Dear Arturo, You are right, we need models. But why not use the natural one during which all this has happened: the evolution of our universe. And taking the evolution of the universe as a reference frame allows to highlight a few pitfalls. Basically the natures of life and human mind which are still mysteries for today science and philosophy. This should bring us to accept the difficulties encountered with a definition of life. So we can begin by positioning our investigations betwen life and human mind to address the natures of information and meaning, which are realities at that level. But first a preliminary point. I feel that information should not be separated from meaning. We care only about meaningful information. Weaver rightly said that information should not be confused with meaning because a channel capacity is independent of the meaning of information going thru it. But this does not mean that information should be separated from meaning. Nobody would care about a channel transferring meaningless information. Now, taking life as a given with its performances allows us to look at definitions for information and meaning for living entities, and also can bring in a thread for a definition of self-consciousness (part of human mind). This has been addressed in a 2011 book to which several FISers have participated with Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic and Mark Burgin as editors
(http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/7637). The chapter defining information and meaning for living entities is at https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI (with extension to artificial agents). I would recommend you have a look at it. All the Best Christophe ________________________________ De : Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> de la part de tozziart...@libero.it <tozziart...@libero.it> Envoyé : jeudi 22 décembre 2016 07:51 À : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : [Fis] Something positive Dear FISers, it's excruciating... We did not even find an unique definition of information, life, brain activity, consciousness... How could the science improve, if it lacks definitions of what itself is talking about? It seems that we depicted a rather dark, hopeless picture... However, there is, I thing, a light in front of us. I think that the best way to proceed, at least the most useful in the last centuries, is the one pursued by Einstein: to build an abstract, rather geometric , mathematical model, make testable previsions and then to check if it works in the real world. Therefore, I think, we need novel, fresh models and theories, more than experiments aiming to demonstrate theory-laden, pre-cooked, previsions of scientists. It is the old problem of science: from above, or from below? Which is the best approach? The knowledge of the most elementary biological and physical issues is so scarce, as demonstrated by this FIS discussion involving foremost scientists from all over the world, that the right approach, I think, is to start from above... from topology, of course.... Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ Arturo Tozzi<http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/> arturotozzi.webnode.it Formally MD, PhD, Pediatrician (ASL NA2 Nord, Caivano, Naples, Italy), Adjunct Assistant Professor in Physics (Department of Physics, Center for Nonlineas Science ...
_______________________________________________ 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
