Hi Steven, My apologies for wordiness. We all have our weaknesses. I am curious about your claim that a complete theory of information may be impossible. I am not even sure what this would mean — except irresolvable dualism. But as to the issue of whether I advocate an identity theory, I can provide a clear no. Mine is an emergence theory in which it is not possible to reduce reference to an intrinsic physical property.
Thanks, Terry On 1/30/15, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> wrote: > Dear Terry, list. > > I apologize that I have not had the time to keep up with this discussion. I > did try to read Terry's text but found it strangely impenetrable with many > more word than were necessary to make a point. This is, perhaps, merely a > question of style, repeated in the recent books of his that I have > purchased but that sit essentially unread although I have tried. > > To clarify, I have spent more than my share of time reading the work of > Charles Peirce, readily acknowledged, although many of you may now > recognize my preference for his father's work and its priority. Both quite > brilliant men, but Charles suffers, both conceptually and in his readership > at the hands of neology. Who among us wants to sit through yet another > argument with followers of Charles on the nature of semeiois or a sign? Not > I. > > I have also spent a good deal of my time with the work of Claude Shannon. > My discipline of origin is, after all (in French), "Informatique." I do > this not merely to comprehend Shannon's theory of communication but also to > inquirer concerning the role that his mathematization plays in its > unfolding. I find, in the end, that the theory applies well to its original > intent, telephony engineering (a human activity), but it lacks any true > ontology. > > That is, from my point of view, communication does not exist because there > is a lack of continuity. What I may speak of instead is apprehension. This > suggests that no "complete theory of information" is, in fact, conceivable. > > I confess that I am stunned by Joe's advocacy of necessary duality. But > then, it is not entirely clear what he is implying. He could, for example, > simply be an advocate of a universal property not widely considered and > advocated by myself as "the basis of experience" or as Benjamin Peirce's > "universal will" or Charles' (weaker) "matter as effete mind," all being > the universal equal of gravitation and of light and to be found ultimately > in the same equations as a "force" that have an effect upon the world, in > this case in the flexible closed structures that form biophysics. A theory > based upon such a premise, even though it requires something physically > "extra" today, is clearly not at all dualist. > > I, naturally enough, am sympathetic to Terry's denial of dualism, but I > wonder if Terry merely advocates an identity theory. As I have noted often > such a theory is, in fact, a dualism. > > Regards, > Steven > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> > wrote: > >> Thanks to Joseph for this spirited rejoinder, and to Krassimir for >> reminding us that convergence is perhaps more likely to succeed than >> any single-minded approach. >> >> With Krassimir, I am in agreement. I have probably overstated the >> priority of my own approach, even if I do believe it to be a best >> middle ground from which to begin formalization. This is a big >> challenge and I should celebrate the diversity of approaches more than >> I have. This is my path, and I have taken this opportunity to make my >> reasons for pursuing it clear. Like most of us, it is sent as a sort >> of mating call, in case others might find interesting insights there >> too. >> >> In response to Joseph, I would challenge you to specifically identify >> my homuncular assumptions, demonstrate where the autogenic model makes >> them, and deacribe in what ways you think that autogenesis is somehow >> not physically realizable. I admit to being blind to any of these, but >> I don't want to just convince you, I want to get it right. However, I >> am not willing to live with unresolved dualisms. And I don't quite get >> your comment about "dualisms that do exist in nature" and how you >> connect this with my presence/absence perspective. Perhaps this has to >> do with the fact that I am not satisfied that certain dualisms arising >> from quantum theories are fundamental, rather than the result of >> incomplete theory, and your own view which seems to embrace them. In >> which case we may need to agree to disagree. >> >> I am slightly perplexed and don't quite follow your implications >> regarding the specific proposal made in this piece. The dualisms I am >> hoping to resolve in this essay orbit around the difference between >> physicalistic and semiotic uses of the information concept, and about >> how this implicitly reifies Descartes' res cogitans / res extensa >> dualism, with reference and significance on the former side of this >> divide and Shannon information (and related uses in physics) on the >> latter. You can read my view as arguing that this dualism cannot >> merely be