Dear FISers,
Hi!
...a very hot discussion...
I think that it is not useful to talk about Aristotle, Plato and Ortega y
Gasset, it the modern context of information... their phylosophical, not
scientific approach, although marvelous, does not provide insights in a purely
scientific issue such the information we are talking about...
Once and forever, it must be clear that information is a physical quantity.
Please read (it is not a paper of mine!):
Street S. 2016. Neurobiology as information physics. Frontiers in Systems
neuroscience.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108784/
In short, Street shows how information can be clearly defined in terms of
Bekenstein entropy!
Sorry,
and BW...
Arturo Tozzi
AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android venerdì, 29 settembre 2017, 01:31PM +02:00
da Rafael Capurro raf...@capurro.de :
>Dear Pedro,
>
>thanks for food for thought. When talking about communication we
> should not forget that Wiener defines cybernetics as "the theory
> of messages" (not: as the theory of information) (Human use of
> human beings, London 1989, p. 15, p. 77 "cybernetics, or the
> theory of messages" et passim) Even for Shannon uses the
> (undefined) concept of message 'as' what is transmitted (which is
> not information) is of paramount importance. And so also at the
> level of cell-cell communication.
>
>The code or the difference message/messenger is, I think, a key
> for interpreting biological processes. In this sense,
> message/messanger are 'archai' (in the Aristotelian) sense for
> different sciences (no reductionism if we want to focus on the
> differences between the phenomena). 'Archai' are NOT 'general
> concepts' (as you suggest) but originating forces that underline
> the phenomena in their manifestations 'as' this or that.
>
>From this perspective, information (following Luhmann) is the
> process of interpretation taking place at the receiver. When a
> cell, excuse me these thoughts from a non-biologist, receives a
> message transmitted by a messenger, then the main issue is from
> the perspective of the cell, to interpret this message (with a
> special address or 'form' supposed to 'in-form' the cell) 'as'
> being relevant for it. Suppose this interpretation is wrong in the
> sense that the message causes death (to the cell or the whole
> organism), then the re-cognition system (its immune system also)
> of the cell fails. Biological fake news, so to speak, with mortal
> consequences due to failures in the communication.
>
>best
>
>Rafael
>>Dear FISers,
>>
>>I also agree with Ji and John Torday about the tight
>> relationship between information and communication. Actually
>> Principle 5 was stating : "Communication/information exchanges
>> among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological
>> organizations at all scales." However, let me suggest that we do
>> not enter immediately in the discussion of cell-cell
>> communication, because it is very important and perhaps demands
>> some more exchanges on the preliminary info matters.
>>
>>May I return to principles and Aristotle? I think that Rafael
>> and Michel are talking more about principles as general concepts
>> than about principles as those peculiar foundational items that
>> allow the beginning of a new scientific discourse. Communication
>> between principles of the different disciplines is factually
>> impossible (or utterly irrelevant): think on the connection
>> between Euclidean geometry and politics, biology, etc. I think
>> Ortega makes right an interpretation about that. When Aristotle
>> makes the first classification of the sciences, he is continuing
>> with that very idea. Theoretical sciences, experimental or
>> productive sciences, and applied or practical sciences--with an
>> emphasis on the explanatory theoretical power of both physics
>> and mathematics (ehm, Arturo will agree fully with him). I have
>> revisited my old reading notes and I think that the Aristotelian
>> confrontation with the Platonic approach to the unity of
>> knowledge that Ortega comments is extremely interesting for our
>> current debate on information principles.
>>
>>There is another important aspect related to the first three
>> principles in my original message (see at the bottom). It would
>> be rather strategic to achieve a consensus on the futility of
>> struggling for a universal information definition. Then, the
>> tautology of the first principle ("info is info") is a way to
>> sidestep that definitional aspect. Nevertheless, it is clear
>> that interesting notions of information may be provided relative
>> to some particular domains or endeavors. For instance,
>> "propagating influence" by our colleague Bob Logan, Stuart
>> Kauffman and others, and many other notions or partial
>> definitions as well--I include my own "distinction on the
>> adjacent" as valuable for the informational approach in biology.
>> Is this "indefinability" an undesirable aspect? To put an
>> example from physics, time appears as the most undefinable of
>> the terms, but it shows up in almost all equations and theories
>> of physics... Principle three means that one can do a lot of
>> things with info without the need of defining it.
