Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[john.holg...@ozemail.com.au]

Thanks Walter,

A useful snapshot of PC (Philosophy of Computing). It reminds me that the origin of the word 'computing'   is com-putare = to consider together, suppose together, imagine together. This is surely what Steve Jobs was all about. To reduce computation to algorithmic calculation or even Turing machines is as restrictive as limiting information to data and documents, messages and codes. After thirty years of phronesis wrestling with data documents and computers it would be nice to know what computation and information mean.

Computation is only one mode of information i.e. information AS cognitive process. Perhaps the only way out of our definitional impasse is to adopt the third option of the Capurro trilemma - plurivocity. If we can stop thinking linearly and start to think like a Dharma Wheel with all the different emergent modes of information arranged as spokes (having their expert spokespersons) each having equal validity with ignorance at the fulcrum, then we can move towards a viable transdisciplinary model for info which has hitherto evaded us. Nonlinear thinking has been the great driver of the computing and Internet industries.

Best

John
  



 

On Fri Dec  9  2:55 , walter.riof...@terra.com.pe sent:




Dear all,

 

It is possible find some useful ideas to build multi-inter-trans
disciplinary approaches in last “closing statement” of Ubiquity Symposium: What
is Computation?

 

What Have We Said About Computation?

 

 

If you are interested in all papers of this ACM Ubiquity Symposium:

 

http://ubiquity.acm.org/symposia.cfm

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Walter Riofrio

 

 

 



Walter
Riofrio 


Researcher; Complex Thought Institute Edgar Morin – University Ricardo Palma, Lima-Peru 


Chercheur Associé; Institut des Systèmes Complexes – Paris
Île-de-France (ISC-PIF)


Theoretical and Evolutionary Biology 


Email: walter.riof...@iscpif.fr   

---

 



  



On jue 08/12/11 06:25 , John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za sent:



Good to see that fis perspectives are used in teaching. I use information
ideas fundamentally in our second year Cognitive Science course, and also
in some postgrad courses I teach.




John







At 03:03 PM 2011/12/07, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:


Thanks a lot, Gordana. It is a
very good idea. Unfortunately I could not participate in the opening of
the session,  well, at least I can say now that I had the experience
of teaching for Engineering graduate students two neatly informational
("FIS") disciplines. One of them, Bioinformation:
informational analysis of living systems; and the other Science,
Technology and Society: an introduction to the informational history of
societies.  Both of them in Spanish. They were very successful,
particularly the latter. The FIS perspective is ideal not only for
breaking down on "impossible topics" (our familiar demons) but
also for promoting a new, highly original way of analysis --of knolweldge
recombination processes-- on topics of our time and of the most
contentious past. 




missing a lot the direct involvement in the discussions!




yours,




---Pedro




Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic escribió: 


Hi All,


 


One way of looking at the question of curriculum would be from the point
of view of what already exists


of education in the Foundations of Information.


 


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


 


To start with I can tell about the course I have, which does not cover
much of Science of information, but there are several connections.


As I work at the computer science department, my perspective is
computational.


For me computing is information processing and information is that which
is processed, and that which is a result of processing. 


Processing may be done by a machine or by an organism or anything else –
the whole of nature computes (processes information) in different
ways.


As info-computationalist, I believe that information is unthinkable
without computation.


So the course is on Computing and Philosophy but addresses Philosophy of
Information and Science of Information as well and topics on evolution of
life, intelligence (natural and artificial), consciousness, etc. 

http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/comphil


 


I believe it would be good to have a course on the foundations of
information science for people in the computing.


Information and computation are completely entangled! And this gives also
an opportunity to introduce other fields into computing, to contribute to
building bridges and 


facilitating inter-disciplinary/ cross-disciplinary/
trans-disciplinary  learning.


 


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


 


Best wishes,


Gordana


 




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



 


 


From:

fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
[
mailto:fis-boun...@lis

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

[john.holg...@ozemail.com.au]

Dear Jospeh,

Speaking as a denizen of the anthroposphere and a practising info scientist I applaud your hermeneutic observation and add my two cents' worth to this potentially fascinating discussion.