left as an unanalyzed assumption if we are seeking a >> complete theory of information. >> >> I anticipate that there is much unmentioned detail that remains to be >> unpacked and debated here. Pursuing some of these details could be >> very informative, even if it doesn't change entrenched positions. >> >> I think that it is interesting that so many responses have betrayed a >> sort of thinly veiled irritation and anger. To me it suggest that we >> are close to a nerve—i.e. some critical issues that are of central >> importance. >> >> Thanks, Terry >> >> >> >> On 1/30/15, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> wrote: >> > Dear Pedro, Dear FISers, >> > >> > Terrence Deacon has made a passionate plea for the proper >> consideration of >> > his approach to information science that his contribution merits. But >> this >> > consideration is only possible if he is willing to accept that some of >> his >> > positions may be contaminated with assumptions in a way that he >> > correctly >> > criticizes in others. As a specific example, we can all easily >> > understand >> > and agree that the incorporation of ‘homunculi’, that is, unproven >> > mechanisms, as explanatory, should be avoided. In my view, however, >> > Terry >> > has a small army of homunculi at work (sic!) who insure that his >> processes >> > of self-organization, self-reconstitution and ‘spontaneous’ >> > self-assembly >> > can take place! The finality of using his simulated autogenic systems >> > is >> “a >> > rigorous physical foundation upon which” future complex theories of >> > information may be based. If, as I contend, Terry’s approach has failed >> to >> > take into account the fundamentally dualistic physical properties of >> > real >> > systems, it is hard to see how it could do so. >> > >> > In his reply to Loet, regarding cognitive processes, Terry writes: “As >> > I >> > have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all aspects of >> the >> > information concept, and certainly not at the level of human thought. I >> > merely propose to dissolve the implicit dualism in our current concepts >> at >> > the most basic level, so that for example it will be possible to >> > develop >> a >> > scientifically grounded theory of molecular biosemiotics.” No-one can >> argue >> > with his first sentence, but the second has the implication that >> > dualism >> at >> > the most basic level in concepts should be absent when it is present in >> > reality. Again, we can all reject the straw-man of mind-body dualism. >> > But >> > the dualisms that do exist in nature must be reflected in concepts or >> > the >> > latter are outside nature and outside science. The pair >> > presence-absence >> is >> > one of these that I have offered, so far without comment, as one of >> these. >> > >> > As a substitute for what is referred to as ‘the implicit dualism in our >> > current concepts’, Terry seems to offer a repeated reliance on the >> Peircean >> > categories as having explanatory power. I have discussed, accessibly, >> > why >> > these categories amount to epistemic classifications, a position that >> > is >> in >> > fact confirmed by a member of Terry’s group. Ontological approaches, >> which >> > if looked at closely differ from the ones Terry correctly criticizes, >> > are >> > given a back of the hand dismissal that suggests that the writers may >> not be >> > familiar enough with them to make the distinction. >> > >> > A point of agreement between Terry and me is that a concept of quantum >> > information should not be mixed with one of thermodynamic information. >> This >> > does not mean, however, that the some of the dual aspects of quantum >> > entities are not relevant for thermodynamic processes, including the >> > properties, production and transfer of information. Terry is absolutely >> > correct to question the so-called ‘it-from-bit’ theory of information >> > in >> its >> > simplest form. Again, however, alternatives are available at the heart >> > of >> > which is exactly the ‘overlap’ between physics and information that >> > Pedro >> > calls for, e.g., those of Luhn and myself. >> > >> > I think Krassimir has a good point in concluding that we have a problem >> of >> > civilization and that all our efforts, scientific and philosophical, >> should >> > be made with the common good at the center of our preoccupations. This >> > is >> > the theme of the Vienna Summit 2015. Information offers the ground on >> which >> > standard physical and biological as well as social and psychological >> reality >> > can meet. It is from the most complex, interactive, recursive aspects >> > of >> > these realities as well as from the simplest that we must learn. Thank >> you. >> > >> > Best wishes, >> > >> > Joseph >> > >> > >> >>----Message d'origine---- >> >>De : dea...@berkeley.edu >> >>Date : 30/01/2015 - 09:31 (PST) >> >>À : lo...@physics.utoronto.ca >> >>Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es >> >>Objet : Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture? >> >> >> >>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 >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
