Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

[Guy A Hoelzer]

Dear Colleagues,

I have some sympathy for Pedro's call for acceptance of a fuzzy definition
for "intelligence", or perhaps a large set of operational definitions. This
is familiar to me as an evolutionary biologist.  We treat the concept of
"fitness" exactly this way, and I think both concepts hold great heuristic
value even in fuzzy form.  My concern under these circumstances is that we
have a sufficiently clear definition that it sustains a cogent discussion.
If the definition is so fuzzy that disagreements commonly boil down to
presumptive differences, then serious discussion is likely to be
unproductive.  I would personally find it helpful to know what the
limitations are on the meaning of "intelligence", and what operational
definitions are being used when individuals intend to address more narrow
definitions.  Is it acceptable for a single entity or action to be
considered intelligent by one observer and unintelligent by another?

Regards,

Guy


On 11/22/10 9:01 AM, "Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez"
 wrote:

> Dear FIS colleagues,
> 
> very briefly stated (ugh, no spare time, devoured by ugly application
> forms!), I think that quantification as Guy demands can only occur in
> some small corners of our discussion areas, but not in the fundamental
> ideas, not well crafted yet. For instance, I take from a recent response
> of Raquel to Stan the notion of intelligence as "the capability to
> process information for the purpose of adaptation or problem solving
> activities. In the case of cells, problems can be caused by the
> environment, extracellular aggressions, communications, etc." Well, we
> can quantify (and have already done) the portions of the signaling
> system involved, their correlation with genome size, etc., but have not
> developed a good conceptual integration of signaling with transcription
> ---and to my taste nobody as done yet, as signaling means the
> "topological governance" of an enormous gene network... I mean,
> premature emphasis on quantificationmay backtrack and obfuscate on
> misunderstanding the big picture.
> 
> I understand Joseph lamentations, but do not share them, as logical
> clarification of an intrinsically evolutionary phenomenon --without any
> major discontinuity-- as intelligence is (at least in my view), becomes
> too big or too daring an undertaking. To make better sense of the
> evolutionary phenomenon of intelligence, I suggested "populational
> thinking" (see msg. below). Now I ad "optimality" to the mix, meaning
> the presence or better the emergence of collective principles of
> optimality that guide the distributed processes by the agent populations
> participating in the game (roughly, optimization principles running
> within cells, nervous systems, social markets). And a third ingredient ,
> very subtle one, could be labeled as "doctrine of limitation". It refers
> to consequences of the fundamental limitations of all participants at
> whatever level to have a "complete" info on the occurring collective
> game, or a "complete" processing capability. In my view, this is the
> most difficult and consequential point --besides, it directly militates
> against the God's view we attribute to scientific observer... we already
> discussed a little bit about this in Beijing!
> 
> best wishes
> 
> ---Pedro 
> 
> 
> Guy A Hoelzer escribió:
>> Pedro et al.,
>> 
>> My previous cautionary post did not get much traction in this thread, but I
>> still think my point was an important one to ensure that we are all talking
>> about the same thing.  My point was that ³intelligence² in inherently
>> subjective (in the eye of the beholder), unless we can agree on the criterion
>> of performance quality.  I think this is necessary if we are to jump from
>> mere information processing (cascades of effects resulting from the input of
>> information to a system) to a notion of ³intelligence².  We could, for
>> example, define human intelligence as measured by performance on an IQ test.
>> We could more generally define intelligence in an evolutionary context as
>> measured by the fitness effects of information processing.  I am personally
>> not a big fan of either of these criteria.  John and Pedro seem to suggest
>> using the degree of ³functionality² resulting from information processing as
>> a general criterion.  I am intrigued by this option, although I¹m not sure
>> how functionality can be measured objectively.
>> 
>> I wonder whether this point did not get much traction previously because
>> others disagree, or just don¹t think it is important.  If my point is both
>> correct and important, then I think we should agree on a sufficiently general
>> performance criterion for the evaluation of intelligence early in this
>> thread.  Is there a perspective on ³intelligence² that would contradict this
>> point?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Guy
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/19/10 4:11 AM, "Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Dear John and FIS colleages,
>> 
>> I much agre

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear Pedro,

I beg your indulgence (3rd note) to make one point: Pedro wrote: "I 
understand Joseph lamentations, but do not share them, as logical 
clarification of an intrinsically evolutionary phenomenon --without any 
major discontinuity-- as intelligence is (at least in my view), becomes too 
big or too daring an undertaking."

