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

Mon Feb 4 14:58:07 CET 2019

Dear Neo-Encyclopedists,

we are working hard to gain a common perspective over such diverse subjects
as {self-awareness, consciousness, life, quantum, information, hierarchy,
structures, intelligence, organised, causal pathway, constitutive basis},
and the interplay among these concepts.

In psychology, intelligence is understood to mean the choice by an organism
of one among several alternatives for action, where the one alternative
chosen is a) understood by observers, and/or b) appears factually to be
advantageous for the organism.

Life is different to automatic reactions by the distinction that specific
automatic reactions appear invariably to specific stimuli; this delineation
defines life as a reaction pattern where to one stimulus there are several
alternative reactions (like phototaxie, e.g.).

In this view, a machine can neither live nor be intelligent, because it
always delivers the same reaction to a specific stimulus (while living
organisms can tire of, be exhausted, ignore, reject, mis-react to one and
the same stimulus – all in dependence of some inner workings). There is an
element of unpredictability to anything that lives (e.g. it can
unexpectedly cease to live) save for the certainty of an end of its living
state.

There are several surfaces to attach to and propose the offer of being a
skeleton behind the concepts:

Krassimir (Feb 2):

*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.*

As we do the reading out of implications of aspect R of an element (a,b)
assigning this element a place P_A, while aspect W assigns this same
element a place P_W, we encounter several relations of low-, middle- and
high-level hierarchies.

Krassimir (Feb 2):

*all live structures we know at this moment have very important feature of
self-reproducing using DNA structures*

All organisms that live depend on a temporal continuity, where the temporal
cross-section connects to the sequential readings of the same elements.
This means, that – in a living organism – the elements are sufficiently
connected to their temporal successors.

Jose (Feb 1):

*… 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*

If consciousness happens by assigning symbols to a LIMITED number of
carrier objects (and no one will claim that we have an infinite number of
cells in our system), there can only be a LIMITED number of different
enumerations of the elements that constitute that what is the case
(features of consciousness). Furthermore, on a limited number of elements,
only a limited number of nonredundant symbols can be placed. These generate
hierarchies, the total number of which is also limited. (A step in the
hierarchy could be e.g. the number of groups elements belong to and/or the
exquisitivity of the groups elements belong to, etc.). If one thinks
even/odd numbers, e and pi (2.71, 3.14) and prime numbers, etc. to be
nothing but our inventions, which do not depict/mirror/order the outside
Nature, then hierarchies coming from a-priori properties of logical objects
are also nothing but our invention. If one thinks that pi (3.14) does play
an objective role in Nature, then one should be prepared to find
hierarchies resulting from properties of natural numbers to play an
objective role in Nature. Nature has not forced us to think all properties
of natural numbers away: it is our human feebleness that prefers to deal
with general schemata (all are alike, different only of how many of uniform
units), saving the effort of memorising and dealing with the many
individual differences among such things which we state are all alike,
although they are not at all each and every one all alike but for the
number of uniform units.

Joseph (Feb 1):

*… requires substantial changes in perspective regarding the scientific
grounds of logic, causality, semiosis, meaning, consciousness,
communication and their ethical implications. It is not a ‘theory of
everything’ but points to the underlying dialectics of existence and of
complex phenomena, viz. information, within the laws of physics. My basic
classical reference is Heraclitus.*

Maybe the discussion can be enhanced by repeated references to what the
numbers say? The numbers are at your service and support what you say.

Bruno (Feb 1):

*… few doubt that cells have some consciousness, like I think that
Mechanism enforces the presence of consciousness for all universal digital
machine.*

*…*

*… consciousness can be defined semi-axiomatically by what is true,
knowable, indubitable, yet non provable by the machine concerned, nor
definable ….*

In this reading, consciousness would be (based on?) the collection of the
alternatives which could also have been chosen. As machines have no
alternatives to their decisions, they can not have consciousness, QED.

Bill (Jan 31):

*... the origin of consciousness might be most likely found through
researching the exact means by which an organism attaches to information
space-time, which reduces then, to studying the origin of life …*

Once we enter the Subject That For Traditional Folk Does Not Exist
(paths/strings/cycles/filaments that are implications of the different
nature of a vs.b) we find that the properties of the planes that constitute
space is dependent on the position and properties of elements while in a
linear order. (The plane’s characteristics are different if the axes are
scaled on *(a+b,a; 2b-a,a) *rather than on *(a+b,b; 2b-a,2a-b). *Molecular
chemistry will figure out, in what aspects the amino acids differ so that
one such will attach that answers to *2a-b *rather than, say *2a-3b *or*
b-a.*)

I liked the entry in Wikipedia about the Encyclopedists, specifically the
sentence: “Besides comprehensiveness, encyclopedic writing is distinguished
by its lack of a specific audience or practical application.” The stated
lack of practical application is an ultra-orthodox approach, but
subjectively, while constructing the Encyclopedia, there is some feeling of
truth in it.

Best wishes

Karl

Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb Loet Leydesdorff <
loet en leydesdorff.net>:

> Dear Stan,
>
> I know that you made "hierarchies" central to your highly-respected
> theorizing.  However, there is a difference between* considering* a
> system as hierarchical and claiming that it* is* hierarchical. The latter
> claim has to be proven.
>
> I would accept the claim that most if not all systems can be considered as
> hierarchical (Herbert Simon).  However, some of the interesting ones are
> not. For example, in the case of strange loops -- that is, when routines
> interrupt each other in ways that are not allowed in do-while loops.
> (Latour proposed the notion "infrareflexive" for this possibility of
> interruptions in the relations among communication systems.) I call these
> systems interesting because they bring new models, such as anticipatory
> systems, etc.)
>
> My argument was mainly about the "simplicitly" of general assertions which
> cannot be proven.  (Fortunately, I send this message as my second message
> in a week which passes in 15 minutes. :-) )
>
> Best,
> Loet
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
> loet en leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of
> Sussex;
>
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>
> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssalthe en binghamton.edu>
> To: "fis" <fis en listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: 2/3/2019 9:00:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] about the idea of “hierarchies of structures”
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190204/a8d90e42/attachment-0001.html>