Re: [Fis] Further Discussion . . .

[HowlBloom]

brilliant summation, Pedro.
 
we are missing the metaphors with which to explain the difference between  
death and life or between smart communities like bacterial colonies and  
consciousness.
 
in The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates, i tell the tale of the  
origin of the term "emergent property."  But, alas, over 140  years after the 
concept's introduction, we still lack the tools that would  help us 
understand life and consciousness in scientific ways.
 
i suspect the key will come from adding to the bottom  up vocabulary  of 
reductionism by looking at top down  approaches.  and i suspect that certain 
emergent properties are  possibilities of the cosmos waiting for matter to 
find them.  very a la  wagner in his Arrival of the Fittest.
 
but if emergent properties exist in an implicit future, in possibility  
space, how did they get there?  a hint:  god is not the answer.   god is a way 
of dodging the question.
 
i've hit all these issues in The God Problem.  and i ache for the new  
metaphors.
 
with warmth and oomph--howard
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
author of : The  Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History  ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), Global Brain: The 
Evolution of Mass Mind  from the Big Bang to the 21st Century  ("reassuring and 
sobering"-The New  Yorker), The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of 
Capitalism  ("Impressive, stimulating, and tremendously enjoyable."James 
Fallows, National  Correspondent, The Atlantic), The God Problem: How A Godless 
Cosmos Creates  ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I  Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a monumental,epic, glorious 
literary  achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The Muhammad Code:  How a Desert 
Prophet  Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram--or How Muhammad Invented 
Jihad (
“a  terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam,” David Swindle, PJ  
Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting  Scholar
—Graduate Psychology Department, NewYork University
Founder:  International PaleopsychologyProject; founder and chair, Space 
Development  Steering Committee; Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution 
Society; Founding  Board Member, The Darwin Project; Board Of Governors, 
National Space Society;  Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New 
York 
Academy of  Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
American  Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior 
and  Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology,  Scientific 
 Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation.  

 
In a message dated 2/13/2017 10:32:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:

Dear Howard,

In any extent, your beautiful  questions are beyond my reach. I think that 
the physical characterization of  life cannot even provide a whim on your 
demands; but something of the  informational might provide some limited 
inroads: prokaryots could not achieve  any significant progress in 
morphological 
or differentiation capabilities  within their "colonies". Conversely, 
eukaryotes developed multicellularity due  to their far higher information 
content 
(genome), their far improved signaling  resources, their endless energy 
supply in support of the general combinatoric  problem-solving tools 
(mitochondria), and the incorporation of a new locus  (cytoskeleton) capable of 
feeling 
the force field and reacting to it. A chain  of amazing inventions is 
behind any of the existing branches of complex  life... can do they admit a 
general explanation, not just based on natural  selection, but on the improved 
evolvability that has been obtained by being  able to explore any 
molecular-recognition contraption (within partially  collapsed solution 
state-spaces, a 
la Wagner?). Otherwise we are lead to admit  a deep enigma, still uncharted, 
or to look for external "intelligence"  solutions outside the limits of 
current scientific paradigms.

What is  your own opinion??

Best wishes--Pedro

El 09/02/2017  a las 22:44, _HowlBloom@aol.com_ (mailto:howlbl...@aol.com)  
escribió:



fascinating thinking, pedro.
 
it triggers this:
 
 
The stages of development  are far more than real-world problem solvers.  
They set artificial challenges, then  achieve them.  Making a  caterpillar 
that works is an   enormously complex challenge.   Making a working butterfly 
is also immensely more complex than any  simple challenge mounted by the 
environment.  Changing from caterpillar to  butterfly in one lifetime is 
unachievable beyond all belief.  And these grotesquely artificial  goals can’t 
be 
accounted for by a simple goal of survival.  The goal, if anything, seems to 
be  to accomplish the ornate, the unnecessary, the flamboyant, and the  
impossible.  How does a drive  toward impossible flamboyance get built into  
life?  How does  it get built into the  cosmos?
with warmth 

Re: [Fis] Further Discussion . . .