Such a logical clarification would be undertaken only by a classical 
logician, not by me, and it would not clarify anything. I am sorry if my 
caricature implied this. If anything, my logic supports "populational 
thinking" and a "doctrine of limitation".

Thank you and best wishes,

Joseph 

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

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS colleagues,

very briefly stated (ugh, no spare time, devoured by ugly application 
forms!), I think that quantification as Guy demands can only occur in 
some small corners of our discussion areas, but not in the fundamental 
ideas, not well crafted yet. For instance, I take from a recent response 
of Raquel to Stan the notion of intelligence as "the capability to 
process information for the purpose of adaptation or problem solving 
activities. In the case of cells, problems can be caused by the 
environment, extracellular aggressions, communications, etc." Well, we 
can quantify (and have already done) the portions of the signaling 
system involved, their correlation with genome size, etc., but have not 
developed a good conceptual integration of signaling with transcription 
---and to my taste nobody as done yet, as signaling means the 
"topological governance" of an enormous gene network... I mean, 
premature emphasis on quantificationmay backtrack and obfuscate on 
misunderstanding the big picture.

I understand Joseph lamentations, but do not share them, as logical 
clarification of an intrinsically evolutionary phenomenon --without any 
major discontinuity-- as intelligence is (at least in my view), becomes 
too big or too daring an undertaking. To make better sense of the 
evolutionary phenomenon of intelligence, I suggested "populational 
thinking" (see msg. below). Now I ad "optimality" to the mix, meaning 
the presence or better the emergence of collective principles of 
optimality that guide the distributed processes by the agent populations 
participating in the game (roughly, optimization principles running 
within cells, nervous systems, social markets). And a third ingredient , 
very subtle one, could be labeled as "doctrine of limitation". It refers 
to consequences of the fundamental limitations of all participants at 
whatever level to have a "complete" info on the occurring collective 
game, or a "complete" processing capability. In my view, this is the 
most difficult and consequential point --besides, it directly militates 
against the God's view we attribute to scientific observer... we already 
discussed a little bit about this in Beijing!

best wishes

---Pedro 


Guy A Hoelzer escribió:
> Pedro et al.,
>
> My previous cautionary post did not get much traction in this thread, but I 
> still think my point was an important one to ensure that we are all talking 
> about the same thing.  My point was that “intelligence” in inherently 
> subjective (in the eye of the beholder), unless we can agree on the criterion 
> of performance quality.  I think this is necessary if we are to jump from 
> mere information processing (cascades of effects resulting from the input of 
> information to a system) to a notion of “intelligence”.  We could, for 
> example, define human intelligence as measured by performance on an IQ test.  
> We could more generally define intelligence in an evolutionary context as 
> measured by the fitness effects of information processing.  I am personally 
> not a big fan of either of these criteria.  John and Pedro seem to suggest 
> using the degree of “functionality” resulting from information processing as 
> a general criterion.  I am intrigued by this option, although I’m not sure 
> how functionality can be measured objectively.
>
> I wonder whether this point did not get much traction previously because 
> others disagree, or just don’t think it is important.  If my point is both 
> correct and important, then I think we should agree on a sufficiently general 
> performance criterion for the evaluation of intelligence early in this 
> thread.  Is there a perspective on “intelligence” that would contradict this 
> point?
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy
>
>
> On 11/19/10 4:11 AM, "Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez" 
>  wrote:
>
> Dear John and FIS colleages,
>
> I much agree (below) with the return to the biological; also Gordana and 
> Raquel had already argued along these guidelines. It does not mean that 
> things become very much clearer initially in the connection between 
> information and intelligence, but there is room for advancement. Thus, in 
> Yixin's question, "What is the precise relation between intelligence and 
> information?", one of the basic aspects to explore becomes "populational 
> thinking" --not much considered in AI schools (perhaps very secondarily in 
> the neural networks school.
>
> In fact, in all realms of intelligence in Nature (cellular, nervous systems, 
> societies), we find "populations of processing agents". In cells, it is the 
> population of many millions of enzymes and proteins performing catalytic 
> tasks and molecular recognition activities --any emphasis in molecular 
> recognition will get short of the enormous importance this phenomenon has in 
> biological organization, it is the "alpha and omega" (Shu-Kun-Lin has 
> produced one of the best approaches to the generality of this phenomenon). 
> How populations of en

