Re: [PEIRCE-L] Zalamea lecture series free in NYC in October

[Gary Richmond]

Jerry, List,

Yes, I feel very fortunate to be able to attend at least some of these
lectures in the Zalamea seminar series. I was unable to attend this
evening's lecture because of a prior commitment, but I'll looking forward
to attending next week's lectures

Living in NYC is an especially rich cultural experience in this age, and so
I had to rearrange my schedule to attend yesterday's lecture (I was
scheduled to attend an Anthony Bourdain event, of all things). Even more
problematically, I'm giving up my ticket to a lecture this coming Weds. at
the extraordinary Rubin Museum (a lecture on the I Ching I'd looked forward
to attending along with my colleague and friend, the conceptual artist,
Priscilla Stadler, with whom I've collaborated on art/philosophy projects
related to the I Ching, co-led classes/readings on the I Ching at another
downtown college, Parsons College of the New School University, at PS 1 of
MoMA, etc.) to attend the Zalamea Peirce-centric lecture this coming Weds.

In an off-list post, Cathy Legg reminds me that Zalamea is organizing a
Peirce philosophy of mathematics conference in Bogata, Columbia in November
of this year. I understand that not only she, but also Jeff Downard and
Giovanni Maddalena will be attending that conference, although I'm afraid
that as much as I'd like to, I won't be able to make it. I hope that at
least one or two of them will offer reports on it to peirce-l.

Meanwhile, I'll make an attempt at reporting on this coming Wednesday's
Zalamea lecture.

Best,

Gary






[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Jerry LR Chandler  wrote:

> Gary:
>
> A bit envious am I.  Wish I could have attended.
>
> I waded through a substantial portion of his book:
> *Peirce’s Logic of Continuity: A Mathematical and Conceptual Approach* 
> (Docent,
> 2012)
> several months ago.
>
> Very innovative mind and mathematics.  Definitely not in the mainstream
> and hence even more stimulating.
>
> His innovative wordings make it difficult to sort out where Peirce ends
> and Zalamea begins.
>
> IMHO, of course.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
>
> List,
>
> Michael Shapiro and I attended the first of the lectures in the seminar
> series which Fernando Zalamea is giving at Pratt in New York City. For now
> I'll only say that this seminar will, I believe, prove to be a substantial
> gift to practitioners and students of mathematics, philosophy, cultural
> studies, art, literature, music, etc.
>
> As you saw in the announcement Ben posted, the lectures will be held every
> Tuesday and Wednesday in October with a concluding Round Table discussion
> on Saturday, October 24th. Unfortunately, because of schedule conflicts I
> will be unable to attend all the seminar events but, fortunately, the
> slides for each lecture will be offered after each lecture at this site:
> https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com/ The lectures themselves are
> expected to be posted at this site http://thenewcentre.org/seminars/ some
> time in the future. We'll let you know when they become available.
>
> The first lecture was, naturally, an overview of the seminar. Suffice it
> to say that I'm glad I'd done a little self-study in topology a few years
> ago. While Zalamea promised to say some things directed to
> non-mathematicians in the course of the series, this first lecture was
> necessarily mathematics heavy. Other lectures promise to find cultural
> applications of the mathematical concepts being considered. The
> specifically Peirce-related lecture will be the third on Wednesday, Oct.
> 14th.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary
>
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Benjamin Udell  wrote:
>
>> Lists,
>>
>> Jeffrey Brian Downard tells us, and suggests that we announce to peirce-l
>> and the biosemiotics list, that *Fernando Zalamea* is giving a series of
>> lectures in NYC starting next week, and is applying ideas from Peirce's
>> mathematical work to logic in questions in contemporary culture theory.
>>
>> Below is the information from the final flier (2*.*5MB, & much larger in
>> email) that Zalamea sent to Downard and which I've posted at
>> 
>> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/zalamea/zalamea-flier.jpg
>> .
>>
>> --
>> Grothendieck
>> and a Theory of
>> Contemporary
>> Transgression A Lecture Series with Philosopher of Mathematics
>> *Fernando Zalamea*
>> Professor of Mathematics at
>> Universidad Nacional de Colombia
>>
>> The lectures will introduce the groundbr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Zalamea lecture series free in NYC in October

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Gary:

A bit envious am I.  Wish I could have attended.

