Re: [Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S.
Folks, A nice thing about the dichotomies such as the actual-potential (Peirce), einselection-superposition (Schroedinger), figure-background (Merleau-Ponty), filling-up - void (Marijuan), presence-absence (Deacon) and the like is the appraisal of the individual-class dichotomy even if an exhaustive list of the individuals constituting the class is not available. The price we have to pay for this, however, is that first person descriptions would have to be employed for appreciating the presence of some individuals that are currently absent on the spot for whatever reasons. In contrast, the individual-class dichotomy accessible to third person descriptions such as the dichotomy of each probabilistic event and its distribution would have to be explicit and definite with regard to both the individuals and the class from the outset. Cheers, Koichiro Matsuno ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S.
Dear Koichiro, With due respect for you and for the people you mention, there may be a fatal error in the initial description of the key relationships you mention as dichotomies. Unless, in all but the most trivial cases, you allow for interaction and sharing of the effective dynamic properties of the phenomena you are looking at, getting new insights into the way they evolve will continue to be difficult. In particular, neither actuality nor potentiality go to 0 or 1. The major contribution of Lupasco was to break through the strait-jacket of the concept of totally independent classes that follow standard bivalent logic. You seem to hint at this in your last point which talks in terms of probabilistic events. However, having explicit and definite distributions is hardly possible in the real world, except as idealized, unrealizable abstractions. I am hoping that some readers of this note may be moved to consider what, in principle, might be achieved by opening up our language in the direction I suggest. We might lose some rigor in the narrow sense, but this is proving a dead end in any case. Its loss would be compensated by having a greater array of logical conceptual tools to work with. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: cxq02...@nifty.com Datum: 19.03.2012 23:24 An: fis@listas.unizar.es Betreff: Re: [Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S. Folks, A nice thing about the dichotomies such as the actual-potential (Peirce), einselection-superposition (Schroedinger), figure-background (Merleau-Ponty), filling-up - void (Marijuan), presence-absence (Deacon) and the like is the appraisal of the individual-class dichotomy even if an exhaustive list of the individuals constituting the class is not available. The price we have to pay for this, however, is that first person descriptions would have to be employed for appreciating the presence of some individuals that are currently absent on the spot for whatever reasons. In contrast, the individual-class dichotomy accessible to third person descriptions such as the dichotomy of each probabilistic event and its distribution would have to be explicit and definite with regard to both the individuals and the class from the outset. Cheers, Koichiro Matsuno ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S.
Concerning the meaning (or effect) of information (or constraint) in general, I have proposed that context is crucial in modulating the effect -- in all cases. Thus: it would be like the logical example: Effect = context a x Constraint ^context b STAN On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Christophe Menant christophe.men...@hotmail.fr wrote: *Dear FISers, Indeed information can be considered downwards (physical meaningless) and upwards (biological meaningful). The difference being about interpretation or not. It also introduces an evolutionary approach to information processing and meaning generation. There is a chapter on that subject in a recent book ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Information-Computation-Philosophical-Understanding-Foundations/dp/toc/9814295477 ). “Computation on Information, Meaning and Representations.An Evolutionary Approach” Content of the chapter: 1. Information and Meaning. Meaning Generation 1.1. Information.Meaning of information and quantity of information 1.2. Meaningful information and constraint satisfaction. A systemic approach 2. Information, Meaning and Representations. An Evolutionary Approach 2.1. Stay alive constraint and meaning generation for organisms 2.2. The Meaning Generator System (MGS). A systemic and evolutionary approach 2.3. Meaning transmission 2.4. Individual and species constraints. Group life constraints. Networks of meanings 2.5. From meaningful information to meaningful representations 3. Meaningful Information and Representations in Humans 4. Meaningful Information and Representations in Artificial Systems 4.1. Meaningful information and representations from traditional AI to Nouvelle AI. Embodied-situated AI 4.2. Meaningful representations versus the guidance theory of representation 4.3. Meaningful information and representations versus the enactive approach 5. Conclusion and Continuation 5.1. Conclusion 5.2. Continuation A version close to the final text can be reached at http://crmenant.free.fr/2009BookChapter/C.Menant.211009.pdf As Plamen says, we may be at the beginning of a new scientific revolution. But I’m afraid that an understanding of the meaning of information needs clear enough an understanding of the constraint at the source of the meaning generation process. And even for basic organic meanings coming from a “stay alive” constraint, we have to face the still mysterious nature of life. And for human meanings, the even more mysterious nature of human mind. This is not to discourage our efforts in investigating these questions. Just to put a stick in the ground showing where we stand. Best, Christophe * -- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:47:28 +0100 From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S. Mensaje original Asunto: Re: [Fis] Physics of computing Fecha: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:24:38 +0100 De: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com Para: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Referencias: 20120316041607.66ffc68000...@1w8.tpn.terra.com20120316041607.66ffc68000...@1w8.tpn.terra.com 4f6321c3.5000...@aragon.es 4f6321c3.5000...@aragon.es +++ Dear All, I could not agree more with Pedro's opinion. The referred article is interesting indeed. but, information is only physical in the narrow sense taken by conventional physicalistic-mechanistic-computational approaches. Such a statement defends the reductionist view at nature: sorry. But information is more than bits and Shanno's law and biology has far more to offer. I think we are at the beginning of a new scientific revolution. So, we may need to take our (Maxwell) daemons and (Turing) oracles closer under the lens. In fact, David Ball, the author of the Nature paper approached me after my talk in Brussels in 2010 on the Integral Biomathics approach and told me he thinks it were a step in the right direction: biology driven mathematics and computation. By the way, our book of ideas on IB will be released next month by Springer: http://www.springer.com/engineering/computational+intelligence+and+complexity/book/978-3-642-28110-5 If you wish to obtain it at a lower price (65 EUR incl. worldwide delivery) please send me your names, mailing addresses and phone numbers via email to: pla...@simeio.org. There must be at least 9 orders to keep that discount price.. Best, Plamen On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Dear discussants, I tend to disagree with the motto information is physical if taken too strictly. Obviously if we look downwards it is OK, but in the upward direction it is different. Info is not only physical then, and the dimension of self-construction along the realization of life cycle has to be entered. Then the signal, the info, has content
Re: [Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S.
