Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

2015-06-24 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 23 Jun 2015, at 07:13, Emanuel Diamant wrote:


My dear FIS-friends,

I apologize for not withstanding the pace of our discussion – you  
are already busy with the problem of “meaning” (Steven) and I am  
still preparing to answer Howard’s letter about linguistic biology…


Dear Howard,

Thank you for your suggestion to “add yet one more approach to the  
list: linguistic biology”. Unfortunately, I cannot accept it –  
because it is redundant and tautological.


My definition of information is Information is a linguistic  
description of structures observable in a given data set. (I  
apologize for non-providing any arguments for justifying this  
statement. Interested people have to go to my old papers in arXiv,  
Research Gate or on my web site http://www.vidia-mant.info ).


For the reasons provided just above (and elsewhere), any use of the  
term “Cognitive” implies the use of the term  
“information” (information processing) and, thus, already contains  
linguistic descriptions of data structures in a given data set (in a  
given object). Therefore, strengthening Cognitive biology with  
Linguistic biology is simply a tautology.


I also cannot accept the allusion to the Guenther Witzany’s work (as  
an attempt to justify the backup of Linguistic biology). Meanwhile,  
Witzany himself illuminate the issue in his response to Jerry  
Chandler (20.06.2015). I myself was enlightened about the subject by  
a 2004 paper of Eshel Ben-Jacob (et al) “Bacterial linguistic  
communication and social intelligence”, Trends in Microbiology, vol.  
12, no. 8, pp. 366-372, August 2004. I have cited it in my 2009  
paper “Some considerations on how the human brain must be arranged  
in order to make its replication in a thinking machine possible”,  
(.arXiv:1002.0184 [pdf]). I do not want to spend much more time on  
this issue and to draw our discussion farther in this direction.


Finally, I do not agree either with your statement that “each  
approach uses a helpful metaphor”. Brain as a computer metaphor  
(dominating in the past century) has exhausted its life cycle,  
“Computational” approach today is a harmful and a dangerous relict.  
It would be wise not to galvanize it again.



People should not confuse the computationalist thesis in cognitive  
science, and the use of this or that type of machine as a metaphor to  
understand the brain functioning.


In fact those two things oppose themselves. It can be shown that IF we  
are machine, then we cannot know for sure which machine we are, nor  
which computations support us. Information arise from our statistical  
distribution in the infinitely many computations (already present in a  
tiny segment of arithmetic). The math shows that he quantum  
appearances are justified from that computationalist hypothesis.


In fact computationalism appears to be a vaccine against all  
reductionistic metaphors. The ideally correct machine, like Peano  
Arithmetic or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, already know that their  
soul is not a machine, when translating Theaetetus definition of the  
soul (the knower) with Gödel technic (as I did).


To believe in the negation of computationalism means to believe in  
some magic or in some special actual infinities playing some rôle in  
the brain.


Many people still believe that mechanism and materialism are  
compatible, but there are not.
Choose your favorite poison, but it seems to me that the evidences we  
have support much more mechanism than materialism.


Bruno







I apologize for the delayed response.

Best regards,
Emanuel.


From: howlbl...@aol.com [mailto:howlbl...@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 3:52 AM
To: emanl@gmail.com; jerry_lr_chand...@me.com; pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es; witz...@sbg.at
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.

may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list:  
linguistic biology.  per the work of Guenther Witzany.  also  
reflected in my book The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.


each approach uses a helpful metaphor.  no one approach sees the  
elephant in its entirety. so please let us use all three.


with oomph--howard

--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the  
Forces of History (mesmerizing-The Washington Post),
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the  
21st Century (reassuring and sobering-The New Yorker),
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism (A  
tremendously enjoyable book. James Fallows, National Correspondent,  
The Atlantic),
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates(Bloom's argument will  
rock your world. Barbara Ehrenreich),
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild!  
Wonderful!” Timothy Leary), and
The Mohammed Code (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on  
Islam.” David Swindle, PJ Media).
Former Core Faculty Member

Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

2015-06-24 Thread Bob Logan
 that the evidences we have 
 support much more mechanism than materialism.
 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 
 
  
 I apologize for the delayed response.
  
