting recent treatment of autonomy. > > Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio: Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical > > and Theoretical Enquiry (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life > Sciences 12); > > Springer, Dordrecht, 2015, xxxiv + 221 pp., $129 hbk, ISBN > 978-94-017-9836-5 > > > STAN > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> > wrote: > >> AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT IS A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM ORGANIZED TO BE CAPABLE OF >> INITIATING PHYSICAL WORK TO FURTHER PRESERVE THIS SAME CAPACITY IN THE >> CONTEXT OF INCESSANT EXTRINSIC AND/OR INTRINSIC TENDENCIES FOR THIS SYSTEM >> CAPACITY TO DEGRADE. >> >> >> THIS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE WORK THAT IS SPECIFICALLY CONTRAGRADE >> TO THE FORM OF THIS DEGRADATIONAL INFLUENCE, AND THUS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO >> BE INFORMED BY THE EFFECTS OF THAT INFLUENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENT’S >> CRITICAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS. >> >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Koichiro Matsuno <cxq02...@nifty.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our >>> universe. >>> >>> >>> >>>This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem >>> (2006). If (a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise >>> their free will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and >>> molecules lack their share of the similar capacity. For our bodies >>> ev
Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT IS A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM ORGANIZED TO BE CAPABLE OF INITIATING PHYSICAL WORK TO FURTHER PRESERVE THIS SAME CAPACITY IN THE CONTEXT OF INCESSANT EXTRINSIC AND/OR INTRINSIC TENDENCIES FOR THIS SYSTEM CAPACITY TO DEGRADE. THIS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE WORK THAT IS SPECIFICALLY CONTRAGRADE TO THE FORM OF THIS DEGRADATIONAL INFLUENCE, AND THUS ENTAILS A CAPACITY TO BE INFORMED BY THE EFFECTS OF THAT INFLUENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENT’S CRITICAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS. On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Koichiro Matsuno <cxq02...@nifty.com> wrote: > On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote: > > > > the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe. > > > >This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem > (2006). If (a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise > their free will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and > molecules lack their share of the similar capacity. For our bodies > eventually consist of those atoms and molecules. > > > >Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent > atoms and molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob > Ulanowicz at long last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case > would have to forcibly be dismissed. > > > >This has been my second post this week. > > > >Koichiro Matsuno > > > > > > > > *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Alex > Hankey > *Sent:* Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42 AM > *To:* Arthur Wist <arthur.w...@gmail.com>; FIS Webinar < > Fis@listas.unizar.es> > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”? > > > > David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they > are as fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass. > > > > Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those > emphasized by complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be > non-reducible and fundamental to our universe. > > > > Alex > > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information
Against "meaning" I think that there is a danger of allowing our anthropocentrism to bias the discussion. I worry that the term 'meaning' carries too much of a linguistic bias. By this I mean that it is too attractive to use language as our archtypical model when we talk about information. Language is rather the special case, the most unusual communicative adaptation to ever have evolved, and one that grows out of and depends on informationa/semiotic capacities shared with other species and with biology in general. So I am happy to see efforts to bring in topics like music or natural signs like thunderstorms and would also want to cast the net well beyond humans to include animal calls, scent trails, and molecular signaling by hormones. And it is why I am more attracted to Peirce and worried about the use of Saussurean concepts. Words and sentences can indeed provide meanings (as in Frege's Sinn - "sense" - "intension") and may also provide reference (Frege's Bedeutung - "reference" - "extension"), but I think that it is important to recognize that not all signs fit this model. Moreover, A sneeze is often interpreted as evidence about someone's state of health, and a clap of thunder may indicate an approaching storm. These can also be interpreted differently by my dog, but it is still information about something, even though I would not say that they mean something to that interpreter. Both of these phenomena can be said to provide reference to something other than that sound itself, but when we use such phrases as "it means you have a cold" or "that means that a storm is approaching" we are using the term "means" somewhat metaphorically (most often in place of the more accurate term "indicates"). And it is even more of a stretch to use this term with respect to pictures or diagrams. So no one would say the a specific feature like the ears in a caricatured face mean something. Though if the drawing is employed in a political cartoon e.g. with exaggerated ears and the whole cartoon is assigned a meaning then perhaps the exaggeration of this feature may become meaningful. And yet we would probably agree that every line of the drawing provides information contributing to that meaning. So basically, I am advocating an effort to broaden our discussions and recognize that the term information applies in diverse ways to many different contexts. And because of this it is important to indicate the framing, whether physical, formal, biological, phenomenological, linguistic, etc. For this reason, as I have suggested before, I would love to have a conversation in which we try to agree about which different uses of the information concept are appropriate for which contexts. The classic syntax-semantics-pragmatics distinction introduced by Charles Morris has often been cited in this respect, though it too is in my opinion too limited to the linguistic paradigm, and may be misleading when applied more broadly. I have suggested a parallel, less linguistic (and nested in Stan's subsumption sense) way of making the division: i.e. into intrinsic, referential, and normative analyses/properties of information. Thus you can analyze intrinsic properties of an informing medium [e.g. Shannon etc etc] irrespective of these other properties, but can't make sense of referential properties [e.g. what something is about, conveys] without considering intrinsic sign vehicle properties, and can't deal with normative properties [e.g. use value, contribution to function, significance, accuracy, truth] without also considering referential properties [e.g. what it is about]. In this respect, I am also in agreement with those who have pointed out that whenever we consider referential and normative properties we must also recognize that these are not intrinsic and are interpretation-relative. Nevertheless, these are legitimate and not merely subjective or nonscientific properties, just not physically intrinsic. I am sympathetic with those among us who want to restrict analysis to intrinsic properties alone, and who defend the unimpeachable value that we have derived from the formal foundations that Shannon's original analysis initiated, but this should not be used to deny the legitimacy of attempting to develop a more general theory of information that also attempts to discover formal principles underlying these higher level properties implicit in the concept. I take this to be the intent behind Pedro's list. And I think it would be worth asking for each of his points: Which information paradigm within this hoierarchy does it assume? — Terry ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fw: PRINCIPLES OF IS. The Pre-Science of Information
> in the different organization layers, but at the same time they should try > to be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the > information world. > And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too > optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first > glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very > interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier, > Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments / > criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and > Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival > end to this info principles discussion (both attended the Madrid bygone FIS > 1994 conference)... > But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and the > chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with the > only customary limitation of two messages per week. > > Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro > > *10 **PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE* > > 1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy. > > 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or > flows. > > 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed > (either computationally or non-computationally). > > 4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production > processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying > energy flows. > > 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie > the complexity of biological organizations at all scales. > > 6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication > exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social > nature." > > 7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient > knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by applying > rigorous methodologies. > > 8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially > overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies." > > 9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous > actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and > disciplines: the intellectual *Ars Magna.* > > 10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the information > and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with profound > consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social > governance. > > -- > - > Pedro C. Marijuán > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) > Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0 > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 <+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (& > 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > - > > -- > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH
gt; to be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the > information world. > And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too > optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first > glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very > interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier, > Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments / > criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and > Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival > end to this info principles discussion(both attended the Madrid bygone > FIS 1994 conference)... > But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and the > chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with the > only customary limitation of two messages per week. > > Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro > > *10 **PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE* > > 1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy. > > 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or > flows. > > 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed > (either computationally or non-computationally). > > 4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production > processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying > energy flows. > > 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie > the complexity of biological organizations at all scales. > > 6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication > exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social > nature." > > 7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient > knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by applying > rigorous methodologies. > > 8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially > overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies." > > 9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous > actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and > disciplines: the intellectual *Ars Magna.* > > 10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the information > and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with profound > consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social > governance. > > -- > - > Pedro C. Marijuán > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) > Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0 > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 <+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (& > 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > - > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
How many readers recall the fear that preceded the first test of a fission bomb, and then later of a fusion bomb, that such an explosion could ignite the earth's atmosphere? Sound familiar? I can even recall the reasoning that led some to argue that reaching the speed of sound in the atmosphere would cause any object (aircraft) to shatter as though striking an immovable solid object. I don't mention these cases to say that one should always ignore such worries, but rather to explore the abductive and statistical reasoning processes that we often use to make such decisions. This is loosely related to the reasoning that causes lottery ticket purchases to soar as both the probability of winning plummets as the prize value grows. The psychology is well studied and yet the empirical science side of this issue is not. We have a very minimal understanding of how to assess the "probable significance" of alternative unproved theoretical predictions. This is of course an issue of understanding the referential and normative aspects of information. — Terry On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:06 AM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ < pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: > Dear FISers, > > Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions. > I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity. > But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and > counter-arguments... > > Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year! > --Pedro > > > > -- > *De:* Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com] > *Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51 > *Para:* PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ > *Asunto:* NY session > -- > > *A Curious Story* > > Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany > > Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then make > it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I can save > your house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and you respond by > saying “I don’t care.” This curious story is taken from the Buddhist > bible. > > It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a lunatic > person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a time-bomb about to > be planted into it. In that case, there would be no reason to worry. On the > other hand, it could also be that you, the manager, are a bit high at the > moment so that you don't fully appreciate the offer made to you. How > serious is my offer herewith made to you today? > > I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no > counter-proof in the literature to my at first highly publicized proof of > danger. I was able to demonstrate that the miniature black holes officially > attempted to be produced at CERN do possess two radically new properties: > > >- they cannot Hawking evaporate >- they grow exponentially inside matter > > > If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing > ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva means > that the slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and grow there > exponentially to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole after several of > undetectable growth. Therefore the current attempt of CERN's to produce > them near Geneva is a bit curious. > > What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one finds > it curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor informs the > candidate about the outcome of the oral exam with the following words “You > are bound to laugh but you have flunked the test.” I never understood the > punchline. I likewise cannot understand why a never refuted proof of the > biggest danger of history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check an > unattended piece of luggage on the airport called Earth? > > To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very reason > that everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof would thus > alleviate but a single person’s fears – mine. You, my dear reader, are thus > my last hope that you might be able to explain the punch line to me: “Why > is it that it does not matter downstairs that the first floor is ablaze?” I > am genuinely curious to learn why attempting planetocide is fun. Are you > not? > > For J.O.R. > --- > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
Leot remarks: "... we need a kind of calculus of redundancy." I agree whole-heartedly. What for Shannon was the key to error-correction is thus implicitly normative. But of course assessment of normativity (accurate/inacurate, useful/unuseful, significant/insignificant) must necessarily involve an "outside" perspective, i.e. more than merely the statistics of sign medium chartacteristics. Redundancy is also implicit in concepts like communication, shared understanding, iconism, and Fano's "mutual information." But notice too that redundancy is precisely non-information in a strictly statistical understanding of that concept; a redundant message is not itself "news" — and yet it can reduce the uncertainty of what is "message" and what is "noise." It is my intuition that by developing a formalization (e.g. a "calculus") using the complemetary notions of redundancy and constraint that we will ultimately be able formulate a route from Shannon to the higher-order conceptions of information, in which referential and normative features can be precisely formulated. There is an open door, though it still seems pretty dark on the other side. So one must risk stumbling in order to explore that space. Happy 2017, Terry On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: > Dear List, > > > > I agree with Terry that we should not be bound by our own partial > theories. We need an integrated view of information that shows its > relations in all of its various forms. There is a family resemblance in the > ways it is used, and some sort of taxonomy can be constructed. I recommend > that of Luciano Floridi. His approach is not unified (unlike my own, > reported on this list), but compatible with it, and is a place to start, > though it needs expansion and perhaps modification. There may be some > unifying concept of information, but its application to all the various > ways it has been used will not be obvious, and a sufficiently general > formulation my well seem trivial, especially to those interested in the > vital communicative and meaningful aspects of information. I also agree > with Loet that pessimism, however justified, is not the real problem. To > some extent it is a matter of maturity, which takes both time and > development, not to mention giving up cherished juvenile enthusiasms. > > > > I might add that constructivism, with its positivist underpinnings, tends > to lead to nominalism and relativism about whatever is out there. I believe > that this is a major hindrance to a unified understanding. I understand > that it appeared in reaction to an overzealous and simplistic realism about > science and other areas, but I think it through the baby out with the > bathwater. > > > > I have been really ill, so my lack of communication. I am pleased to see > this discussion, which is necessary for the field to develop maturity. I > thought I should add my bit, and with everyone a Happy New Year, with all > its possibilities. > > > > Warmest regards to everyone, > > John > > > > *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Loet > Leydesdorff > *Sent:* December 31, 2016 12:16 AM > *To:* 'Terrence W. DEACON' <dea...@berkeley.edu>; 'Dai Griffiths' < > dai.griffith...@gmail.com>; 'Foundations of Information Science > Information Science' <fis@listas.unizar.es> > > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life? > > > > We agree that such a theory is a ways off, though you some are far more > pessimisitic about its possibility than me. I believe that we would do best > to focus on the hole that needs filling in rather than assuming that it is > an unfillable given. > > > > Dear Terrence and colleagues, > > > > It is not a matter of pessimism. We have the example of “General Systems > Theory” of the 1930s (von Bertalanffy and others). Only gradually, one > realized the biological metaphor driving it. In my opinion, we have become > reflexively skeptical about claims of “generality” because we know the > statements are framed within paradigms. Translations are needed in this > fractional manifold. > > > > I agree that we are moving in a fruitful direction. Your book “Incomplete > Nature” and “The Symbolic Species” have been important. The failing options > cannot be observed, but have to be constructed culturally, that is, in > discourse. It seems to me that we need a kind of calculus of redundancy. > Perspectives which are reflexively aware of this need and do not assume an > unproblematic “given” or “natural” are perhaps to be privileged > nonetheless. The unobservbable options have first to be specified and we > need
Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
