Re: [Fis] "The Travelers"

2014-10-30 Thread Guy A Hoelzer 
Hi Loet,

I appreciate the rigor of your comments.  I have some follow up responses 
interspersed below.

On Oct 30, 2014, at 2:11 AM, Loet Leydesdorff 
mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

The metaphors are sometimes confusing. For example:

Along the line of your argument, meaningfulness would be exclusive to dynamical 
systems where agency, purpose, and self-interest have emerged.

I would further limit meaningfulness only to the cultural domain. Meaning can 
be provided by human agency. Sometimes meanings can be codified at the 
supra-individual level. The ascription of meaning by us to non-human behavior 
(of animals or molecules) does not mean that these non-human operate with 
meaning. As Maturana would say: it is “as if” a semantic domain is shaped (in 
second-order consensual domains).

The evolution of communication systems is a long standing interest of mine, but 
I don’t see a reason to limit ‘the meaning of meaning’ this way.  Evolved 
systems of communication result from coevolutionary dynamics that mold signals, 
which may have no meaning themselves without ‘agreement’ (sorry for pushing 
more metaphors here) in the ‘consensual domains’.  It strikes me as arbitrary 
to parse evolved signals from encounters with other sources of information as 
potentially meaningful to a system.  Wouldn’t you, for example, assign meaning 
to the sight of a tornado moving in your direction?  I’m sure it would induce 
activity on your part.

When such a system encounters a bit of physical information it might or might 
not apprehend the bit.

A bit is dimensionless and not “physical”. Probabilistic entropy is different 
from physical entropy (S = k(B) * H). The physical dimension (Joule/Kelvin) is 
provided by the Boltzmann constant. Bits are thus non-physical: not res 
extensa, but res cogitans (cogitatum).

Good point.  That was a bad choice of words on my part.  You could remove the 
word “bit” and still have my intended meaning.

It can only apprehend the bit if something about the system's dynamics is 
changed as a result of the encounter.  It would only be meaningful to that 
system if it is “a difference that makes a difference”.  In other words, if the 
change in the system’s dynamics affects system function in some way, then that 
bit of information was meaningful to that system.

This can lead to the measurement and testing of hypotheses.

That would be great, but I am not convinced.  I am portraying ‘meaning’ as 
subjective (internal) experience.  We could test for changes in the state of a 
system as a consequence of encountering information, but how can we know if the 
system found it meaningful?  Even personal reports from a human would be an 
imperfect measure.  However, if meaning were to operationally defined as a 
responsive change in internal dynamics, then I think we could begin to measure 
it.

The example of the gravitational pull of the sun on the earth can
 be considered in this framework.  The first think I would say is that there 
are plenty of systems in and on the earth, but the planet itself does not 
necessarily constitute a system.

This is an empirical question (depending on the research question). Systemness 
can be tested, using for example, the Markov property.

I agree this should be possible, and I think it is a very important factor.

A big rock floating in space does not imply an internal system that could 
apprehend or change dynamically in response to gravitational pull.  On the 
other hand, dynamical geological processes within the earth, 
biological/ecological systems on the earth, or weather systems in the 
atmosphere might qualify; and these system could potentially apprehend and 
respond meaningfully to the sun’s gravitational pull.

Very metaphorical “apprehension” and “response”. One could also use “react”? Or 
do you mean “significantly” instead of “meaningfully”? Significance can be 
tested statistically.

You are right about the vagueness of my metaphors here.  Consider the movements 
of neutrinos or cosmic radiation through your body.  Some of them may move 
through without any affects on your structure (including the structures of your 
component parts, like individual molecules) or internal dynamics.  Others might 
affect these things.  I would say that you have not apprehended the things that 
did not affect you, and that structural affects without changes in internal 
dynamics would not be ‘meaningful’ to you.  You also have sensory organs 
designed to detect and react to particular modes of information, which makes us 
prone to attach meaning to information apprehended through those particular 
modes and organs.  For me, meaning need not be associated with consciousness or 
self-awareness.  I would say that as a hurricane over the ocean moves over 
land, information in the form of a changed gradient strength (or changed heat 
input from the earth’s surface) is ‘meaningful’ to that hurricane because the 
internal dynamics of the hurrica

Re: [Fis] "The Travelers"

2014-10-30 Thread Loet Leydesdorff 
Dear colleagues, 

 

The metaphors are sometimes confusing. For example: 

 

Along the line of your argument, meaningfulness would be exclusive to
dynamical systems where agency, purpose, and self-interest have emerged.  