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19 (John Collier) and footnote to fluctuon discussion (Stanley N Salthe)

[Stanley N Salthe]

As my first posting of the week,

Jerry -- Your questions are good in allowing me to further sharpen what I
meant (all too briefly) to say.  Then ...

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Jerry LR Chandler  wrote:

>
> John, Stan, Loet, Krassimir, List:
>
> This message responses to posts of both Stan and John, which are, strangely
> enough, philosophically, intimately related.
>
> First, Thank You, Stan, for your illuminating post which clarifies your
> personal philosophy.
> (The paper you comment on can be found online under the same title.)
>
> Note that the levels are found to be orders of magnitude different in size.
>  No change in any single unit at any level can have an effect at the next
> upper level
>
>
> With all due respect to you and to Terrence Sejnowski, the overwhelming
> weight of evidence from molecular genetics and human genetics denies your
> conclusion. The evidence denying your conclusion is very simple.
>
> Since the 1960s, molecular biology has been based on a quantitative premise
> that a single base change in a DNA molecule may cause a change in the
> inheritance of the organism and a change in the health state of the
> organism. This is the background premise supporting the sequencing of the
> human genome and the gradual switch to "personalized medicine."  We all
> human beings by virtual of our common inheritance, our diversity emerges
> from the  individual sequences we inherit from our parents. Our DNA is one
> source of our individual reflexivity.  A single base change is certainly a
> "single unit".
>
> Stan, you conclusion that " No change in any single unit at any level can
> have an effect at the next upper level" is simply factually false since the
> overwhelming body of DNA sequence data supports the opposite conclusion.
> After nearly two decades of attempting to understand your self-constructed
> narratives, I think I understand the philosophical reasons why you are
> engaged in this line of discourse but I will leave that for you to clarify
> however you wish.
>

   I'm surprise that you would suppose that a biologist would be
unprepared to confront this question!  The compositional hierarchy -- the
one under consideration here -- is a model of ongoing dynamical activities
(separated by rates of order of magnitude difference into different levels)
within a complex system.  It's a 'mass action' kind of model.  In such a
model, a fluctuation at a lower level (the burden of Conrad's "fluctuons')
is simply swamped out by the average reading of that level's activities at
the next higher level.  Your point about genetic differences has no
relevance here, since these genetic differences don't function as
fluctuations (even if they originate as one). Instead they 're-design' some
of the elements in the lower level activities, which in some cases might
make a difference to the results of the ensemble activities down there,
which would *then* register at the next higher level to be used in its usual
activities.

>
>
> John, your response to the semiotic issues rather surprised me as you are
> regular contributor to the Peirce list serve.
>
> The symbol systems used by physics to communicate are derived from
> mathematics.  Physics lacks a symbol system of its own making. As such, the
> concept of reflexivity, X = X, is one of the triad of terms used to create
> the notion of an equivalence relation.  Now, Shannon information depends on
> this concept of reflexivity to provide the exact mechanisms of encoding and
> decoding codes by the sender and receiver.  These must be 'platonic'
> mathematical relations without any physical meaning or content. Otherwise,
> Shannon information would not a faithful method of communication between
> different systems. The notion of probability enters into Shannon information
> not in the message itself, but rather in the capacity to detect errors in
> the transmission.
>
>
> Strangely, it appears that Stan and John have stumbled on the same
> philosophical concept of reflexivity, a concept which lies at the heart of
> human  individuality and human communication.
>

>From Wikipedia: In mathematics ,
a *reflexive relation* is a binary
relation on
a set for which every element is related to itself, i.e., a relation R on S
where xRx holds true for every x in S.

