Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Mark,


> On 28 Mar 2018, at 23:10, Burgin, Mark  wrote:
> 
> Dear Arturo,
> Set theory is a particular case of named set theory. If set theory solves 
> some problem, then named set theory solves the same problem. Use logic and 
> some knowledge and you'll see truth.


That seems quite interesting, and perhaps close to the computationalist theory 
if the named set are the recursively enumerable sets, which are more “nameable 
set” though. Could you elaborate a little bit? Or give a reference?  Apology if 
you have already given one, but I am bit overwhelmed by my mailing box.

Best regards,

Bruno



> 
> Sincerely,
> Mark
> 
> On 3/21/2018 11:48 PM, tozziart...@libero.it  
> wrote:
>> Dear Mark, 
>> 
>> the named set theory does not solve the Russell paradox.
>> 
>> Therefore  it would be better to use, in such approaches, the best theory 
>> available, i.e., the Fraenkel-Zermelo sets. 
>> 
>> In turn, the latter displays some limits: for example, the need of a set 
>> with infinite elements. 
>> 
>> Therefore, set theory is not able to tackle information problems.
>> 
>> You have to go back to other mathematical approaches. 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>> Il 21 marzo 2018 alle 23.42 "Burgin, Mark"  
>>>  ha scritto: 
>>> 
>>> Dear Krassimir and other FISers, 
>>> 
>>> After reading the interesting contribution of Krassimir, I would like to 
>>> share with you some of my impressions and ideas. 
>>> 
>>> I like very much the term INFOS suggested by Krassimir. It’s possible to 
>>> suggest that Krassimir assumed the following definition. 
>>> An INFOS is a system functioning (behavior) of which is regulated by 
>>> information. 
>>> This definition implies that each INFOS has an information processor. 
>>> Then it is possible to distinguish different categories and types of INFOS. 
>>> For instance: 
>>>  INFOS only with acceptors/receptors 
>>>  INFOS only with effectors 
>>>  INFOS with both acceptors/receptors and effectors 
>>> Then it is possible to develop an interesting theory of INFOS. 
>>> 
>>> At the same time, the difference between reality and consciousness needs 
>>> improvement because what many people mean using the word reality is 
>>> actually only one of the variety of realities, namely, the physical or 
>>> material reality, while consciousness is a part of the mental reality. It 
>>> is possible to find more information about different realities and their 
>>> interaction in the book (Burgin, Structural Reality, 2012). Please, don’t 
>>> confuse Structural Reality with virtual reality.  
>>> 
>>> One more issue from the interesting contribution of Krassimir, which allows 
>>> further development, is the structure of a model. Namely, the relation (s, 
>>> e, r) between a model s of an entity r forms not simply a triple but a 
>>> fundamental triad, which is also called a named set. 
>>> 
>>> Why this is important? The reason to conceive the structure (s, e, r) as a 
>>> fundamental triad or a named set is that there is an advanced mathematical 
>>> theory of named sets, the most comprehensive exposition of which is in the 
>>> book (Burgin, Theory of Named Sets, 2011), and it is possible to use this 
>>> mathematical theory for studying and using models. For instance, the 
>>> structure from Figure 1 in Krassimir’s letter is a morphism of named sets. 
>>> Named set theory describes many properties of such morphism and categories 
>>> built of named sets and their morphism. The structures from Figure 2 in 
>>> Krassimir’s letter are chains of named sets, which are also studied in 
>>> named set theory. 
>>> 
>>> To conclude it is necessary to understand that if we want to apply 
>>> mathematics in some area it is necessary to use adequate areas of 
>>> mathematics. As Roger Bacon wrote, All science requires mathematics, but 
>>> mathematics provides different devices that are suited to different input. 
>>> In this respect, when you give good quality grains to a mathematical mill, 
>>> it outputs good quality flour, while if you put the same grains into a 
>>> mathematical petrol engine, it outputs trash. 
>>> 
>>> The theory of named sets might be very useful for information studies 
>>> because named sets and their chains allow adequate reflection of 
>>> information and information processes. 
>>>   
>>> Sincerely, 
>>> Mark 
>>> 
>>> On 3/11/2018 3:34 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote: 
  
 Dear Colleagues,
  
 This letter contains more than one theme, so it is structured as follow:
 - next step in “mental model” explanation;
 - about “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.
  
