Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture

2015-02-19 Thread Bob Logan
I join Pedro in thanking all of the participants of the Deacon conversation - I 
enjoyed it and would love to receive more comments off line - Bob
__

Robert K. Logan
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications








On 2015-02-16, at 8:02 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

 Dear FIS Colleagues,
 
 February is well advanced, and it is time to put a definite end to the New 
 Year Lecture. We have had a very interesting discussion time, though rather 
 silent in these final days. It was nice counting with Terry chairmanship, he 
 has had a very hard work with all those responses--thanks a lot to him. 
 Thanks are also due to Bob Logan for his implication in organizing the 
 Lecture and to the Pirates thought collective for their participation. 
 In the next session, in ten days or so, we will approach the global 
 phenomenon of intelligence: artificial and natural, rational and emotional, 
 scientific and artistic, East and West... let us wait and see.
 
 Also, hearing from  Ken Herold on Library Science and from Moises Andre on 
 interaction between disciplines was sort of a nice surprise: the connection 
 between the traditional approach and the new one becomes a highly strategic 
 goal for information science. Maybe it is one of the topics we have to 
 address in a specific discussion session. Moises, Ken--does it sound 
 interesting?
 
 Best wishes to all
 
 --Pedro
 
 -- 
 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
 Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -
 
 ___
 Fis mailing list
 Fis@listas.unizar.es
 http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

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


[Fis] Concluding the Lecture

2015-02-16 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear FIS Colleagues,

February is well advanced, and it is time to put a definite end to the 
New Year Lecture. We have had a very interesting discussion time, though 
rather silent in these final days. It was nice counting with Terry 
chairmanship, he has had a very hard work with all those 
responses--thanks a lot to him. Thanks are also due to Bob Logan for his 
implication in organizing the Lecture and to the Pirates thought 
collective for their participation. 

In the next session, in ten days or so, we will approach the global 
phenomenon of intelligence: artificial and natural, rational and 
emotional, scientific and artistic, East and West... let us wait and see.


Also, hearing from  Ken Herold on Library Science and from Moises Andre 
on interaction between disciplines was sort of a nice surprise: the 
connection between the traditional approach and the new one becomes a 
highly strategic goal for information science. Maybe it is one of the 
topics we have to address in a specific discussion session. Moises, 
Ken--does it sound interesting?


Best wishes to all

--Pedro

--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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


Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? - In Praise of Teleodynamics

2015-02-05 Thread Bob Logan
Dear FiSers - I am glad that Pedro has allowed this discussion to continue for 
a a couple of more days so I can share two items of my work that relate to 
Terry's teleodynamic-based project.

1. One item is a paper I co-authored with Stuart Kauffman and others entitled 
The Propagation of Organization: An Enquiry that posits a link between 
constraints and information. Here is the abstract of that paper. I would be 
happy to share it off line with any interested parties:

Propagating Organization: An Enquiry - Stuart Kauffman,  Robert K. Logan, 
Robert Este, Randy Goebel, David Hobill and Ilya Smulevich. 2007. Propagating 
Organization: An Inquiry. Published in Biology and Philosophy 23: 27-45.

Abstract: Our aim in this article is to attempt to discuss propagating 
organization of process, a poorly articulated union of matter, energy, work, 
constraints and that vexed concept, “information”, which unite in far from 
equilibrium living physical systems. Our hope is to stimulate discussions by 
philosophers of biology and biologists to further clarify the concepts we 
discuss here. We place our discussion in the broad context of a “general 
biology”, properties that might well be found in life anywhere in the cosmos, 
freed from the specific examples of terrestrial life after 3.8 billion years of 
evolution. By placing the discussion in this wider, if still hypothetical, 
context, we also try to place in context some of the extant discussion of 
information as intimately related to DNA, RNA and protein transcription and 
translation processes. While characteristic of current terrestrial life, there 
are no compelling grounds to suppose the same mechanisms would be involved in 
any life form able to evolve by heritable variation and natural selection. In 
turn, this allows us to discuss at least briefly, the focus of much of the 
philosophy of biology on population genetics, which, of course, assumes DNA, 
RNA, proteins, and other features of terrestrial life. Presumably, evolution by 
natural selection – and perhaps self-organization - could occur on many worlds 
via different causal mechanisms.

