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
