[Fis] Notes on Pedro's 8 July Post

[Marcus Abundis]

Dear Pedro,
    Thank you for the added Mechanics info., I will study the archives to
see what else I find.

> strictly remaining within Shannon's and anthropocentric <
> discourse boundaries there is no way out. <
• Still in “raging agreement” – thus my S-B-D (Shannon, Bateson, Darwin)
model. I think few people here disagree with your view (except: Søren’s
Cybersemiotic Star?, and?).

> machine communication is [not] going to advance the <
> generalization either (but who knows? . . . my personal <
> bet is for reconsidering evolutionary origins . . . <
• A reason to for Darwin+ surely? I agree somewhat with this view. I don’t
*claim* a computable UTI is possible – I only think we can do better than
we have, to date. I admit to “cautious optimism” but I also see much work
would remain! Realizing a research project (after this session) toward that
“much work” is my central aim.

> attending to the infrastructure of our cellular [and] <
> bacterial origins . . we share parts [in our] curiosity.<
• This seems an oddly vague reply to a direct question in my 7 July post:
“DO YOU SEE ‘Shannon, Bateson, and Darwin’ as true ‘information
universals’? If YES, we agree – if NOT, please explain how they ARE NOT.”
I belabor the point as it marks a key issue. If we agree on S-B-D on top of
your “three basic points about that: universals, species-specificity, and
essential cores” (also detailed in the introductory text) this *might* mark
progress.

In your note to Loet . . .
> That "biology as a science itself is communication" is a<
> strange argument. <
• I admit to confusion. At times I see this as the view you argue for –
prior “expertise” – in your posts (also “contra UTI”). I have difficulty in
exactly grasping both your and Loet’s views. Maybe it has to do with
differences in your intended meaning for “communication” and “information”
here? Or, maybe my a priori (narrow) focus makes the posts seem unclear (to
me) . . .

>Rather than closing doors, establishing multidisciplinary<
> teams and directions is the new [FIS?] mantra.<
• What strikes me here is that multidisciplinary roles are *de regueur*
(typical) in business but de novo to academia.  So, as Michel notes, “I
fully agree!” But “with what” as an organizing principle? Given your
earlier biological notes, this does seem “new.” So, if this is the “new
direction” it should be interesting for you to opine on the merit of an
S-B-D (multidisciplinary) view. I remain eager to hear your S-B-D thoughts
(re organizing principles).

In your note to Jerry . . .
> It is a pity so few biophysical approaches [emphasize] <
> the problems of molecular recognition and complexity. <
• Again, as Michel notes “I fully agree!” For purposes of *this* session, I
only assert that complexity exceeds an “a priori aim.” Still, I think that
the import *here* is we ALSO seem to agree on a bio-physical necessity, no?
– new? This seems to imply that you also *now* consider plausible UTIs?!
Your note “on molecular recognition” I think also extends (i.e.,
information continuum) into quantum mechanics, quantum puddles, etc. – also
stressing a bio-physical view.

> difficult establishing appropriate ontologies on the <
> enormous functional complexity that emerges.<
• A complexity I assert that can only be tamed by a well-reasoned a priori
(ontological) model.

In your note to Francesco . . .
> the universals scheme proposed around bacteria is a <
> mere initial draft --it will get worst! Actually it <
> crystallized in the first days of these discussions, <
> [around] limits of mechanical-Shannonian communication <
• Exciting!? Interesting!? I look forward to seeing/hearing more!

As always, my sincere thanks for sharing your intriguing thoughts!

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160710/a6168733/attachment.html>