I waded through a substantial portion of his book:
Peirce’s Logic of Continuity: A Mathematical and Conceptual Approach (Docent, 
2012)
several months ago.  

Very innovative mind and mathematics.  Definitely not in the mainstream and 
hence even more stimulating.

His innovative wordings make it difficult to sort out where Peirce ends and 
Zalamea begins.

IMHO, of course.

Cheers

Jerry


On Oct 8, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:

> List,
> 
> Michael Shapiro and I attended the first of the lectures in the seminar 
> series which Fernando Zalamea is giving at Pratt in New York City. For now 
> I'll only say that this seminar will, I believe, prove to be a substantial 
> gift to practitioners and students of mathematics, philosophy, cultural 
> studies, art, literature, music, etc. 
> 
> As you saw in the announcement Ben posted, the lectures will be held every 
> Tuesday and Wednesday in October with a concluding Round Table discussion on 
> Saturday, October 24th. Unfortunately, because of schedule conflicts I will 
> be unable to attend all the seminar events but, fortunately, the slides for 
> each lecture will be offered after each lecture at this site: 
> https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com/ The lectures themselves are expected 
> to be posted at this site http://thenewcentre.org/seminars/ some time in the 
> future. We'll let you know when they become available.
> 
> The first lecture was, naturally, an overview of the seminar. Suffice it to 
> say that I'm glad I'd done a little self-study in topology a few years ago. 
> While Zalamea promised to say some things directed to non-mathematicians in 
> the course of the series, this first lecture was necessarily mathematics 
> heavy. Other lectures promise to find cultural applications of the 
> mathematical concepts being considered. The specifically Peirce-related 
> lecture will be the third on Wednesday, Oct. 14th.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
> C 745
> 718 482-5690
> 
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Benjamin Udell  wrote:
> Lists,
> 
> Jeffrey Brian Downard tells us, and suggests that we announce to peirce-l and 
> the biosemiotics list, that Fernando Zalamea is giving a series of lectures 
> in NYC starting next week, and is applying ideas from Peirce's mathematical 
> work to logic in questions in contemporary culture theory.
> 
> Below is the information from the final flier (2.5MB, & much larger in email) 
> that Zalamea sent to Downard and which I've posted at 
> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/zalamea/zalamea-flier.jpg .
> 
> Grothendieck 
>  and a Theory of 
>   Contemporary
>    Transgression
> 
> A Lecture Series with Philosopher of Mathematics 
> Fernando Zalamea   
> Professor of Mathematics at    
> Universidad Nacional de Colombia    
> The lectures will introduce the groundbreaking work of 20th Century French 
> mathematician Alexander Grothendieck in relation to the work of C.S. Peirce, 
> Novalis, Florensky, Warburg, P. Valery, theories of topoi and sheaves, 
> networks, art, and music, towards a generalized theory of transgression for 
> mathematics, philosophy, and contemporary culture in our transmodern world.
> Lectures 
>  6:30-8:30 pm Wed/Thur
>   Oct. 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22
> Final Rountable Event 
>  6:00-9:00 pm Sat Oct. 24
>   Rountable including 
>Reza Negarestani, Christopher Vitale, Guerino Mazzola, and other guests.
> 
> Pratt Manhattan Campus 
>  144 West 14th Street,
>   Room 213 (2nd Floor)
>Room 702 (7th Floor)
> The Graduate Program in Media Studies
> 
> For more information, including the specific rooms to be used session, as 
> well as a list of seminar topics by date, 
> please see the seminar website at https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com 
> Or contact Christopher Vitale at cvit...@pratt.edu
> 
> Pratt
> 
> 
> More information can be found at: 
> https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com/ 
> http://blog.urbanomic.com/urbanomic/archives/2015/09/zalamea-grothen.html 
> http://thenewcentre.org/seminars/grothendieck-a-theory-of-contemporary-transgression/
>  
> 
> Some important information from https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com/
> 
> [] Due to a large number of RSVPs, we have been able to reserve a larger 
> room for the majority of the events (on Oct. 7, 15, 21, 22, 24), but on those 
> days in which we are in the smaller room (Oct. 8, 14), seating will be 
> limited due to fire safety, and available for those who arrive first.
> 
> Room Locations: Room 213, 2nd Floor (seats 90): Opening Session on Oct. 7; 
> Session meetings on Oct. 15, 21, 22; Final Roundtable on Oct. 24.
> 
> Room 702, 7th Floor (seats 22): Session meetings on Oct. 8, 14.
> 
> No registration is required, all the events are free and open to the public. 
> In order for us to best estimate attendance, how

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Forgetfulness Of Purpose • 7

[Jon Awbrey]

Sung,

Thanks for those thoughts, which will take me a while to work through.
I'm sure I must be wrong about something somewhere but I won't be able
to tell what configuration or sample space is relevant to the problem
at hand until I get a good description of what exactly that problem is.

