Cari Tutti, condivido al 100% quel che afferma Marcin che si ritrova scritto in circa 20 miei libri. Quando parlo di significazione, informazione e comunicazione mi riferisco all'intera esistenza e a tutta la conoscenza in-centrate su quattro (ma potrebbero essere 44) tipi di informazione: termodinamica o naturale (entropia e neg-entropia); bio-ecologica (informazione genetica che si trasmette genealogicamente); semiotico-ermeneutica (informazione semantica); matematica (bit di entropia uguale alla e differente dalla seconda legge della termodinamica secondo Boltzmann). Si vuole prendere atto di questo punto cruciale o no? Altrimenti cadiamo nella melassa entropica della confusione. Grazie. Francesco Rizzo.
2015-09-29 8:02 GMT+02:00 mjs@aiu <m...@aiu.ac.jp>: > Dear Howard: > I am afraid one of your examples is not really accurate historically: > "the most amazing metaphor of relationality available to us is not math, > it's not mechanism, and it's not reduction to "elements," it's language. > by using the metaphor of a form of language called "code," watson and crick > were able to understand what a strand of dna does and how. without > language as metaphor, we'd still be in the dark about the genome." > The idea how to pack huge amount of information in something as small as > chromosome came not from language, but from Schroedinger's concept of > aperiodic crystal in his book "What is Life?". Crick switched from his > candidacy in physics to biology after reading this book. He knew very well > what he was looking for together with Watson. And crystals, periodic or > not, do not have much common with language. > Regards, > Marcin > > On 9/29/2015 2:39 PM, howlbl...@aol.com wrote: > > > re: it is likely to be problematic to use language as the paradigm model > for all communication--Terrence Deacon > > Terry makes interesting points, but I think on this one, he may be > wrong. Guenther Witzany is on to something. our previous approaches > to information have been what Barbara Ehrenreich, in her introduction to > the upcoming paperback of my book The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos > Creates, calls "a kind of unacknowledged necrophilia." > > we've been using dead things to understand living things. aristotle put > us on that path when he told us that if we could break things down to their > "elements" and understand what he called the "laws" of those elements, we'd > understand everything. Newton took us farther down that path when he said > we could understand everything using the metaphor of the "contrivance," the > machine--the metaphor of "mechanics" and of "mechanism." > > Aristotle and Newton were wrong. Their ideas have had centuries to pan > out, and they've led to astonishing insights, but they've left us blind to > the relational aspect of things. utterly blind. > > the most amazing metaphor of relationality available to us is not math, > it's not mechanism, and it's not reduction to "elements," it's language. > by using the metaphor of a form of language called "code," watson and crick > were able to understand what a strand of dna does and how. without > language as metaphor, we'd still be in the dark about the genome. > > i'm convinced that by learning the relational secrets of the body of work > of a Shakespeare or a Goethe we could crack some of the secrets we've been > utterly unable to comprehend, from what makes the social clots we call a > galaxy's spiral arms (a phenomenon that astronomer Greg Matloff, a Fellow > of the British interplanetary Society, says defies the laws of Newtonian > and Einsteinian physics) to what makes the difference between life and > death. > > in other words, it's time we confess in science just how little we know > about language, that we explore language's mysteries, and that we use our > discoveries as a crowbar to pry open the secrets of this highly contextual, > deeply relational, profoundly communicational cosmos. > > with thanks for tolerating my opinions. > > howard > > ____________ > Howard Bloom > Author of: *The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the > Forces of History* ("mesmerizing"-*The Washington Post*), > *Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st > Century* ("reassuring and sobering"-*The New Yorker)*, > *The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism* ("A > tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, *The > Atlantic*), > *The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates* ("Bloom's argument will > rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), > *How I Accidentally Started the Sixties* ("Wow! Whew! Wild! > Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and > *The Mohammed Code* ("A terrifying book…the best book I've read on > Islam." David Swindle,* PJ Media*). > www.howardbloom.net > Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting > Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University. > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space Development > Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad; Founding Board > Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin > Project; Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of > Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American > Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and > Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology, Scientific > Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal > of Space Philosophy; Board member and member of Board of Governors, > National Space Society. > > In a message dated 9/28/2015 11:47:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes: > > From Terry... > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fis] Information is a > linguistic description of structures Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:13:14 -0700 > From: > Terrence W. Deacon <dea...