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Howard,

In any extent, your beautiful questions are beyond my reach. I think 
that the physical characterization of life cannot even provide a whim on 
your demands; but something of the informational might provide some 
limited inroads: prokaryots could not achieve any significant progress 
in morphological or differentiation capabilities within their 
"colonies". Conversely, eukaryotes developed multicellularity due to 
their far higher information content (genome), their far improved 
signaling resources, their endless energy supply in support of the 
general combinatoric problem-solving tools (mitochondria), and the 
incorporation of a new locus (cytoskeleton) capable of feeling the force 
field and reacting to it. A chain of amazing inventions is behind any of 
the existing branches of complex life... can do they admit a general 
explanation, not just based on natural selection, but on the improved 
evolvability that has been obtained by being able to explore any 
molecular-recognition contraption (within partially collapsed solution 
state-spaces, a la Wagner?). Otherwise we are lead to admit a deep 
enigma, still uncharted, or to look for external "intelligence" 
solutions outside the limits of current scientific paradigms.


What is your own opinion??

Best wishes--Pedro

   El 09/02/2017 a las 22:44, howlbl...@aol.com escribió:

fascinating thinking, pedro.
it triggers this:

The stages of development are far more than real-world problem 
solvers.They set artificial challenges, then achieve them.Making a 
caterpillar that works is anenormously complex challenge.Making a 
working butterfly is also immensely more complex than any simple 
challenge mounted by the environment.Changing from caterpillar to 
butterfly in one lifetime is unachievable beyond all belief.And these 
grotesquely artificial goals can’t be accounted for by a simple goal 
of survival.The goal, if anything, seems to be to accomplish the 
ornate, the unnecessary, the flamboyant, and the impossible.How does a 
drive toward impossible flamboyance get built intolife?How doesit get 
built into the cosmos?


with warmth and oomph--howard
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
author of : The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the 
Forces of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), Global Brain: 
The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century  
("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker), The Genius of the Beast: A 
Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("Impressive, stimulating, and 
tremendously enjoyable."James Fallows, National Correspondent, The 
Atlantic), The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's 
argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), How I 
Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a monumental,epic, glorious 
literary achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The Muhammad Code:  How a 
Desert Prophet Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram--or How 
Muhammad Invented Jihad (“a terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on 
Islam,” David Swindle, PJ Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting 
Scholar—Graduate Psychology Department, NewYork University
Founder: International PaleopsychologyProject; founder and chair, 
Space Development Steering Committee; Founding Board Member: Epic of 
Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project; Board Of 
Governors, National Space Society; Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media 
Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for 
the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of 
Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International 
Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat 
Foundation.
In a message dated 2/9/2017 3:22:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:


Dear Marcus and Colleagues,

Thanks for your interest. The Chengdu's Conference represented for
me an occasion to return to my beginnings, in the 80's, when I
prepared a PhD Thesis: "Natural Intelligence: On the evolution of
biological information processing". It was mostly following a top
down approach. But in some of the discussions outdoors of the
conference (a suggestion for the next one in Shanghai: plenary
discussion sessions should also be organized) I realized that
biomolecular things have changed quite a lot. One could go
nowadays the other way around: from the molecular-informational
organization of cellular life, to intelligence of the cell's
behavior withing the environment. The life cycle es essential. It
provides the source of "meaning" (as I have often argued in
discussions in the list) but it is also the reference for
"intelligence". Communicating with the environment and
self-producing by means of the environmental affordances have to
be smoothly organized so that the stages of the life cycle may be
advanced, and that the "problems" arising from the 

Re: [Fis] Further Discussion . . .

[Francesco Rizzo]

P. s.:
Ho dimenticato di digitare che le pagine citate sono fitte, intense e
pregnanti.
Francesco

2017-02-10 15:07 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>:

