Hi everyone,

Here's the title and abstract for Brett Calcott's department seminar talk at 
Sydney Uni  on Wed March 9 from 1-2:30 pm in the Muniment Room of the 
Quadrangle Building.

See you there!

Signals that Make a Difference

Brett Calcott (in collaboration with Paul Griffiths and Arnaud Pocheville)

ABSTRACT: David Lewis's "Convention" provides a game theoretic approach to 
thinking about how meaning can emerge when rational agents must coordinate 
their actions to achieve a common goal. Recent work by Brian Skyrms builds on 
Lewis's framework in two ways: dispensing with rationality to show the same 
results can emerge via evolution, and connecting the framework to information 
theory, thus showing how evolution can "create information". Skyrms' book-long 
treatment of the subject contains some very provocative ideas about traditional 
philosophical project of understanding meaning, but here I focus on another 
project that his work connects to. Skyrms means his framework to apply very 
broadly across biology---from monkeys barking to bacteria exuding chemicals and 
neurons firing. These ideas may help shine some light on debates about the 
usefulness of biological information; a subject that has caused much debate in 
philosophy of biology. One we step into this realm, however, it becomes clear 
that Skyrm's formal framework is missing a key element, one that only becames 
obvious when we look at complex examples of signaling systems, the very kind 
often found occuring inside bodies and cells. Once we move to these complex 
examples, Skyrm's formal framework for defining information breaks down, giving 
non-intutive answers and rendering information a mere epiphenomenon of 
evolution. The problem, I argue, is that Skyrm's use of information theory 
fails to capture the causal structure of these complex networks. I then offer a 
fix, showing how to define a measure of information about that is capable of 
capturing the causal structure of these networks by using a natural extension 
of recent work formalising the notion of causal specificity. If this fix is 
correct, it suggests there may be a number of interesting connections between 
Skyrm's approach to meaning and work on interventionist accounts of causation.
---------
SydPhil mailing list

To unsubscribe, change your membership options, find answers to common 
problems, or visit our online archives, please go to the list information page:

https://mailman.sydney.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/sydphil

Reply via email to