The Greek LEGEIN is also the root of LOGOS, LOGIC, INTELLECT, LEGIBILITY and one subdefinition (7) of INTELLIGENCE in the OED is 'a piece of information' 'obtaining information, news' . It connotes to the idea of selection or drawing a distinction (in Spencer-Brown's or Bateson's sense) which underlies any act of language, logic, reading or the intellect. This resonates with the 'difference that makes a difference' definition of 'information' but is also implied in the Shannonist theory of communication. Of course exegetic hermeneutics only takes us so far - to the aperitif, not to the meat and veg of the matter.

The other point to consider about current theories of intelligence in social and educational psychology is the link between intelligence and experience (and expertise)  propounded initially by Howard Gardiner. In this view two ants performing tandem running, a child fitting Lego blocks together, an astrocyte initiating calcium signalling or a computer performing a software routine are all acting intelligently and with a degree of informedness - or as Pedro well puts it they are all 'staying intelligently in the world'. A corollary might be that information itself is a distinguishing force or energy which is the hallmark of sentient life.

The unanswered question from our previous forum about Michael Conrad was 'How is logic (cognitive, biologic or algorithmic) instantiated in reality and experience?'  Steven Ericsson-Zenith and yourself  wrestle with this question in different ways.  A short answer might be 'instantiated through comprehensive information' - a concept which needs to take us well beyond the restrictive 'information processing' paradigm. 

Best

John H




On Wed Nov 10 16:24 , "Joseph Brenner" sent:


Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Distinguished careers in understanding intelligence confront me, a 
latecomer, in this new project. So the following are just a few comments on 
the logical-philosophical questions that I see on reading Yi-Xin Zhong's 
document. First of all, I will be talking only about natural intelligence:

1. Regarding the "nature" of intelligence. I see intelligence as primarily a 
potential, a term for the capacity of humans (and some animals) for action 
rather than an entity that can somehow be "produced" by brains. This 
potential nevertheless has a dynamic process structure. My justification for 
a process view is again the Latin roots: "inter-legere" = between + collect, 
gather = choose, understand. I am sure we would all be most interested in 
learning the corresponding derivation in Chinese!

2. The axis of movement, from Information -> Knowledge -> Intelligence (as 
potential or structure) seems to me to abstract from all three terms a) 
their process aspects (knowing vs. knowledge) and b) recursive aspects that 
are certainly implied, but I would like to see explicitly referred to. I see 
nothing wrong in saying, not to eliminate the given axis but to complement 
it, that Intelligence is a Potential (Capability) for Knowing that enables 
Informational Processes (Activities or Thinking in the sense of Wu Kun). All 
this would do is emphasize what the three concepts have in common rather 
than how they differ, in other words, the interactions between the reference 
processes.

3. My suggestion of a process view of intelligence is also an attempt to 
avoid its reification that may lead to reductionist notions of intelligence 
"measurement". We are all aware, I am sure, of the weaknesses of the 
"Intelligence Quotient (IQ)" approach.

4. These thoughts are just suggestions for further study of the relationship 
between information science and intelligence science that Yi-Xin outlines, 
especially, the strong concept of Comprehensive Information as a complex of 
form, content and value factors, and, presumably, their interactions.

Best wishes,

Joseph




- Original Message - 
From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)


Dear Yixin and FIS colleagues,
(at fis discussions the costume is to use first names!)

Many thanks for your scholarly text. At first glance one can think that
you have multiplied the problems: we barely cope with the information
science discussion and now you ask us adding the scientific
constructions around another "unfathomable" term, intelligence. By the
way, it is interesting that in the origins of both terms for the Western
world (in Latin), there is a confluence in the same person: both were
coined by Cicero (Marcus Tullius, 1st century BC). So here we are,
following his very footsteps!

"Since an intelligence common to us all makes things known to us and
formulates them in our minds, honorab

Re: [Fis] Information states/informatives/partitions

[john.holg...@ozemail.com.au]

Dear Pedro,

You wrote:  


so easily (only some selected parts of the extrinsic become external 
"information", those upon which the info entity will perform 
distinctional operations), but the intrinsic is not really reducible to 
a collection of variables and parameters, it is a life cycle in progress

I'm still not entirely convinced about the hermeticality of information within the life cycle - but then we're coming from different habitats and I bow to your expertise in a foreign country. 