> Cari colleghi,
> lasciateVi  e lasciatemi dire che le cellule, essendo detentrici e
> portatrici di INFORMAZIONE genetica, COMUNICANO o scelgono di NON
> COMUNICARE tra loro nel bene o nel male e non possono avere alcun altro
> SIGNIFICATO-funzione. Sono stato sempre convinto di questo, come dimostrano
> in maniera organica e sistematica, fra le tante altre, le pagine 115-121 di
> "Etica dei valori economici o economia dei valori etici"  (FrancoAngeli,
> Milano, 2003), Purtroppo, l'affermo con serenità e la pace dell'anima,
> questo saggio non ha avuto il successo che meritava!
> Un saluto cordiale.
> Francecso Rizzo
>
> 2017-02-09 17:41 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :
>
>> Dear Marcus and Colleagues,
>>
>> Thanks for your interest. The Chengdu's Conference represented for me an
>> occasion to return to my beginnings, in the 80's, when I prepared a PhD
>> Thesis: "Natural Intelligence: On the evolution of biological information
>> processing". It was mostly following a top down approach. But in some of
>> the discussions outdoors of the conference (a suggestion for the next one
>> in Shanghai: plenary discussion sessions should also be organized) I
>> realized that biomolecular things have changed quite a lot. One could go
>> nowadays the other way around: from the molecular-informational
>> organization of cellular life, to intelligence of the cell's behavior
>> withing the environment. The life cycle es essential. It provides the
>> source of "meaning" (as I have often argued in discussions in the list) but
>> it is also the reference for "intelligence". Communicating with the
>> environment and self-producing by means of the environmental affordances
>> have to be smoothly organized so that the stages of the life cycle may be
>> advanced, and that the "problems" arising from the internal or the external
>> may be adequately solved. It means signalling and self-modifying in front
>> of the open-ended environmental problems, sensing and acting coherently...
>> It strangely connects with the notion of human "story" and the
>> communication cycle in the humanities. Relating intelligence to goal
>> accomplishment or to an architecture of goals as usually done in
>> computational realms implies that the real life course (or the surrogate)
>> is reduced to a very narrow segment. True intelligence evaporates.
>> These were some of my brute reflections that I have to keep musing around
>> (I saw interesting repercussions for cellular signaling "narratives" too).
>> Maybe this is also a good opportunity for other parties of that conference
>> to expostulate their own impressions --very exciting presentations both
>> from Chinese and Western colleagues there.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> --Pedro
>>
>>
>> El 08/02/2017 a las 14:14, Marcus Abundis escribió:
>>
>> > In next weeks some further discussion might be started, but at the
>> time being, the slot is empty (any ideas?)<
>>
>> Hi Pedro,
>>
>> For my part I would appreciate a chance to hear more about the thoughts
>> you have been developing (even if they are very rough) as related to the
>> talk you gave in China last summer.
>>
>> Alternatively, further thoughts on Gordana's talk would be nice to hear.
>>
>> For both of these talks, you both shared your presentation stack . . .
>> but there was so much information in both of those talks, it would be nice
>> to have some of "unpacked."
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Fis mailing 
>> listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://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 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

Re: [Fis] Further Discussion . . .

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari colleghi,
lasciateVi  e lasciatemi dire che le cellule, essendo detentrici e
portatrici di INFORMAZIONE genetica, COMUNICANO o scelgono di NON
COMUNICARE tra loro nel bene o nel male e non possono avere alcun altro
SIGNIFICATO-funzione. Sono stato sempre convinto di questo, come dimostrano
in maniera organica e sistematica, fra le tante altre, le pagine 115-121 di
"Etica dei valori economici o economia dei valori etici"  (FrancoAngeli,
Milano, 2003), Purtroppo, l'affermo con serenità e la pace dell'anima,
questo saggio non ha avuto il successo che meritava!
Un saluto cordiale.
Francecso Rizzo

2017-02-09 17:41 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear Marcus and Colleagues,
>
> Thanks for your interest. The Chengdu's Conference represented for me an
> occasion to return to my beginnings, in the 80's, when I prepared a PhD
> Thesis: "Natural Intelligence: On the evolution of biological information
> processing". It was mostly following a top down approach. But in some of
> the discussions outdoors of the conference (a suggestion for the next one
> in Shanghai: plenary discussion sessions should also be organized) I
> realized that biomolecular things have changed quite a lot. One could go
> nowadays the other way around: from the molecular-informational
> organization of cellular life, to intelligence of the cell's behavior
> withing the environment. The life cycle es essential. It provides the
> source of "meaning" (as I have often argued in discussions in the list) but
> it is also the reference for "intelligence". Communicating with the
> environment and self-producing by means of the environmental affordances
> have to be smoothly organized so that the stages of the life cycle may be
> advanced, and that the "problems" arising from the internal or the external
> may be adequately solved. It means signalling and self-modifying in front
> of the open-ended environmental problems, sensing and acting coherently...
> It strangely connects with the notion of human "story" and the
> communication cycle in the humanities. Relating intelligence to goal
> accomplishment or to an architecture of goals as usually done in
> computational realms implies that the real life course (or the surrogate)
> is reduced to a very narrow segment. True intelligence evaporates.
> These were some of my brute reflections that I have to keep musing around
> (I saw interesting repercussions for cellular signaling "narratives" too).
> Maybe this is also a good opportunity for other parties of that conference
> to expostulate their own impressions --very exciting presentations both
> from Chinese and Western colleagues there.
>
> Thanks again,
> --Pedro
>
>
> El 08/02/2017 a las 14:14, Marcus Abundis escribió:
>
> > In next weeks some further discussion might be started, but at the
> time being, the slot is empty (any ideas?)<
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
> For my part I would appreciate a chance to hear more about the thoughts
> you have been developing (even if they are very rough) as related to the
> talk you gave in China last summer.
>
> Alternatively, further thoughts on Gordana's talk would be nice to hear.
>
> For both of these talks, you both shared your presentation stack . . . but
> there was so much information in both of those talks, it would be nice to
> have some of "unpacked."
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing 
> listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://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 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

Re: [Fis] Further Discussion . . .