 1. The next step in “mental model” explanation:
  
 Let remember shortly my letter from 05.03.2018.
  
 To avoid misunderstandings with concepts Subject, agent, animal, human, 
 society, humanity, living creatures, etc., in [1] we use the abstract 
 concept “INFOS” to denote eve

Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

[ZouXiaohui]

Welcome to our icis2018 in PKU


http://www.intsci.ac.cn/icis2018/cfp.jsp


http://www.intsci.ac.cn/icis2018/committees.jsp


iPhone

-- Original --
From: Burgin, Mark 
Date: ,3?? 29,2018 5:11 
To: tozziarturo , fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins



   Dear Arturo,
   Set theory is a particular case of named set theory. If set theory 
solves some problem, then named set theory solves the same problem.   
Use logic and some knowledge and you'll see truth.
   
   Sincerely,
   Mark
 
 On 3/21/2018 11:48 PM,   tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
 
   
Dear Mark, 
   
the named set theory does not solve the Russell paradox.
   
Therefore  it would be better to use, in such approaches, the best 
theory available, i.e., the Fraenkel-Zermelo sets.  
   
In turn, the latter displays some limits: for example, the need of a 
set with infinite elements.  
   
Therefore, set theory is not able to tackle information problems.
   
You have to go back to other mathematical approaches.  
   
  
   
   Il 21 marzo 2018 alle 23.42 "Burgin, Mark" 
 ha scritto: 
 
 Dear Krassimir and other FISers, 
 
 After reading the interesting contribution of Krassimir, I would   
  like to share with you some of my impressions and ideas. 
 
 I like very much the term INFOS suggested by Krassimir. It??s 
possible to suggest that Krassimir assumed the following definition. 
 An INFOS is a system functioning (behavior) of which is 
regulated by information. 
 This definition implies that each INFOS has an information 
processor. 
 Then it is possible to distinguish different categories and 
types of INFOS. For instance: 
  INFOS only with acceptors/receptors 
  INFOS only with effectors 
  INFOS with both acceptors/receptors and effectors 
 Then it is possible to develop an interesting theory of INFOS. 
 
 At the same time, the difference between reality and 
consciousness needs improvement because what many people mean using the 
word reality is actually only one of the variety of realities, namely, 
the physical or material reality, while consciousness is a part of the 
mental reality. It is possible to find more information about different 
realities and their interaction in the book (Burgin, Structural 
Reality, 2012). Please, don??t confuse Structural Reality with virtual 
reality.  
 
 One more issue from the interesting contribution of Krassimir, 
which allows further development, is the structure of a model. Namely, 
the relation (s, e, r) between a model s of an entity r forms not 
simply a triple but a fundamental triad, which is also called a named 
set. 
 
 Why this is important? The reason to conceive the structure (s,
 e, r) as a fundamental triad or a named set is that there is an 
advanced mathematical theory of named sets, the most comprehensive 
exposition of which is in the book (Burgin, Theory of Named Sets, 
2011), and it is possible to use this mathematical theory for studying 
and using models. For instance, the structure from Figure 1 in 
Krassimir??s letter is a morphism of named sets. Named set theory 
describes many properties of such morphism and categories built of 
named sets and their morphism. The structures from Figure 2 in 
Krassimir??s letter are chains of named sets, which are also studied in 
named set theory. 
 
 To conclude it is necessary to understand that if we want to 
apply mathematics in some area it is necessary to use adequate areas of 
mathematics. As Roger Bacon wrote, All science requires mathematics, 
but mathematics provides different devices that are suited to different 
input. In this respect, when you give good quality grains to a 
mathematical mill, it outputs good quality flour, while if you put the 
same grains into a mathematical petrol engine, it outputs trash. 
 
 The theory of named sets might be very useful for information 
studies because named sets and their chains allow adequate reflection 
of information and information processes. 
   