So, every cell in our body has the same information, some of which might
have descended from a fluctuation during DNA copying.  But that error did
not function* **as a fluctuation* at higher levels, either in the organism
or propagule in which it occurred, or in the organism(s) which inherited it.
 Human individuality is a gradually accumulating effect of historically
acquired (experienced) information as registered in the body (e.g., wounds),
including the brain (alterations of expectations as imprinted upon
continually cycling neuron 'circuits').  Here too, there is no question of
any fluctuat

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

[Guy A Hoelzer]

Pedro et al.,

My previous cautionary post did not get much traction in this thread, but I 
still think my point was an important one to ensure that we are all talking 
about the same thing.  My point was that “intelligence” in inherently 
subjective (in the eye of the beholder), unless we can agree on the criterion 
of performance quality.  I think this is necessary if we are to jump from mere 
information processing (cascades of effects resulting from the input of 
information to a system) to a notion of “intelligence”.  We could, for example, 
define human intelligence as measured by performance on an IQ test.  We could 
more generally define intelligence in an evolutionary context as measured by 
the fitness effects of information processing.  I am personally not a big fan 
of either of these criteria.  John and Pedro seem to suggest using the degree 
of “functionality” resulting from information processing as a general 
criterion.  I am intrigued by this option, although I’m not sure how 
functionality can be measured objectively.

I wonder whether this point did not get much traction previously because others 
disagree, or just don’t think it is important.  If my point is both correct and 
important, then I think we should agree on a sufficiently general performance 
criterion for the evaluation of intelligence early in this thread.  Is there a 
perspective on “intelligence” that would contradict this point?

Regards,

Guy


On 11/19/10 4:11 AM, "Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez" 
 wrote:

Dear John and FIS colleages,

I much agree (below) with the return to the biological; also Gordana and Raquel 
had already argued along these guidelines. It does not mean that things become 
very much clearer initially in the connection between information and 
intelligence, but there is room for advancement. Thus, in Yixin's question, 
"What is the precise relation between intelligence and information?", one of 
the basic aspects to explore becomes "populational thinking" --not much 
considered in AI schools (perhaps very secondarily in the neural networks 
school.

In fact, in all realms of intelligence in Nature (cellular, nervous systems, 
societies), we find "populations of processing agents". In cells, it is the 
population of many millions of enzymes and proteins performing catalytic tasks 
and molecular recognition activities --any emphasis in molecular recognition 
will get short of the enormous importance this phenomenon has in biological 
organization, it is the "alpha and omega" (Shu-Kun-Lin has produced one of the 
best approaches to the generality of this phenomenon). How populations of 
enzymes achieve an emergent capability of intelligence? Unfortunately, we can 
barely answer... (some googling about the term "cellular intelligence" will 
show). The discussion on neuronal intelligence carries a similar problem, as  
the neurodynamic underpinnings of animal behavior and animal intelligence still 
lack a "central theory" (most of the debate on consciousness is but an 
uninteresting quagmire)... Finally, a much debated contemporary topic related 
with social intelligence deals with the problem solving capacity of markets. A 
very extended conception about social organization hinges in the faith that the 
creativity of individuals coupled with the "invisible hand" of markets can 
solve all problems, climate change included... given the magnitude of 
civilization survival problems of today, the topic of social intelligence 
deserves some second thoughts.

Anyhow, the above were just tidbits. Taken seriously, "populational thinking" 
can produce a new discourse in the relationship between information and 
intelligence. I keep saying what I argued during the Beijing conference, we 
need a new way of thinking.

best regards

---Pedro


This is a common situation in
biology. In fact I have been told that some
proteins pass through membranes through
successive conformational changes that remove
energy barriers to the transfer, much like the
simple experiment reported in the article. This
has been known for at least 15 years, I think.
Inasmuch as there is functionality here, semiotic
considerations may be relevant in this case. But
not in the case in the article. Intelligence is a
special case of the biological (so far).
Conformational change is even more important and
less dependent on the energetic substrate, and
more on other conformations and their changes (e.g., in inference).