My natural environment being the lingosphere rather than the biosphere I see language as the entity which enables the interplay between the intrinsic and the extrinsic through a context-binding process of recursion and repetition. I support Stanley's view of 'externalisation' through language and communication. This linguistic interplay between internal and external worlds is enacted partly through 'informatives' (cf Georg Meggle's Grundbegriffe der Kommunikation 2ed 1997). Similar to  Austin's 'performatives' informatives are words and phrases which betray intentionality - 'in fact', 'en effet', 'intrinsically', 'n'est-ce-pas', 'an und fur sich' etc. The statement 'Intrinsically Jack is smart' masks the implication 'but he does stupid things' and the Janus-like character of info emerges through use of the informative 'intrinsically' . Within Second Order Cybernetics Klaus Krippendorff's identifies 'informative artefacts' (outlined in his book The Semantic Turn and in his paper 'Semantics: meaning and contexts of artifacts' (2007) http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/91/ on the 'life cycle' of artifacts. Informatives are for him 'clues' to information states, events and narratives. 

Could we identify similar specialised informatives within the biosphere and proceed empirically to identify such 'info entities' in the human body and in events we now describe as 'information processing'? Hippocampal pyramidal neurons, chandelier cells, action potentials, astrocytes, etc. could be candidates for the category of 'informatives' (at least in Krippendorff's sense of entities providing 'clues' to information at work.) If we then examine the similarity of their pattern and shape (say in the asteriskal branching patterns of laterally radiating dendrites) could we discover a symmetry or a form of symmetry-breaking which could parallel Meggle's or Krippendorff's notions of informatives in their spheres of language and design respectively? 

With reference to the DOTA hypotheses I find the concept of partition/impingence intriguing. Partitioning has counterparts in music (natural harmonic stop points), in syntax (full stops, commas), in cinematic cuts (where meaning 'impinges' on the mind of the audience through montage) Aristotelian taxonomies, dividing fences (across which the neighbour's barking dog impinges on my state of mind) the Dedekind cut and set partitions and even in the ovipositing chambers or partitions of the female mason wasp Monobia quadridens through which the larvae must break through (pingere) to survive. In his article on 'Narrative partitioning' http://home.mira.net/~kmurray/psych/in&out.html the psychologist Kevin Murray commented 

'Partitioning names the process by which the environment is held still by the observer in order to make perceptible the object of interest...it divides the world into what is given (data affordances) and what can be taken.' (p.14)

Could there be a power law operating here around partition/impingence (breaking through symmetrical lines) which also includes the prokaryotic realm? 

Best

John H


On Tue Nov 10 20:12 , "Pedro C. Marijuan" sent:


Dear FIS colleagues,

The comments, days ago, by John H on "information states" were 
intriguing. In my view, the differences he addresses between physical 
states and informational states could be compacted as the "primacy of 
the intrinsic" regarding informational entities. The physical state (in 
my limited understanding) contraposes the extrinsic (boundary 
conditions) and the intrinsic (state variables and "identity" 
parameters), and reunites them by means of a set of dynamic equations 
that express the laws of nature pertinent to the whole context. In the 
information state, the intrinsic and the extrinsic cannot be separated 
so easily (only some selected parts of the extrinsic become external 
"information", those upon which the info entity will perform 
distinctional operations), but the intrinsic is not really reducible to 
a collection of variables and parameters, it is a life cycle in 
progress. Then, how can we express a life cycle in a compact way so to 
interact lawfully with the extrinsic? Socially we consider this new kind 
of informational-subject-happenstances as "biographies", and refer to 
their coupling with the extrinsic as "events."