>>
>>As for the subject that is usually coupled to the info term, as
>> our discussion advances further, entering the "information
>> flows" will tend to clarify things. The open-ended relationship
>> with the environment that the "informational entities" maintain
>> via the channeling of those info flows--it is a very special
>> coupling indeed--allows these entities the further channeling of
>> the "energy flows" for self-maintenance. Think on the living
>> cells and their signaling systems, or think on our "info"
>> societies. Harold Morowitz's "energy flow in biology" has not
>> been paralleled yet by a similar "information flow in biology".
>> One is optimistic that the recent incorporation of John Torday,
>> plus Shungchul Ji and others, may lead to a thought-collective
>> capable of illuminating the panorama of biological information.
>>
>>(shouldn't we make an effort to incorporate other relevant
>> parties, also interested in biological information, to this
>> discussion?)
>>
>>Best wishes--Pedro
>>
>>El 23/09/2017 a las 21:27, Sungchul Ji escribió:
>>>Hi Fisers,
>>>
>>>I agree.
>>>Communication may be the key concept in developing a theory
>>> of informaton.
>>>
>>>Just as it is impossible to define what energy is without
>>> defining the thermodynamic system under consideration (e.g.,
>>> energy is conserved only in an isolated system and not in
>>> closed or open systems; the Gibbs free energy content
>>> decreases only when a spontaneous process occurs in
>>> non-isolsted systems with a constant temperature and
>>> pressure, etc), so it may be that 'information' cannot be
>>> defined rigorously without first defining the
>>> "communication system" under consideration. If this
>>> analogy is true, we can anticipate that, just as there are
>>> many different kinds of energies depending on the
>>> characteristics of the thermodynamic systems involved, so
>>> there may be many different kinds of 'informations'
>>> depending on the nature of the communication systems under
>>> consideration.
>>>
>>>The properties or behaviors of all thermodynamic systems
>>> depend on their environment, and there are three
>>> system-environment relations -- (i) isolated (e.g., the
>>> Universe, or the thermos bottle), (ii) closed (e.g.,
>>> refriegerator), and (iii) open (e.g., the biosphere, living
>>> cells).
>>>
>>>It is interesting to note that, all communication systems
>>> (e.g., cell, organs, animals, humans) may embody ITR
>>> (Irreducible Triadic Relation) which I found it convenient
>>> to represent diagramamatically using a 3-node network
>>> arrows as shown below:
>>>
>>> f
>>> g
>>> A ----------> B ---------> C
>>> |
>>> ^
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |__________________|
>>> h
>>>
>>>Figure 1. The Irreducible Triadic Relation ( ITR ) of
>>> C. S. Peirce (1839-21914) represented as a 3-node, closed
>>> and directed network. The arrows form the commutative
>>> triangle of category theory, i.e., operations f followed by
>>> g leads to the same result as operation h , here denoted as fxg = h.
>>>f = information production; g = information
>>> interpretation; h = correspondence or information
>>> flow. Please note that Processes f and g are driven by
>>> exergonic physicochemical processes, and h requires
>>> a pre-existing code or language that acts as the rule of
>>> mapping A and C.
>>>
>>>Again, just as generations of thermodynamicists in the
>>> 19-20th centuries have defined various kinds of "energies"
>>> (enthalpy, Helmholtz free energy, Gibbs free
>>> energy) applicable to different kinds of thermodynamic
>>> systems, so 'information scientists' of the 21st century
>>> may have the golden opportunity to define as many kinds of
>>> 'informations' as needed for the different kinds of
>>> "communcation systems" of their interest, some examples of
>>> which being presented in Table 1.
>>>
>>>________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>Table 1. A 'parametric' definition of information based on
>>> the values of the three nodes
>>> of the ITR, Figure 1.
>>>________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>Communication system A
>>> B C
>>>(Information)
>>>
>>>________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>Cells
>>> DNA/RNA Proteins Chemcal
>>> reactions
>>>(Biological informations)
>>> or chemical
>>> waves
>>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>Humans
>>> Sender Message Receiver
>>>(Linguistic informations)
>>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>Signs
>>> Object Representamen Interpretant
>>>(Semiotic informations, or
>>>'Universal informations' (?))
>>>__________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>With all the best.