I think it's still a good question about the degree of “communication”
or “transfer of information” between D and R within G_1 and its bearing
on the irreducibility of G_1 as a triadic relation, so I'll put a marker
here and return to the question if and when I get a better handle on it.

At any rate, we can still investigate the irreducibility of G_1 --
I gave it a new name because there will be more examples coming --
independently of the information question, so I will turn to that.

Regards,

Jon

On 10/8/2015 5:02 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:

Jon, lists,

(*1*)   At
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/10/07/forgetfulness-of-purpose-%E2%80%A2-7/,
you wrote:

"Looking to the case at hand, [image: G_1 \subseteq D \times R \times O] is
a triadic relation consisting of [image: 9] triples in the larger set [image:
D \times R \times O] that consists of [image: 3 \times 3 \times 3 = 27]
triples."

It seems to me that the table at hand, although consisting of 9 triples, is
one of the 27 possible 3 x 3 tables (each having 9 triples) and hence
carries log_2 (27) =  4.75 bits of Shannon information (to be denoted as
  I_S), if all the 27 tables have an equal probability of occurrence:

  I_S = H1 - H2 = log_2(27) - log_2(1) = log_2
(27) = 4.75 bits
   (1)

where H1 is the Shannon entropy of the table under discussion before
selection and H2 is that after selection by an agent carrying (or
implementing ) information, I_S.

(*2*)  If the choices available to R, i.e., alpha, beta, and gamma, have
equal probability of being selected, then R will need log_2 (3) = 1.58 bits
of Shannon information to select the winning choice:

   I_S = log_2(3) - log_2(1) = log_2(3) = 1.58 bits

 (2)

(*3*)  As you can see, Equations (1) and (2) clearly distinguish between
Shannon entropy, H, and Shannon information I_S.  That is, I_S is not H.
This is the main content of  what I recently called the First Law of
Quantitative Semiotics (FLQS) which may be more conveniently called the
First Law of Informatics (FLI).  In words, FLI states that

"Information is not entropy, since information can be negative, positive or
zero but entropy cannot be negative." (3)

Statement (3) must be valid because entropy, either thermodynamic or
Shannon, cannot be negative according to the Third Law of thermodynamics in
the former case and by definition in the latter case,

(*4*)  Applying FLI to the Ashby table under consideration, it may be
stated that the Ashby table carries 4.75 bits of information, and R can
exert 1.58 bits of control information when activated by the combination of
the information carried by D and the energy dissipation driving the
activities of D and R.

All the best.

Sung


On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:


Sung, List,

On 2nd or 3rd thought I think you are correct in saying that
there is no correlation between D and R if we are looking at
just those two factors.  What I think I was thinking is that
there is a correlation if we condition everything on getting
a particular outcome.

Regards,

Jon

On 10/7/2015 11:23 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:


Forgetfulness Of Purpose • 7

http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/10/07/forgetfulness-of-purpose-%e2%80%a2-7/

Sung, List,

I went ahead and put a version of my last message on my blog --
it looks like Ashby's example is worth spending some care on
and I'll be able to do a better job of formatting the tables
and so on when I get down to discussing the various notions
of irreducibility.  I won't bother copying the revised text
here as the content is pretty much the same, but just leave
the link above.

Regards,

Jon



--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: A Second-Best Morality

[Edwina Taborsky]

Matt - in reply:
  1) Edwina:Instincts work only toward the perpetuation of their gene type? Ah, 
a reductionist view - and how does the gene harm the species? Examples of both 
privileging the gene and harming the species? 

  MATT: Reductionism would be the case for a theory that genes determine 
behavior, but I said the opposite, that behavior (instincts) works toward 
preserving a gene type.