 Best regards,
 Emanuel.
  
  
 From: howlbl...@aol.com [mailto:howlbl...@aol.com] 
 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 3:52 AM
 To: emanl@gmail.com; jerry_lr_chand...@me.com; pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es; witz...@sbg.at
 Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
  
 re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.
  
 may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list: linguistic 
 biology.  per the work of Guenther Witzany.  also reflected in my book The 
 God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.
  
 each approach uses a helpful metaphor.  no one approach sees the elephant in 
 its entirety. so please let us use all three.
  
 with oomph--howard
  
 --
 Howard Bloom
 Howardbloom.net
 Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of 
 History (mesmerizing-The Washington Post), 
 Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st 
 Century (reassuring and sobering-The New Yorker), 
 The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism (A tremendously 
 enjoyable book. James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic), 
 The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates(Bloom's argument will rock 
 your world. Barbara Ehrenreich), 
 How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” 
 Timothy Leary), and 
 The Mohammed Code (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” 
 David Swindle, PJ Media).
 Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting 
 Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University
 Founder: International Paleopsychology Project. Founder: The Group Selection 
 Squad; Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Board Member and 
 Member Of Board Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding Board Member: 
 Epic of Evolution Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project. 
 Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab. Member: New York Academy of Sciences, 
 American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological 
 Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 
 International Society for Human Ethology. Scientific Advisory Board Member, 
 Lifeboat Foundation. Advisory Board Member, The Buffalo Film Festival. 
 Editorial board member, The Journal of Space Philosophy.
  
 In a message dated 6/19/2015 9:22:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
 emanl@gmail.com writes:
  
 Dear Jerry,
  
 Thank you for responding to my post.
 Thank you very much for an attempt to read and to understand my Vienna 
 Symposium related publications.
  
 I apologize for a delay in my response – I was trying to read and to 
 understand your papers (“Algebraic Biology” and “Physical Foundations of 
 Organic Mathematics”). Unfortunately, I did not understand much of what you 
 are talking there (about biological computations).
 Never mind, it is my fault, not yours. To my shame, I often also do not 
 understand what other people on the forum are writing too.
  
 As to me, I think (and write) that the era of a computational approach to 
 science and nature studies is over and we are gradually replacing it with a 
 cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology, 
 Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry, 
 Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational 
 linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology, 
 Cognitive ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive 
 endocrinology, Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even 
 Cognitive computing).
  
 By definition, computational approaches imply intensive data processing, 
 while Cognitive approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is 
 the difference? Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue.
  
 I was pleased to hear from Prof. Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna) 
 that “By means of the reformation, all scientific and philosophical domains 
 are facing an integrative trend of paradigm reform, which I name as 
 “informationalization of science”, (The quotation is from one of his 
 presentation slides).
  
 As you can see, my assertions are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims, 
 but far from what you (and other mainstream FIS contributors) obey and 
 adhere to.
  
 I am a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others’ temple. 
 But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy of 
 Information. Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement with 
 his postulates.
  
 Best regards,
 Emanuel Diamant.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] 
 Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
 To: Emanuel Diamant
 Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
  
 Dear Emanuel:
  
 Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.
  
 Interesting

Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

2015-06-21 Thread Günther Witzany
 scientific and philosophical domains 
 are facing an integrative trend of paradigm reform, which I name as 
 “informationalization of science”, (The quotation is from one of his 
 presentation slides).
 
  
 
 As you can see, my assertions are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims, 
 but far from what you (and other mainstream FIS contributors) obey and 
 adhere to.
 
  
 
 I am a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others’ temple. 
 But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy of 
 Information. Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement with 
 his postulates.
 
  
 
 Best regards,
 
 Emanuel Diamant.
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] 
 Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
 To: Emanuel Diamant
 Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
 
  
 
 Dear Emanuel:
 
  
 
 Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.
 
  
 
 Interesting perspective, but...  the essence of biology / biological 
 computation are empirical observations that are highly irregular in nature. 
 One must separate the concepts of structures from functions in the languages 
 of chemistry and biology.
 