[HowlBloom]

fascinating thinking, pedro.
 
it triggers this:
 
 
The stages of development are  far more than real-world problem solvers.  
They set artificial challenges, then achieve them.  Making a caterpillar that 
works is  an  enormously complex  challenge.  Making a working  butterfly 
is also immensely more complex than any simple challenge mounted by  the 
environment.  Changing from  caterpillar to butterfly in one lifetime is 
unachievable beyond all belief.  And these grotesquely artificial goals  can’t 
be 
accounted for by a simple goal of survival.  The goal, if anything, seems to 
be to  accomplish the ornate, the unnecessary, the flamboyant, and the 
impossible.  How does a drive toward impossible  flamboyance get built into  
life?  How does  it get built into the  cosmos?
with warmth and oomph--howard
--
Howard  Bloom
Howardbloom.net
author of : The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific  Expedition Into the Forces 
of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post),  Global Brain: The 
Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st  Century  ("reassuring and 
sobering"-The New Yorker), The Genius of the  Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of 
Capitalism ("Impressive, stimulating, and  tremendously enjoyable."James 
Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic),  The God Problem: How A Godless 
Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock your  world." Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a  monumental,epic, glorious 
literary achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The  Muhammad Code:  How a Desert 
Prophet Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko  Haram--or How Muhammad Invented 
Jihad (
“a terrifying book…the best book I’ve  read on Islam,” David Swindle, PJ 
Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The  Graduate Institute; Former Visiting Scholar
—Graduate Psychology Department,  NewYork University
Founder: International PaleopsychologyProject; founder and  chair, Space 
Development Steering Committee; Founding Board Member: Epic of  Evolution 
Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project; Board Of  Governors, 
National Space Society; Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media  Lab; member: New 
York 
Academy of Sciences, American Association for the  Advancement of Science, 
American Psychological Society, Academy of Political  Science, Human Behavior 
and Evolution Society, International Society for Human  Ethology,  Scientific 
Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation.  

 
In a message dated 2/9/2017 3:22:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:

Dear Marcus and Colleagues,

Thanks for your  interest. The Chengdu's Conference represented for me an 
occasion to return to  my beginnings, in the 80's, when I prepared a PhD 
Thesis: "Natural  Intelligence: On the evolution of biological information 
processing". It was  mostly following a top down approach. But in some of the 
discussions outdoors  of the conference (a suggestion for the next one in 
Shanghai: plenary  discussion sessions should also be organized) I realized 
that 
biomolecular  things have changed quite a lot. One could go nowadays the 
other way around:  from the molecular-informational organization of cellular 
life, to  intelligence of the cell's behavior withing the environment. The 
life cycle es  essential. It provides the source of "meaning" (as I have often 
argued in  discussions in the list) but it is also the reference for 
"intelligence".  Communicating with the environment and self-producing by means 
of 
the  environmental affordances have to be smoothly organized so that the 
stages of  the life cycle may be advanced, and that the "problems" arising from 
the  internal or the external may be adequately solved. It means signalling 
and  self-modifying in front of the open-ended environmental problems, 
sensing and  acting coherently... It strangely connects with the notion of 
human 
"story"  and the communication cycle in the humanities. Relating 
intelligence to goal  accomplishment or to an architecture of goals as usually 
done in 
computational  realms implies that the real life course (or the surrogate) 
is reduced to a  very narrow segment. True intelligence evaporates. 
These were some of my  brute reflections that I have to keep musing around 
(I saw interesting  repercussions for cellular signaling "narratives" too). 
Maybe this is also a  good opportunity for other parties of that conference 
to expostulate their own  impressions --very exciting presentations both 
from Chinese and Western  colleagues there.

Thanks again,
--Pedro

El 08/02/2017 a las  14:14, Marcus Abundis escribió:


> In next weeks some further discussion might be started,  but at the time 
being, the slot is empty (any ideas?)<  


Hi Pedro,


For my part I would appreciate a chance to hear more about the thoughts  
you have been developing (even if they are very rough) as related to the  talk 
you gave in China last summer.


Alternatively, further thoughts on Gordana's talk would be nice to  hear.