The intelligent systems mainly do the same.




Everything does the same. It is how it is done that is important.

My best,
John


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

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear John and FIS colleages,

I much agree (below) with the return to the biological; also Gordana and 
Raquel had already argued along these guidelines. It does not mean that 
things become very much clearer initially in the connection between 
information and intelligence, but there is room for advancement. Thus, 
in Yixin's question, "What is the precise relation between intelligence 
and information?", one of the basic aspects to explore becomes 
"populational thinking" --not much considered in AI schools (perhaps 
very secondarily in the neural networks school.


In fact, in all realms of intelligence in Nature (cellular, nervous 
systems, societies), we find "populations of processing agents". In 
cells, it is the population of many millions of enzymes and proteins 
performing catalytic tasks and molecular recognition activities --any 
emphasis in molecular recognition will get short of the enormous 
importance this phenomenon has in biological organization, it is the 
"alpha and omega" (Shu-Kun-Lin has produced one of the best approaches 
to the generality of this phenomenon). How populations of enzymes 
achieve an emergent capability of intelligence? Unfortunately, we can 
barely answer... (some googling about the term "cellular intelligence" 
will show). The discussion on neuronal intelligence carries a similar 
problem, as  the neurodynamic underpinnings of animal behavior and 
animal intelligence still lack a "central theory" (most of the debate on 
consciousness is but an uninteresting quagmire)... Finally, a much 
debated contemporary topic related with social intelligence deals with 
the problem solving capacity of markets. A very extended conception 
about social organization hinges in the faith that the creativity of 
individuals coupled with the "invisible hand" of markets can solve all 
problems, climate change included... given the magnitude of civilization 
survival problems of today, the topic of social intelligence deserves 
some second thoughts.


Anyhow, the above were just tidbits. Taken seriously, "populational 
thinking" can produce a new discourse in the relationship between 
information and intelligence. I keep saying what I argued during the 
Beijing conference, we need a new way of thinking.


best regards

---Pedro

This is a common situation in 
biology. In fact I have been told that some 
proteins pass through membranes through 
successive conformational changes that remove 
energy barriers to the transfer, much like the 
simple experiment reported in the article. This 
has been known for at least 15 years, I think. 
Inasmuch as there is functionality here, semiotic 
considerations may be relevant in this case. But 
not in the case in the article. Intelligence is a 
special case of the biological (so far). 
Conformational change is even more important and 
less dependent on the energetic substrate, and 
more on other conformations and their changes (e.g., in inference).



  

The intelligent systems mainly do the same.



Everything does the same. It is how it is done that is important.

My best,
John
  


--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

[John Collier]

Jerry, List, Krassimir,


At 09:40 PM 17/11/2010, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:

>John, List:
>
>A simple semiotic flaw exists in this paper.
>
>So, I am not buying into the hypothesis or the conclusions.
>Reality is far more perplex than mere technical terms.
>
>Given the situation, who else can find the logical flaw?

I don't see how semiotics is relevant here. 
Physicists often talk of information without 
meaning. I think that is how it is used here.

Krassimir wrote:

>The Demonic device is a good case to return our 
>discussion back to the main concepts.
>
>Converting the information in energy and vice 
>versa is old dream. But what is really happened.
>
> From my point of view, the information is kind of reflection.

I am unclear what you mean by reflection here. I 
understand the basic notion of information as a 
distinction that (potentially) makes a 
difference. This makes basic idea of information 
equivalent to the principles of propositional 
logic (at least extensionally -- i.e. satisfied by the same models).


>The reflection is internal change in the entity 
>after interaction with an other.
>This change may be temporal or permanent, may destroy the entity, etc.

This doesn't help me.


