[Fis] about the idea of “hierarchies of structures”

[Stanley N Salthe]

Loet -- Regarding:


The idea is simple: the real world consists of hierarchies of structures
which are built by other structures from low levels.

This is not only simple, it is a simplification. Perhaps, a considerable
percentage of the "hierarchies" are "heterarchies"? We need a strategy to
test the truth of such statements.

S: Heterarchies, I have found are for the most part systems of several
hierarchies that are intersecting with common members -- a kind of mashup
of hierarchies. There is no other principle of organization involved.
STAN

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 1:22 PM Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net>
wrote:

> Dear Krassimir,
>
> The idea is simple: the real world consists of hierarchies of structures
> which are built by other structures from low levels.
>
> This is not only simple, it is a simplification. Perhaps, a considerable
> percentage of the "hierarchies" are "heterarchies"? We need a strategy to
> test the truth of such statements. References to Genesis are not helpful
> because that  (Crhistianity) is a belief system, and not a system of
> rationalized and if possible testable expectations.
>
> It seems to me that there is no theoretical need for a "general theory of
> information." Information is generated when systems communicate. The
> information is yet dimension-free (bits). The reference to a system
> provides the information with dimensionality.
>
> For example, when energy and momenta are communicated (and tend to be
> conserved), thermodynamic entropy is generated. When atoms are
> communicated, one expects a chemistry; when molecules are communicated a
> biology, etc. There may be no hierarchy among these levels, but rather a
> fractional manifold. The fragments perhaps fail to exist as hierarchies? We
> should not derive from "esse" (e.g., ontology), but from "frangere" (e.g.,
> failure).
>
> Best,
> Loet
>
>
> This model shows that, practically, all entities of the real world are
> hierarchically organized.
>
> Very important is that there not exists a total comprehensive structure -
> just the opposite - the real world consists of very great variety of
> structures.
>
>
>
> What is common for all structures?
>
>
>
> To answer, one need to look in the bases of the structures - all are
> organizations of very small elements.
>
> Greeks call them “atoms”, now we know that there exist “smaller” elements
> - electrons, particles, photons, waves, and other “minute portions of
> matter” (“tiny particles of dust”).
>
>
>
> Further, I remembered the Ross Ashby idea of emerging of the new features
> at the given level of the system, which not exist in the elements of low
> levels.
>
> Just, such features are live, intelligence, and  consciousness, which
> emerge as new properties of the structures (systems).
>
> Ancient wise people had noticed this!
> For instance, please remember Genesis 2:7: “Then the LORD God formed a man
> from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
> life, and the man became a living being.”
>
> There is no clear boundary between live structures and not live ones. In
> every moment first may be destroyed to the second as well as the former may
> be organized to the first one.
> For instance, please remember Genesis 3:19: “for dust you are and to dust
> you will return”.
>
> In General Information Theory (GIT), we consider the real world as a space
> of entities.
>
> The entities are built by other entities, connected with relationships.
>
> The entities and relationships between them form the internal structure of
> the entity they build.
>
> To create the entity of a certain structural level of the world, it is
> necessary to have:
>
> − Entities of the lower structural level;
>
> − Established forming relationship.
>
> The entity can dialectically be considered as a relationship between its
> entities of all internal structural levels.
>
>
>
> The forming relationship has a representative significance for the entity.
>
> The destruction of this essential relationship causes its disintegration.
>
> The establishment of forming relationship between already existing
> entities has a determine significance for the emerging of the new entity.
>
> The forming relationship is the reason for the emergence of individual
> properties, which distinguish the new entity from the forming ones.
>
> The relationships form and present the entity.
>
> (http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol14/ijita14-1-p01.pdf)
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Krassimir
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Krassimir Markov
>
> Honorary professor, PhD
>
> University of Telecommunications and Post
>
> Sofia, Bulgaria
