List, Joseph, Kassimir, Bob U: (This is a continuation of my inquiry into role of universals in biological communication.)
Joseph: After reflecting on the roots of your system of "Logic of Reality" as grounded in potentiality and actuality I remain as puzzled as ever. These two terms are widely used in philosophy and physics. Indeed, historically, it appears these terms are translations from the Greek terms of Aristotle. So, why am I puzzled? Because I do not find a path from these terms to the terminology used by logicians. While logic itself is an utter disaster (in the scientific sense of a unitary discipline) , one point that most authors agree upon is a logical statement allows one to draw a conclusion. By extension, I expect a system of logic would allow a systematic method for drawing conclusions. Do you find this to be an unreasonable expectation? What am I missing? Kassimir: I suspect you are mis-reading the message that I seek to communicate. You write: >> Information interaction is exchanging of information models. In other words, you and I do not share a common "information model". By citing Shannon, you suggest that the information model of Shannon is sufficient for (mechanical?) communication. But what is the notion of universality that you are pre-supposing? Is it merely Euclidian mathematics? My assertion is that one needs a nomino-realistic notion of "information model" in order to encode biological communication. That is, the names are not arbitrary abstractions but necessarily must be constructed from parts. The logic for this assertion are physical principles - physical atomism and the associated mathematics of physical conservation principles. In other words, the arbitrary assignment of mathematical variables (names) will not generate a logic of biological communication. This conclusion is reached as a semiotic necessity - that is, the semiosis intrinsic to a mutual shared "information model" that operates between mathematics and physical atomism does NOT exist. The antecedent model (information model) does not generate the consequent model and hence no conclusions can be drawn. To make this point sharper, the physics community in general rejected the notion of physical atoms prior to the experimental and theoretical work between 1900 - 1930 (Rutherford, Bohr, Schodinger,...) I note substantial parallelism between your views and those of my colleague, Bob Ulanowicz, in the limited sense that engineering mathematics plays a critical role in the structures of your arguments. The concept of "nomino-realism" demands a richer mathematics, far richer than the typical engineering mathematics. The terms of this mathematics must be sufficiently rich to allow logicians to construct names from the properties of the terms. That necessity is the basis of the limitation of the classical mathematical views of universals, such as variables and such mathematical structures as "categories". At the simple level of natural language communication, a speaker/listener of Russian and a speaker/listener of Chinese (pre-supposing that both are mono-linguistic) can not communicate because the encoding and decoding processes are not mutual. This is a simple metaphor for the abstract concepts that I seek to communicate in the more general representation of mathematical symbols. When are they nominal? When are they realistic? And when must they be both nominal and realistic? Biological communication requires BOTH! Cheers Jerry Headwater House On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:08 PM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote: > > 1. Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of > communications (Jerry LR Chandler) > > From: Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> > Subject: [Fis] Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of communications > Date: December 5, 2013 11:08:23 PM CST > To: fis@listas.unizar.es, pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > > > > > Pedro, FISers: > > Congratulations on a big step forward for FIS! > > I am delighted to see this major philosophical step (from the term > 'information' to the term 'communication' for Pedro as the leader of FIS. > > The progressive step > FROM the philosophy of information as a form of physics / number > TO the recognition of communication as the basis purpose of "information" > is warmly welcomed here at the Headwater House. > > In my view, a new direction has been established for FIS and I heartily > welcome it! > > The next step for FIS is, in my opinion, to explore the relative. > In other words, what are the nature of the relatives in communication? > > In this regard, I disagree strongly with Kassimir assertion that : >> Communication is a process of exchanging of "signals, messages" with >> different degree of complexity (Shannon). >> Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific >> only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio >> molecules, cells, organs). > > My rejection of Kassimir's assertion is at a foundational level with respect > to communication and the role of encoding/decoding in communication. I > interpret Kassimir's paragraph as a excluding "genetic systems" from the > category of "intelligent agents". > > Living systems come into existence and persevere on the basis of information > exchanges/information models. I assert this as a biological fact. > > Simple reason for my assertions: The codes for mechanical "information > models" are generated by living systems. > > In temporal logical terms, the generator must proceed the generated. Human > intelligence generates the mechanical "intelligent agents" used for > engineering purposes. What is the basis of the conjecture that "intelligent > agents" are anything other than products of human intelligence? > > The encoding and decoding processes that are necessary for communication as a > process are both representations expressible in terms of physical atomism. > The distinction is the generative nature of the encoding and decoding > processes viewed as either nomino-realism or as merely mechanical philosophy > of Newtonian physics. > > (The term nomino-realism, is used as a philosophical category that describes > the emergence of names. I coined this logical term out of necessity. The > philosophy of nominalism, as a separate concept is insufficient to generate > biological codes (such as the genetic code.) The philosophy of realism, taken > as a separate concept, is insufficient to generate biological codes (such as > the genetic code.) Both philosophical concepts, taken in conjunction as > indicated by the hyphen that binds the two terms, are necessary to provide > the logic necessary to express the concept of a code. The word "code" in > this concept refers to reference symbols, rather similar to Shannon's notion > of a code.) > > Grammatically, nomino-realism expresses the concept comparable to Leibnetz's? > notion that the object contains the subject. (My memory is that this was > Leibnetz's view, but I do not have the immediate citation at hand. Perhaps > someone can either verify this point or correct it.) > > In terms of John Collier's defense of "its from bits", I would argue that > physical atomism is the ultimate source of both biological and mechanical > codes necessary to generate communication between two independent but > relative systems. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > (BTW, these conclusion come deductively from my on-going work on the logic of > number as manifest in physical atomism.) > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 7:46 AM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote: > >> >> From: "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com> >> Subject: [Fis] The Interaction Man >> Date: December 4, 2013 4:38:53 PM CST >> To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>, <fis@listas.unizar.es> >> Reply-To: Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com> >> >> >> Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues, >> This discussion is full with interesting ideas. >> What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts "communication" and >> "information interaction" which reflect similar phenomena but at different >> levels of live hierarchy. >> Communication is a process of exchanging of "signals, messages" with >> different degree of complexity (Shannon). >> Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific >> only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio >> molecules, cells, organs). >> Main feature of intelligent agents is decision making based on information >> models. >> Information interaction is impossible without communication. >> Friendly regards >> Krassimir >> >> PS: Dear Pedro, Please resend this letter to FIS list if it is stopped by >> spam filter. >>
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