>But not every reflection is information.
>Only from point of view of a given Subject 
>(Intelligent entity !!!) the reflection became 
>information if there exist evidence what is reflected in it.

Subjects aren't relevant to the way "information" 
is used in the article. This has become fairly standard in physics.


>For the Subject, the reflection of the source 
>entity in the recipient one is "information" for 
>the source if there is corresponded reflection evidence.
>The information is the triple (source, 
>recipient: evidence) if there exist a Subject who may perceive it.
>
>When we say information we understand that there 
>is a Subject who can build the triple.
>Of course, this is happened in his consciousness.
>
>What is important in this definition is that the 
>information is a kind of reflection but not every reflection is information.
>Information is a subjectively depended subclass of the class of reflections.
>
>I have used the concept "Intelligent entity" and I need to explain it.
>
>The intelligence is a synergetic combination of five features:
>
>1.  (primary) activity for external interaction. 
>This characteristic is basic for all open 
>systems. Activity for external interaction means possibility to reflect the
>influences from environment and to realize 
>impact on the environment, for instance, to have "senses" and "actuators";
>
>2. information reflection and information 
>memory, i.e. possibility for collecting the 
>information. It is clear; memory is basic 
>characteristic of intelligence for “the ability to learn”;
>
>3. information self-reflection, i.e. possibility 
>for generating "secondary information". The 
>generalization (creating abstractions) is well 
>known characteristic of intelligence. Sometimes, 
>we concentrate our investigations only to this 
>very important possibility, which is a base for 
>learning and recognition. The same is pointed 
>for the intelligent system: “To reach its 
>objective it chooses an action based on its 
>experiences. It can learn by generalizing the 
>experiences it has stored in its memories”;
>
>4. information expectation i.e. the (secondary) 
>information activity for internal or external 
>contact. This characteristic means that the 
>prognostic knowledge needs to be generated in 
>advance and during the interaction with the 
>environment the received information is 
>collected and compared with one generated in 
>advance. This not exists in usual definitions 
>but it is the foundation stone for definition of the concept "intelligence";
>
>5. resolving the information expectation. This 
>correspond to that the "intelligence is the 
>ability to reach ones objectives". The target is 
>a model of a future state (of the system) which 
>needs to be achieved and corresponding to it 
>prognostic knowledge needs to be "resolved" by incoming information.
>
>In summary, the intelligence is creating and 
>resolving the information expectation and 
>intelligent entity is one which owns such possibility.
>
>Finally, what the Demonic device really has done?
>
>Every interaction includes energy exchange and/or its transfer.
>
>It is impossible to create reflection without energy using up.
>
>In other words, creating the information is 
>transformation of the entity using up the energy.
>
>The demonic device converts information to 
>energy, i.e. converts energy to energy.

Ultimately yes, but it does it by way of 
information. The middle step is required in order 
to understand what has happened. It is common in 
physics to suppress the role of information in 
physical processes by relegating it to constant 
boundary conditions. The important thing in this 
case is that the boundary conditions changing is 
what drives the process, so you can't just

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

[Jerry LR Chandler]

John, List:

A simple semiotic flaw exists in this paper.

So, I am not buying into the hypothesis or the conclusions.
Reality is far more perplex than mere technical terms.

Given the situation, who else can find the logical flaw?

Cheers

Jerry 



On Nov 17, 2010, at 12:00 PM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:

> Send fis mailing list submissions to
>   fis@listas.unizar.es
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of fis digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Demonic device converts information to energy (John Collier)
>   2.  strings, vacua, structures (karl javorszky)
> 
> From: "John Collier"
> Date: November 16, 2010 11:37:33 PM EST
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: [Fis] Demonic device converts information to energy
> 
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101114/full/news.2010.606.html?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20101116
> 
> Not really surprising, but an interesting demonstration.
> 
> John
> 
> --
> Professor John Collier, Acting HoS  and Acting Deputy HoS
>   colli...@ukzn.ac.za
> Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa
> T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292   F: +27 (31) 260 3031
> http://collier.ukzn.ac.za/
> 
> 
> 

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