Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Notes . . .
Dear Howard and FIS colleagues, Many thanks for your exciting comments; dealing first with Koichiro's intriguing point on action and probabilities, I think it links with the Quantum Bayesianism we discused last year in the list (von Baeyer's FIS New Year Lecture), and also with Karl Frinston's distributions / representations of probabilities in cerebral areas within an overarching entropy-minimization principle (it is not a physical entropy, and reminding Loet's comment, I think he was quite right with his contentious message of 15 June!). Action is but the forgotten other side the epistemic coin. Not to forget that a motor-centered epistemology has been recently discussed too. Responding to Howard's below, rather than making further interleaving, I will continue with a unitary text. In my view, the new informational thinking is slowly taking shape in a variety of fields, and the reference to Witzany's work on the viruses' social dynamics, is an excellent exponent on how carefully following the very dynamics of life, we may arrive at similar conceptual scenarios. My point is that biological communication (as well as human) does not occur in a vacuum where whatever combinatory game may be played. The life cycle of the entity is the big watcher of communication, not just passively waiting for some stimulus passing by, but actively deploying a series of molecular or supramolecular actions that for instance conduce to receive the appropriate information/communication or to engage in locomotor exploration. In general, action stemming out from the cycle --or "propensity" to action-- comes first, regarding the possible information gathered and the responses to be observed later on. Each life cycle has capability to deploy autonomously a very vast repertoire of adaptive actions / behaviors / communications that overall should conduce to its own advancement. So, the reliance on "stimulus-response" becomes a dubious way of lumping together the animate and the inanimate (a mere electromagnetic relay would also provide S-R behavior), leaving aside the most precious stuff of life: its informational organization in an autonomous, self-propelled life-cycle. It is a life-cycle that besides, has to take place in a highly complex and challenging ecological niche and within a tricky social environment. To reiterate the main point: the living is not S-R mechanistic, is "informational". And what is information? I agree with Howard's "relative" approach to information. I think that, together with Marcin, we must organize a future discussion-session in the list to analyze this most integrative stance. I think that this view now is mature enough to be publicly discussed (and has already appeared in the literature occasionally). My personal contention is that a similar relative conceptualization may be extended to other "informational entities" (viruses, cells, organisms, brains, social groups and institutions, societies at large...) that also communicate in order to advance their self-production processes. Precisely in economy, we may understand that prices emerge as the information which connects and integrates the ACTIONS of producers and consumers allowing the self-organization of the whole. Obviously, the market information is exchanged in order to improve the condition of the individuals, and in aggregate to advance their own life cycles. Similarly, in physiological "markets" between cells, molecular signals --really an information flow-- would also be exchanged to coordinate the actions emerging from the ongoing life-cycles. If we consider that biological communication, and in general the communication of "informational entities" is tied to the maintenance and advancement of their self-production processes, the discussion of meaning follows quite naturally. Meaning becomes the impact of the information received upon the self-production process itself. In bio-molecular terms, meaning may be exactly enacted through a vastly used procedure, microarray experiments. By knocking down a particular receptor,or continuously keeping it "on", we see the "meaning" effects that the specific signaling condition has on gene expression, on the whole cellular self-production. Meaningful communication begets relevant self-production changes. Then, lets generalize that informational entities are those that systematically intertwine the information (communication) flows and the energy (self-production) flows. The information derived from communication widely circulates and gets mixed with the inner self-production processes, adaptively changing the ongoing operations that constitute the "metabolic life" of the entity. That's the existential fate of all informational entities: they are adaptive, structurally always in the making, and in the dismantling. And the "dismantling" connects very nicely with the conditions that Howard establishes for the functioning of a "coll
Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
Dear Jerry,
Thank you for responding to my post.
Thank you very much for an attempt to read and to understand my Vienna
Symposium related publications.
I apologize for a delay in my response - I was trying to read and to
understand your papers ("Algebraic Biology" and "
Physical Foundations of
Organic Mathematics"). Unfortunately, I did not understand much of what you
are talking there (about biological computations).
Never mind, it is my
fault, not yours. To my shame, I often also do not understand what other
people on the forum are writing too.
As to me, I think (and write) that the era of a computational approach to
science and nature studies is over and we are gradually replacing it with a
cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology,
Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry,
Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational
linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology,
Cognitive ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive
endocrinology, Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even
Cognitive computing).
By definition, computational approaches imply intensive data processing,
while Cognitive approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is
the difference? Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue.
I was pleased to hear from Prof. Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna)
that "By means of the reformation, all scientific and philosophical domains
are facing an integrative trend of paradigm reform, which I name as
"informationalization of science", (The quotation is from one of his
presentation slides).
As you can see, my assertions are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims,
but far from what you (and other mainstream FIS contributors) obey and
adhere to.
I am a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others' temple.
But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy of
Information. Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement with
his postulates.
Best regards,
Emanuel Diamant.
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
Dear Emanuel:
Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.
Interesting perspective, but... the essence of biology / biological
computation are empirical observations that are highly irregular in nature.
One must separate the concepts of structures from functions in the languages
of chemistry and biology.
You may wish to look at the concepts of languages from your perspectives.
Several of my online available papers will provide more substance for these
comments.
Cheers
jerry
On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Emanuel Diamant wrote:
Dear FISlists,
I am a newcomer to the FIS discussion table. The debate that is going on in
your list-exchange is very interesting to me, but frankly, for the most of
the time, I only guess about what you are talking - my vocabulary and my
notions of Information are quite different from yours. Nevertheless, I would
like to add my voice to the ongoing discourse - I would like to direct you
to my page on the Research Gate (
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant) to see my uploads from
the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you will find them interesting.