 Sincerely, 
 Mark 
 
 On 3/11/2018 3:34 PM,   Krassimir Markov wrote: 
 


 
   
Dear   Colleagues,
   
 
 

Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

[Burgin, Mark]

*Dear Arturo,
Set theory is a particular case of named set theory. If s**et theory 
solves some problem, then **named set theory solves the same problem. 
Use logic and some knowledge and you'll see truth.


Sincerely,
Mark
*
On 3/21/2018 11:48 PM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:


Dear Mark,

the named set theory does not solve the Russell paradox.

Therefore  it would be better to use, in such approaches, the best 
theory available, i.e., the Fraenkel-Zermelo sets.


In turn, the latter displays some limits: for example, the need of a 
set with infinite elements.


Therefore, set theory is not able to tackle information problems.

You have to go back to other mathematical approaches.


Il 21 marzo 2018 alle 23.42 "Burgin, Mark"  ha 
scritto:


Dear Krassimir and other FISers,

After reading the interesting contribution of Krassimir, I would like 
to share with you some of my impressions and ideas.


I like very much the term INFOS suggested by Krassimir. It’s possible 
to suggest that Krassimir assumed the following definition.
An INFOS is a system functioning (behavior) of which is regulated by 
information.

This definition implies that each INFOS has an information processor.
Then it is possible to distinguish different categories and types of 
INFOS. For instance:

 INFOS only with acceptors/receptors
 INFOS only with effectors
 INFOS with both acceptors/receptors and effectors
Then it is possible to develop an interesting theory of INFOS.

At the same time, the difference between reality and consciousness 
needs improvement because what many people mean using the word 
reality is actually only one of the variety of realities, namely, the 
physical or material reality, while consciousness is a part of the 
mental reality. It is possible to find more information about 
different realities and their interaction in the book (Burgin, 
Structural Reality, 2012). Please, don’t confuse Structural Reality 
with virtual reality.


One more issue from the interesting contribution of Krassimir, which 
allows further development, is the structure of a model. Namely, the 
relation (s, e, r) between a model s of an entity r forms not simply 
a triple but a fundamental triad, which is also called a named set.


Why this is important? The reason to conceive the structure (s, e, r) 
as a fundamental triad or a named set is that there is an advanced 
mathematical theory of named sets, the most comprehensive exposition 
of which is in the book (Burgin, Theory of Named Sets, 2011), and it 
is possible to use this mathematical theory for studying and using 
models. For instance, the structure from Figure 1 in Krassimir’s 
letter is a morphism of named sets. Named set theory describes many 
properties of such morphism and categories built of named sets and 
their morphism. The structures from Figure 2 in Krassimir’s letter 
are chains of named sets, which are also studied in named set theory.


To conclude it is necessary to understand that if we want to apply 
mathematics in some area it is necessary to use adequate areas of 
mathematics. As Roger Bacon wrote, All science requires mathematics, 
but mathematics provides different devices that are suited to 
different input. In this respect, when you give good quality grains 
to a mathematical mill, it outputs good quality flour, while if you 
put the same grains into a mathematical petrol engine, it outputs trash.


The theory of named sets might be very useful for information studies 
because named sets and their chains allow adequate reflection of 
information and information processes.


Sincerely,
Mark

On 3/11/2018 3:34 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:


Dear Colleagues,

This letter contains more than one theme, so it is structured as follow:

- next step in “mental model” explanation;

- about “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.

*1. The next step in “mental model” explanation:*

Let remember shortly my letter from 05.03.2018.

To avoid misunderstandings with concepts Subject, agent, animal, 
human, society, humanity, living creatures, etc., in [1] we use the 
abstract concept “INFOS” to denote every of them as well as all of 
artificial creatures which has features similar to the former ones.


Infos has possibility to reflect the reality via receptors and to 
operate with received reflections in its memory. The opposite is 
possible - via effectors Infos has possibility to realize in reality 
some of its (self-) reflections from its consciousness.


The commutative diagram on Figure 1 represents modeling relations. 
In the frame of diagram:


- in reality: real models: s is a model of r,

- in consciousness: mental models: s_i is a mental model of r_i ;

- between reality and consciousness: perceiving data and creating 
mental models: triple (s_i , e_i , r_i ) is a mental model of triple 
(s, e, r).