Here we seek a non-reductionist explanation for the synthesis, accumulation, 
and propagation of information, work, and constraint, which we hope will 
provide some insight into both the biotic and abiotic universe, in terms of 
both molecular self reproduction and the basic work energy cycle where work is 
the constrained release of energy into a few degrees of freedom. The typical 
requirement for work itself is to construct those very constraints on the 
release of energy that then constitute further work. Information creation, we 
argue, arises in two ways: first information as natural selection assembling 
the very constraints on the release of energy that then constitutes work and 
the propagation of organization. Second, information in a more extended sense 
is “semiotic”, that is about the world or internal state of the organism and 
requires appropriate response. The idea is to combine ideas from biology, 
physics, and computer science, to formulate explanatory hypotheses on how 
information can be captured and rendered in the expected physical 
manifestation, which can then participate in the propagation of the 
organization of process in the expected biological work cycles to create the 
diversity in our observable biosphere.

Our conclusions, to date, of this enquiry suggest a foundation which views 
information as the construction of constraints, which, in their physical 
manifestation, partially underlie the processes of evolution to dynamically 
determine the fitness of organisms within the context of a biotic universe. 

A key line from the paper and one that Terry quotes in Incomplete Nature as 
private communication from Kauffman is: The first surprise is that it takes 
constraints on the release of energy to perform work, but it takes work to 
create constraints. The second surprise is that constraints are information and 
information is constraint.

2. The second item, which is highly speculative and for which I take sole 
responsibility, is my extension of Terry's notion of teleodynamics beyond the 
domain of biology to culture, language, organization, science, economics and 
technology. I share with you the abstract and would be happy to share the whole 
article off line with any interested parties. This paper was inspired from the 
following line in Incomplete Nature: Although [teleodynamics] is the 
distinguishing characteristic of living processes, it is not necessarily 
limited to the biological. – Deacon (2012, 275)

The Teleodynamics of Culture, Language, Organization, Science, Economics and 
Technology (CLOSET) Published in Systema: connecting matter, life, culture and 
technology Vol. 2, Issue 3, 2014.

Abstract: Logan (2007) in his book The Extended Mind developed the hypothesis 
that language, culture, and technology can be construed as organisms that 
evolve and reproduce 

Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? - In Praise of Teleodynamics

2015-02-04 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan
No problem Bob, we can prolong the NY Lecture some extra days. My 
concern was the overload that these final messages ---more intense and 
argumentative-- could be causing on Terry's time budget. It is upon him 
whether he wants to continue responding in the current regime for 
instance until February the 15th (it means 12 extra days) or if he 
prefers to finalize right now and afterwards behave as a common 
participant, limited to two responding messages per week. We would start 
the next discussion session some weeks later, so there might be room for 
continuing the debate, but as an aftermath of the finalized Lecture. In 
my experience, putting limits to things clarifies the panorama and 
favors the debate. Very rarely we have had moderation conflicts in this 
list--what I personally thank to the general good mood of FISers. 
Nevertheless as a moderator I have to take care that we are not invaded 
by a cacophony of messages that block interesting exchanges, as happened 
in the first years of this list (18 years old!), and that our lecturing 
invitees do not get into unnecessary burdens... Navigating in between 
Scylla and Charibdis is not always easy!

best--Pedro

Bob Logan wrote:
Dear Pedro, Terry and Fellow FISers - 

I was composing the email below when your email appeared asking us not 
to respond any further to Terry's final remarks. I disagree with this 
arbitrary cutoff as I was about to send out what follows below. It 
also seems an abridgement of free speech to ask us not to discuss an 
issue we might be interested in. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the 
ground rules of the FIS list but the other listservs I belong to have 
never attempted to cutoff a topic. There have been occasions where 
they have asked an individual who posts too often to not turn the list 
into their own bully pulpit. Anyway as the guy who suggested that we 
ask Terry to lead a FIS conversation I will exercise the perogative to 
share my thoughts one more time. I would also be prepared to accept 
your restriction if you had given us advanced notice with an exact 
deadline of shutting down this thread.
Here is what I had written when you sounded the bell as a death knell 
to this discussion which is submitted with respect and the undertaking 
to abide by the referee's decision and not comment on Terry's final 
remarks although I would love to hear from my colleagues their final 
thoughts on Terry's teleodynamic approach - Bob 

In order to respect the only 2 per week constraint here are my 
comments to the flurry of recent posts in this thread. There is one 
caveat with which I wish to preface my remarks and it is this:
 I am a member of Terry research team and therefore I am biased, but I 
would like to share with my FIS  colleagues why I believe the 
teleodynamic approach that Terry has developed is the best game in 
town for understanding the origin of life and the nature of information.