  
 
 You may wish to look at the concepts of languages from your perspectives.
 
  
 
 Several of my online available papers will provide more substance for these 
 comments.
 
  
 
 Cheers
 
  
 
 jerry
 
  
 
  
 
 On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Emanuel Diamant wrote:
 
 
 
 
 Dear FISlists,
 
  
 
 I am a newcomer to the FIS discussion table. The debate that is going on in 
 your list-exchange is very interesting to me, but frankly, for the most of 
 the time, I only guess about what you are talking – my vocabulary and my 
 notions of Information are quite different from yours. Nevertheless, I would 
 like to add my voice to the ongoing discourse – I would like to direct you 
 to my page on the Research Gate 
 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant) to see my uploads 
 from the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you will find them interesting.
 
  
 
 Best regards,
 
 Emanuel Diamant.
 
  
 
 ___
 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 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] FIS newcomer

2015-06-20 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
 a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others’ temple. 
 But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy of 
 Information. Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement with 
 his postulates.
 
  
 
 Best regards,
 
 Emanuel Diamant.
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] 
 Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
 To: Emanuel Diamant
 Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
 
  
 
 Dear Emanuel:
 
  
 
 Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.
 
  
 
 Interesting perspective, but...  the essence of biology / biological 
 computation are empirical observations that are highly irregular in nature. 
 One must separate the concepts of structures from functions in the languages 
 of chemistry and biology.
 
  
 
 You may wish to look at the concepts of languages from your perspectives.
 
  
 
 Several of my online available papers will provide more substance for these 
 comments.
 
  
 
 Cheers
 
  
 
 jerry
 
  
 
  
 
 On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Emanuel Diamant wrote:
 
 
 
 
 Dear FISlists,
 
  
 
 I am a newcomer to the FIS discussion table. The debate that is going on in 
 your list-exchange is very interesting to me, but frankly, for the most of 
 the time, I only guess about what you are talking – my vocabulary and my 
 notions of Information are quite different from yours. Nevertheless, I would 
 like to add my voice to the ongoing discourse – I would like to direct you to 
 my page on the Research Gate 
 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant)  to see my uploads 
 from the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you will find them interesting.
 
  
 
 Best regards,
 
 Emanuel Diamant.
 
  
 
 ___
 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 mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

2015-06-19 Thread HowlBloom
re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.
 
may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list: linguistic  
biology.  per the work of Guenther Witzany.  also reflected in my book  The 
God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.
 
each approach uses a helpful metaphor.  no one approach sees  the elephant 
in its entirety. so please let us use all three.
 
with oomph--howard
 
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
Author  of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History  (mesmerizing-The Washington Post), 
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass  Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st 
Century (reassuring and sobering-The New  Yorker), 
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism (A  
tremendously enjoyable book. James Fallows, National Correspondent, The  
Atlantic), 
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates(Bloom's argument  will rock 
your world. Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I Accidentally Started the  Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” 
Timothy Leary), and 
The Mohammed Code  (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” 
David Swindle, PJ  Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting  
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University
Founder:  International Paleopsychology Project. Founder: The Group 
Selection Squad;  Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Board Member 
and 
Member Of Board  Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding Board Member: 
Epic of Evolution  Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project. 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango  Media Lab. Member: New York Academy of Sciences, 
American Association for the  Advancement of Science, American Psychological 
Society, Academy of Political  Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 
International Society for Human  Ethology. Scientific Advisory Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation. Advisory Board  Member, The Buffalo Film Festival. 
Editorial board member, The Journal of Space  Philosophy. 