It is easy to imagine the case when the Infos realizes its 
reflections using its effectors, i.e. relation between consciousness 
and

Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

[Michel Petitjean]

Dear Arturo,
Sorry for my naive question, but isn't the named set theory something
different from the set theory?
Best,
Michel.

2018-03-22 7:48 GMT+01:00 :
> Dear Mark,
> the named set theory does not solve the Russell paradox.
> Therefore  it would be better to use, in such approaches, the best theory 
> available, i.e., the Fraenkel-Zermelo sets.
> In turn, the latter displays some limits: for example, the need of a set with 
> infinite elements.
> Therefore, set theory is not able to tackle information problems.
> You have to go back to other mathematical approaches.

 . . .

> Arturo Tozzi
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

[tozziarturo]

Dear Mark, 

the named set theory does not solve the Russell paradox.

Therefore  it would be better to use, in such approaches, the best theory 
available, i.e., the Fraenkel-Zermelo sets. 

In turn, the latter displays some limits: for example, the need of a set with 
infinite elements. 

Therefore, set theory is not able to tackle information problems.

You have to go back to other mathematical approaches. 

  


> Il 21 marzo 2018 alle 23.42 "Burgin, Mark"  ha scritto:
> 
> Dear Krassimir and other FISers,
> 
> After reading the interesting contribution of Krassimir, I would like to 
> share with you some of my impressions and ideas.
> 
> I like very much the term INFOS suggested by Krassimir. It’s possible to 
> suggest that Krassimir assumed the following definition.
> An INFOS is a system functioning (behavior) of which is regulated by 
> information.
> This definition implies that each INFOS has an information processor.
> Then it is possible to distinguish different categories and types of 
> INFOS. For instance:
>  INFOS only with acceptors/receptors
>  INFOS only with effectors
>  INFOS with both acceptors/receptors and effectors
> Then it is possible to develop an interesting theory of INFOS.
> 
> At the same time, the difference between reality and consciousness needs 
> improvement because what many people mean using the word reality is actually 
> only one of the variety of realities, namely, the physical or material 
> reality, while consciousness is a part of the mental reality. It is possible 
> to find more information about different realities and their interaction in 
> the book (Burgin, Structural Reality, 2012). Please, don’t confuse Structural 
> Reality with virtual reality. 
> 
> One more issue from the interesting contribution of Krassimir, which 
> allows further development, is the structure of a model. Namely, the relation 
> (s, e, r) between a model s of an entity r forms not simply a triple but a 
> fundamental triad, which is also called a named set.
> 
> Why this is important? The reason to conceive the structure (s, e, r) as 
> a fundamental triad or a named set is that there is an advanced mathematical 
> theory of named sets, the most comprehensive exposition of which is in the 
> book (Burgin, Theory of Named Sets, 2011), and it is possible to use this 
> mathematical theory for studying and using models. For instance, the 
> structure from Figure 1 in Krassimir’s letter is a morphism of named sets. 
> Named set theory describes many properties of such morphism and categories 
> built of named sets and their morphism. The structures from Figure 2 in 
> Krassimir’s letter are chains of named sets, which are also studied in named 
> set theory.
> 
> To conclude it is necessary to understand that if we want to apply 
> mathematics in some area it is necessary to use adequate areas of 
> mathematics. As Roger Bacon wrote, All science requires mathematics, but 
> mathematics provides different devices that are suited to different input. In 
> this respect, when you give good quality grains to a mathematical mill, it 
> outputs good quality flour, while if you put the same grains into a 
> mathematical petrol engine, it outputs trash.
> 
> The theory of named sets might be very useful for information studies 
> because named sets and their chains allow adequate reflection of information 
> and information processes.
>  
> Sincerely,
> Mark
> 
> On 3/11/2018 3:34 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:
> 
> > >  
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >  
> > This letter contains more than one theme, so it is structured as 
> > follow:
> > - next step in “mental model” explanation;
> > - about “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS 
> > Sci-coins.
> >  
> > 1. The next step in “mental model” explanation:
> >  
> > Let remember shortly my letter from 05.03.2018.
> >  
> > To avoid misunderstandings with concepts Subject, agent, animal, 
> > human, society, humanity, living creatures, etc., in [1] we use the 
> > abstract concept “INFOS” to denote every of them as well as all of 
> > artificial creatures which has features similar to the former ones.
> >  
> > Infos has possibility to reflect the reality via receptors and to 
> > operate with received reflections in its memory. The opposite is possible - 
> > via effectors Infos has possibility to realize in reality some of its 
> > (self-) reflections from its consciousness.
> >  
> > The commutative diagram on Figure 1 represents modeling relations. 
> > In the frame of diagram:
> > - in reality: real models: s is a model of r,
> > - in consciousness: mental models: si is a mental model of ri;
> > - between reality and consciousness: perceiving data and creating 
> > mental models:  triple (si, ei

Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

[Burgin, Mark]

Dear Krassimir and other FISers,

After reading the interesting contribution of Krassimir, I would like to 
share with you some of my impressions and ideas.


I like very much the term INFOS suggested by Krassimir. It’s possible to 
suggest that Krassimir assumed the following definition.
An INFOS is a system functioning (behavior) of which is regulated by 
information.

This definition implies that each INFOS has an information processor.
Then it is possible to distinguish different categories and types of 
INFOS. For instance:

 INFOS only with acceptors/receptors
 INFOS only with effectors
 INFOS with both acceptors/receptors and effectors
Then it is possible to develop an interesting theory of INFOS.

At the same time, the difference between reality and consciousness needs 
improvement because what many people mean using the word reality is 
actually only one of the variety of realities, namely, the physical or 
material reality, while consciousness is a part of the mental reality. 
It is possible to find more information about different realities and 
their interaction in the book (Burgin, Structural Reality, 2012). 
Please, don’t confuse Structural Reality with virtual reality.


One more issue from the interesting contribution of Krassimir, which 
allows further development, is the structure of a model. Namely, the 
relation (s, e, r) between a model s of an entity r forms not simply a 
triple but a fundamental triad, which is also called a named set.


Why this is important? The reason to conceive the structure (s, e, r) as 
a fundamental triad or a named set is that there is an advanced 
mathematical theory of named sets, the most comprehensive exposition of 
which is in the book (Burgin, Theory of Named Sets, 2011), and it is 
possible to use this mathematical theory for studying and using models. 
For instance, the structure from Figure 1 in Krassimir’s letter is a 
morphism of named sets. Named set theory describes many properties of 
such morphism and categories built of named sets and their morphism. The 
structures from Figure 2 in Krassimir’s letter are chains of named sets, 
which are also studied in named set theory.


To conclude it is necessary to understand that if we want to apply 
mathematics in some area it is necessary to use adequate areas of 
mathematics. As Roger Bacon wrote, All science requires mathematics, but 
mathematics provides different devices that are suited to different 
input. In this respect, when you give good quality grains to a 
mathematical mill, it outputs good quality flour, while if you put the 
same grains into a mathematical petrol engine, it outputs trash.


The theory of named sets might be very useful for information studies 
because named sets and their chains allow adequate reflection of 
information and information processes.


Sincerely,
Mark

On 3/11/2018 3:34 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:


Dear Colleagues,

This letter contains more than one theme, so it is structured as follow:

- next step in “mental model” explanation;

- about “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.

*1. The next step in “mental model” explanation:*

Let remember shortly my letter from 05.03.2018.

To avoid misunderstandings with concepts Subject, agent, animal, 
human, society, humanity, living creatures, etc., in [1] we use the 
abstract concept “INFOS” to denote every of them as well as all of 
artificial creatures which has features similar to the former ones.


Infos has possibility to reflect the reality via receptors and to 
operate with received reflections in its memory. The opposite is 
possible - via effectors Infos has possibility to realize in reality 
some of its (self-) reflections from its consciousness.


The commutative diagram on Figure 1 represents modeling relations. In 
the frame of diagram:


- in reality: real models: s is a model of r,

- in consciousness: mental models: s_i is a mental model of r_i ;

- between reality and consciousness: perceiving data and creating 
mental models: triple (s_i , e_i , r_i ) is a mental model of triple 
(s, e, r).