Pedro wrote on Jan 30:
At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may 
put an end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to 
enter their late comments should hurry up. Your own final or 
concluding comment will be appreciated.


Bob's reply: Since Pedro issued the above call for the end of the 
discussion of Terry's provocative paper there has been a flurry of 
activity. As The English author Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once wrote: 
Nothing so concentrates the mind as the hangman's noose! I hope we 
can carry on a week or two more as some of us are just warming up. The 
first of the year is a logical starting point for  a new discussion 
thread but it also corresponds to the beginning of a new semester here 
in Canada and other places in North America. I for one was focussed on 
launching the new semester and my courses so I respectfully request 
that we keep the conversation going for awhile longer before we start 
a new one.


Now I have a few comments to support Terry's teleodynamic approach 
which I present:


Joe Brenner wrote later on Jan 30:
we can all easily understand and agree that the incorporation of 
‘homunculi’, that is, unproven mechanisms, as explanatory, should be 
avoided. In my view, however, Terry has a small army of homunculi at 
work (sic!) who insure that his processes of self-organization, 
self-reconstitution and ‘spontaneous’ self-assembly can take place! 
The finality of using his simulated autogenic systems is “a rigorous 
physical foundation upon which” future complex theories of information 
may be based. If, as I contend, Terry’s approach has failed to take 
into account the fundamentally dualistic physical properties of real 
systems, it is hard to see how it could do so.


Bob's reply:  As much as it pains me to disagree with my friend Joe 
who is in general in support of Deacon's approach I have to counter 
his accuasation that Terry has a small army of homunculi at work: 
There are no homunculi in the autogen model. According to Deacon's 
approach an incredible 

[Fis] Concluding the Lecture!

2015-02-03 Thread pedro marijuan
 at closely differ from the ones Terry correctly criticizes,
  are
  given a back of the hand dismissal that suggests that the writers may
  not
  be
  familiar enough with them to make the distinction.
 
  A point of agreement between Terry and me is that a concept of
 quantum
  information should not be mixed with one of thermodynamic
 information.
  This
  does not mean, however, that the some of the dual aspects of quantum
  entities are not relevant for thermodynamic processes, including the
  properties, production and transfer of information. Terry is
 absolutely
  correct to question the so-called ‘it-from-bit’ theory of information
  in
  its
  simplest form. Again, however, alternatives are available at the
 heart
  of
  which is exactly the ‘overlap’ between physics and information that
  Pedro
  calls for, e.g., those of Luhn and myself.
 
  I think Krassimir has a good point in concluding that we have a
 problem
  of
  civilization and that all our efforts, scientific and philosophical,
  should
  be made with the common good at the center of our preoccupations.
 This
  is
  the theme of the Vienna Summit 2015. Information offers the ground on
  which
  standard physical and biological as well as social and psychological
  reality
  can meet. It is from the most complex, interactive, recursive aspects
  of
  these realities as well as from the simplest that we must learn.
 Thank
  you.
 
  Best wishes,
 
  Joseph
 
 
 Message d'origine
 De : dea...@berkeley.edu
 Date : 30/01/2015 - 09:31 (PST)
 À : lo...@physics.utoronto.ca
 Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es
 Objet : Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?
 
 Thanks to Pedro and Bob for these last few comments. Indeed, like
 Darwin in 1859 we are still just beginning to formulate one long
 argument that will need to be progressively refined in the decades
 to
 come. The question is where best to begin the task of synthesizing. I
 too find the metaphor of searching for lost keys quite apropos, but I
 would beg your indulgence while I add an elaboration to this metaphor
 that sheds light on the perspective I have offered.
 
 Yes, we must at first search close to the light, even though there we
 will only find vague hints. But, importantly, as we cover more and
 more territory we will discover that the light progressively
 brightens. So long as we keep searching and don't walk out into the
 dark too quickly, skipping over important territory in between, the
 entire territory will become more and more thoroughly illuminated,
 searchable, and familiar to us.
 
 I believe that the light is brightest in the domain where we can see
 a
 clear relation between the two quite different concepts of entropy
 and
 the relationship of both to the concept of work. Admittedly, starting
 so minimally as I have in this essay seems remote from the interests
 of psychologists, anthropologists, economists and their kin, who
 demand an account of human-scale information processes, while at the
 same time appearing to introduce the messiness of semiotic concerns
 into the seemingly pristine world of information as a simple physical
 parameter. But of course the problem is to find the best illuminated
 middle ground between these two extremes, both still bathed in the
 darkness of simplifying assumptions that make them seem mutually
 exclusive— separated by darkness.
 
 This is what I am trying to accomplish. Though deceptively simple, I
 believe that the autogenic model system is just sufficiently complex
 to provide complete illumination of each of the critical defining
 features of the information concept—sign medium properties
 (entropies,
 uncertainty, constraint), reference (aboutness), significance
 (function, value, normativity), and interpretation (adaptation,
 intelligence)—while not artificially simplifying the issue by
 ignoring
 one or the other of these facets.
 
 Because of its simplicity none of these basic concepts are left in
 the
 dark as black boxes or excluded as taboo concepts. But of course,
 working at such a basic level means that the nature of more complex
 phenomena as thinking, subjectivity, language, and culture (to
 mention
 only a few) are not yet well illuminated by this light. This isn't to
 suggest that other pursuits in these other domains should be
 abandoned—for they at least clear away some of the underbrush
 creating
 paths that will help to ease the linkage between the different
 subterritories when finally the light brightens (to continue the
 metaphor). I just believe that this middle level is where the light
 best illuminates all the critical foundational issues.
 
 I don't expect agreement, but so far I haven't felt that the specific
 components of this proposal have been addressed in this thread. And
 in
 these closing days of discussion (as well as in future privately
 shared emails after this window closes) I hope to receive some
 suggestions and constructive criticisms pointing to where I might go
 next with this approach.
 
 Thanks

Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? - In Praise of Teleodynamics

2015-02-03 Thread Bob Logan
Dear Pedro, Terry and Fellow FISers - 

I was composing the email below when your email appeared asking us not to 
respond any further to Terry's final remarks. I disagree with this arbitrary 
cutoff as I was about to send out what follows below. It also seems an 
abridgement of free speech to ask us not to discuss an issue we might be 
interested in. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the ground rules of the FIS list 
but the other listservs I belong to have never attempted to cutoff a topic. 
There have been occasions where they have asked an individual who posts too 
often to not turn the list into their own bully pulpit. Anyway as the guy who 
suggested that we ask Terry to lead a FIS conversation I will exercise the 
perogative to share my thoughts one more time. I would also be prepared to 
accept your restriction if you had given us advanced notice with an exact 
deadline of shutting down this thread.
Here is what I had written when you sounded the bell as a death knell to this 
discussion which is submitted with respect and the undertaking to abide by the 
referee's decision and not comment on Terry's final remarks although I would 
love to hear from my colleagues their final thoughts on Terry's teleodynamic 
approach - Bob 

In order to respect the only 2 per week constraint here are my comments to 
the flurry of recent posts in this thread. There is one caveat with which I 
wish to preface my remarks and it is this:
 I am a member of Terry research team and therefore I am biased, but I would 
like to share with my FIS  colleagues why I believe the teleodynamic approach 
that Terry has developed is the best game in town for understanding the origin 
of life and the nature of information.

Pedro wrote on Jan 30:
At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an end 
to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their late 
comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be 
appreciated.

Bob's reply: Since Pedro issued the above call for the end of the discussion of 
Terry's provocative paper there has been a flurry of activity. As The English 
author Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once wrote: Nothing so concentrates the mind 
as the hangman's noose! I hope we can carry on a week or two more as some of 
us are just warming up. The first of the year is a logical starting point for  
a new discussion thread but it also corresponds to the beginning of a new 
semester here in Canada and other places in North America. I for one was 
focussed on launching the new semester and my courses so I respectfully request 
that we keep the conversation going for awhile longer before we start a new one.

Now I have a few comments to support Terry's teleodynamic approach which I 
present:

Joe Brenner wrote later on Jan 30:
we can all easily understand and agree that the incorporation of ‘homunculi’, 
that is, unproven mechanisms, as explanatory, should be avoided. In my view, 
however, Terry has a small army of homunculi at work (sic!) who insure that his 
processes of self-organization, self-reconstitution and ‘spontaneous’ 
self-assembly can take place! The finality of using his simulated autogenic 
systems is “a rigorous physical foundation upon which” future complex theories 
of information may be based. If, as I contend, Terry’s approach has failed to 
take into account the fundamentally dualistic physical properties of real 
systems, it is hard to see how it could do so.

Bob's reply:  As much as it pains me to disagree with my friend Joe who is in 
general in support of Deacon's approach I have to counter his accuasation that 
Terry has a small army of homunculi at work: There are no homunculi in the 
autogen model. According to Deacon's approach an incredible co-incidence has 
occurred in which the two self organizing processes of auto-catalysis and the 
self assembly of the crystal-like membranes became self-supporting. It is only 
by a chance event that one can explain how an organization of molecules with 
properties so different from abiotic matter suddenly became alive, able to 
propagate its organization and emerge as a self that acts teleonomically in its 
own interest. That co-incidence is the one in a billion or more chance that the 
by product of a particular autocatalytic set were also the ingredients for the 
self assembly of a bi-lipid membrane that could encase the autocatalytic set in 
a protective membrane and that the by products of that self-assembly process 
provided the raw materials for the very same autocatalysis. This is not a 
homunucli but just plain dumb luck or to give it a fancy name an aleatoric 
event, a one in a trillion event, but given the billion year (or multi-trillion 
second) time scale it becomes inevitable that such a rare event will occur. The 
two self-organizing processes that combined to form the purported autogen are 
due to first order extrinsic constraints. That these two constraints could be 
mutually 

Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?

2015-01-31 Thread Loet Leydesdorff
Dear Bob (and colleagues), 

 

It seems to me that you drive the problem home by signaling that the use of
the word “information” is very loose in many of our debates. Actually, you
argue – if I correctly understand – that this is rich: words only obtain
meaning within a sentence, and one can import “information” in differently
phrased sentences. :)

 

The concept that is missing in this context is “codification”. The word
“information” cannot only be used loosely, but also as a reference to a
concept with meaning from theoretical perspectives. I understood that in
Chinese, one has two words for information: “sjin sji” and “tsjin bao”; the
former being Shannon-type information, and the latter also meaning
intelligence. 

 

It seems to that Terry’s information concept in these discussions is rather
Shannon-type. He adds the point that information is relative to maximum
information (which can also be precisely defined using Shannon). The
difference between maximum information and maximum information is
redundancy. Weaver (1949) already noted that in addition to engineering
noise, one may have semantic noise or – equivalently – semantic redundancy
if, for example, the sources of noise are correlated; for example, in
language. This refinement can go further in scholarly discourse where the
use of language is restricted.

 

Thus, I don’t agree that the journey is the purpose in itself; the objective
is to move information theory forward as a scientific enterprise. “Wo
Begriffe fehlen, fuegt zur rechten Zeit ein Wort sich ein.” :)

 

Best wishes, 

Loet

 

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Emeritus University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)

 mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ;
http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Honorary Professor,  http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of
Sussex; 

Guest Professor  http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou;
Visiting Professor,  http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC,
Beijing;

Visiting Professor,  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London;


 http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:07 PM
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Cc: 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?

 

Thanks Pedro for your remarks. We have not reached our destination as you
point out but the important thing is to enjoy the journey which I certainly
have. It is inevitable that with such a slippery concept as information that
there will be different destinations depending on the travellers but what I
like about FIS in general and the dialogue that Terry prompted in particular
is the interesting ideas and good company I encountered along the way. As
for your remark about searching where there is light I suggest that we pack
a flashlight for the next journey to be led by our tour guide Zhao Chuan.
One common theme for understanding the importance of both information and
intelligence for me is interpretation and context (figure/ground or
pragmatics). Thanks to all especially Terry for a very pleasant journey. -
Bob

__

 

Robert K. Logan

Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 

Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD

http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan

www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan 

www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications 

 

 

 

 

 





 

On 2015-01-30, at 8:25 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:





Dear Terry and colleagues,

At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an
end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their
late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be
appreciated.

Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob and
Terry, It is about the point which follows:  ...there was no thesis other
than the word information is a descriptor for so many different situations
and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a jaunt through
the countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble. 
In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the
microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case) which
together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations of the
whole field, or even of the whole great domain of information. But could
it be so? Is there such thing as a unitary foundation? My impression is
that we are instinctively working where the light is, reminding the trite
story of the physicists who has lost the car keys and is looking closest to
the street lamp.  The point I suggest is that the different informational
realms are emergent in the strongest sense: almost no trace of the
underlying

Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?

2015-01-31 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
Hi Loet,

I love your comment about the two Chinese terms, but I hope you
haven't come away with the impression that I have remained in the
realm of Shannon information. I have merely tried to take a small
cautious step away from “sjin sji” and toward “tsjin bao” --
recognizing that there is much more work to do.

— Terry

On 1/31/15, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote:
 Dear Bob (and colleagues),



 It seems to me that you drive the problem home by signaling that the use of
 the word “information” is very loose in many of our debates. Actually, you
 argue – if I correctly understand – that this is rich: words only obtain
 meaning within a sentence, and one can import “information” in differently
 phrased sentences. :)



 The concept that is missing in this context is “codification”. The word
 “information” cannot only be used loosely, but also as a reference to a
 concept with meaning from theoretical perspectives. I understood that in
 Chinese, one has two words for information: “sjin sji” and “tsjin bao”; the
 former being Shannon-type information, and the latter also meaning
 intelligence.



 It seems to that Terry’s information concept in these discussions is rather
 Shannon-type. He adds the point that information is relative to maximum
 information (which can also be precisely defined using Shannon). The
 difference between maximum information and maximum information is
 redundancy. Weaver (1949) already noted that in addition to engineering
 noise, one may have semantic noise or – equivalently – semantic redundancy
 if, for example, the sources of noise are correlated; for example, in
 language. This refinement can go further in scholarly discourse where the
 use of language is restricted.



 Thus, I don’t agree that the journey is the purpose in itself; the
 objective
 is to move information theory forward as a scientific enterprise. “Wo
 Begriffe fehlen, fuegt zur rechten Zeit ein Wort sich ein.” :)



 Best wishes,

 Loet





   _

 Loet Leydesdorff

 Emeritus University of Amsterdam
 Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)

  mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ;
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/
 Honorary Professor,  http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of
 Sussex;

 Guest Professor  http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou;
 Visiting Professor,  http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC,
 Beijing;

 Visiting Professor,  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of
 London;


  http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en
 http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en



 From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Bob Logan
 Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 3:07 PM
 To: Pedro C. Marijuan
 Cc: 'fis'
 Subject: Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?



 Thanks Pedro for your remarks. We have not reached our destination as you
 point out but the important thing is to enjoy the journey which I certainly
 have. It is inevitable that with such a slippery concept as information
 that
 there will be different destinations depending on the travellers but what I
 like about FIS in general and the dialogue that Terry prompted in
 particular
 is the interesting ideas and good company I encountered along the way. As
 for your remark about searching where there is light I suggest that we pack
 a flashlight for the next journey to be led by our tour guide Zhao Chuan.
 One common theme for understanding the importance of both information and
 intelligence for me is interpretation and context (figure/ground or
 pragmatics). Thanks to all especially Terry for a very pleasant journey. -
 Bob

 __



 Robert K. Logan

 Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto

 Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD

 http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan

 www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
 http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan

 www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
 http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications

















 On 2015-01-30, at 8:25 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:





 Dear Terry and colleagues,

 At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an
 end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their
 late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be
 appreciated.

 Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob
 and
 Terry, It is about the point which follows:  ...there was no thesis other
 than the word information is a descriptor for so many different situations
 and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a jaunt through
 the countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble.
 In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the
 microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case) which
 together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations of the
 whole field

Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?