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Krassimir Markov <markov en foibg.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 02, 2019 6:30 PM
> *To:* jose luis perez velazquez <jlpvjlpv en gmail.com> ; fis
> <fis en listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject:* [Fis] Living and not living structures
>
>
>
>
> Hola, José Luis y queridos FIS colegas!
>
> The discussion came to very important point marked by José Luis.
>
> Now it is seen that there exists a hierarchy of structures which are built
> by other structures from low levels. This model shows that, practically,
> all entities of the real world are hierarchically organized.
>
> What about the live and the intelligence?
>
> Practically, we came to the W. Ross Ashby’s “PRINCIPLES OF THE
> SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEM”
> https://emergent.blob.core.windows.net/classic-articles/3aa37176-f414-4820-b5e5-b3be0cdb0395.pdf
> .
>
> I kindly recommend this paper to be reread.
>
>
>
> For our discussion, very important are the next sentences:
>
>
>
> *“Every isolated determinate dynamic system obeying unchanging laws will
> develop "organisms" that are adapted to their "environments" *
>
> *and *
>
> *“In any isolated system, life and intelligence inevitably develop.”*
>
>
>
> At the given level of complexity and organization, some structures became
> “alive” and “intelligent” in some degree. As the structure (system) is more
> complex, so it may be more intelligent.
>
> As Ashby remarked, live, intelligence, and (if I may add) consciousness
> emerge as new property of the structure (system).
>
> There is no need to ask if the cell has consciousness and intelligence.
> The answer is clear - YES!
>
> But its consciousness and intelligence are quite different of those of the
> fish, bee, dog, or human.
>
> There is no clear boundary between live structures and not live ones. In
> every moment first may be destroyed to the second as well as the former may
> be organized to the first one.
>
> Finally, all live structures we know at this moment have very important
> feature of self-reproducing using DNA structures.
>
> Friendly greetings
>
> Krassimir
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Krassimir Markov
>
> Honorary professor, PhD
>
> University of Telecommunications and Post
>
> Sofia, Bulgaria
>
>
>
> *From:* jose luis perez velazquez <jlpvjlpv en gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 02, 2019 1:21 PM
> *To:* fis <fis en listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject:* [Fis] Fwd: "the mother of information"--MINI-BRAINS
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: jose luis perez velazquez <jlpvjlpv en gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] "the mother of information"--MINI-BRAINS
> To: Alexander Fingelkurts <alexander.fingelkurts en bm-science.com>
>
>      Hola a todos.   In what I wrote about lack of consciousness in
> particles or cells I should have been clearer. I admit cells, bacteria
> etc.  have some aspects/features of consciousness, but I would not say they
> display self-awareness, perhaps one of the top features. These problems are
> derived, once again,from the desire to define precisely something like
> life, consciousness, or intelligence, things that are almost impossible to
> define in one sentence. To wit, one definition of intelligence is the
> ability to adapt to change, well, then bacteria are intelligent. One aspect
> of life is compartmentalization and exchange of energy, tehrefore some
> inorganic materials have this property and could be considered "half
> alive". These notions we have created, life, consciousness, intelligence
> etc. are nothing but that: our inventions. Out there in nature there is a
> continuum;  evolution operates mainly as a continuum without sharp steps
> (although some apparently existed), as a dynamical system, a process.
> Similar principles of organization apply to the living and non living (as I
> tried to expound in "Finding simplicity in complexity: general principles
> of biological and nonbiological organization",
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2710456).
>      Trying to impose clear demarcations in these concepts is, to me, a
> mistake (or misunderstanding). Hence, I do agree that cells share some
> features of consciousness, but perchance everybody would agree with the
> fact that only humans, and perhaps other close relatives, have all the
> properties one can think of when enumerating the features of consciousness,
> and of course one can try to set up a hierarchy in which self-awareness
> could be at the top... but again, that hierarchy would be our invention.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20190203/672be93a/attachment-0001.html>