Thank you Francesco for a thoughtful commentary. I think that it is a wonderful reflection with which to mark the end of this tumultuous year and challenging discussions. Because I was moved by your senbtiment I crudely translate your words below. I hope it captures some of the elegance of your comment, especially the poetic last two lines. Thank you. Dear Terry, Joseph and All, Although it is difficult to pursue and achieve a degree of harmony despite dis-agreements, or to find a concrete logic or practical philosophy that is "good", "right" and "real", in order to understand what exists and to develop practical knowledge, there must be communication between humans that can lead recursively to a co-ordination of meaning. COMMUNICATION cannot be separated from information and inevitably has a sort of economics. So I think that the “use-value” of a shape or form applies in all fields, including physics, biology, mathematics, music, poetry, art, sculpture, etc. Thus, a piece of iron is valued less than a nail and a nail is valued less than a screw; a cell is valued less than a tissue and a tissue is valued less than an organ and a body is valued less than an organism; an undifferentiated stem cell (biological currency) is valued more than a differentiated cell; a musical note or a color is valued less than a musical score or a picture; a word is valued more than the individual vowels or consonants and less than a poem; a mathematical symbol is valued less than an equation or function; a point or a line is valued less than a geometric figure, etc. All forms must be MEANT, which is why the science of existence, or the existence of science, is ALWAYS BASED on the Triad: signification, information, communication. Finally, dis-equilibrium is vital and the breaking of symmetries or discontinuities can be creative. So you have to get busy using the elective affinities or synergies that are born between some of you or us to build, not to destroy, in order to generalize knowledge. Rather than remove a brick, it is better to insert one, not to build walls of separation or opposition, but bridges of communication. There will be others who come after us to bring other bricks. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Francesco Rizzo < 13francesco.ri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cari Terry, Joseph e Tutti, > anche se è più difficile da perseguire e realizzare l'armonia del > dis-accordo o la logica concreta o la filosofia pratica può essere "bella", > "buona", "giusta" e "vera", per comprendere la prassi dell'esistenza e il > dominio della conoscenza, nonché per svolgere la comunicazione tra gli > esseri umani come coordinazione comportamentale ricorsiva descritta > semanticamente. COMUNICAZIONE che non può prescindere dall'INFORMAZIONE (in > economia, ad es., utilizzo il valore della forma o la forma del valore che > secondo me vale in tutti i campi della fisica, della biologia, della > matematica, della musica, della poesia, dall'arte, della scultura, etc.): > un pezzo di ferro vale meno di un chiodo e un chiodo vale meno di una vite; > una cellula vale meno di un tessuto e un tessuto vale meno di un organo e > un organo vale meno di un organismo;una cellula staminale indifferenziata > (moneta biologica) vale più di una cellula differenziata; una nota o un > colore vale meno di uno spartito musicale o di un quadro; una parola vale > più delle singole vocali o consonanti e meno di una poesia; un simbolo > matematico vale meno di un'equazione o di una funzione; un punto o una > linea vale meno di una figura geometrica, etc. Qualunque forma deve essere > SIGNIFICATA, ecco perché la scienza dell'esistenza o l'esistenza della > scienza è SEMPRE BASATA sulla Triade: significazione, informazione, > comunicazione. Infine,il dis-equilibrio è vitale e la rottura delle > simmetrie o le discontinuità sono creative. > Quindi bisogna darsi da fare utilizzando le affinità elettive o sinergie > che sono nate anche tra alcuni di Voi o di Noi: per costruire, non per > distruggere arrivando dove si può arrivare per generalizzare il sapere: > piuttosto che toglierlo un mattone è meglio metterlo, non per costruire > muri di separazione o contrapposizioni, ma ponti di comunicazione. Saranno > quelli che vengono dopo a portare altri mattoni. > Francesco > > 2016-12-29 23:31 GMT+01:00 Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu>: > >> Dear Loet and others, >> >> I feel as though we are in search of a common general theory, but from >> divergent perspectives and expectations. Of course we should not merely >> assume a common general theopry of information if one doesn't yet exist. We >> agree that such a theory is a ways off, though you some are far more >> pessimisitic about its possibility than me. I believe that we would do best >>
Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
this is the level that Shannon lives on), >> biological interaction such body temperature relative to touch ice or heat >> source, social interaction such as this forum started by Pedro, economic >> interaction such as the stock market, ... [Lerner, page 1]. >> >> >> >> We are in need of a theory of meaning. Otherwise, one cannot measure >> meaningful information. In a previous series of communications we discussed >> redundancy from this perspective. >> >> >> >> Lerner introduces mathematical expectation E[Sap] (difference between of >> a priory entropy [sic] and a posteriori entropy), which is distinguished >> from the notion of relative information Iap (Learner, page 7). >> >> >> >> ) expresses in bits of information the information generated when the a >> priori distribution is turned into the a posteriori one . This follows >> within the Shannon framework without needing an observer. I use this >> equation, for example, in my 1995-book *The Challenge of Scientometrics* >> (Chapters 8 and 9), with a reference to Theil (1972). The relative >> information is defined as the *H*/*H*(max). >> >> >> >> I agree that the intuitive notion of information is derived from the >> Latin “in-formare” (Varela, 1979). But most of us do no longer use “force” >> and “mass” in the intuitive (Aristotelian) sense. J The proliferation of >> the meanings of information if confused with “meaningful information” is >> indicative for an “index sui et falsi”, in my opinion. The repetitive >> discussion lames the progression at this list. It is “like asking whether a >> glass is half empty or half full” (Hayles, 1990, p. 59). >> >> >> >> This act of forming forming an information process results in the >> construction of an observer that is the owner [holder] of information. >> >> >> >> The system of reference is then no longer the message, but the observer >> who provides meaning to the information (uncertainty). I agree that this is >> a selection process, but the variation first has to be specified >> independently (before it can be selected. >> >> >> >> And Lerner introduces the threshold between objective and subjective >> observes (page 27). This leads to a consideration selection and >> cooperation that includes entanglement. >> >> >> >> I don’t see a direct relation between information and entanglement. An >> observer can be entangled. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Loet >> >> >> >> PS. Pedro: Let me assume that this is my second posting in the week which >> ends tonight. L. >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> 4 Austin Dr. Prior Park St. James, Barbados BB23004 >> Tel: 246-421-8855 <%28246%29%20421-8855> >> Cell: 246-243-5938 <%28246%29%20243-5938> >> >> >> ___ >> Fis mailing >> listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> -- >> - >> >> Professor David (Dai) Griffiths >> Professor of Education >> School of Education and Psychology >> The University of Bolton >> Deane Road >> Bolton, BL3 5AB >> >> Office: T3 02http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC >> >> SKYPE: daigriffiths >> UK Mobile +44 (0)7491151559 <+44%207491%20151559> >> Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912 <+34%20687%2095%2059%2012> >> Work: + 44 (0)7826917705 <+44%207826%20917705> >> (Please don't leave voicemail) >> email: >>d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk >>dai.griffith...@gmail.com >> >> ___ Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > ___ > Fis mailing > listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- > - > > Professor David (Dai) Griffiths > Professor of Education > School of Education and Psychology > The University of Bolton > Deane Road > Bolton, BL3 5AB > > Office: T3 02http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC > > SKYPE: daigriffiths > UK Mobile +44 (0)7491151559 <+44%207491%20151559> > Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912 <+34%20687%2095%2059%2012> > Work: + 44 (0)7826917705 <+44%207826%20917705> > (Please don't leave voicemail) > email: >d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk >dai.griffith...@gmail.com > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
able us to import metaphors from other >> backgrounds (e.g., auto-catalysis). >> >> >> >> For example, one of us communicated with me why I was completely wrong, >> and made the argument with reference to Kullback-Leibler divergence between >> two probability distributions. Since we probably will not have “a general >> theory” of information, the apparatus in which information is formally and >> operationally defined—Bar-Hillel once called it “information calculus”—can >> carry this interdisciplinary function with precision and rigor. Otherwise, >> we can only be respectful of each other’s research traditions. J >> >> >> >> I wish you all a splendid 2017, >> >> Loet >> >> >> -- >> >> Loet Leydesdorff >> >> Professor, University of Amsterdam >> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) >> >> 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 Professor, 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 *Terrence >> W. DEACON >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 22, 2016 5:33 AM >> *To:* fis >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life? >> >> >> >> Against information fundamentalism >> >> >> >> Rather than fighting over THE definition of information, I suggest that >> we stand back from the polemics for a moment and recognize that the term is >> being used in often quite incompatible ways in different domains, and that >> there may be value in paying attention to the advantages and costs of each. >> To ignore these differences, to fail to explore the links and dependencies >> between them, and to be indifferent to the different use values gained or >> sacrificed by each, I believe that we end up undermining the very >> enterprise we claim to be promoting. >> >> >> >> We currently lack broadly accepted terms to unambiguously distinguish >> these divergent uses and, even worse, we lack a theoretical framework for >> understanding their relationships to one another. >> >> So provisionally I would argue that we at least need to distinguish three >> hierarchically related uses of the concept: >> >> >> >> 1. Physical information: Information as intrinsically measurable medium >> properties with respect to their capacity to support 2 or 3 irrespective of >> any specific instantiation of 2 or 3. >> >> >> >> 2. Referential information: information as a non-intrinsic relation to >> something other than medium properties (1) that a given medium can provide >> (i.e. reference or content) irrespective of any specific instantiation of 3. >> >> >> >> 3. Normative information: Information as the use value provided by a >> given referential relation (2) with respect to an end-directed dynamic that >> is susceptible to contextual factors that are not directly accessible (i.e. >> functional value or significance). >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, because of the history of using the same term in an >> unmodified way in each relevant domain irrespective of the others there are >> often pointless arguments of a purely definitional nature. >> >> >> >> In linguistic theory an analogous three-part hierarchic partitioning of >> theory IS widely accepted. >> >> >> >> 1. syntax >> >> 2. semantics >> >> 3. pragmatics >> >> >> >> Thus by analogy some have proposed the distinction between >> >> >> >> 1. syntactic information (aka Shannon) >> >> 2. semantic information (aka meaning) >> >> 3. pragmatic information (aka useful information) >> >> >> >> This has also often been applied to the philosophy of information (e.g. >> see The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy entry for ‘information’). >> Unfortunately, the language-centric framing of this distinction can be >> somewhat misleading. The metaphoric extension of the terms ‘syntax’ and >> ‘semantics’ to apply to iconic (e.g. pictorial) or indexical (e.g. >&
[Fis] _ Re: re Gödel discussion
cles, let me attempt to sketch the crux of the case > presented. > > The Liar Paradox contains an important lesson about meaning. A statement > that says of itself that it is false, gives rise to a paradox: if true, it > must be false, and if false, it must be true. Something has to be amiss > here. In fact, what is wrong is the statement in question is not a > statement at all; it is a pseudo-statement, something that looks like a > statement but is incomplete or vacuous. Like the pseudo-statement that > merely says of itself that it is true, it says nothing. Since such > self-referential truth-evaluations say nothing, they are neither true nor > false. Indeed, the predicates ‘true’ and ‘false’ can only be meaningfully > applied to what is already a meaningful whole, one that already says > something. > > The so-called Strengthened Liar Paradox features a pseudo-statement that > says of itself that it is neither true nor false. It is paradoxical in that > it apparently says something that is true while saying that what it says it > is not true. However, the paradox dissolves when one realizes that it says > something that is apparently true only because it is neither true nor > false. However, if it is neither true nor false, it is consequently not a > statement, and hence it says nothing. Since it says nothing, it cannot say > something that is true. The reason why it appears to say something true is > that one and the same string of words may be used to make either of two > declarations, one a pseudo-statement, the other a true statement, depending > on how the words refer. > > Consider the following example. Suppose we give the name ‘Joe’ to what I > am saying, and what I am saying is that Joe is neither true nor false. When > I say it, it is a pseudo-statement that is neither true nor false; when you > say it, it is a statement that is true. The sentence leads a double life, > as it were, in that it may be used to make two different statements > depending on who says it. A similar situation can also arise with a Liar > sentence: if the liar says that what he says is false, then he is saying > nothing; if I say that what he says is false, then I am making a false > statement about his pseudo-statement. > > This may look like a silly peculiarity of spoken language, one best > ignored in formal logic, but it is ultimately what is wrong with the Gödel > sentence that plays a key role in Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. That > sentence is a string of symbols deemed well-formed according to the > formation rules of the system used by Gödel, but which, on the intended > interpretation of the system, is ambiguous: the sentence has two different > interpretations, a self-referential truth-evaluation that is neither true > nor false or a true statement about that self-referential statement. In > such a system, Gödel’s conclusion holds. However, it is a mistake to > conclude that no possible formalization of Arithmetic can be complete. In a > formal system that distinguishes between the two possible readings of the > Gödel sentence (an operation that would considerably complicate the > system), such would no longer be the case. > **** > > Cheers, > Maxine > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Information and Locality Introduction
physical science and >> engineering. The towering influence of this line of thought, both with >> positive and negative overtones, cannot be overestimated. Most attempts >> to enlarge informational thought and to extend it to life, economies, >> societies, etc. continue to be but a reformulation of the former ideas >> with little added value. See one of the last creatures: "Why Information >> Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies" (2015), by Cesar >> Hidalgo (prof. at MIT). >> >> In my opinion, the extension of those classic ideas to life are very >> fertile from the technological point of view, from the "theory of >> molecular machines" for DNA-RNA-protein matching to genomic-proteomic >> and other omics' "big data". But all that technobrilliance does not >> open per se new avenues in order to produce innovative thought about the >> information stuff of human societies. Alternatively we may think that >> the accelerated digitalization of our world and the cyborg-symbiosis of >> human information and computer information do not demand much brain >> teasing, as it is a matter that social evolution is superseding by itself. >> >> The point I have ocasionally raised in this list is whether all the new >> molecular knowledge about life might teach us about a fundamental >> difference in the "way of being in the world" between life and inert >> matter (& mechanism & computation)---or not. In the recent compilation >> by Plamen and colleagues from the former INBIOSA initiative, I have >> argued about that fundamental difference in the intertwining of >> communication/self-production, how signaling is strictly caught in the >> advancement of a life cycle (see paper "How the living is in the >> world"). Life is based on an inusitate informational formula unknown in >> inert matter. And the very organization of life provides an original >> starting point to think anew about information --of course, not the only >> one. >> >> So, to conclude this "tangent", I find quite exciting the discussion we >> are starting now, say from the classical info positions onwards, in >> particularly to be compared in some future with another session (in >> preparation) with similar ambition but starting from say the >> phenomenology of the living. Struggling for a >> convergence/complementarity of outcomes would be a cavalier effort. >> >> All the best--Pedro >> >> >> >> Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: >> >> ...The subject is one that has concerned me ever since I completed my PhD >> in 1992. I came away from defending my thesis, essentially on large scale >> parallel computation, with the strong intuition that I had disclosed much >> more concerning the little that we know, than I had offered either a >> theoretical or engineering solution. >> >> For the curious, a digital copy of this thesis can be found among the >> reports of CRI, MINES ParisTech, formerly ENSMP, >> http://www.cri.ensmp.fr/classement/doc/A-232.pdf, it is also available >> as a paper copy on Amazon. >> >> >> Like many that have been involved in microprocessor and instruction >> set/language design, using mathematical methods, we share the physical >> concerns of a generation earlier, people like John Von Neumann, Alan >> Turing, and Claude Shannon. In other words, a close intersection between >> physical science and machine engineering. >> >> >> ...I will then discuss some historical issues in particular referencing >> Benjamin Peirce, Albert Einstein and Alan Turing. And finally discuss the >> contemporary issues, as I see them, in biophysics, biology, and associated >> disciplines, reaching into human and other social constructions, perhaps >> touching on cosmology and the extended role of information theory in >> mathematical physics... >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> Fis mailing list >> >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> - >> Pedro C. Marijuán >> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group >> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud >> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) >> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X >> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain >> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) >> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es >> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ >> - >> >> >> ___ >> Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM
Dear Marcus, Thank you for this simple and absolutely essential intervention. Allowing ourselves the freedom to use the same term—'information' which is the defining term for this entire enterprise—for such different relationships as intrinsic signal properties and extrinsic referential and normative properties is a recipe for irrelevance. — Terry On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear Marcus and colleagues, Katherine Hayles (1990, pp. 59f.) compared this discussion about the definition of “information” with asking whether a glass is half empty or half full. Shannon-type information is a measure of the variation or uncertainty, whereas Bateson’s “difference which makes a difference” presumes a system of reference for which the information can make a difference and thus be meaningful. In my opinion, the advantage of measuring uncertainty in bits cannot be underestimated, since the operationalization and the measurement provide avenues to hypothesis testing and thus control of speculation (Theil, 1972). However, the semantic confusion can also be solved by using the words “uncertainty” or “probabilistic entropy” when Shannon-type information is meant. I note that “a difference which makes a difference” cannot so easily be measured. J I agree that it is more precise to speak of “meaningful information” in that case. The meaning has to be specified in the system of reference (e.g., physics and/or biology). Best, Loet References: Hayles, N. K. (1990). *Chaos Bound; Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science *Ithaca, etc.: Cornell University. Theil, H. (1972). *Statistical Decomposition Analysis*. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. -- Loet Leydesdorff *Emeritus* University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.htmlBeijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Marcus Abundis *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2015 7:02 PM *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es *Subject:* [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM Dear Andrei, I would ask for clarification on whether you speak of information in your examples as something that has innate meaning or something that is innately meaningless . . . which has been a core issue in earlier exchanges. If this issue of meaning versus meaningless in the use of the term information is not resolved (for the group?) it seems hard (to me) to have truly meaningful exchanges . . . without having to put a meaningful or meaningless qualifier in front of information every time it is use. Thanks. *Marcus Abundis* about.me/marcus.abundis [image: http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png] ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath
,and to reconsider even the most unquestioned assumptions about thenature of information and the origins of its semiotic properties. I am aware that many who are following this discussion have acareer-long interest in some aspect of human communication orcomputation. In these realms many researchers —including many ofyou— have provided sophisticated analytical tools and quite extensivetheories for describing these processes. Though it may at first seemas though I am questioning the validity of some of this (now accepted)body of theory, for the most part I too find this adequate for thespecific pragmatic issues usually considered. The essay I posted didnot critique any existing theory. It rather explored some assumptionsthat most theories take for granted and need not address. I believe, however, that there remain a handful of issues that havebeen set aside and taken as givens that need to be reconsidered. Forthe most part, these assumptions don't demand to be unpacked in orderto produce useful descriptions of communicative and informationprocesses at the machine or interpersonal level. Among these givens isthe question of what is minimally necessary for a system or process tobe interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize presentintrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent ordisplaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorablewhen it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters aspart of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, itbecomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is beingassumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity couldpossibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causalinfluence is the rule. Although, this may appear to some readers as aquestion that is merely of philosophical concern, I believe thatfailure to consider it will impede progress in exploring some of themost pressing scientific issues of our time, including both the naturean origins of living and mental processes, and possibly even quantumprocesses. In this respect, my exposition was not in any respect critical of otherapproaches but was rather an effort to solicit collaboration in digginginto issues that have —for legitimate pragmatic reasons— not been asignificant focus of most current theoretical analysis. I understand whysome readers felt that the whole approach was peripheral to their currentinterests. Or who thought that I was re-opening debates that had long-agobeen set aside. Or who just thought that I was working at the wrong level,on the conviction that the answer to such questions lies in other realms, e.g. quantum theories or panpsychic philosophies. To those of you who fellinto these categories, I beg your indulgence. The issues involved are not merely of philosophical interest. They are ofcritical relevance to understanding biological and neurological information.So if there are any readers of this forum who are interested in the issue of the whether reference and significance are physically explainable irrespectiveof human subjective observation, and who have been quietly reflecting on myproposals, I would be happy to carry on an email dialogue outside ofthis forum. For the rest, thank you for your time, and the opportunity to presentthese ideas. Sincerely, Terrence Deacon (dea...@berkeley.edu) -- Professor Terrence W. DeaconUniversity of California, Berkeley -- - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - -- - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath
Hi Guy, Yes. At the very basic level that I explore with these ultra simple model systems it would not be easy to distinguish perception and reaction. Both involve interpretive steps, in that only some material features—specifically those with potentially disruptive or constructive potential for system organization—are assigned informative value in consequence of the self-rectifying dynamics they correlate with. — Terry On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Guy A Hoelzer hoel...@unr.edu wrote: Hi Terry, I have used the term ‘perception’ in referring to in-formation that affects internal structure or dynamics. This would contrast with forms of potential information that might pass through the system without being ‘perceived’. For example, we have a finite number of mechanisms we call senses, each of which is sensitive to particular modes of information we encounter in our environment, but we are not able to perceive every form of information that we encounter (e.g., UV light). I think you are using the term ‘interpretation’ to describe the same thing. Do you agree? Do you think the notions of perception and interpretation are effectively the same thing? Cheers, Guy Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor Department of Biology University of Nevada Reno Phone: 775-784-4860 Fax: 775-784-1302 hoel...@unr.edu On Apr 24, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Pedro, Indeed, you capture a fundamental point of my work. I entirely agree with your comment about living processes and their internal informative organization. The three exceedingly simple molecular model systems (forms of autogenesis) that I discuss toward the end of the paper were intended to exemplify a minimal life-like unit that—because of its self-reconstituting and self-repairing features—could both exemplify an origin of life transition and a first simplest system exhibiting interpretive competence. It is only because these autogenic systems respond to disruption of their internal organizational coherence that they can be said to also interpret aspects of their environment with respect to this. My goal in this work is to ultimately provide a physico-chemical foundation for a scientific biosemiotics, which is currently mostly exemplified by analogies to human-level semiotic categories. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your mediation of these discussions. Sincerely, Terry On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate closure to a very intense discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an essential point (at least in my opinion): *Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for a system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize present intrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent or displaced properties or phenomena. This research question is ignorable when it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters as part of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, it becomes relevant to not only be more explicit about what is being assumed, but also to explain how this interpretive capacity could possibly originate in a universe where direct contiguity of causal influence is the rule. *My suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that there is an entity capable of dynamically building upon an external absences, OK quite clear, but what about internal absences? I mean at the origins of communication there could be the sensing of the internal-- lets call it functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly there are some good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a metabolic code hypothesis crafted on the origins of cellular signaling. For instance, one of the most important environmental internal detections concerns cAMP, which means you/me are in an energy trouble... some more evolutionary arguments can be thrown. Above all, this idea puts the life cycle and its self-production needs in the center of communication, and in the very origins of the interpretive capabilities. Until now I have not seen much reflections around the life cycle as the true provider of both communications and meanings, maybe it conduces to new avenues of thought interesting to explore... All the best! --Pedro Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear FIS colleagues, Herewith the comments received from Terry several weeks ago. As I said yesterday, the idea is to properly conclude that session, not to restart the discussion. Of course, scholarly comments are always welcome, but conclusively and not looking for argumentative rounds
Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture?
informational realms are emergent in the strongest sense: almost no trace of the underlying information realms would surface. Each realm has to invent throughout its own engines of invention the different informational organizational principles that sustain its existence. It is no obligate that there will be a successful outcome In the extent to which this plurality of foundations is true, solving the microphysical part would be of little help to adumbrating the neuronal/psychological or the social information arena. The roadmap Bob suggests is an obligatory exploration to advance; we may disagree in the ways and means, but not in the overall goal. It is a mind boggling exercise as we have to confront quite different languages and styles of thinking. For instance, the next session we will have at FIS (in a few weeks) is an attempt of an excursion on Intelligence Science. Presented by Zhao Chuan, the aim is of confronting the phenomenon of intelligence from a global perspective amalgamating science (artificial intelligence), emotions, and art (poetic and pictorial). Not easy, but we will try Anyhow, Terry, we much appreciate your insights and the responses you have produced along the Lecture. It was a nice intellectual exercise. Best wishes to all---Pedro - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ 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 -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?
, or even of the whole great domain of information. But could it be so? Is there such thing as a unitary foundation? My impression is that we are instinctively working where the light is, reminding the trite story of the physicists who has lost the car keys and is looking closest to the street lamp. The point I suggest is that the different informational realms are emergent in the strongest sense: almost no trace of the underlying information realms would surface. Each realm has to invent throughout its own engines of invention the different informational organizational principles that sustain its existence. It is no obligate that there will be a successful outcome In the extent to which this plurality of foundations is true, solving the microphysical part would be of little help to adumbrating the neuronal/psychological or the social information arena. The roadmap Bob suggests is an obligatory exploration to advance; we may disagree in the ways and means, but not in the overall goal. It is a mind boggling exercise as we have to confront quite different languages and styles of thinking. For instance, the next session we will have at FIS (in a few weeks) is an attempt of an excursion on Intelligence Science. Presented by Zhao Chuan, the aim is of confronting the phenomenon of intelligence from a global perspective amalgamating science (artificial intelligence), emotions, and art (poetic and pictorial). Not easy, but we will try Anyhow, Terry, we much appreciate your insights and the responses you have produced along the Lecture. It was a nice intellectual exercise. Best wishes to all---Pedro - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture?
thing is to enjoy the journey which I certainly have. It is inevitable that with such a slippery concept as information that there will be different destinations depending on the travellers but what I like about FIS in general and the dialogue that Terry prompted in particular is the interesting ideas and good company I encountered along the way. As for your remark about searching where there is light I suggest that we pack a flashlight for the next journey to be led by our tour guide Zhao Chuan. One common theme for understanding the importance of both information and intelligence for me is interpretation and context (figure/ground or pragmatics). Thanks to all especially Terry for a very pleasant journey. - Bob __ Robert K. Logan Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications On 2015-01-30, at 8:25 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be appreciated. Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob and Terry, It is about the point which follows: ...there was no thesis other than the word information is a descriptor for so many different situations and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a jaunt through the countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble. In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case) which together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations of the whole field, or even of the whole great domain of information. But could it be so? Is there such thing as a unitary foundation? My impression is that we are instinctively working where the light is, reminding the trite story of the physicists who has lost the car keys and is looking closest to the street lamp. The point I suggest is that the different informational realms are emergent in the strongest sense: almost no trace of the underlying information realms would surface. Each realm has to invent throughout its own engines of invention the different informational organizational principles that sustain its existence. It is no obligate that there will be a successful outcome In the extent to which this plurality of foundations is true, solving the microphysical part would be of little help to adumbrating the neuronal/psychological or the social information arena. The roadmap Bob suggests is an obligatory exploration to advance; we may disagree in the ways and means, but not in the overall goal. It is a mind boggling exercise as we have to confront quite different languages and styles of thinking. For instance, the next session we will have at FIS (in a few weeks) is an attempt of an excursion on Intelligence Science. Presented by Zhao Chuan, the aim is of confronting the phenomenon of intelligence from a global perspective amalgamating science (artificial intelligence), emotions, and art (poetic and pictorial). Not easy, but we will try Anyhow, Terry, we much appreciate your insights and the responses you have produced along the Lecture. It was a nice intellectual exercise. Best wishes to all---Pedro - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ 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 -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture?
