Thanks to Pedro and Bob for these last few comments. Indeed, like Darwin in 1859 we are still just beginning to formulate "one long argument" that will need to be progressively refined in the decades to come. The question is where best to begin the task of synthesizing. I too find the metaphor of searching for lost keys quite apropos, but I would beg your indulgence while I add an elaboration to this metaphor that sheds light on the perspective I have offered.
Yes, we must at first search close to the light, even though there we will only find vague hints. But, importantly, as we cover more and more territory we will discover that the light progressively brightens. So long as we keep searching and don't walk out into the dark too quickly, skipping over important territory in between, the entire territory will become more and more thoroughly illuminated, searchable, and familiar to us. I believe that the light is brightest in the domain where we can see a clear relation between the two quite different concepts of entropy and the relationship of both to the concept of work. Admittedly, starting so minimally as I have in this essay seems remote from the interests of psychologists, anthropologists, economists and their kin, who demand an account of human-scale information processes, while at the same time appearing to introduce the messiness of semiotic concerns into the seemingly pristine world of information as a simple physical parameter. But of course the problem is to find the best illuminated middle ground between these two extremes, both still bathed in the darkness of simplifying assumptions that make them seem mutually exclusive— separated by darkness. This is what I am trying to accomplish. Though deceptively simple, I believe that the autogenic model system is just sufficiently complex to provide complete illumination of each of the critical defining features of the information concept—sign medium properties (entropies, uncertainty, constraint), reference (aboutness), significance (function, value, normativity), and interpretation (adaptation, intelligence)—while not artificially simplifying the issue by ignoring one or the other of these facets. Because of its simplicity none of these basic concepts are left in the dark as black boxes or excluded as taboo concepts. But of course, working at such a basic level means that the nature of more complex phenomena as thinking, subjectivity, language, and culture (to mention only a few) are not yet well illuminated by this light. This isn't to suggest that other pursuits in these other domains should be abandoned—for they at least clear away some of the underbrush creating paths that will help to ease the linkage between the different subterritories when finally the light brightens (to continue the metaphor). I just believe that this middle level is where the light best illuminates all the critical foundational issues. I don't expect agreement, but so far I haven't felt that the specific components of this proposal have been addressed in this thread. And in these closing days of discussion (as well as in future privately shared emails after this window closes) I hope to receive some suggestions and constructive criticisms pointing to where I might go next with this approach. Thanks for all your inputs. Terry On 1/30/15, Bob Logan <lo...@physics.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Thanks Pedro for your remarks. We have not reached our destination as you > point out but the important thing is to enjoy the journey which I certainly > have. It is inevitable that with such a slippery concept as information that > there will be different destinations depending on the travellers but what I > like about FIS in general and the dialogue that Terry prompted in particular > is the interesting ideas and good company I encountered along the way. As > for your remark about searching where there is light I suggest that we pack > a flashlight for the next journey to be led by our tour guide Zhao Chuan. > One common theme for understanding the importance of both information and > intelligence for me is interpretation and context (figure/ground or > pragmatics). Thanks to all especially Terry for a very pleasant journey. - > Bob > ______________________ > > Robert K. Logan > Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto > Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD > http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan > www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan > www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications > > > > > > > > > On 2015-01-30, at 8:25 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: > >> Dear Terry and colleagues, >> >> At your convenience, during the first week of February or so we may put an >> end to the ongoing New Year Lecture --discussants willing to enter their >> late comments should hurry up. Your own final or concluding comment will >> be appreciated. >> >> Personally, my late comment will deal with the last exchange between Bob >> and Terry, It is about the point which follows: "...there was no thesis >> other than the word information is a descriptor for so many different >> situations and that it is a part of a semantic web - no roadmap only a >> jaunt through the countryside of associations - a leisurely preamble." >> In my own parlance, we have been focusing this fis session on the >> microphysical foundations of information (thermodynamic in this case) >> which together with the quantum would look as the definite foundations of >> the whole field, or even of the whole "great domain of information." But >> could it be so? Is there such thing as a "unitary" foundation? My >> impression is that we are instinctively working "where the light is", >> reminding the trite story of the physicists who has lost the car keys and >> is looking closest to the street lamp. The point I suggest is that the >> different informational realms are emergent in the strongest sense: almost >> no trace of the underlying information realms would surface. Each realm >> has to invent throughout its own engines of invention the different >> informational & organizational principles that sustain its existence. It >> is no obligate that there will be a successful outcome.... In the extent >> to which this plurality of foundations is true, solving the microphysical >> part would be of little help to adumbrating the neuronal/psychological or >> the social information arena. >> >> The roadmap Bob suggests is an obligatory exploration to advance; we may >> disagree in the ways and means, but not in the overall goal. It is a mind >> boggling exercise as we have to confront quite different languages and >> styles of thinking. For instance, the next session we will have at FIS (in >> a few weeks) is an attempt of an excursion on "Intelligence Science". >> Presented by Zhao Chuan, the aim is of confronting the phenomenon of >> intelligence from a global perspective amalgamating science (artificial >> intelligence), emotions, and art (poetic and pictorial). Not easy, but we >> will try >> >> Anyhow, Terry, we much appreciate your insights and the responses you >> have produced along the Lecture. It was a nice intellectual exercise. >> >> Best wishes to all---Pedro >> >> ------------------------------------------------- >> Pedro C. Marijuán >> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group >> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud >> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) >> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X >> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain >> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) >> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es >> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ >> ------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