Best regards,
Emanuel Diamant.
___
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
Re: [Fis] We have different “fen clubs” depending of sympathy to one or other definition of information
Dear Krassimir, I apologize because I have just realized that I have miss-replied in my last posting, and send them only to the writer of the post, and not to the list. Same for some comment I made to John Collier. I intent to send a mail where I sum up my position on the information debate. I will read some of your text you are linking too, also. Meanwhile I will answer only your question about theology: is it a science. I think that science does not really exist, but that the human scientific attitude can exist whatever the domain is, be it gardening, gastronomy, philosophy or theology. That attitude consists in accepting that we never know the truth, but that we can try to make theory precise enough to solve problems and to test consequences. I have discovered that ideally correct machine have a rich theology, that they can discover by "looking inward", and that it contains physics, making it testable: just compare machine's theological physics with the empiric science. Until now it fits, and many "weirdness" of nature (like the "many-world") becomes simple theorem, but also admit different interpretation (it is more machine dreams than "world"). I will come back on this. The main concept used in my work is the concept of Turing Universal Machine: she is the one feeding on information, and doing the interpretation of it. That might add some light on the present debate on information. I am aware that this sort of theology is closer to the greek neoplatonists theology (where God is mainly Truth, by definition) than to Aristotelian naturalism (with primary materiality), which might explain some resistance that I have often encountered. But science is not wishful thinking, like we do in the religion since it has been separated from science. Best, Bruno On 15 Jun 2015, at 22:59, Krassimir Markov wrote: Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues, This discussion was not planed. It started without any a priory explanation and because of this become more emotional. I see, we have different “fen clubs” depending of sympathy to one or other definition of information. This is nice. Variety is important for development of science. What is not good is that we stay only on the stage of definition of information. It is not needed if no theory is built on it. The theory has to be experimented and proved. Finally, such theory has to explain all information appearances and processes around us – I say around us but not all imaginable ones! How much theories we have till now? FIS is just place to present Theories! Unfortunately, Masters stay silent and not teach us to use their theories. Below I attach my answers to Stan and Bruno which was sent last week. Friendly regards Krassimir Dear Stan, I have no more attempts for FIS List for this week and will send this my answer to FIS tomorrow. But it is pleasure for me to answer to you now. Yes, I do not agree with the Wheeler concept that information was the basis upon which everything else was founded – this is the concept of God and it could not be proved, only to believe. Yes, information doesn't appear in the universe until life makes it appearance. More, the information does not appear independently from live creatures, it is their internal state(s). No, information does not appear in the universe until it is manipulated by modern human society as a commodity, it appeared together with live. Without reflections of external and internal structures and processes, as well as without memory, processing of reflection, and, at the end, reacting – without all of this the live is impossible. What is done by modern society is to start understanding (but still not finished) what is the information. Friendly regards Krassimir Dear Bruno, Thank you for the remarks. Now I will answer only to you due to limit of posts in FIS List – tomorrow I’ll resend it for the list. I agree with you partially. Deep analysis and explanation of this problem is published in: http://www.foibg.com/ijitk/ijitk-vol02/ijitk02-4-p06.pdf I hope, in this publication you will find answer of your remarks as well as basis for further discussion. I think that it is crucial to keep the harmony and dialectical unity of the scientific and non-scientific approaches, following the wisdom of St. Augustine: "Intelligo ut credam, credo ut intelligam!". Finally, please answer: Is the Theology a science or not? What kind of experiments one may provide to proof the Theology statements? Friendly regards Krassimir ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.
may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list: linguistic
biology. per the work of Guenther Witzany. also reflected in my book The
God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.
each approach uses a helpful metaphor. no one approach sees the elephant
in its entirety. so please let us use all three.
with oomph--howard
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
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).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project. Founder: The Group
Selection Squad; Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Board Member
and
Member Of Board Of Governors, National Space Society. 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. Advisory Board Member, The Buffalo Film Festival.
Editorial board member, The Journal of Space Philosophy.
In a message dated 6/19/2015 9:22:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
emanl@gmail.com writes:
Dear Jerry,
Thank you for responding to my post.
Thank you very much for an attempt to read and to understand my Vienna
Symposium related publications.
I apologize for a delay in my response – I was trying to read and to
understand your papers (“Algebraic Biology” and “_Physical Foundations of
Organic Mathematics”). Unfortunately, I did not understand much of what you
are
talking there (about biological computations)._
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_Organic_Mathematics_(Abstra
ct_August_26_2014))
_Never mind, it is my fault, not yours. To my shame, I often also do not
understand what other people on the forum are writing too. _
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265238674_Physical_Foundations_of_Organic_Math
ematics_(Abstract_August_26_2014))
As to me, I think (and write) that the era of a computational approach to
science and nature studies is over and we are gradually replacing it with a
cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology,
Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry,
Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational
linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology, Cognitive
ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive endocrinology,
Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even Cognitive computing).
By definition, computational approaches imply intensive data processing,
while Cognitive approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is
the difference? Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue.
I was pleased to hear from Prof. Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna)
that “By means of the reformation, all scientific and philosophical
domains are facing an integrative trend of paradigm reform, which I name as “
informationalization of science”, (The quotation is from one of his
presentation slides).
As you can see, my assertions are very close to what Prof. Kun Wu claims,
but far from what you (and other mainstream FIS contributors) obey and
adhere to.
I am a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others’
temple. But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy of
Information. Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement with
his
postulates.
Best regards,
Emanuel Diamant.
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
To: Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
Dear Emanuel:
Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.
Interesting perspective, but... the essence of biology / biological
computation are empirical observations that are highly irregular in nature.
One
must separate the concepts of structu