Hi Steven, My apologies for wordiness. We all have our weaknesses. I am curious about your claim that a complete theory of information may be impossible. I am not even sure what this would mean — except irresolvable dualism. But as to the issue of whether I advocate an identity theory, I can provide a clear no. Mine is an emergence theory in which it is not possible to reduce reference to an intrinsic physical property. Thanks, Terry On 1/30/15, Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@iase.us wrote: Dear Terry, list. I apologize that I have not had the time to keep up with this discussion. I did try to read Terry's text but found it strangely impenetrable with many more word than were necessary to make a point. This is, perhaps, merely a question of style, repeated in the recent books of his that I have purchased but that sit essentially unread although I have tried. To clarify, I have spent more than my share of time reading the work of Charles Peirce, readily acknowledged, although many of you may now recognize my preference for his father's work and its priority. Both quite brilliant men, but Charles suffers, both conceptually and in his readership at the hands of neology. Who among us wants to sit through yet another argument with followers of Charles on the nature of semeiois or a sign? Not I. I have also spent a good deal of my time with the work of Claude Shannon. My discipline of origin is, after all (in French), Informatique. I do this not merely to comprehend Shannon's theory of communication but also to inquirer concerning the role that his mathematization plays in its unfolding. I find, in the end, that the theory applies well to its original intent, telephony engineering (a human activity), but it lacks any true ontology. That is, from my point of view, communication does not exist because there is a lack of continuity. What I may speak of instead is apprehension. This suggests that no complete theory of information is, in fact, conceivable. I confess that I am stunned by Joe's advocacy of necessary duality. But then, it is not entirely clear what he is implying. He could, for example, simply be an advocate of a universal property not widely considered and advocated by myself as the basis of experience or as Benjamin Peirce's universal will or Charles' (weaker) matter as effete mind, all being the universal equal of gravitation and of light and to be found ultimately in the same equations as a force that have an effect upon the world, in this case in the flexible closed structures that form biophysics. A theory based upon such a premise, even though it requires something physically extra today, is clearly not at all dualist. I, naturally enough, am sympathetic to Terry's denial of dualism, but I wonder if Terry merely advocates an identity theory. As I have noted often such a theory is, in fact, a dualism. Regards, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu wrote: Thanks to Joseph for this spirited rejoinder, and to Krassimir for reminding us that convergence is perhaps more likely to succeed than any single-minded approach. With Krassimir, I am in agreement. I have probably overstated the priority of my own approach, even if I do believe it to be a best middle ground from which to begin formalization. This is a big challenge and I should celebrate the diversity of approaches more than I have. This is my path, and I have taken this opportunity to make my reasons for pursuing it clear. Like most of us, it is sent as a sort of mating call, in case others might find interesting insights there too. In response to Joseph, I would challenge you to specifically identify my homuncular assumptions, demonstrate where the autogenic model makes them, and deacribe in what ways you think that autogenesis is somehow not physically realizable. I admit to being blind to any of these, but I don't want to just convince you, I want to get it right. However, I am not willing to live with unresolved dualisms. And I don't quite get your comment about dualisms that do exist in nature and how you connect this with my presence/absence perspective. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that I am not satisfied that certain dualisms arising from quantum theories are fundamental, rather than the result of incomplete theory, and your own view which seems to embrace them. In which case we may need to agree to disagree. I am slightly perplexed and don't quite follow your implications regarding the specific proposal made in this piece. The dualisms I am hoping to resolve in this essay orbit around the difference between physicalistic and semiotic uses of the information concept, and about how this implicitly reifies Descartes' res cogitans / res extensa dualism, with reference and significance
Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture?
Dear Steven, Sadly Taking the time (and wordiness) required to explain my critique and redefinition of emergence is beyond the scope this venue and your patience, so I can only point to my too lengthy book for that account. Needless to say I do not accept either dualism or identity theory. My claim is that to understand information requires a theory of dynamical constraints, and since constraints don't have reducible components they are level specific relational properties, not identified with intrinsic properties of specific material objects or energetic systems, but not epiphenomenal. Do I understand you to be reducing information to a stereochemical property? And do you reduce knowledge to anything that determines physical actions? Obviously, I must be missing something. I would not be alone in arguing that for something to be information about something, it must be capable of being in error. How can simple physical properties or causal interactions have this property of falliblism? — Terry On 1/30/15, Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@iase.us wrote: Dear Terry, This emergence theory, at least on the face of it, is then surely an advocacy of dualism, since epiphenomenalism is logically indistinguishable from identity theory. So I must ask how you propose to distinguish the two. Information theory is a way of speaking about what happens in the world. As such it is a pragmatic, like many other pragmatics before it, it is a step in the right direction but not, of itself, able or required to meet the explanatory goal. My best definition of information does not standalone: Information is that which adds to knowledge and identifies cause, where knowledge is generalized to include all that determines subsequent action (importantly, it is the immediate that includes all physical actions). It is possible, in my theory, to reduce reference to an intrinsic physical property. Briefly, sense is formed as a shape upon the surface of flexible closed structures (biophysics, with latent receptors and motor functions), characterized by a holomorphic functor, covariant with another shape upon the closed surface, bound as a hyper-functor. The hyper-functor provides a sense/response decision point between the two. IOW, a clear reference is always associated with a response. Regards, Steven On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Steven, My apologies for wordiness. We all have our weaknesses. I am curious about your claim that a complete theory of information may be impossible. I am not even sure what this would mean — except irresolvable dualism. But as to the issue of whether I advocate an identity theory, I can provide a clear no. Mine is an emergence theory in which it is not possible to reduce reference to an intrinsic physical property. Thanks, Terry On 1/30/15, Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@iase.us wrote: Dear Terry, list. I apologize that I have not had the time to keep up with this discussion. I did try to read Terry's text but found it strangely impenetrable with many more word than were necessary to make a point. This is, perhaps, merely a question of style, repeated in the recent books of his that I have purchased but that sit essentially unread although I have tried. To clarify, I have spent more than my share of time reading the work of Charles Peirce, readily acknowledged, although many of you may now recognize my preference for his father's work and its priority. Both quite brilliant men, but Charles suffers, both conceptually and in his readership at the hands of neology. Who among us wants to sit through yet another argument with followers of Charles on the nature of semeiois or a sign? Not I. I have also spent a good deal of my time with the work of Claude Shannon. My discipline of origin is, after all (in French), Informatique. I do this not merely to comprehend Shannon's theory of communication but also to inquirer concerning the role that his mathematization plays in its unfolding. I find, in the end, that the theory applies well to its original intent, telephony engineering (a human activity), but it lacks any true ontology. That is, from my point of view, communication does not exist because there is a lack of continuity. What I may speak of instead is apprehension. This suggests that no complete theory of information is, in fact, conceivable. I confess that I am stunned by Joe's advocacy of necessary duality. But then, it is not entirely clear what he is implying. He could, for example, simply be an advocate of a universal property not widely considered and advocated by myself as the basis of experience or as Benjamin Peirce's universal will or Charles' (weaker) matter as effete mind, all being the universal equal of gravitation and of light and to be found ultimately in the same equations as a force that have an effect
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 22
Dear Malcom Dean, Unless you are claiming that the past 150 year of thermodynamics is bunk, I think your denial needs qualification. Of course entropy is a mathematical variable. And yes it balances equations. And yes it assesses only one aspect of the changes that occur in a physical transformation. And yes we should be wary of reifying every operator or variable in our mathematical models of physical processes. But this particular measure of state is not just a figment of some mathematician's imagination. It does a terrific job of making predictions about the outcomes of physical processes. To deny that the measurable value called 'entropy' increases with mechanical or chemical work in an isolated system seems to deny a pretty clean paraphrasing of the 2nd law. Is that really your claim? Or is this merely a quibble about phraseology? Although I have problems with some overstated versions of the maximum entropy production principle (MEPP), I think that for the most part it captures an important attribute of far-from-equilibrium processes. Yes creation of entropy was perhaps an odd way to describe this production, but you seem to be reading something into this phraseology that I don't think was intended. This did not read to me like a something-from-nothing claim or to reify entropy as some sort of substance. However, your last it from bit statement, though coined by an eminent physicist and very popular in some domains, does in my opinion make an unwarranted claim of this sort. At the very least it collapses some critical distinctions about what information is that my piece attempts to unpack. I consider the use of the term 'information' in this context to be quite misleadingly metaphoric. Finally, your claim about information and object creation seem vastly more speculative and ambiguous than any of the statements made about entropy and work. How about some constructive criticism of the paper, since it develops ideas that appear to be in conflict with some of your assumptions? — Terry On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Malcolm Dean malcolmd...@gmail.com wrote: On 2015-01-19 20:37 GMT+01:00 Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi bacigalupiwo...@gmail.com wrote to the FIS list: Josh Bacigalupi here, fellow pirate. Thank you all for this thoughtful discussion. ... We can all agree that the creation of entropy is necessary to do work; ... With respect, this statement should not continue to go unchallenged. I for one do not agree. Entropy is a mathematical variable which balances equations, but cannot possibly describe the conditions and actual processes which lead to work, enable its completion, or detail its purpose. The variable entropy describes only one aspect. It is like claiming homeostasis as a complete description of a human. The constant danger is coming to believe in variables thrown into some picture, such as we see in recent cosmology. They are reified. They become, as a result, objects of faith, even worldviews (Rifkin 1981). If someone claims mathematics as prior to cosmology, that scientific faith should not be presented as if it is a proven fact. It is ridiculous to continue talking about creation of entropy. What is created are new conditions, fresh processes, and objects. The point of a thermodynamic process, or more generally, an Information process, is object-creation. It from bit. Thermodynamics is only a part of an Information process (Lerner 2014) [ http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7041 ]. Malcolm Dean ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11 Mechanism and Model
PS typo correction line 5 from bottom: ... To specify information *that* a given constraint-state of a On 1/19/15, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Loet, I do indeed consider this relationship to be measurable and thus expressible mathematically. This in itself doesn't mean that it ignores content. Indeed, a specific content and a specific target function-state are prerequisites, and so must be assumed in the analysis. In my opinion, as necessary assumptions, this makes the part of the background physics. So there must be both universality and physical specificity to this analysis— the specificity of referent and significant end-state treated as givens in the equation. The term expected plays a crucial role here. It introduces a Bayesian implication behind Shannon's analysis. But it also is what necessitates the self-repairing, self-reproducing features of autogenesis. To specify information what a given constraint-state of a medium represents there must be a reference state. However, it cannot be MEP or even maximum thermodynamic entropy (analogous to Shannon's entropy) but instead the work differential between current state of degraded autogenesis and a reconstituted or reproduced autogen. — Terry On 1/18/15, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, “As I have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all aspects of the information concept, and certainly not at the level of human thought. I merely propose to dissolve the implicit dualism in our current concepts at the most basic level, so that for example it will be possible to develop a scientifically grounded theory of molecular biosemiotics.” Is the crucial point that an expected information content is always referential to a maximum entropy and therefore a relational concept? The significance/meaning is thus provided by the redundancy? I doubt whether this is part of the physics (as you seem to claim). It follows from the math and is yet content free; in other words, it can be provided with meaning given any system of reference or, in other words, discourse. The universality of the claim would thus be based on the mathematical (dimensionless) character of it. Best, Loet -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11
Hi Pedro, Thanks for sharing this beautiful and instructive image. I wonder if it should actually be more accurate as a higher dimensional graph or if rather than ambiguous overlap if there is some degree of containment in these relationships. — Terry On 1/19/15, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference, 2013). best ---Pedro https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0 ** *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen /et al/., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents the four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and informational. Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote: Hi, Pedro. I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science) Would you please send it again? Thank you. Moises -- - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11
... in 3-space perhaps a tetrahedron instead of a 4-leaf clover, such that each of the 4 academic domains were more equidistant from one another. On 1/19/15, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Pedro, Thanks for sharing this beautiful and instructive image. I wonder if it should actually be more accurate as a higher dimensional graph or if rather than ambiguous overlap if there is some degree of containment in these relationships. — Terry On 1/19/15, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server suppresses the image again, the dropbox link below contains the image too (at the end of the philoinfo paper, belonging to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference, 2013). best ---Pedro https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0 ** *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic shows the network of contemporary disciplines in the background (following Bollen /et al/., 2009); while the superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents the four great scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and informational. Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote: Hi, Pedro. I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science) Would you please send it again? Thank you. Moises -- - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fwd: Section 4/Re: Steps to a theory of reference significance
, the interactions among the conditions, using entropy calculus because the latter is not constrained to the physics domain. Thus, your distinction of the Shannon and Boltzmann entropies provides room for a wider use of the Shannon entropy. Let me posit that the specification of the medium in terms of what is communicated (atoms, molecules, words, meaning, etc.) provides us with room for each time a special theory of communication; for example, the communication of molecules in a biology, whereas the mathematical theory of communication (Shannon, etc.) enables us to specify the differences and similarities among the special theories. This is a rich source of heuristics and algorithms. I sense a tendency in your discussion paper to ground all the theory in physics (thermodynamics) as a meta-theory or grand theory of communication. Is this erroneous? Can the special cases further develop with a next-lower level as the noise generating medium? Best, Loet Leydesdorff Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.htmlBeijing; Visiting Professor at Birkbeck, University of London; Guest Professor Zhejiang University, Hangzhou; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] MEPP
of yolk in embryos? Without this property biological evolution is not possible. S: Is the property in question the “formal” organization? STAN On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Stan, Stan: Abiotic dissipative structures will degrade their gradients as fast as possible given the bearing constraints. They are unconditional maximizers. Life that has survived has been able to apply conditions upon its entropy production, but that does not mean that it has enacted energy conservation or energy efficiency policies. Its mode is still maximizing, but within limits. Terry: Your phrases given the bearing constraints and within limits are the critical issues to be focused on in my opinion [as I noted in my response to Guy]. But I do indeed argue that living processes can and do enact entropy rate regulating mechanisms. This is of course an empirical question, and I have seen studies suggesting both results. My point is only that autogenesis (which I use as a proxy for the simplest life-like dynamic) is a dissipative system that regulates the boundary constraints on its rate of dissipation, and that this non-linearity is a critical game-changer. In particular, for this discussion, I argue that this constraint-ratcheting effect—where a distinctive dynamical configuration can change the boundary constraints on its own constraint dissipation tendency—is what makes reference and significance possible. The resulting higher order synergy constraint is neither a physical nor chemical constraint, but a formal constraint. Because of this it is thereby substrate transferrable so that reference and significance are maintainable despite complete replacement of physical substrates, i.e. via reproduction. Without this property biological evolution is not possible. — Terry ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] MEPP