  EDWINA: But instinctual behaviour is genetically determined - and if that 
behaviour 'preserves a gene type', then, this privileges the gene.

  2) MATT: He later mentions fish who choose mates who are bright and colorful 
despite this trait making them more likely to be preyed on.

  EDWINA: I'll quibble with a bright/colourful fish that attracts mates AND 
ALSO attracts predators. . unless the species cannot function with too many 
males and thus, disables them after mating (by a predator!) - this is a common 
mode among insects etc. and therefore, your second example of the beetle - is 
one such - and there is no evidence that it harms the species. 

  MATT: A seed beetle's aggressive mating behavior favors its gene type over 
its competitor's but harms the species:
  http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2011/paarungsverhalten_en.html

  Matt



--



  -
  PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with 
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .





-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: A Second-Best Morality

[Thomas]

Matt, List ~

"Reductionism would be the case for a theory that genes determine behavior, but 
I said the opposite, that behavior (instincts) works toward preserving a gene 
type."

Here is how I believe a strict Pragmatist would re-state that relationship:   
Genes are memorialized behavior, so there is no conflict between genes and 
behavior.   Genes reduce the energy-time cost for the creature of performing 
the same tasks.  That assumes the environment is unchanging long enough for 
evolutionary forces to dominate -- i.e., long run equilibrium. 

The exception is the case of cognition, which has the ability to anticipate the 
future.  As a consequence the cognitive creature does not (necessarily) adapt 
to (live in) a stable environment, even if one exists. 

I won't argue with your fish and beetle examples, beyond pointing out that 
humans are seldom well-versed enough in the environmental-evolutionary forces 
pressing on other creatures to assess efficient vs. inefficient adaptations.  
We have seen new discoveries time and again that reverse previous beliefs -- 
plants that communicate with each other, etc.  It is also possible that the 
species in question are headed toward extinction, so observing them does not 
reveal the gene-behavior interplay of a successful species. 

Without any more to go on, I would always put my money in #1 -- human 
ignorance.   I note that the gene-behavior relationship you described for the 
fish reminds me of that for humans: "Fish who choose mates who are bright and 
colorful despite this trait making them more likely to be preyed on."

Regards,
Tom Wyrick 



On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:47 PM, Matt Faunce  wrote:

On 10/7/15 8:47 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Matt - I have some logical questions:
>  
> 1) "instincts are no longer considered to work toward the probable 
> perpetuation of the species, but they work only toward the probable 
> perpetuation of their specific gene type, sometimes at the expense of the 
> species."
>  
> I always dislike the passive tense "no longer considered to work'...because 
> it leaves out the important AGENT. Who says that instincts no longer work 
> toward the continuity of the species"? Proof? Or just some 'expert' 
> (Appeal-to-Authority Fallacy).

Here's my 'expert' cued up to where he explicitly states it:
https://youtu.be/Y0Oa4Lp5fLE?t=16m21s

> Instincts work only toward the perpetuation of their gene type? Ah, a 
> reductionist view - and how does the gene harm the species? Examples of both 
> privileging the gene and harming the species?

Reductionism would be the case for a theory that genes determine behavior, but 
I said the opposite, that behavior (instincts) works toward preserving a gene 
type.

He later mentions fish who choose mates who are bright and colorful despite 
this trait making them more likely to be preyed on.

A seed beetle's aggressive mating behavior favors its gene type over its 
competitor's but harms the species:
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2011/paarungsverhalten_en.html

Matt

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .





-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Zalamea lecture series free in NYC in October

[Gary Richmond]

List,

Michael Shapiro and I attended the first of the lectures in the seminar
series which Fernando Zalamea is giving at Pratt in New York City. For now
I'll only say that this seminar will, I believe, prove to be a substantial
gift to practitioners and students of mathematics, philosophy, cultural
studies, art, literature, music, etc.

As you saw in the announcement Ben posted, the lectures will be held every
Tuesday and Wednesday in October with a concluding Round Table discussion
on Saturday, October 24th. Unfortunately, because of schedule conflicts I
will be unable to attend all the seminar events but, fortunately, the
slides for each lecture will be offered after each lecture at this site:
https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com/ The lectures themselves are
expected to be posted at this site http://thenewcentre.org/seminars/ some
time in the future. We'll let you know when they become available.