 

I would further limit meaningfulness only to the cultural domain. Meaning
can be provided by human agency. Sometimes meanings can be codified at the
supra-individual level. The ascription of meaning by us to non-human
behavior (of animals or molecules) does not mean that these non-human
operate with meaning. As Maturana would say: it is "as if" a semantic domain
is shaped (in second-order consensual domains).

 

When such a system encounters a bit of physical information it might or
might not apprehend the bit.  

 

A bit is dimensionless and not "physical". Probabilistic entropy is
different from physical entropy (S = k(B) * H). The physical dimension
(Joule/Kelvin) is provided by the Boltzmann constant. Bits are thus
non-physical: not res extensa, but res cogitans (cogitatum). 

 

It can only apprehend the bit if something about the system's dynamics is
changed as a result of the encounter.  It would only be meaningful to that
system if it is "a difference that makes a difference".  In other words, if
the change in the system's dynamics affects system function in some way,
then that bit of information was meaningful to that system.  

 

This can lead to the measurement and testing of hypotheses. 

 

The example of the gravitational pull of the sun on the earth can
 be considered in this framework.  The first think I would say is that there
are plenty of systems in and on the earth, but the planet itself does not
necessarily constitute a system.  

 

This is an empirical question (depending on the research question).
Systemness can be tested, using for example, the Markov property.

 

A big rock floating in space does not imply an internal system that could
apprehend or change dynamically in response to gravitational pull.  On the
other hand, dynamical geological processes within the earth,
biological/ecological systems on the earth, or weather systems in the
atmosphere might qualify; and these system could potentially apprehend and
respond meaningfully to the sun's gravitational pull.  

 

Very metaphorical "apprehension" and "response". One could also use "react"?
Or do you mean "significantly" instead of "meaningfully"? Significance can
be tested statistically.

 

On the other hand, the information encountered as a result of exposure to
the gravitational pull might be entirely transparent to (not detectable by)
some of these systems.  At least this is how I think about this interesting
issue.



Best,

Loet


Cheers,

Guy

Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nevada Reno

Phone:  775-784-4860
Fax:  775-784-1302
hoel...@unr.edu 




On Oct 23, 2014, at 7:13 AM, Bob Logan < lo...@physics.utoronto.ca
 > wrote:

Dear Stan - could you clarify that last sentence of your = perhaps I
misinterpreted it - are you saying that context in a purely physical abiotic
situation is somehow related to interpretation and hence information. I
apologize in advance if I mis-interpreted your remarks. 

In framing my advanced apology to you Stan, I inadvertently used the term
mis-interpreted. This sparked the following idea: Mis-information is due to
misinterpretation of the receiver whereas dis-informatio is due to the
intended deception of the sender. 

A further thought about whether abiotic physical processes can be construed
as information:  Meaning and hence information can only exist for a system
that has a purpose, a telos, or an end it wishes to achieve, i.e abiotc
system such as a living organism or even a cell.   "So-called information"
with out meaning is only signals. And even there, to say that the sun's
gravitational pull on the earth is a signal is to engage in anthropomorphic
thinking. And to suggest that the sun's gravitational pull on the earth is
information does not make sense because there is no way that anything can
have meaning for the earth. The earth has no objective or  purpose, Gaia
hypothesis not withstanding, For us earthlings it is another matter. We have
figured out that the sun exerts a gravitational pull on the earth and the
statement to that effect has meaning for those able to grasp elementary
physics but the gravitational pull is not information in itself only a
description of that gravitational pull of the sun on the earth is
information. 

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 2014-10-23, at 9:27 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote:




Pedro wrote: 

PM: Regarding the theme of physical information raised by Igor and Joseph,
the main problematic aspect of information (meaning) is

Re: [Fis] "The Travelers"