In a message dated 6/19/2015 9:22:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
emanl@gmail.com writes:

 
Dear Jerry,   
Thank you for responding to my  post. 
Thank you very much for an  attempt to read and to understand my Vienna 
Symposium related  publications. 
I apologize for a delay in my  response – I was trying to read and to 
understand your papers (“Algebraic  Biology” and “_Physical Foundations of  
Organic Mathematics”). Unfortunately, I did not  understand much of what you 
are 
talking there (about biological  computations)._ 
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_Organic_Mathematics_(Abstra
ct_August_26_2014))  
_Never mind, it is my fault, not  yours. To my shame, I often also do not 
understand what other people on the  forum are writing too. _ 
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_Organic_Math
ematics_(Abstract_August_26_2014))  
As to me, I think (and write)  that the era of a computational approach to 
science and nature studies is over  and we are gradually replacing it with a 
cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology,  
Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry,  
Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational  
linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology, Cognitive  
ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive endocrinology,  
Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even Cognitive  computing). 
By definition,  computational approaches imply intensive data processing, 
while Cognitive  approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is 
the difference?  Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue.  
I was pleased to hear from Prof.  Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna) 
that “By means of the reformation,  all scientific and philosophical 
domains are facing an integrative trend of  paradigm reform, which I name as “
informationalization of science”,  (The quotation is from one of his 
presentation slides).  
As you can see, my assertions  are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims, 
but far from what you (and other  mainstream FIS contributors) obey and 
adhere to.  
I am a newcomer to FIS and I do  not intend to preach in the others’ 
temple. But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the  founding fathers of the Philosophy of 
Information. Therefore, it would be wise  for you to be in an agreement with 
his 
postulates.  
Best  regards, 
Emanuel  Diamant. 
 
 
From: Jerry LR  Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 15,  2015 8:42 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS  newcomer

Dear Emanuel: 
 

 
Thanks for posting your views on Research  Gate.
 

 
Interesting perspective, but...  the essence of  biology / biological 
computation are empirical observations that are highly  irregular in nature. 
One 
must separate the concepts of structures

Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

2015-06-19 Thread Emanuel Diamant
 

Dear Jerry, 

 

Thank you for responding to my post.

Thank you very much for an attempt to read and to understand my Vienna
Symposium related publications.

 

I apologize for a delay in my response - I was trying to read and to
understand your papers (Algebraic Biology and 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_
Organic_Mathematics_%28Abstract_August_26_2014%29 Physical Foundations of
Organic Mathematics). Unfortunately, I did not understand much of what you
are talking there (about biological computations).

 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_
Organic_Mathematics_%28Abstract_August_26_2014%29 Never mind, it is my
fault, not yours. To my shame, I often also do not understand what other
people on the forum are writing too. 

 

As to me, I think (and write) that the era of a computational approach to
science and nature studies is over and we are gradually replacing it with a
cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology,
Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry,
Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational
linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology,
Cognitive ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive
endocrinology, Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even
Cognitive computing).

 

By definition, computational approaches imply intensive data processing,
while Cognitive approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is
the difference? Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue. 

 

I was pleased to hear from Prof. Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna)
that By means of the reformation, all scientific and philosophical domains
are facing an integrative trend of paradigm reform, which I name as
informationalization of science, (The quotation is from one of his
presentation slides). 

 

As you can see, my assertions are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims,
but far from what you (and other mainstream FIS contributors) obey and
adhere to. 

 

I am a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others' temple.
But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy of
Information. Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement with
his postulates. 

 

Best regards,

Emanuel Diamant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

 

Dear Emanuel:

 

Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.

 

Interesting perspective, but...  the essence of biology / biological
computation are empirical observations that are highly irregular in nature.
One must separate the concepts of structures from functions in the languages
of chemistry and biology.

 

You may wish to look at the concepts of languages from your perspectives.

 

Several of my online available papers will provide more substance for these
comments.

 

Cheers

 

jerry

 

 

On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Emanuel Diamant wrote:





Dear FISlists,

 

I am a newcomer to the FIS discussion table. The debate that is going on in
your list-exchange is very interesting to me, but frankly, for the most of
the time, I only guess about what you are talking - my vocabulary and my
notions of Information are quite different from yours. Nevertheless, I would
like to add my voice to the ongoing discourse - I would like to direct you
to my page on the Research Gate (
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant) to see my uploads from
the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you will find them interesting.

 

Best regards,

Emanuel Diamant.

 

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