The first lecture was, naturally, an overview of the seminar. Suffice it to
say that I'm glad I'd done a little self-study in topology a few years ago.
While Zalamea promised to say some things directed to non-mathematicians in
the course of the series, this first lecture was necessarily mathematics
heavy. Other lectures promise to find cultural applications of the
mathematical concepts being considered. The specifically Peirce-related
lecture will be the third on Wednesday, Oct. 14th.

Best,

Gary


[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Benjamin Udell  wrote:

> Lists,
>
> Jeffrey Brian Downard tells us, and suggests that we announce to peirce-l
> and the biosemiotics list, that *Fernando Zalamea* is giving a series of
> lectures in NYC starting next week, and is applying ideas from Peirce's
> mathematical work to logic in questions in contemporary culture theory.
>
> Below is the information from the final flier (2*.*5MB, & much larger in
> email) that Zalamea sent to Downard and which I've posted at
> 
> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/zalamea/zalamea-flier.jpg
> .
>
> --
> Grothendieck
> and a Theory of
> Contemporary
> Transgression A Lecture Series with Philosopher of Mathematics
> *Fernando Zalamea*
> Professor of Mathematics at
> Universidad Nacional de Colombia
>
> The lectures will introduce the groundbreaking work of 20th Century French
> mathematician Alexander Grothendieck in relation to the work of C.S.
> Peirce, Novalis, Florensky, Warburg, P. Valery, theories of topoi and
> sheaves, networks, art, and music, towards a generalized theory of
> transgression for mathematics, philosophy, and contemporary culture in our
> transmodern world.
>
> *Lectures*
>  6:30-8:30 pm Wed/Thur
>   Oct. 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22
>
> *Final Rountable Event *
>  6:00-9:00 pm Sat Oct. 24
>   Rountable including
>Reza Negarestani, Christopher Vitale, Guerino Mazzola, and other guests.
>
> *Pratt Manhattan Campus*
>  144 West 14th Street,
>   Room 213 (2nd Floor)
>Room 702 (7th Floor)
> The Graduate Program in Media Studies
>
> For more information, including the specific rooms to be used session, as
> well as a list of seminar topics by date,
> please see the seminar website at
> 
> https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com
> Or contact Christopher Vitale at cvit...@pratt.edu
>
> *Pratt *
> --
>
>
> More information can be found at:
> https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com/
> 
> http://blog.urbanomic.com/urbanomic/archives/2015/09/zalamea-grothen.html
>
> 
> http://thenewcentre.org/seminars/grothendieck-a-theory-of-contemporary-transgression/
>
> Some important information from 
> https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com/
>
> [] Due to a large number of RSVPs, we have been able to reserve a
> larger room for the majority of the events (on Oct. 7, 15, 21, 22, 24), but
> on those days in which we are in the smaller room (Oct. 8, 14), seating
> will be limited due to fire safety, and available for those who arrive
> first.
>
> Room Locations: Room 213, 2nd Floor (seats 90): Opening Session on Oct. 7;
> Session meetings on Oct. 15, 21, 22; Final Roundtable on Oct. 24.
>
> Room 702, 7th Floor (seats 22): Session meetings on Oct. 8, 14.
>
> No registration is required, all the events are free and open to the
> public. In order for us to best estimate attendance, however, please send
> an email to let us know if you plan to attend one or more sessions. Send
> this email, along with any questions,  to Christopher Vitale of The
> Graduate Program in Media S

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Forgetfulness Of Purpose • 7

[Sungchul Ji]

Jon, lists,

(*1*)   At
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/10/07/forgetfulness-of-purpose-%E2%80%A2-7/,
you wrote:

"Looking to the case at hand, [image: G_1 \subseteq D \times R \times O] is
a triadic relation consisting of [image: 9] triples in the larger set [image:
D \times R \times O] that consists of [image: 3 \times 3 \times 3 = 27]
triples."

It seems to me that the table at hand, although consisting of 9 triples, is
one of the 27 possible 3 x 3 tables (each having 9 triples) and hence
carries log_2 (27) =  4.75 bits of Shannon information (to be denoted as
 I_S), if all the 27 tables have an equal probability of occurrence:

 I_S = H1 - H2 = log_2(27) - log_2(1) = log_2
(27) = 4.75 bits
  (1)

where H1 is the Shannon entropy of the table under discussion before
selection and H2 is that after selection by an agent carrying (or
implementing ) information, I_S.