PS: Oops, slight misstatement re B convection. Of course the gradient can be reduced by the convection process. On 1/10/15, Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu wrote: Hi Stan, T: Thanks for the references. I am embarrassed to say that I don't think that I have read the two by Kampis. I will post references for the MEPP critiques and counter-examples later next week. I am in Oslo at the moment and don't have many resources at my disposal. Since MEPP is not the point of the paper and the information proposal is not dependent on which interpretation of MEPP we accept, we should probably continue this aspect of the discussion off list (perhaps with Guy and my colleague Koutroufinis) so that it doesn't clog up the discussion space [any feedback on this use from our moderator?]. For now I offer these further responses. S: ... does not go below the fastest non-damaging rates, therefore is ‘maximizing given constraints' T: Not sure that I am interpreting you correctly here. Would altering its dissipation constraints qualify as damaging since it alters the dissipation pathways and the rate of dissipation? Does maximizing given constraints include changing these constraints in the process of dissipation? If the answer is 'yes' to these questions then we are on the same page, and it suggests that life is very different than self-organized dissipative processes that do not alter their own dissipation paths. T: Do you equate maximize access to the energy gradient it is using with maximizing the rate these gradients are dissipated? I think these are different, T: Benárd convection evolves increasing dynamical constraint as heat increases above the critical threshold. These internally generated constraints dissipate in the form of exported entropy as the system destroys the gradient and subsequently cools down. The external constraints such as the gradient between the heat source and atmospheric sink, and the properties of the fluid are of course not typically altered by the dynamics. T: I tend to substitute the term 'constraint' for 'organization' because of its greater generality. T: By 'formal' I mean not physico-chemical. The synergy constraint is relational and substrate neutral. t can be instantiated in many different material substrates with many different configurations so long as the complementary relationship is maintained. — Terry On 1/10/15, Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu wrote: Terry -- Replying T: Stan: Abiotic dissipative structures will degrade their gradients as fast as possible given the bearing constraints. They are unconditional maximizers. Life that has survived has been able to apply conditions upon its entropy production, but that does not mean that it has enacted energy conservation or energy efficiency policies. Its mode is still maximizing, but within limits. Your phrases given the bearing constraints and within limits are the critical issues to be focused on in my opinion [as I noted in my response to Guy]. S: Yes. T: But I do indeed argue that living processes can and do enact entropy rate regulating mechanisms. This is of course an empirical question, and S: Do you know the multiple papers by Adrian Bejan? He has shown that in all systems (he has tackled LARGE numbers of them, including the living), the system organizes so as to maximize access to the energy gradient it is using. I think that this is exactly what MEPP would predict. T: I have seen studies suggesting both results. My point is only that autogenesis (which I use as a proxy for the simplest life-like dynamic) S: Do you know these papers on autogenesis? They were dissatisfied with autopoiesis because it did not admit evolutionary change. Csányi, V. and G. Kampis (1989). Autogenesis: the evolution of replicative systems. Journal of Theoretical Biology 114: 303-321. Kampis, G., 1991. Self-modifying Systems in Biology and Cognitive Science: A New Framework for Dynamics, Information and Evolution. London: Pergamon Press. T: is a dissipative system that regulates the boundary constraints on its rate of dissipation, and that this non-linearity is a critical game-changer. S: Regulates downward from physical maxima, but does not go below the fastest non-damaging rates, therefore is ‘maximizing given constraints’, T: In particular, for this discussion, I argue that this constraint-ratcheting effect—where a distinctive dynamical configuration can change the boundary constraints on its own constraint dissipation tendency— S: This is not clear. Constraints are usually not thought of as dissipatable. Perhaps an example? T: is what makes reference and significance possible. The resulting higher order synergy constraint is neither a physical nor chemical constraint, but a formal constraint. S: By “formal” I Take it you mean organizational or structural. T: Because of this it is thereby S
[Fis] Response to Pedro's first comments:
Response to Pedro's first comments: My choice of autogenesis is motivated by ... 1. It is the simplest dynamical system I have been able to imagine that exhibits the requisite properties required for an interpretive system (i.e. one that can assign reference and significance to a signal due to intrinsic properties alone - that is these features are independent of any extrinsic perspective). A simple organism is far too complex. As a result it is possible to make misleading assumptions about what we don't account for (allowing us to inadvertently sneak in assumptions about what information is and is not - for example just assuming that DNA molecule are intrinsically informational). As I note when introducing this model, developing a simplest but not too simple model system is the key to devising clear physical principles. 2. Autogenesis is not the same as autopoiesis (which is only a description of presumed requirements for life) rather autogenesis is a well-described empirically testable molecular dynamic, that is easily model able in all aspects. Autopoiesis fit with the class of models assuming that simple autocatalysis is sufficient and then simply adds (by assertion) the (non-realized) assumption that autopoiesis can somehow be causally closed and unitary, whereas in fact autocatalytic systems are intrinsically dissipative* and subject to error catastrophe. More importantly, the assumption about coherent finite unity and internal synergy is the critical one, and so it needs to be the one feature that is explicitly modeled in order to understand these aspects of information. 3. The self-regulating self-repairing end-directed dynamic of autogenesis provides a disposition to preserve a reference target state (even when its current state is far from it). This serves as the necessary baseline for comparative assessment, without which reference and significance cannot be defined because these are intrinsically relativistic informational properties (there is a loose analogy here to the 3rd law of thermodynamics and the relativistic nature of thermodynamic entropy). * PS: Autogenesis is also not a Maximim Entropy Production process because it halts dissipation before its essential self-preserving constraints are degraded and therefore does not exhaust the gradient(s) on which its persistence depends. — Terry -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Steps to a theory of reference significance] Terry Deacon
of reference significance Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 03:32:22 +0100 From: Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es References: 54ad3798.7060...@aragon.es 54ae7ca4.9080...@aragon.es This very brief reply should be routed to the FIS list please... One response: My choice of autogenesis is motivated by ... 1. It is the simplest dynamical system I have been able to imagine that exhibits the requisite properties required for an interpretive system (i.e. one that can assign reference and significance to a signal due to intrinsic properties alone - that is these features are independent of any extrinsic perspective). A simple organism is far too complex. As a result it is possible to make misleading assumptions about what we don't account for (allowing us to inadvertently sneak in assumptions about what information is and is not - for example just assuming that DNA molecule are intrinsically informational). As I note when introducing this model, developing a simplest but not too simple model system is the key to devising clear physical principles. 2. Autogenesis is not the same as autopoiesis (which is only a description of presumed requirements for life) rather autogenesis is a well-described empirically testable molecular dynamic, that is easily model able in all aspects. Autopoiesis fit with the class of models assuming that simple autocatalysis is sufficient and then simply adds (by assertion) the (non-realized) assumption that autopoiesis can somehow be causally closed and unitary, whereas in fact autocatalytic systems are intrinsically dissipative* and subject to error catastrophe. More importantly, the assumption about coherent finite unity and internal synergy is the critical one, and so it needs to be the one feature that is explicitly modeled in order to understand these aspects of information. 3. The self-regulating self-repairing end-directed dynamic of autogenesis provides a disposition to preserve a reference target state (even when its current state is far from it). This serves as the necessary baseline for comparative assessment, without which reference and significance cannot be defined because these are intrinsically relativistic informational properties (there is a loose analogy here to the 3rd law of thermodynamics and the relativistic nature of thermodynamic entropy). * PS: Autogenesis is also not a Maximim Entropy Production process because it halts dissipation before its essential self-preserving constraints are degraded and therefore does not exhaust the gradient(s) on which its persistence depends. — Terry On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, Thanks a lot for the opening text! It is a well crafted Essay full of very detailed contents. My impression is that the microphysics of information has been solved elegantly --at least at the level of today's relevant knowledge-- with your work and the works of related authors, one of them Karl Friston, who could be linked as a complementary approach to yours (in particular his recent Life as we know it, Royal Society Interface Journal, 10: 20130475). His Bayesian approach to life's organization, coupled with (variational) free energy minimization principle, conduces to the emergence of homeostasis and a simple form of autopoiesis, as well as the organization of perception/action later on. Thus, quite close to your approach on autogenic systems. About the different sections of the Essay, the very detailed points you deal with in section 4 (steps to a formalization of reference) are, in my opinion, the conceptual core and deserve a careful inspection, far more than these rushed comments. In any case, the relationship Boltzmann-Shannon entropies has been cleared quite elegantly. However, for my taste the following sections have not sufficiently opened the panorama. And with this I start some critical appreciations. Perhaps the microphysics of information is not the critical stumbling block to me removed for the advancement of the informational perspective. We could remain McLuhan's stance on Shannon's information theory and von Neumann's game theory... yes, undoubtedly important advancements, but not the essential stuff of information. But in this list there are people far more versed in McLuhan's contents and whether the caveats he raised would continue to apply (obviously in a different way). I am also critical with the autogenesis model systems--wouldn't it be far clearer approaching a (relatively) simple prokaryotic cell and discuss upon its intertwining of the communication and self-production arrangements? The way a bacterium sees the world, and reorganizes its living, could