2014-10-30 Thread John Collier 


I would agree with this. I also agree with Bob. And of course I agree
with Stan. However I do think that the technical problems are rather more
than Stan estimates. More on this later. I don't feel so good right
now.
John
At 12:45 AM 2014-10-24, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
Dear Bob et al., 
I take semiotics as the science of meaning, which I separate from the
science of information (information theory?).  Along the line of
your argument, meaningfulness would be exclusive to dynamical systems
where agency, purpose, and self-interest have emerged.  When such a
system encounters a bit of physical information it might or might not
apprehend the bit.  It can only apprehend the bit if something about
the system's dynamics is changed as a result of the encounter.  It
would only be meaningful to that system if it is “a difference that makes
a difference”.  In other words, if the change in the system’s
dynamics affects system function in some way, then that bit of
information was meaningful to that system.  The example of the
gravitational pull of the sun on the earth can
 be considered in this framework.  The first think I would say
is that there are plenty of systems in and on the earth, but the planet
itself does not necessarily constitute a system.  A big rock
floating in space does not imply an internal system that could apprehend
or change dynamically in response to gravitational pull.  On the
other hand, dynamical geological processes within the earth,
biological/ecological systems on the earth, or weather systems in the
atmosphere might qualify; and these system could potentially apprehend
and respond meaningfully to the sun’s gravitational pull.  On the
other hand, the information encountered as a result of exposure to the
gravitational pull might be entirely transparent to (not detectable by)
some of these systems.  At least this is how I think about this
interesting issue.
Cheers,
Guy
Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nevada Reno
Phone:  775-784-4860
Fax:  775-784-1302
hoel...@unr.edu 
On Oct 23, 2014, at 7:13 AM, Bob
Logan
<
lo...@physics.utoronto.ca> wrote:
Dear Stan - could you clarify that last sentence of your = perhaps I
misinterpreted it - are you saying that context in a purely physical
abiotic  situation is somehow related to interpretation and hence
information. I apologize in advance if I mis-interpreted your remarks.

In framing my advanced apology to you Stan, I inadvertently used the term
mis-interpreted. This sparked the following idea: Mis-information is due
to misinterpretation of the receiver whereas dis-informatio is due to the
intended deception of the sender. 
A further thought about whether abiotic physical processes can be
construed as information:  Meaning and hence information can only
exist for a system that has a purpose, a telos, or an end it wishes to
achieve, i.e abiotc system such as a living organism or even a
cell.   "So-called information" with out meaning is
only signals. And even there, to say that the sun's gravitational pull on
the earth is a signal is to engage in anthropomorphic thinking. And to
suggest that the sun's gravitational pull on the earth is information
does not make sense because there is no way that anything can have
meaning for the earth. The earth has no objective or  purpose, Gaia
hypothesis not withstanding, For us earthlings it is another matter. We
have figured out that the sun exerts a gravitational pull on the earth
and the statement to that effect has meaning for those able to grasp
elementary physics but the gravitational pull is not information in
itself only a description of that gravitational pull of the sun on the
earth is information. 
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 2014-10-23, at 9:27 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote:
Pedro wrote: 
PM: Regarding the theme of physical information raised by Igor and
Joseph, the main problematic aspect of information (meaning) is missing
there. One can imagine that as two physical systems interact, each one
may be metaphorically attributed with meaning respect the changes
experimented. But it is an empty attribution that does not bring any
further interesting aspect.
SS: I have advanced (  On the origin of semiosis.  Cybernetics
and Human Knowing 19 (3): 53-66. 2012 ) the idea that whenever
context influences importantly any reaction which, even in the physical
realm, might be viewed as an informational exchange, there is the
forerunner of the interpretation of an interaction, Such a simple
'interpretation' (proto-interpretation) would then be the forerunner of
meaning generation.  When context importantly influences the outcome
of a physical interaction, this brings a "further interesting
aspect" beyond the purely physical.
STAN 
_

Re: [Fis] "The Travelers"

2014-10-23 Thread Guy A Hoelzer 
Dear Bob et al.,

I take semiotics as the science of meaning, which I separate from the science 
of information (information theory?).  Along the line of your argument, 
meaningfulness would be exclusive to dynamical systems where agency, purpose, 
and self-interest have emerged.  When such a system encounters a bit of 
physical information it might or might not apprehend the bit.  It can only 
apprehend the bit if something about the system's dynamics is changed as a 
result of the encounter.  It would only be meaningful to that system if it is 
“a difference that makes a difference”.  In other words, if the change in the 
system’s dynamics affects system function in some way, then that bit of 
information was meaningful to that system.  The example of the gravitational 
pull of the sun on the earth can be considered in this framework.  The first 
think I would say is that there are plenty of systems in and on the earth, but 
the planet itself does not necessarily constitute a system.  A big rock 
floating in space does not imply an internal system that could apprehend or 
change dynamically in response to gravitational pull.  On the other hand, 
dynamical geological processes within the earth, biological/ecological systems 
on the earth, or weather systems in the atmosphere might qualify; and these 
system could potentially apprehend and respond meaningfully to the sun’s 
gravitational pull.  On the other hand, the information encountered as a result 
of exposure to the gravitational pull might be entirely transparent to (not 
detectable by) some of these systems.  At least this is how I think about this 
interesting issue.