(*2*)  If the choices available to R, i.e., alpha, beta, and gamma, have
equal probability of being selected, then R will need log_2 (3) = 1.58 bits
of Shannon information to select the winning choice:

  I_S = log_2(3) - log_2(1) = log_2(3) = 1.58 bits

(2)

(*3*)  As you can see, Equations (1) and (2) clearly distinguish between
Shannon entropy, H, and Shannon information I_S.  That is, I_S is not H.
This is the main content of  what I recently called the First Law of
Quantitative Semiotics (FLQS) which may be more conveniently called the
First Law of Informatics (FLI).  In words, FLI states that

"Information is not entropy, since information can be negative, positive or
zero but entropy cannot be negative." (3)

Statement (3) must be valid because entropy, either thermodynamic or
Shannon, cannot be negative according to the Third Law of thermodynamics in
the former case and by definition in the latter case,

(*4*)  Applying FLI to the Ashby table under consideration, it may be
stated that the Ashby table carries 4.75 bits of information, and R can
exert 1.58 bits of control information when activated by the combination of
the information carried by D and the energy dissipation driving the
activities of D and R.



All the best.

Sung























On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:

> Sung, List,
>
> On 2nd or 3rd thought I think you are correct in saying that
> there is no correlation between D and R if we are looking at
> just those two factors.  What I think I was thinking is that
> there is a correlation if we condition everything on getting
> a particular outcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On 10/7/2015 11:23 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
>> Forgetfulness Of Purpose • 7
>>
>> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/10/07/forgetfulness-of-purpose-%e2%80%a2-7/
>>
>> Sung, List,
>>
>> I went ahead and put a version of my last message on my blog --
>> it looks like Ashby's example is worth spending some care on
>> and I'll be able to do a better job of formatting the tables
>> and so on when I get down to discussing the various notions
>> of irreducibility.  I won't bother copying the revised text
>> here as the content is pretty much the same, but just leave
>> the link above.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
> --
>
> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701

www.conformon.net

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: A Second-Best Morality

[Matt Faunce]

On 10/7/15 8:47 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:

Matt - I have some logical questions:
1) "instincts are no longer considered to work toward the probable 
perpetuation of the species, but they work only toward the probable 
perpetuation of their specific gene type, sometimes at the expense of 
the species."
I always dislike the passive tense "no longer considered to 
work'...because it leaves out the important AGENT. Who says that 
instincts no longer work toward the continuity of the species"? Proof? 
Or just some 'expert' (Appeal-to-Authority Fallacy).


Here's my 'expert' cued up to where he explicitly states it:
https://youtu.be/Y0Oa4Lp5fLE?t=16m21s

Instincts work only toward the perpetuation of their gene type? Ah, a 
reductionist view - and how does the gene harm the species? Examples 
of both privileging the gene and harming the species?


Reductionism would be the case for a theory that genes determine 
behavior, but I said the opposite, that behavior (instincts) works 
toward preserving a gene type.


He later mentions fish who choose mates who are bright and colorful 
despite this trait making them more likely to be preyed on.


A seed beetle's aggressive mating behavior favors its gene type over its 
competitor's but harms the species:

http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2011/paarungsverhalten_en.html

Matt

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

[PEIRCE-L] Fwd: The First Law of Quantitative Semiotics: Information = Changes in Shannon Entropy, or I = dH

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi,

There should be the negative sign in front of "Sum" in Equations
(091915-1), (091915-2), and (091915-3), which will not affect the content
of this post: i.e., Equations (091915-4) through (091915-8) still hold.

Sorry for the omission.

Sung



-- Forwarded message --
From: Sungchul Ji 
Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:04 AM
Subject: Fwd: The First Law of Quantitative Semiotics: Information =
Changes in Shannon Entropy, or I = dH
To: Sungchul Ji 



-- Forwarded message --
From: Sungchul Ji 
Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 5:07 PM
Subject: The First Law of Quantitative Semiotics: Information = Changes in
Shannon Entropy, or I = dH
To: PEIRCE-L 


Hi,

(*1*) I think semiotics can be divided into two branches --the *qualitative*
 and *quantitative  *semiotics, i.e., the study of *qualitative signs (*e.g.,
words) and *quantitative signs *(e.g., numbers), respectively. *Quantitative
semiotics* may be identified with (or referred to as) *informatics*.  This
post is then about the *First Law of Informatics (FLI)*. Examples of the
former would include classical philosophy, linguistics, literature, arts,
molecular biology, and those of the latter include *number-based *sciences
and engineering such as physics, chemistry, quantitative biology, computer
science and engineering, and mathematics.