It is easy to imagine the case when the Infos realizes its reflections 
using its effectors, i.e. relation between consciousness and reality: 
realizing mental models and creating data. In this case the receptors’ 
arrows should be replaces by opposite effectors’ arrows. In this case 
triple (s, e, r) is a realization of the mental model (s_i , e_i , r_i ).


clip_image002

Figure 1

After creating the mental model it may be reflected by other levels of 
consciousness. In literature several such levels are described. For 
instance, in [2], six levels are separated for humans (Figure 2). The 
complexity of Infos determines the levels. For instance, for societies 
the levels are much more, for animals with no neo-cortex the levels a 
less.


image

Figure 2.   [2]

This means that the mental models are on different consciousness 
levels and different types (for instance - touc

Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Krassimir and colleagues,

Our mental model can entertain discursive models reflexively. Thus, our 
models are (at least partly) discursively mediated and hence the result 
of communication. The development of discursive knowledge is thus 
liberated from biologically given constraints; it has a dynamic of its 
own. This is the source of progress in a knowledge-based economy. The 
models are evolving, whereas we are essentially the same.


When Julius Caesar said "veni, vidi, vici" he entertained a mental 
model, but he could not understand gravity. The history of mankind is 
driven from the next-order level and not by its genesis.


Best,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff

Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

l...@leydesdorff.net ; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London;

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en


-- Original Message --
From: "Krassimir Markov" 
To: "FIS" 
Sent: 3/11/2018 11:34:12 PM
Subject: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins




Dear Colleagues,



This letter contains more than one theme, so it is structured as 
follow:


- next step in “mental model” explanation;

- about “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.



1. The next step in “mental model” explanation:



Let remember shortly my letter from 05.03.2018.



To avoid misunderstandings with concepts Subject, agent, animal, human, 
society, humanity, living creatures, etc., in [1] we use the abstract 
concept “INFOS” to denote every of them as well as all of artificial 
creatures which has features similar to the former ones.




Infos has possibility to reflect the reality via receptors and to 
operate with received reflections in its memory. The opposite is 
possible - via effectors Infos has possibility to realize in reality 
some of its (self-) reflections from its consciousness.




The commutative diagram on Figure 1 represents modeling relations. In 
the frame of diagram:


- in reality: real models: s is a model of r,

- in consciousness: mental models: si is a mental model of ri;

- between reality and consciousness: perceiving data and creating 
mental models:  triple (si, ei, ri) is a mental model of triple (s, e, 
r).




It is easy to imagine the case when the Infos realizes its reflections 
using its effectors, i.e. relation between consciousness and reality: 
realizing mental models and creating data. In this case the receptors’ 
arrows should be replaces by opposite effectors’ arrows. In this case 
triple (s, e, r) is a realization of the mental model (si, ei, ri).







Figure 1





After creating the mental model it may be reflected by other levels of 
consciousness. In literature several such levels are described. For 
instance, in [2], six levels are separated for humans (Figure 2). The 
complexity of Infos determines the levels. For instance, for societies 
the levels are much more, for animals with no neo-cortex the levels a 
less.













Figure 2.   [2]



This means that the mental models are on different consciousness levels 
and different types (for instance - touch, audition, vision).




In [2], Jeff Hawkins had remarked: “The transformation— from fast 
changing to slow changing and from spatially specific to spatially 
invariant— is well documented for vision. And although there is a 
smaller body of evidence to prove it, many neuroscientists believe 
you'd find the same thing happening in all the sensory areas of your 
cortex, not just in vision” [2].




As it is shown on Figure 2 mental models are in very large range from 
spatially specific to spatially invariant; from fast changing to slow 
changing; from “features” and “details” to objects”.


To be continued...



2.Aabout “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.



The block-chain idea is not new. All forums and mailing lists have the 
possibility to organize incoming messages in internally connected 
sequences. The new is the Bit-coin, i.e. the price for including a 
message in the sequence received after successful solving a difficult 
task.