@berkeley.edu><dea...@berkeley.edu> > <dea...@berkeley.edu> To: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> CC: Günther Witzany <witz...@sbg.at> > <witz...@sbg.at>, <fa...@howardbloom.net> <fa...@howardbloom.net>, fis > <fis@listas.unizar.es> <fis@listas.unizar.es>, Emanuel Diamant > <emanl....@gmail.com> <emanl....@gmail.com> References: > <000201d0f68c$77d02b50$677081f0$@gmail.com> > <000201d0f68c$77d02b50$677081f0$@gmail.com> > <0d34f6ef-19e6-4c9c-a9d3-aba4f5f2e...@sbg.at> > <0d34f6ef-19e6-4c9c-a9d3-aba4f5f2e...@sbg.at> <56053208.2000...@aragon.es> > <56053208.2000...@aragon.es> > > As exemplified in Guenther's auxin example, and Pedro's worries about the > procrustean use of language metaphors in the discussion of inter- and > intra-cellular communication, it is likely to be problematic to use > language as the paradigm model for all communication, much less as the > foundation upon which to build a general theory of information. From an > evolutionary point of view, language is a highly derived human > idiosyncratic form of communication that evolved only very recently in > vertebrate phylogeny, in only one species, and is supported by a vast > semiotic cognitive and social infrastructure. Communication in a more > general sense is vastly older and far more generic. For this reason, it is > wise to avoid talking in terms of the semantics of a cough, the meaning of > a piece of music, or the syntax of a skunk's odor. The use of Carnap's > approach to language semantics and various other uses of linguistic > categories in information theoretic analyses needs to be understood as > a special case, not the generic form. I would recommend that presentations > and comments to them be framed with appropriate caveats, indicating whether > they address such special cases of human information or are intended to be > generic. > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < > <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: > >> Dear FISers and all, >> >> I include below another response to Immanuel post (from Guenther). I >> think he has penned an excellent response--my only addition is to >> expostulate a doubt. Should our analysis of the human (or cellular!) >> communication with the environment be related to linguistic practices? In >> short, my argument is that biological self-production becomes "la raison >> d'etre" of communication, both concerning its evolutionary origins and the >> continuous opening towards the environment along the different stages of >> the individual's life cycle. It is cogent that the same messenger plays >> quite different roles in different specialized cells --we have to >> disentangle in each case how the impinging "info" affects the ongoing life >> cycle (the impact upon the transcriptome, proteome, metabolome, etc.) There >> is no shortcut to the endless work necessary--wet lab & in silico. So I >> think that Encode and other big projects are quite useful in the continuous >> exploration of biological complexity and provide us valuable conceptual >> stuff--but looking for hypothetical big formalisms (I quite agree) is out >> sight. Molecular recognition which is the at the fundamentals of >> biological organization can only provide modest guidelines about the main >> informational architectures of life... beyond that, there is too much >> complexity, endless complexity to contemplate, particularly when we try to >> study multicellular organization. Anyhow, this topic of the essential >> informational openness of the individual's life cycle appears to me as the >> Gordian knot to be cut for the advancement of our field: otherwise we will >> never connect meaningfully with the endless info flows that interconnect >> our societies, generated from the life cycles of individuals and addressed >> to the life cycles of other individuals. Info sources, channels for info >> flows, and info receptors are not mere Shannonian overtones, they >> symbolically refer to the very info skeleton of our societies; or looking >> dynamically it is the engine of social history and of social complexity. >> >> Well, sorry that I could not express myself better. >> >> all the best--Pedro >> >> Günther Witzany wrote: >> >> Dear all! >> >> What is the opposite of a linguistic description? a non-linguistic >> description? Please tell me one possible explanation of a non-linguistic >> description. So Im not convinced of the sense of the term "information". >> >> Concerning the "difference" of physical and semantic information: What >> would you prefer in the case of plant communication. Does the chemical >> Auxin represent