Echoing Koichiro Matsuno (as we wrote together in 1996, after the second 
FIS event in Washington 1995, in Symmetry Culture and Science, 7,3, 
229-30). "This mutual upholding bet

Re: [Fis] Information as Asymmetry/valence negative and positive

[john.holg...@ozemail.com.au]

Joseph,

You wrote: 

Your point about valence and the negative and positive faces of information is an intriguing question. In a sense each time we use the word itself we are invoking the Greek god of information, Hermes - the deity of information, language, writing and messages but also of deception, thieving and money. The information/misinformation complementarity is unavoidable. A strictly verifactory account (like Floridi's infosphere) ignores the Janus-like character of the phenomenon in science society and mythology. This ambiguity has persisted throughout the history of the concept as defined by the major players (e.g. Aquinas's informed intellect (intellectus agens/intellectus possibilis) Bacon's 'information of the senses/information of the understanding' , Peirces' definition of information as 'inferencing and imagination', the Shannon entropy versus Norbert Wiener's negentropy). Spin, camouflage, theatre, illusion seem to be an intrinsic component of  informational experience. 

We await the new discipline of Informational Anthropology to explore what Soren Brier calls 'information man'. In fact we probably need a whole new academy, an Infoversity (possibly run along the lines of the European Graduate School), which explores information as central to all the disciplines (rather than just as an extracurricular activity of the cognoscenti).

I would certainly welcome a future FIS session on Information Language and Communication where we could investigate these connections in a more focused way. Bob Logan's excellent paper he circulated recently might be a good starting point. Pedro? 

Best

John H





On Mon Nov 16 0:34 , "Joseph Brenner" sent:


 


Dear FIS Colleagues,
 
I hope that some of you, at least, are as interested as I am by the shift in topic from "Assymetry of Information" to "Information as Assymetry" that has taken place. As far as the latter is concerned, I now know much more about the contribution of Leyton and others, its historical development, etc.  
 
However, despite some references to game theory and decision theory, I feel my orginal question, about differences of kind or "valence" of information has not been addressed. In real systems, especially social systems, much of the information transferred is not neutral, but comes in two main flavors, call them optimistic and pessimistic if you prefer. (Both are "real"; John Collier's questioning of the existence of "negative" information in his sense is appropriate).
 
Perhaps this is a trivial distinction; perhaps its existence, and its consequences, are not.
 
Thank you and best wishes,
 
Joseph 

- Original Message - 
From: Robert Morris 
To: _javascript_:top.opencompose('fis@listas.unizar.es','','','') 
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 4:13 PM
Subject: [Fis] Inventor of Information as Asymmetry



 
It is absolutely the case that Michael Leyton invented the concept of 
information as asymmetry.
 
Furthermore, David Weiss is correct: Leyton's work has been applied
by scientists in over 40 disciplines.  His theorems are used thousands
of times, each moment of the day, all across the world.
 
For example, Leyton's theorems are used in cardiac diagnosis,
biomedical engineering, metereology, chemical engineering,
mechanical aerospace design, geology, botany, etc.
 
 
Richard Morris



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

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

Re: [Fis] Knowledge recombination/map/territory

[john.holg...@ozemail.com.au]

talking organisms? 
A taxonomy or topology of primitive distinctions, however, seems like a really worthwhile project. Best

John H


On Tue Oct 13 20:23 , "Pedro C. Marijuan" sent:


Dear John and colleagues,

Thank you for the exciting comments and the astrocyte reference. I will 
start by attempting further ideas on the info topic, then will go to 
info states and knowledge.

When talking about info as "distinction on the adjacent", the late part 
"adjacency" indicates that info is always by contact, achievable only by 
having excitable, sensory surfaces to be impinged upon. Evidently, this 
creates in informational entities a drive to increase their adjacency, 
in the case of living cells by protrusions, pili, flagella, cilia, etc. 
; in nervous systems there is a multiplication of sensory modalities and 
topological mappings; and in societies we multiply adjacency by "means 
of communication" (radios, tvs, "webs") and other artifacts (phones, 
telescopes, microscopes, sensors...), that bring to our visual and 
auditory adjacency quasi-infinite worlds, particularly in conjunction 
with writing and numbering. But if we cannot make any distinction on 
that trove of adjacent impingements, they will pass as nonexistent or 
meaningless. (then, a tough physical question: would "adjacency" 
trascend in the quantum realm the usual space-temporal frame and gain 
curious topological overtones?)

