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 âthe ability to learnâ;
>
>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: âTo reach its
>objective it chooses an action based on its
>experiences. It can learn by generalizing the
>experiences it has stored in its memoriesâ;
>
>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 ignore
the information. 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
----------
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