Stan - great formula but as I learned from Anthony Reading who wrote a lovely book on information Meaningful Information - it is the recipient that brings the meaning to the information. PS My book What is Information was been translated into Portuguese and published in Brazil where I am doing a 4 city, 5 university speaking tour. The book has not yet appeared in English but it is scheduled to be published soon by Demo press. Regards from Brazil - Bob On 2012-03-17, at 11:17 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote: Concerning the meaning (or effect) of information (or constraint) in general, I have proposed that context is crucial in modulating the effect -- in all cases. Thus: it would be like the logical example: Effect = context a x Constraint ^context b STAN On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Christophe Menant christophe.men...@hotmail.fr wrote: Dear FISers, Indeed information can be considered downwards (physical meaningless) and upwards (biological meaningful). The difference being about interpretation or not. It also introduces an evolutionary approach to information processing and meaning generation. There is a chapter on that subject in a recent book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Information-Computation-Philosophical-Understanding-Foundations/dp/toc/9814295477). “Computation on Information, Meaning and Representations.An Evolutionary Approach” Content of the chapter: 1. Information and Meaning. Meaning Generation 1.1. Information.Meaning of information and quantity of information 1.2. Meaningful information and constraint satisfaction. A systemic approach 2. Information, Meaning and Representations. An Evolutionary Approach 2.1. Stay alive constraint and meaning generation for organisms 2.2. The Meaning Generator System (MGS). A systemic and evolutionary approach 2.3. Meaning transmission 2.4. Individual and species constraints. Group life constraints. Networks of meanings 2.5. From meaningful information to meaningful representations 3. Meaningful Information and Representations in Humans 4. Meaningful Information and Representations in Artificial Systems 4.1. Meaningful information and representations from traditional AI to Nouvelle AI. Embodied-situated AI 4.2. Meaningful representations versus the guidance theory of representation 4.3. Meaningful information and representations versus the enactive approach 5. Conclusion and Continuation 5.1. Conclusion 5.2. Continuation A version close to the final text can be reached at http://crmenant.free.fr/2009BookChapter/C.Menant.211009.pdf As Plamen says, we may be at the beginning of a new scientific revolution. But I’m afraid that an understanding of the meaning of information needs clear enough an understanding of the constraint at the source of the meaning generation process. And even for basic organic meanings coming from a “stay alive” constraint, we have to face the still mysterious nature of life. And for human meanings, the even more mysterious nature of human mind. This is not to discourage our efforts in investigating these questions. Just to put a stick in the ground showing where we stand. Best, Christophe Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:47:28 +0100 From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S. Mensaje original Asunto: Re: [Fis] Physics of computing Fecha:Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:24:38 +0100 De: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com Para: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Referencias: 20120316041607.66ffc68000...@1w8.tpn.terra.com 4f6321c3.5000...@aragon.es +++ Dear All, I could not agree more with Pedro's opinion. The referred article is interesting indeed. but, information is only physical in the narrow sense taken by conventional physicalistic-mechanistic-computational approaches. Such a statement defends the reductionist view at nature: sorry. But information is more than bits and Shanno's law and biology has far more to offer. I think we are at the beginning of a new scientific revolution. So, we may need to take our (Maxwell) daemons and (Turing) oracles closer under the lens. In fact, David Ball, the author of the Nature paper approached me after my talk in Brussels in 2010 on the Integral Biomathics approach and told me he thinks it were a step in the right direction: biology driven mathematics and computation. By the way, our book of ideas on IB will be released next month by Springer: http://www.springer.com/engineering/computational+intelligence+and+complexity/book/978-3-642-28110-5 If you wish to obtain it at a lower price (65 EUR incl. worldwide delivery) please send me your names, mailing addresses and phone numbers via email to: pla...@simeio.org. There must be at least 9 orders to keep that discount price.. Best, Plamen On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at