Distinctions create further trouble, as they are product of a subject's 
coupling with the adjacency or environment. In my opinion there might be 
a trans-individual grammar of primitive distinctions, that would 
correspond with Karl's unidimensional and multidimensional partitions. 
Helas, Karl and me keep a decades old friendly disagreement, as my 
contention is that he has miscalculated the number of multidimensional 
partitions and consequently has approached DNA-code problem in a biased 
way. Could this discrepancy be settled down? Let me invite you, Karl, 
to try to make it in a public, open, friendly way, and in this very 
list. We can exchange just one message per week ("one shot") during some 
limited period, with minimal rhetorics involved and avoiding lengthy 
stuff; of course, open to other parties "shots" too. We all can have fun.

Then, about "information states", would they exist in a self-sufficient 
way? I do not think so, as subjects are inevitably involved in the 
establishment and pruning down of the distinctional grammar. Actually 
the life cycle and other evolutionary considerations creep in. Then I am 
afraid one cannot evitate some form of endless regression (or hide it 
into some "higher level" consideration as I interpret in Loet's comment 
on Bill's). Perhaps clarifying the discussion on distinctions will bring 
some light into this point; but in general the "info state" demands a 
consensus on the informational way of being of the subject.

The adaptability inherent of knowledge has not been discussed in neat 
Conradian terms yet, as far as I am aware. Treating knowledge as 
"Modifications on existing memories that increase the distinctional 
possibilities and / or the repertoire of ADAPTIVE responses" can more or 
less be defended, easily linkable with the notion of combination and 
recombination (at least a way appears to formally distinguish in science 
between the "transience" of multidisciplinary approaches and the 
"permanence" after establishing an interdisciplinary success and 
creating thus a new discipline)... Well, I am sending copy of this 
message to Kevin Kirby and Bob Ulanowicz, trying to entice them into the 
current exchange. It would be great hearing from them --if they are 
around-- whether this tentative view on knowledge looks cogent or not 
--and susceptible of being put in formal adaptability terms.

best wishes

Pedro

john.holg...@ozemail.com.au escribió:
> Dear Pedro,
>
> You wrote: > with an emphasis on the adaptability Conradian aspect of knowledge.
>
> Thanks for your insightful comments and fascinating paper on 
> prokaryotic intelligence, tactilisation, sensing and 'distinction on 
> the adjacent'. To identify 'information states' at that level offers 
> an interesting info parallel to Dale Antanitus's hypothesis about 
> infotropic patterns of varying oscillations within the astrocytic 
> syncytia. http://www.antanitus.com/hypothesis which also continues 
> Michael's grand project.
>
> 'Smart bacteria' may be good news for It-from-bit-ers but bad news for 
> the Creationists!
>
> > along social adaptive games. When we practice science
> we are obliged to be multidisciplinary...
>
>
>
>
> Yes the original charter written by you and Rafael adumbrated 
> this. FIS's mandate has been to provi

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: FW: Definition of Knowledge] Bill Hall/DIKW thoughts

[john.holg...@ozemail.com.au]

Bill, Pedro

Another useful recent background paper (for the bioinformatically-challenged like me) is Gunther Witzany's 'Biocommunication of unicellular and multicellular organisms' which invokes the Peircean triadicsign and explores the notion of self/non-self boundaries in bacteria and their rich social networking life. The PDF version is in the journal TripleC http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/issue/view/4 v.6(1) 2008 accessible with free registration.

Bill wrote: >the DIKW pyramid makes more sense than when looked at in isolation.

The traditional DIKW example is -

D   3°   =  data    
I    Three degrees outside = contextualised data (information)
K   "Three degrees outside is cold" = applied contextualised data (knowledge)
W  "Three degrees outside? It must be cold so I'd better take my overcoat" = applied contextualised data interpreted by experience (wisdom)

A psychologist I explained this to replied "But how do you feel about going outside at all? What if you have agoraphobia?"