What we have in FIS are letters’ sequences already created for many 
years. What is needed to start using them is to be strictly when we 
answer to any letter not to change the “Subject” of the letter. The 
list archive may help us to follow the sequences - only what is needed 
to ask sorting by [ Subject ] 
. We 
may sort by [ Thread ] 

Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Pedro, Caro Krassimir e Cari Tutti,
condivido la forma e la sostanza della stella a sei punte di Pedro, tra cui
l'economia.
La mia "Nuova economia" è fondata proprio su una teoria del valore
esagonale e sulla bit-moneta, comprendente la moneta biologica, in quanto
informazione. Ma non vengo opportunamente considerato.
 E dire che il mio approccio onto-logico e metodo-logico, contenuto in
almeno trenta libri, oltre gli innumerevoli articoli, presuppone una
visione armoniosa e olistica.
Pazienza. Io voglio bene a tutti e male a nessuno. Sono un poverino
esponenziale cristiano che deve amare tutti, soprattutto quelli che non mi
trattano bene.
Un abbraccio affettuoso.
Francesco

2018-03-11 23:34 GMT+01:00 Krassimir Markov :

>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> This letter contains more than one theme, so it is structured as follow:
>
> - next step in “mental model” explanation;
>
> - about “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.
>
>
>
> *1. The next step in “mental model” explanation:*
>
>
>
> Let remember shortly my letter from 05.03.2018.
>
>
>
> To avoid misunderstandings with concepts Subject, agent, animal, human,
> society, humanity, living creatures, etc., in [1] we use the abstract
> concept “INFOS” to denote every of them as well as all of artificial
> creatures which has features similar to the former ones.
>
>
>
> Infos has possibility to reflect the reality via receptors and to operate
> with received reflections in its memory. The opposite is possible - via
> effectors Infos has possibility to realize in reality some of its (self-)
> reflections from its consciousness.
>
>
>
> The commutative diagram on Figure 1 represents modeling relations. In the
> frame of diagram:
>
> - in reality: real models: s is a model of r,
>
> - in consciousness: mental models: si is a mental model of ri;
>
> - between reality and consciousness: perceiving data and creating mental
> models:  triple (si, ei, ri) is a mental model of triple (s, e, r).
>
>
>
> It is easy to imagine the case when the Infos realizes its reflections
> using its effectors, i.e. relation between consciousness and reality:
> realizing mental models and creating data. In this case the receptors’
> arrows should be replaces by opposite effectors’ arrows. In this case
> triple (s, e, r) is a realization of the mental model (si, ei, ri).
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: clip_image002]
>
> Figure 1
>
>
>
>
>
> After creating the mental model it may be reflected by other levels of
> consciousness. In literature several such levels are described. For
> instance, in [2], six levels are separated for humans (Figure 2). The
> complexity of Infos determines the levels. For instance, for societies the
> levels are much more, for animals with no neo-cortex the levels a less.
>
>
>
>
> [image: image]
>
>
>
> Figure 2.   [2]
>
>
>
> This means that the mental models are on different consciousness levels
> and different types (for instance - touch, audition, vision).
>
>
>
> In [2], Jeff Hawkins had remarked: “The transformation— from fast changing
> to slow changing and from spatially specific to spatially invariant— is
> well documented for vision. And although there is a smaller body of
> evidence to prove it, many neuroscientists believe you'd find the same
> thing happening in all the sensory areas of your cortex, not just in
> vision” [2].
>
>
>
> As it is shown on Figure 2 mental models are in very large range from
> spatially specific to spatially invariant; from fast changing to slow
> changing; from “features” and “details” to objects”.
>
> To be continued...
>
>
>
> *2.Aabout “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.*
>
>
>
> The block-chain idea is not new. All forums and mailing lists have the
> possibility to organize incoming messages in internally connected
> sequences. The new is the Bit-coin, i.e. the price for including a message
> in the sequence received after successful solving a difficult task.
>
>
>
> What we have in FIS are letters’ sequences already created for many years.
> What is needed to start using them is to be strictly when we answer to any
> letter not to change the “Subject” of the letter. The list archive may help
> us to follow the sequences - only what is needed to ask sorting by [
> Subject ]
> . We
> may sort by [ Thread ]
>  [
> Subject ]
>  [
> Author ]  [
> Date ] .
>
> This means that the letter corresponds to the block, and the sequence of
> letters corresponds to the chain.
>
>
>
> What about the currency?
>
> In [3] we had introduced the new concept “Knowledge marked”. It is
> remembered in [4] where the approach for measuring the scientific
> contributions was prop