>>>
>>>Sung
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY
>>><jtor...@ucla.edu>
>>>Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:44:33 AM
>>>To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>Subject: [Fis] Principles of IS
>>>
>>>Dear Fis, I am a newcomer to this discussion,
>>> but suffice it to say that I have spent the last 20 years
>>> trying to understand how and why physiology has evolved. I
>>> stumbled upon your website because Pedro Maijuan had
>>> reviewed a paper of ours on 'ambiguity' that was recently
>>> published in Progr Biophys Mol Biol July 22, 2017 fiy.
>>>Cell-cell communication is the basis for molecular
>>> embryology/morphogenesis. This may seem tangential at best
>>> to your discussion of Information Science, but if you'll
>>> bear with me I will get to the point. In my (humble)
>>> opinion, information is the 'language' of evolution, but
>>> communication of information as a process is the mechanism.
>>> In my reduction of evolution as communication, it comes down
>>> to the interface between physics and biology, which was
>>> formed when the first cell delineated its internal
>>> environment (Claude Bernard, Walter B Cannon) from the
>>> outside environment. From that point on, the dialog between
>>> the environment and the organism has been on-going, the
>>> organism internalizing the external environment and
>>> compartmentalizing it to form what we recognize as
>>> physiology (Endosymbiosis Theory). Much of this thinking has
>>> come from new scientific evidence for Lamarckian epigenetic
>>> inheritance from my laboratory and that of many others- how
>>> the organism internalizes information from the environment
>>> by chemically changing the information in DNA in the egg and
>>> sperm, and then in the zygote and offspring, across
>>> generations. So here we have a fundamental reason to
>>> reconsider what 'information' actually means biologically.
>>> If you are interested in any of my publications on this
>>> subject please let me know ( jtor...@ucla.edu ).
>>> Thank you for any interest you may have in this alternative
>>> way of thinking about information, communication and
>>> evolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Fis mailing list
>>>Fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>
>>>Dear FIS Colleagues,
>>>
>>>As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science".
>>> A couple of previous comments may be in order.
>>>First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I
>>> was motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y
>>> Gasset, "The idea of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of
>>> deductive theory" (posthumously published in 1958). Our
>>> tentative information science seems to be very different from
>>> other sciences, rather multifarious in appearance and concepts,
>>> and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What could be the
>>> specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening
>>> homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these information
>>> principles would appear as a sort of "portals" that connect with
>>> essential topics of other disciplines in the different
>>> organization layers, but at the same time they should try to be
>>> consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the
>>> information world.
>>>And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was
>>> too optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for
>>> having a first glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of
>>> philosophers would be very interesting. In order to warm up the
>>> discussion, may I ask John Collier, Joseph Brenner and Rafael
>>> Capurro to send some initial comments / criticisms? Later on, if
>>> the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and Wolfgang
>>> Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival
>>> end to this info principles discussion (both attended the Madrid
>>> bygone FIS 1994 conference)...
>>>But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states
>>> and the chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at
>>> his own, with the only customary limitation of two messages per
>>> week.
>>>
>>>Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro
>>>
>>>10 PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE
>>>1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.
>>>2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns,
>>> messages, or flows.
>>>3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can
>>> be processed (either computationally or non-computationally).
>>>4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's
>>> self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing
>>> up with the accompanying energy flows.
>>>5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive
>>> life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological
>>> organizations at all scales.
>>>6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential
>>> communication exchanges of the human species--and constitutes
>>> the core of its "social nature."
>>>7. Human information may be systematically converted into
>>> efficient knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and
>>> further up by applying rigorous methodologies.
>>>8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are
>>> partially overcome via the social organization of "knowledge
>>> ecologies."
>>>9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a
>>> continuous actualization that involves "creative destruction"
>>> of fields and disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna.
>>>10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the
>>> information and knowledge flows that support individual lives,
>>> with profound consequences for scientific-philosophical
>>> practice and for social governance.
>>>--
>>>-------------------------------------------------
>>>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 0
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>-------------------------------------------------
>>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 0
>>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
>>
>
>--
>Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro
>Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany
>Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics
>(http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org)
>Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for Information
>Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria,
>South Africa.
>Chair, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) (http://icie.zkm.de)
>Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE)
>(http://www.i-r-i-e.net)
>Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
>E-Mail: raf...@capurro.de
>Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
>Homepage: www.capurro.de
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