A more poetic account of DIKW is based on the common linguistic connotations of  the word information to fluidity and flow - 

e.g. Sea or Ocean of Data, River of Information, Pool of Knowledge, Fountain of Wisdom.

"The swirling Data is contextualised by the River of Information as it flows along the Shores of Constraint then meanders through the underground Cave of Understanding (containing the Stalagmites of Concepts and the Stalactites of Ideas) and over the Cascade of Experience into the Pool of Knowledge (with its Ripple of Consciousness). Humanity absorbs knowledge by imbibing from the nearby Fount of Wisdom but also by making practical use of the Water of Life which is streamed through the Pipes of Communication and the Filters of Language to be drunk from the Taps of Technology."

DIKW has some explanatory power but IMO the relationship between the constituents is not triangular or pyramidal.

John H
 

Bill, no wonder your message was rejected by the list (excess length!). 
I am including it as an attachment...
thanks for the prok. references ---Pedro

 Mensaje original 
Asunto: FW: Definition of Knowledge: Information and Knowledge - two 
difficult concepts
Fecha: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:32:40 +1100
De: William Hall 
Para: 'Pedro C. Marijuan' 



Pedro,

The following additional contribution to the thread "Definition of
Knowledge" was rejected by the fis mailserver, both from town via WebMail
against my home account, and directly from home. I am on the distribution
list for your server so I am unsure why I cannot post directly to it.

Re your article "On prokaryotic intelligence: Strategies for sensing the
environment", there are a few papers that are directly relevant: 

Bitbol, M., Luisi, P.L. 2004. Autopoiesis with or without cognition:
defining life at its edge. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 1, 99?107
- http://tinyurl.com/3u9uk9 

Bentolila, S. 2005. Live memory? of the cell, the other hereditary memory of
living systems. BioSystems, 80:251-261.

Lyon, P. 2004. Autopoiesis and knowing: reflections on Maturana's biogenic
explanation of cognition. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 11(4), 21-46.

Also, with regards to the exchange between Stan Salthe and Loet Ledesdorff
re "biosemiotics" this is all argued in the 2008 collection edited by
Marcello Barbieri "Introduction to Biosemiotics: the New Biological
Synthesis, that includes a number of papers directly relevant to
information, knowledge, meaning and semiotics in general. 

Many thanks.

William P. (Bill) Hall, PhD
Documentation and Knowledge Management Systems Analyst

Evolutionary Biology of Species and Organizations
PO Box 94 Riddells Creek, Vic. 3431
Phone: +61 3 5428 6246
Email: william-h...@bigpond.com
http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net/

National Fellow, Australian Centre for Science, Innovation and Society
University of Melbourne
Office: (Mon, Wed, Fri only)
Room 106 Old Engineering, Melbourne School of Engineering
Melbourne 3010 
Phone: +61 3 8344 4000 x 58033
Email: wh...@unimelb.edu.au 
URL: http://www.acsis.unimelb.edu.au/ 

-

INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE - TWO DIFFICULT CONCEPTS

This discussion is taking an interesting turn, and I am glad to see that
several people are recognizing that knowledge is something that has to be
considered in an evolutionary context. Although information is often defined
in a communications theory context (i.e., Shannon-Weaver) information of
significance to people and other living things is better defined as ?a
difference that makes a difference? (Bateson) that has little connection to
the Shannon-Weaver kind. The relationship between knowledge and information
also needs to be examined in an evolutionary context ? where the DIKW
pyramid makes more sense than when looked at in isolation.

As noted in my last contribution, my understandings of information and
knowledge have been developed in the framework of sev

Re: [Fis] Knowledge recombination/information states?

[john.holg...@ozemail.com.au]

Dear Pedro,

You wrote: 

Thanks for your insightful comments and fascinating paper on prokaryotic intelligence, tactilisation, sensing and 'distinction on the adjacent'. To identify 'information states' at that level offers an interesting info parallel to Dale Antanitus's hypothesis about infotropic patterns of varying oscillations within the astrocytic syncytia. http://www.antanitus.com/hypothesis which also continues Michael's grand project.

'Smart bacteria' may be good news for It-from-bit-ers but bad news for the Creationists!


we are obliged to be multidisciplinary... 




