Dear Marcus and FIS Colleagues,
You are right in your complaint. We have been saying very similar things
concerning information generation--and also in your symbolic
introduction of Darwin in your scheme concerning that series of
complementary questions. Sorry for being so brief but I need some extra
time to re-read your initial doc in this light and the very cogent
responses you have been producing, particularly to Loet's points. In my
first penny of next week I will comment on those matters. Now I respond
to other comments (which partially dovetail with your themes).
To Loet, fine, we think very differently. Rather than Althusser's
derogatory remark, I look at Schrodinger's disclaimer in his famous
"What is Life": /"...[necessaryly] some of us should venture to embark
on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second hand and
incomplete knowledge of some of them—and at the risk of making fools of
ourselves.” /Whether such kind of synthetic approaches (performed by
each new scientific generation) can be successful or not today, is
something that neither you nor me can foretell. At the very least, the
enormous expansion of bio-info-comp disciplines in our times makes this
demand more necessary than ever. No "hidden program" in my previous post
but the open constatation that we have an excellent opportunity today in
order to delineate those potential "universals" and "essential core" in
an almost completely describable living system--bacteria. At least the
rudiments of such approach appear in my team's work on Proyariotic
Signaling Systems and in "How the Living...". Anyhow, when I referred to
"principles" I was not meaning your interpretation as "origins" but to
the usual way practicing scientists work on them. For instance, after
more than 30 years of painful experimental, microscopy work on nervous
systems, Ramon y Cajal wrote his formidable "Textura del Sistema
Nervioso del Hombre y los Vertebrados", considered as the foundational
opus of modern neurosceince. There he exposed the new "Doctrine of the
Neuron", based on a few revolutionary principles... Mutatis mutandis, it
might be an interesting case-model regarding the info science renewal
commented in the previous post.
To Alex, I see the opposite. Making the "universals" species specific
means that you can communicate and share gestalts far more easily within
your own phylum or class, or order, than with the far distant ones. So,
other mammals can approximately "read" your facial expressions and
postural stance, and get your meaning, while starfish or insects will
not. Don't you think so?
To Bob (offline comment), many thanks for the comprehension. I am happy
that from different angles we see in common some stumbling blocks to
win. Actually, one needs both kinds of criticisms, positive and
negative, in order to advance a little more in this viscous terrain...
but making constructive criticisms becomes a more difficult task.
Apologies if I have missed some other more brief comments. And sorry
Marcus if this was sort of a disruption, but I think that your
discussion topic invites quite a lot to transgress the boundaries.
Best--Pedro
El 29/06/2016 a las 17:31, Marcus Abundis escribió:
Dear Pedro, thank you for your excellent post.
Oddly, I have the feeling you think that you and I differ, but I saw
little to disagree with in your note. As with Loet(?), I believe that
*for now* I simply focus on a different level.
> the limits of the received Shannonian approach and <
> the (narrow?) corridors left for advancement . . highly <
> reminiscent of what happened with Mechanics long ago . .<
• If I did not see those limits I could not pursue this project.
Still, it seems many do fail to see the limits here; especially in
computer science (or *fill in the blank*). I suggested an origin for
this “iceberg“ in my post on Cultural Legacy. Terry Deacon has also
noted this odd “scientific failure“ – I say, so glaring that it would
be comic if it were not so tragic.
• Re Mechanics, can you please point me to a time frame for that
session so I can see what the archives hold?
>far from useful --nefarious?-- for humanities and for the<
> future of psychological and social science studies. <
• This is a bit painful to read, when I started the project I saw it
as attempting a new structural psychology (social and individual). My
thinking became more reductive (a priori) as I sought a firm base for
modeling. Videos are available on this other "elevated" aspect
(vimeo.com/evolv <http://vimeo.com/evolv>), but they stray for the
focus of *this* session.
>The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other<
> aspects of the information phenomenon do not enter. <
• You name Loet’s post here, and I saw the same issue – “processing
meaning” versus “generating meaning.” But then my model synthesizes
Shannon, Bateson, and Darwin; at the least Darwin targets why, what,
how long, whom, etc. While this note of mine heads into “advanced
material“ (papers #3, #4), I ask “How does my model fail to
*minimally* frame these facets?“
> Pretty big and impressive, but is it enough? Shouldn't <
> we try to go beyond? . . a far wider "phenomenology of <
> information" is needed <
• This is clear, but “exclaiming the need“ does not “answer the need“;
a reason to explore specific models (and the reason for this session,
no?). At the least I thought paper #3 on Selection Dynamics might
intrigue your biological interests.
> 1. There are UNIVERSALS of information. Not only in . . <
• Named in items 1 and 2 of the introductory text, and reiterated in J
Brenner’s post as “order and disorder” – I would merely add dynamic
interactions between them. Still, you also point to “the duration, the
cost, the value, the fitness or adaptive "intelligence", etc.“ This
evokes the entire body of the offered material.
> 2. Those UNIVERSALS are SPECIES' SPECIFIC.<
• Assuredly, named in item 5 of the introductory text.
> 3. Those UNIVERSALS would be organized, wrapped, around <
> an ESSENTIAL CORE . . . <
• This is hard to miss as needed, I label the model “natural (core)
informatics.”
> universals of our own species [or human universals] — <
> but with the terrific advantage of an open-ended <
> communication system, language.<
• Agree, now pointing to cultural anthropology, and fond/early study
of mine . . .
> 4. Those UNIVERSALS [are] streamlined in very different <
> ways as "principles" [in diverse] disciplines [re] four <
> Great Domains Science. A renewed Information Science <
> should nucleate one[?!] of those domains.<
• Here, we might explore what exactly "science" *is* and *is not.*
Science supposedly reinvents itself, but what is the *creative
narrative* that drives this. How does intuition/inference/etc. all
arise . . . the ugly secret being that "it is all psycho-logical," or
even worse "sub-conscious," no? – not sure how far "down that rabbit
hole" we want to chase.
• Also, "nucleate" as in "a priori", no? How do we disagree . . . I am
having trouble seeing it. But "one domain," this surprises me a bit .
. . you must have more to say about just *one* rather than *all*
domains (other than the project quickly becomes absurdly unwieldy).
As usual, I appreciate your fine synthetic thinking, and admittedly
there is much complexity that is n to targeted in this session . . .
but *my* aim is to find a firm foundation, and to then proceed from there.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Marcus
--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