Cheers,

Guy

Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nevada Reno

Phone:  775-784-4860
Fax:  775-784-1302
hoel...@unr.edu

On Oct 23, 2014, at 7:13 AM, Bob Logan 
mailto:lo...@physics.utoronto.ca>> wrote:

Dear Stan - could you clarify that last sentence of your = perhaps I 
misinterpreted it - are you saying that context in a purely physical abiotic  
situation is somehow related to interpretation and hence information. I 
apologize in advance if I mis-interpreted your remarks.

In framing my advanced apology to you Stan, I inadvertently used the term 
mis-interpreted. This sparked the following idea: Mis-information is due to 
misinterpretation of the receiver whereas dis-informatio is due to the intended 
deception of the sender.

A further thought about whether abiotic physical processes can be construed as 
information:  Meaning and hence information can only exist for a system that 
has a purpose, a telos, or an end it wishes to achieve, i.e abiotc system such 
as a living organism or even a cell.   "So-called information" with out meaning 
is only signals. And even there, to say that the sun's gravitational pull on 
the earth is a signal is to engage in anthropomorphic thinking. And to suggest 
that the sun's gravitational pull on the earth is information does not make 
sense because there is no way that anything can have meaning for the earth. The 
earth has no objective or  purpose, Gaia hypothesis not withstanding, For us 
earthlings it is another matter. We have figured out that the sun exerts a 
gravitational pull on the earth and the statement to that effect has meaning 
for those able to grasp elementary physics but the gravitational pull is not 
information in itself only a description of that gravitational pull of the sun 
on the earth is information.

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 2014-10-23, at 9:27 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote:

Pedro wrote:

PM: Regarding the theme of physical information raised by Igor and Joseph, the 
main problematic aspect of information (meaning) is missing there. One can 
imagine that as two physical systems interact, each one may be metaphorically 
attributed with meaning respect the changes experimented. But it is an empty 
attribution that does not bring any further interesting aspect.

SS: I have advanced (  On the origin of semiosis.  Cybernetics and Human 
Knowing 19 (3): 53-66. 2012 ) the idea that whenever context influences 
importantly any reaction which, even in the physical realm, might be viewed as 
an informational exchange, there is the forerunner of the interpretation of an 
interaction, Such a simple 'interpretation' (proto-interpretation) would then 
be the forerunner of meaning generation.  When context importantly influences 
the outcome of a physical interaction, this brings a "further interesting 
aspect" beyond the purely physical.

STAN
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es

Re: [Fis] "The Travelers"

2014-10-23 Thread Bob Logan 
Dear Stan - could you clarify that last sentence of your = perhaps I 
misinterpreted it - are you saying that context in a purely physical abiotic  
situation is somehow related to interpretation and hence information. I 
apologize in advance if I mis-interpreted your remarks.

In framing my advanced apology to you Stan, I inadvertently used the term 
mis-interpreted. This sparked the following idea: Mis-information is due to 
misinterpretation of the receiver whereas dis-informatio is due to the intended 
deception of the sender. 

A further thought about whether abiotic physical processes can be construed as 
information:  Meaning and hence information can only exist for a system that 
has a purpose, a telos, or an end it wishes to achieve, i.e abiotc system such 
as a living organism or even a cell.   "So-called information" with out meaning 
is only signals. And even there, to say that the sun's gravitational pull on 
the earth is a signal is to engage in anthropomorphic thinking. And to suggest 
that the sun's gravitational pull on the earth is information does not make 
sense because there is no way that anything can have meaning for the earth. The 
earth has no objective or  purpose, Gaia hypothesis not withstanding, For us 
earthlings it is another matter. We have figured out that the sun exerts a 
gravitational pull on the earth and the statement to that effect has meaning 
for those able to grasp elementary physics but the gravitational pull is not 
information in itself only a description of that gravitational pull of the sun 
on the earth is information. 

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 2014-10-23, at 9:27 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote:

> Pedro wrote:
> 
> PM: Regarding the theme of physical information raised by Igor and Joseph, 
> the main problematic aspect of information (meaning) is missing there. One 
> can imagine that as two physical systems interact, each one may be 
> metaphorically attributed with meaning respect the changes experimented. But 
> it is an empty attribution that does not bring any further interesting aspect.
> 
> SS: I have advanced (  On the origin of semiosis.  Cybernetics and Human 
> Knowing 19 (3): 53-66. 2012 ) the idea that whenever context influences 
> importantly any reaction which, even in the physical realm, might be viewed 
> as an informational exchange, there is the forerunner of the interpretation 
> of an interaction, Such a simple 'interpretation' (proto-interpretation) 
> would then be the forerunner of meaning generation.  When context importantly 
> influences the outcome of a physical interaction, this brings a "further 
> interesting aspect" beyond the purely physical.
> 
> STAN 
> ___
> 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