(*2*) Most of the discussions in the semiotics literature, including those
seen on these lists, are almost exclusively concerned with what I would
define as *qualitative semiotics, *since rarely do *numbers *and
associated *mathematical
equations *occur in them.

(*3*) Two of the most important 'quantitative signs' (i.e., the signs that
can be quantified) are *H* and *I*, the former standing for the well
known *Shannon
entropy* and the latter *Shannon information. *  Because both of these
signs are often defined by the same mathematical equation known as the *Shannon
formula*, (091915-1), *H* and *I *are viewed as synonymous, which has
caused great confusions in the field of informatics (the scientific study
of information):

Sum(from i = 1 to i = n) pi log pi
  (091915-1)

where pi is the probability of the i^th event (or symbol in a message)
occurring, n is the number of possible events (or symbols) under
consideration, and log is the binary logarithm, i.e., y = log x means that
x = 2^y, or that y is the exponent to the base 2  leading to x.

(*4*) Strictly speaking, Eq. (091915-1) applies to H, and not to I:


 H =  Sum(from i = 1 to i = n) pi log pi
  (091915-2)


(*5*) In contrast, the Shannon information I involves the difference
between two H values::

I  = H (final) - H(initial) = Sum(from i=1
to i=n) dPi log dPi  (091915-3)

where H(final) and H(initial) are the Shannon entropy of the semiotic
system under consideration in the final state (i.e, after receiving I) and
in the initial state (i.e., before receiving I), respectively, and dpi is
the change in the probability of the i^th event (or symbol) occurring that
is induced by receiving I, or the I-induced changes in the probability of
the i^th event (or symbol).

(*6*)  Since dH = H(final) - H(initial) in Eq. (091915-3) can be  positive,
zero, or negative, the information (or organization) of the system under
consideration can be increased, unchanged or decreased when it receives
information.  In other words, Eq. (091915-3) states that information I is
equal to the change in the Shannon entropy induced by the reception of I:

 I = dH

 (091915-4)

where d indicates "change in".  I suggest that Eq. (091915-4) be referred
to as the *First Law of Quantitative Semiotics *(FLQS), because violating
it inevitably leads to a paradox as explained in (*7*).

(*7*)  As indicated in (*3*), many investigators equate I and H:

   I = H

(091915-5)

Eq. (091915-5) is invalid because H *maximizes* and I *minimizes* when the
system under consideration becomes completely disordered or randomized,
thus violating the equality sign. Formally speaking, Eq. (091915-5) is
invalid because it conflates H (absolute value, either positive or
negative) and dH (a difference).

(*8*)  A similar error appears to have been committed by Schroedinger when
he conflated - S and dS and claimed that, since thermodynamic entropy, S,
represents disorder, its negative counterpart, i.e., -S, must represent
order [1]:

 S = disorder   (correct)
  (091915-6)

   - S = order   (wrong)
   (091915-7)

   dS = S(final) - S(initial) = order if <
0 & dis

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Forgetfulness Of Purpose • 7

[Jon Awbrey]

Sung, List,

On 2nd or 3rd thought I think you are correct in saying that
there is no correlation between D and R if we are looking at
just those two factors.  What I think I was thinking is that
there is a correlation if we condition everything on getting
a particular outcome.

Regards,

Jon

On 10/7/2015 11:23 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Forgetfulness Of Purpose • 7
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/10/07/forgetfulness-of-purpose-%e2%80%a2-7/

Sung, List,

I went ahead and put a version of my last message on my blog --
it looks like Ashby's example is worth spending some care on
and I'll be able to do a better job of formatting the tables
and so on when I get down to discussing the various notions
of irreducibility.  I won't bother copying the revised text
here as the content is pretty much the same, but just leave
the link above.

Regards,

Jon



--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .