[Fis] MODERATION NOTE Re: Causation is transfer of information

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

To ALL discussants:

Please, take into account that posting in this list is restricted to two 
messages per week. It is the Second Rule of our info club...


Best--Pedro
Fis List moderator

El 30/03/2017 a las 11:12, John Collier escribió:


Dear Hector,

Personally I agree that algorithmic information theory and the related 
concepts of randomness and Bennett’s logical depth are the best way to 
go. I have used them in many of my own works. When I met Chaitin a few 
years back we talked mostly about how unrewarding and controversial 
our work on information theory has been. When I did an article on 
information for the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy it was 
rejected in part becausewe of fierce divisions between supporters of 
Chaitin and supporters of Kolmogorov!  The stuff I put in on Spencer 
Brown was criticized because “he was some sort of Buddhist, wasn’t 
he?” It sounds like you have run into similar problems.


That is why I suggested a realignment of what this group should be 
aiming for. I think the end result would justify our thinking, and 
your work certainly furthers it. But it does need to be worked out. 
Personally, I don’t have the patience for it.


John Collier

Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate

Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier

*From:*Hector Zenil [mailto:hzen...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, 30 March 2017 10:48 AM
*To:* John Collier ; fis 
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] Causation is transfer of information

Dear John et al. Some comments below:

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:47 AM, John Collier > wrote:


I think we should try to categorize and relate information
concepts rather than trying to decide which is the “right one”. I
have tried to do this by looking at various uses of information in
science, and argue that the main uses show progressive
containment: Kinds of Information in Scientific Use
.
2011. cognition, communication, co-operation. Vol 9, No 2


There are various mathematical formulations of information as
well, and I think the same strategy is required here. Sometimes
they are equivalent, sometimes close to equivalent, and sometimes
quite different in form and motivation. Work on the foundations of
information science needs to make these relations clear. A few
years back (more than a decade) a mathematician on a list
(newsgroup) argued that there were dozens of different
mathematical definitions of information. I thought this was a bit
excessive, and argued with him about convergences, but he was
right that they were mathematically different. We need to look at
information theory structures and their models to see where they
are equivalent and where (and if) they overlap. Different
mathematical forms can have models in common, sometimes all of them.

The agreement among professional mathematicians is that the correct 
definition of randomness as opposed to information is the Martin Loef 
definition for the infinite asymptotic case, and Kolmogorov-Chaitin 
for the finite case. Algorithmic probability (Solomonoff, Levin) is 
the theory of optimal induction and thus provides a formal universal 
meaning to the value of information. Then the general agreement is 
also that Bennett's logical depth separates the concept of randomness 
from information structure. No much controversy in in there on the 
nature of classical information as algorithmic information. Notice 
that 'algorithmic information' is not just one more definiton of 
information, IS the definition of mathematical information (again, by 
way of defining algorithmic randomness). So adding 'algorithmic' to 
information is not to talk about a special case that can then be 
ignored by philosophy of information.


All the above builds on (and well beyond) Shannon Entropy, which is 
not even very properly discussed in philosophy of information beyond 
its most basic definition (we rarely, if ever, see discussions around 
mutual information, conditional information, Judea Pearl's 
interventionist approach and counterfactuals, etc), let alone anything 
of the more advanced areas mentioned above, or a discussion on the now 
well established area of quantum information that is also comletely 
ignored.


This is like trying to do philosophy of cosmology discussing Gamow and 
Hubble but ignoring relativity, or trying to do philosophy of language 
today discussing Locke and Hume but not Chomsky, or doing philosophy 
of mind discussing the findings of Ramon y Cajal and claiming that his 
theories are not enough to explain the brain. It is some sort of 
strawman fallacy contructing an opponent living in the 40s to claim in 
2017 that it fails at explaining everything about information. Shannon 

[Fis] MODERATION NOTE

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

The list server has been out of work during last 48 h. Sorry about the 
incident. Now it seems to be working again.
Please, all those with pending messages are asked to re-send them... 
moderately. As one of our colleagues has written me offline:


"Now regarding the current FIS discussion – it is very exciting, 
rewarding and thought provoking.
Topological approaches seem to be very important and fundamental in a 
variety of fields, so great to learn about them.
However I think that Arturo goes faster than the majority of others can 
follow. That is visible from the discussion so far.
Perhaps he should slow down and explain to the colleagues with different 
backgrounds, on a more basic level what he is doing.
As they really express wish to collaborate interdisciplinary, it is 
important to find common ground so that the list can share this exciting 
idea

to use topology to understand the brain-mind processes..."

So, let us continue, with the reminder that it is better not to respond 
immediately--wait to the next day and produce a more seasoned response...

Best--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 0
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] _ MODERATION NOTE

[pedro marijuan]

Participants are kindly reminded that only two messages per week are allowed. 
BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@

-Original Message-
From: Louis H Kauffman 
Sender: Fis 
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:18:08 
To: fis
Cc: Søren Brier
Subject: [Fis] _ Re:  _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

Dear Soren,
Excellent!
What it amounts to is that you and I interpret all this a bit differently.
I am happy with Bateson’s unmarked states and his 
"All that is 
for the preacher
> The hypnotist, therapist and missionary
> They will come after me
> And use the little that I said
> To bait more traps
> For those who cannot bear
> The lonely
> Skeleton
>of Truth”
Best,
Lou


> On Apr 2, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Søren Brier  wrote:
> 
> Dear Lou
>  
> I did red these very nice metalogues, but these are not the philosophy of 
> science conceptual network underlying the real theory:
> For Bateson, mind is a cybernetic phe­nomenon, a sort of mental ecology. The 
> mental ecology relates to an ability to register differen­ces and is an 
> intrin­sic system property. The elementary, cyberne­tic system with its 
> messages in circuits is the simplest mental unit, even when the total system 
> does not include living organ­isms. Every living system has the following 
> charac­teristics that we generally call men­tal:
> 1. The system shall operate with and upon differences.
> 2. The system shall consist of closed loops or networks of path­ways a­long 
> which differ­ences and transforms of dif­fer­ences shall be trans­mitted. 
> (What is transmitted on a neuron is not an impulse; it is news of a 
> difference).
> 3. Many events within the system shall be energized by the respon­ding ­part 
> rather than by impact from the trig­gering part.
> 4. The system shall show self‑corrective­ness in the direc­tion of 
> home­ostasis and/or in the direction of runaway. Self-correc­tiveness implies 
> trial and error.
> (Bateson 1973: 458)
> 
> Mind is synonymous with a cybernetic system that is compri­sed of a total, 
> self-correc­ting unit that prepares infor­mation. Mind is imma­nent in this 
> wholeness. When Bateson says that mind is immanent, he means that the mental 
> is immanent in the entire system, in the complete message circuit. One can 
> therefore say that mind is immanent in the circuits that are complete inside 
> the brain. Mind is also immanent in the greater cir­cuits, which complete the 
> system “brain + body.” Finally, mind is imma­nent in the even greater system 
> “man + environ­ment” or - more generally - “orga­nism + environment,” which 
> is identical to the elementary unit of evo­lution, i.e., the thinking, acting 
> and deciding agent:
> The individual mind is immanent, but not only in the body. It is imma­nent 
> also in pathways and messages outsi­de the body; and there is a larger Mind, 
> of which the individual is only a subsystem. This larger Mind is com­parable 
> to God and is perhaps what some people mean by “God,” but it is still 
> immanent in the total inter-con­nec­ted social system and planetary ecology. 
> Freud­ian psychology expanded the concept of mind inward to in­clude the 
> whole communi­cation system within the body - the auto­nomic, the habitual 
> and the vast range of uncons­cious processes. What I am saying expands mind 
> outward. And both of these changes reduce the scope of the cons­cious self. A 
> certain humility becomes appropri­ate, tem­pered by the dignity or joy of 
> being part of something bigger. A part -- if you will -- of God.
> (Bateson 1973: 436-37).
> 
> Bateson’s cybernetics thus leads towards mind as immanent in both animate and 
> inanimate nature as well as in culture, because mind is essentially the 
> informational and logical pattern that connects everything through its 
> virtual recursive dynamics of differences and logical types. The theory is 
> neither idealistic nor materialistic. It is informational and 
> functionalistic[1] .Norbert Wiener (1965/1948) has an 
> objective information concept, which Bateson develops to be more relational 
> and therefore more ecological. He develops a cybernetic concept of mind that 
> includes humans and culture. Bateson’s worldview seems biological. He sees 
> life and mind as coexisting in an ecological and evolutionary dynamic, 
> integrating the whole biosphere. Bateson clearly sympathizes with the 
> etholo­gists (Brier 1993, 1995) when he resists the positivistic split 
> between the rational and the emotional in lan­guage and thinking that is so 
> important for cognitive science. He acknowledges emotions as an important 
> cognitive process:
> It is the attempt to separate intel­lect from emotion that is mons­trous, and 
> I suggest that it is equally monstrous -- and dangerous -- to attempt to 
> 

[Fis] MODERATION NOTE

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Let me remind you all that this new session is a little bit special. 
Around 70 new parties have joined our list to maintain a common dialog 
based on the different presentations. I know we are accustomed to many 
years of "tangents" and parallel discussions, but this time you are 
kindly requested to narrow the focus and to directly involve the 
presenters' themes (Maxine's) in the discussions. Quite probably, any 
newcomer does not understand what all this give and take is about. The 
discussion should not drift into other themes and we need to involve the 
newcomers and not leave them alone pulling and giving the word to a few 
more active old members. This is not the idea of the common dialog that 
Plamen and me thought could be a fertile and interesting experience to 
both parties, I guess.


Maxine, please, you have the word.

Thanking in advance--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