2015-01-30 Thread Bob Logan
Thanks Pedro for your remarks. We have not reached our destination as you point 
out but the important thing is to enjoy the journey which I certainly have. It 
is inevitable that with such a slippery concept as information that there will 
be different destinations depending on the travellers but what I like about FIS 
in general and the dialogue that Terry prompted in particular is the 
interesting ideas and good company I encountered along the way. As for your 
remark about searching where there is light I suggest that we pack a flashlight 
for the next journey to be led by our tour guide Zhao Chuan. One common theme 
for understanding the importance of both information and intelligence for me is 
interpretation and context (figure/ground or pragmatics). Thanks to all 
especially Terry for a very pleasant journey. - Bob
__

Robert K. Logan
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications








On 2015-01-30, at 8:25 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

 Dear Terry and colleagues,
 
 At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an 
 end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their late 
 comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will be 
 appreciated.
 
 Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob and 
 Terry, It is about the point which follows:  ...there was no thesis other 
 than the word information is a descriptor for so many different situations 
 and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a jaunt through the 
 countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble. 
 In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the 
 microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case) which 
 together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations of the whole 
 field, or even of the whole great domain of information. But could it be 
 so? Is there such thing as a unitary foundation? My impression is that we 
 are instinctively working where the light is, reminding the trite story of 
 the physicists who has lost the car keys and is looking closest to the street 
 lamp.  The point I suggest is that the different informational realms are 
 emergent in the strongest sense: almost no trace of the underlying 
 information realms would surface. Each realm has to invent throughout its own 
 engines of invention the different informational  organizational  principles 
 that sustain its existence. It is no obligate that there will be a successful 
 outcome In the extent to which this plurality of foundations is true, 
 solving the microphysical part would be of little help to adumbrating the 
 neuronal/psychological or the social information arena.
 
 The roadmap Bob suggests is an obligatory exploration to advance; we may 
 disagree in the ways and means, but not in the overall goal. It is a mind 
 boggling exercise as we have to confront quite different languages and styles 
 of thinking. For instance, the next session we will have at FIS (in a few 
 weeks) is an attempt of an excursion on Intelligence Science.  Presented by 
 Zhao Chuan, the aim is of confronting the phenomenon of intelligence from a 
 global perspective amalgamating science (artificial intelligence), emotions, 
 and art (poetic and pictorial). Not easy, but we will try
 
 Anyhow,  Terry, we much appreciate your insights and the responses you  have 
 produced along the Lecture. It was a nice intellectual exercise.
 
 Best wishes to all---Pedro
 
 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
 Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -
 
 ___
 Fis mailing list
 Fis@listas.unizar.es
 http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

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


[Fis] Concluding the Lecture?

2015-01-30 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear Terry and colleagues,

At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put 
an end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter 
their late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding 
comment will be appreciated.


Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob 
and Terry, It is about the point which follows:  ...there was no thesis 
other than the word information is a descriptor for so many different 
situations and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a 
jaunt through the countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble. 

In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the 
microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case) 
which together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations 
of the whole field, or even of the whole great domain of information. 
But could it be so? Is there such thing as a unitary foundation? My 
impression is that we are instinctively working where the light is, 
reminding the trite story of the physicists who has lost the car keys 
and is looking closest to the street lamp.  The point I suggest is that 
the different informational realms are emergent in the strongest sense: 
almost no trace of the underlying information realms would surface. Each 
realm has to invent throughout its own engines of invention the 
different informational  organizational  principles that sustain its 
existence. It is no obligate that there will be a successful outcome 
In the extent to which this plurality of foundations is true, solving 
the microphysical part would be of little help to adumbrating the 
neuronal/psychological or the social information arena.


The roadmap Bob suggests is an obligatory exploration to advance; we may 
disagree in the ways and means, but not in the overall goal. It is a 
mind boggling exercise as we have to confront quite different languages 
and styles of thinking. For instance, the next session we will have at 
FIS (in a few weeks) is an attempt of an excursion on Intelligence 
Science.  Presented by Zhao Chuan, the aim is of confronting the 
phenomenon of intelligence from a global perspective amalgamating 
science (artificial intelligence), emotions, and art (poetic and 
pictorial). Not easy, but we will try


Anyhow,  Terry, we much appreciate your insights and the responses you  
have produced along the Lecture. It was a nice intellectual exercise.


Best wishes to all---Pedro

-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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