Yes the original charter written by you and Rafael adumbrated this. FIS's mandate has been to provide a multidisciplinary forum on info, scout new developments and, subtextually, embed an emergent notion of information in the fields of philosophy and the sciences. A quick stocktake of the various topics explored on FIS over the years reveals the distance travelled. However the 'elephant in the room' has been what Stanley called the 'epistemic cut' (the 'grounding problem'). References  to 'gene _expression_' 'cross-talk' 'intelligence' 'knowledge' and 'distinction' (in Spencer-Brown's sense?) at the level of microbiology seem to me (as a linguist) anthropomorphic descriptions or analogies giving rise to the 'Capurro trilemma' of domain nomenclature (and 7000 dialects of informationese). On the other hand identifying which info related concepts have multidisciplinary resonance has been a vital contribution of this forum. One such is 'information state' which appears as a leitmotiv through the history of epistemology (Aquinas, Francis Bacon, CS Peirce, Gareth Evans, John Collier). David Chalmers in the Conscious Mind discusses it in relation to physics and particularly 'It from Bit'. The term is commonly used in Games Theory, Dynamic Linguistics ('informatives') and Philosophy of Computing. In his Harvard lectures Peirce explored the notion and also of 'breadth and depth' (extension) in information states and compared them to 'knowledge states'. It may be possible to identify informational and non-informational states across the disciplines using an agreed working definition of info such as 'distinction on the adjacent' also taking into account the transforming role of 'mirative moments' (surprise, novelty, coherent excitation) at various levels of abstraction. This may be one way of tackling Christophe's recent question about 'meaning' while avoiding the hermeneutic circle and the labyrinth of traditional semantics. 

Best

John H.





On Thu Oct 8 21:12 , "Pedro C. Marijuan" sent:


Dear All,

Let me remark some sentences from what John H publishes:
>
> And what's to say that cellular entities such as 
> astrocytes, chaperone cells and telomeres are not also 'inferencing' 
> in informational situations like calcium signalling, protein 
> folding and cell ageing? Let alone my GPS's cybernetic navigational 
> ability. Maybe our existing concepts of information are 'human all too 
> human'... IMO we need to develop a comprehensive Grammar of 
> Information which embraces not only semantics and syntax but also 
> modality, case, aspect , tense etc and looks at the language of 
> informational states, objects, events, experiences and processes 
> throughout the biosphere, physiosphere, sociosphere etc.
>
> **
Then I will develop the biosphere (cellular) info track, with an 
emphasis on the adaptability Conradian aspect of knowledge. Actually, 
together with Jorge and Raquel, we have just published a paper ON 
PROKARYOTIC INTELIGENCE: STRATEGIES FOR SENSING THE ENVIRONMENT (* see 
web address below). The way these "simplest" cells can make distinctions 
on the adjacent (environment) is already quite, quite sophisticate. It 
revolves around what we have called the 1,2,3 component-systems, and 
their combinations. Then there are many ways to produce different 
responses and to get modifications into the genomes. Terms such as 
"combination" and "recombination" are central to that. As long as life 
cycles are repeatedly performed, the existing "codes" will be 
particularly & collectively coupled to particular & general 
environmental aspects adaptively.

Then, consistent with the above notion of biol.information (as 
distinction on the adjacent) we could approach the knowledge theme as 
follows. For the cell, n"ew pieces of knowledge will be those additions 
to existing codes that increase the distinctional possibilities and / or 
the repertoire of adaptive responses"... Though the idea is quite 
tentative and provisional, it does not escalate too badly into other 
realms, nervous systems (cycle action-perception) and social system of 
knowledge (mixing of disciplines). Combination & Recombination become 
crucial items, both in the distinctional and action aspects. Trade-offs 
similar to Conrad's ones (perhaps a little bit different) should enter 
into the picture.

And that's the idea. Knowledge exists to live in endless combinations 

Re: [Fis] FW: Fw: Definition of Knowledge?Chrysippus's dog

[john.holg...@ozemail.com.au]

Stanley, Christophe



I agree natural language probably separates hominids from other primates etc. But what about 'information'?
And inferencing? Remember 'Chrysippus's dog' who infers to the best explanation (abduction) when on reaching a junction of three paths sniffs two for the scent of his prey then rushes off down the third without sniffing further.
I once tried a number of similar experiments with my intelligent curly-coated retriever and a tennis ball. Smart dog! She understood the idea of variation (hiding the ball in different spots) within the constraint of my back yard. 

And what's to say that cellular  entities such as astrocytes, chaperone cells and telomeres are not also 'inferencing' in informational situations like calcium signalling, protein folding and cell ageing? Let alone my GPS's cybernetic navigational ability. Maybe our existing concepts of information are 'human all too human'. Chrysippus of Soli attributed 'psyche' to animals (from 'animus') and 'pneuma' (soul) to human beings. Reportedly he died laughing while watching a donkey trying to eat figs (after the animal was plied with alcohol - inferencing to the best drink ?) 



I agree that semantic networks are a more fruitful approach to the information/meaning problem than DIK. I have yet to find any convincing study which verifies an intrinsic relationship between Data Information and Knowledge (let alone Wisdom). The 'DIK triangle' (the basis of informatics) is IMO a contrived infertile notion. Neither am I convinced (like Rafael) by the Dretske/Floridi attempts to understand the phenomenon of information from the POV of traditional (and Shannon-driven) semantics ('grammatically meaningful statements'). IMO we need to develop a comprehensive Grammar of Information which embraces not only semantics and syntax but also modality, case, aspect , tense etc and looks at the language of informational states, objects, events, experiences and processes throughout the biosphere, physiosphere, sociosphere etc. A number of recent developments in dynamic and evidential linguistics, media & communication studies and Social Information (like Scott Lash's 'information critique' and Dave Weinberger's 'third order of order' ) are pointing to a new, more non-linear approach to the information/communication interplay which FIS should map into its current ICT agenda for discussion and research. 

Best

John H


On Wed Oct 7 3:39 , sent:


Christophe --

Dear FIS colleagues,
Knowledge is a wide and interesting subject as applied to us humans. But what 
about knowledge in the world of animals ?
What about an evolutionary approach to knowledge that takes into account 
simpler forms of knowledge management as existing in animals ?

S: Any property we must have, necessarily had to evolve from precursor 
systems in our ancestors. This is the 'logic' here. These systems need not have 
had exactly the same function as with us, but they still would count as 'proto-
knowledge'.

We Humans can consciously manage knowledge. But the performance of human 
consciousness does not imply that knowledge is absent in animals. We also 
manage knowledge unconsciously.
And knowledge is a personal and social construction. It is a tool we use all the 
time in our everyday life to satisfy various constraints. For finding our way in a 
city as well as for doing math. We acquire and use knowledge automatically as 
well as consciously by introspection. But the difference is more about 
complexity than about nature. In both cases we manage meaningful information 
for some purpose.

S: The difference between us and animals is basically language.

Animals also have constraints to satisfy, the key one being to stay alive.

S: Darwinians would say 'to reproduce'.

Most animals miss a conscious self to be in a position of conscious 
introspection (perhaps some of our cousins like chimpanzee or bonobo have a 
minimum sense of conscious self that allow them a minimum of introspection).

S; As a bird watcher, I am convinced that some of the larger birds (jays and 
crows, parrots) are able to think as individuals different from other individuals 
("This is mine -- go away!"). I have watched jays handle peanuts, comparing 
their weights, presumably to see which one is heaviest. And so 'heaviness' has a 
meaning to the jay not directly related to eating, because it buries most of them 
for the future. Thus, it has knowledge of locations as well as anticipation..

So I feel that the concept of knowledge deserves being addressed in an 
evolutionary background in order to allow a bottom-up approach highlighting 
simpler cases than human one (just to work as long as possible without the 
“hard problem”, and bring it back in explicitly later). Animals are submitted to 
constraint satisfaction processes as we humans are (with different constraints 
coming in addition). So the foundations of knowledge look to me as constraint 
satisfaction driven.

S: One could put several labels on here.