a physical or a semantic information? Auxin is used in >> hormonal, morphogenic, and transmitter pathways. As an extracellular signal >> at the plant synapse, auxin serves to react to light and gravity. It >> also serves as an extracellular messenger substance to send electrical >> signals and functions as a synchronization signal for cell division. At the >> intercellular, whole plant level, it supports cell division in the cambium, >> and at the tissue level, it promotes the maturation of vascular tissue >> during embryonic development, organ growth as well as tropic responses and >> apical dominance. In intracellular signaling, auxin serves in >> organogenesis, cell development, and differentiation. Especially in the >> organogenesis of roots, for example, auxin enables cells to determine >> their position and their identity. These multiple functions of auxin >> demonstrate that identifying the momentary usage (its semantics) is >> extremely difficult because the context (investigation object of >> pragmatics) of use can be very complex and highly diverse, although the >> chemical property remains the same. >> Yes, mathematics is an artificial language. Last century the Pythagorean >> approach, mathematics represents material reality, (if we use mathematics >> we reconstruct creators thoughts) was reactivated: Exact science must >> represent observations as well as theories in mathematical equations. Then >> it would be sure to represent reality, because brain synapse logics then >> could express its own material reality. But this was proven as error. Prior >> to all artificial languages we learned how to interconnect linguistic >> utterances with practical behavior in socialisation; therefore the ultimate >> meta-language is everyday language with its visible superficial grammar and >> its invisible deep grammar that transports the intended meaning. How should >> computers extract deep grammar structures out of measurable superficial >> syntax structures? In the case of ENCODE project (to find the human genome >> primary data structures) this was the aim which got financial support of 3 >> billion dollars with the result of detecting the superficial grammar only, >> nothing else. >> >> Best Wishes >> Guenther >> Am 24.09.2015 um 07:47 schrieb Emanuel Diamant: >> >> Dear FIS colleagues, >> >> >> >> As a newcomer to FIS, I feel myself very uncomfortable when I have to >> interrupt the ongoing discourse with something that looks for me quite >> natural but is lacking in our current public dialog. What I have in mind is >> that in every discussion or argument exchange, first of all, the grounding >> axioms and mutually agreed assumptions should be established and declared >> as the basis for further debating and reasoning. Maybe in our case, these >> things are implied by default, but I am not a part of the dominant >> coalition. For this reason, I would dare to formulate some grounding axioms >> that may be useful for those who are not FIS insiders: >> >> >> >> 1. *Information is a linguistic description of structures observable in >> a given data set* >> >> 2. Two types of data structures could be distinguished in a data set: >> primary and secondary data structures. >> >> 3. Primary data structures are data clusters or clumps arranged or >> occurring due to the similarity in physical properties of adjacent data >> elements. For this reason, the primary data structures could be called >> physical data structures. >> >> 4. Secondary data structures are specific arrangements of primary data >> structures. The grouping of primary data structures into secondary data >> structures is a prerogative of an external observer and it is guided by his >> subjective reasons, rules and habits. The secondary data structures exist >> only in the observer’s head, in his mind. Therefore, they could be called >> meaningful or semantic data structures. >> >> 5. As it was said earlier, *Description of structures observable in a >> data set should be called “Information”. *In this regard, two types of >> information must be distinguished – *Physical Information and Semantic >> Information*. >> >> 6. Both are language-based descriptions; however, physical information >> can be described with a variety of languages (recall that mathematics is >> also a language), while semantic information can be described only by means >> of natural human language. >> >> >> >> This is a concise set of axioms that should preface all our further >> discussions. You can accept them. You can discard them and replace them >> with better ones. But you can not proceed without basing your discussion on >> a suitable and appropriate set of axioms. >> >> >> >> That is what I have to say at this moment. >> >> My best regards to all of you, >> >> Emanuel. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------- >> 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.iacs@aragon.eshttp://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 > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > 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.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing > listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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