[Fis] 10 Principles

[Marcus Abundis]

Hi Pedro – in response to your last post . . .

ADAPTIVE LOGIC: I think we view adaptive logic similarly. But I also look
at lower-levels than what you name (living cells and above). I include all
genomic roles (viruses, and others?, *perhaps* even as low as prions?,
unsure). I also include prior ‘agency attempts’ (if any), before current
genomic roles. The lower end of this adaptive spectrum is vague for me,
until a definitive theory of biology/Life is concluded – for as we both
know, Life is plainly adaptive. On higher-order adaptation, (social
entities, etc.) I do not set a hard limit, but I look at behaviors,
collected and individual.

VARIETY IN FIS VIEWS: It is odd for you to point to Karl’s compiled list as
being diverse, where he suggests broad agreement in those views as
‘restricted to biological processes’ – which I plainly do not agree with. I
am unsure of Karl’s grasp of broader informatic issues. Thus, I do not see
his compiled list as truly representative, balanced, or authoritative.

COMPUTER COMPOSITIONAL ELEMENTS: I am unsure of how to respond to this part
of your note. My prior note raises adaptation, where there is ‘something to
which one adapts’ (Primary), and ‘something that must do the adapting’
(Secondary). I was interested in your specific view on primary and
secondary roles. Instead you offer a discourse on computer technology and
beyond?
– Further to YiXin’s 5 & 8 March posts a focused effort on *methodology*
seems essential to progress (which I strongly agree with), where ontology
and epistemology and subject and object roles are useful generic organizing
principles (even if I disagree with how he applies them).
– Similarly, further to Krassimir’s 28 June post I too see that one must
start with a sense of primary and secondary roles *at least* as there are
myriad ‘levels of abstraction’ one must ultimately deal with. Still, I see
these roles as complementary rather than opposed (per Krassimir).
– When I read your ‘enslaved SiO2’ view, I am unsure of your intent, but it
looks like you argue that ‘animate enslavement’ of ‘in-animate SiO2’ is a
case where the animate is Primary and the in-animate is secondary. I
instead suggest this exemplifies a Third informatic level – that of ‘tool
use’ to enhance an agent's adaptive ability. Tool use (added with earlier
roles) points to Terry’s intrinsic, referential, and normalized roles where
tools are normalized/optimized. This also echoes my own three-step direct,
discrete, and diffuse informational roles. Perhaps I am reading your note
incorrectly, but this is what I take as your meaning. As such, your views
on primary and secondary roles remains unclear to me.

WORK IN PROGRESS: I look forward to seeing more clarifying notes on your
ideas of a formal informatic methodology.

Marcus

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 10:40 PM Pedro C. Marijuan <
pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es> wrote:

> Dear List,
> In my third of the week, I am responding to Marcus.
>
> From your 11 July post . . .
> > The genuine properties of information appear with life: the capability
> to persist <
> > and react and relate according to inner drives unseen in inanimate
> matter.<
> – This "informational way of existence" (as you say), I typify as
> 'adaptive logic'; an equal concept that I hope we may agree on.
>
> *No problem if the "adaptive logic" is pretty similar and may also be
> extended into cells, organisms, social entities...  *
>
> With that as background, in your 11 and 14 July posts there are some key
> points I wish to address:
> – Your 11 July post shows your bias to LIFE (agency), which *in itself* is
> fine and I have no problem with. But I have also seen earlier notes from
> you elsewhere (and implied above) where you seem to insist LIFE's
> informatic expressions be held above all else – I paraphrase – 'LIFE is
> Primary in ALL informational respects!' Is this fair to say, does this
> indeed reflect your view? This view of yours seems clear to me from prior
> exchanges, but I do not want to put words in your mouth. Also, you are not
> alone in taking this view. It is important to be clear about this issue of
> Primacy, and your position on the matter . . . as it often seems to
> influence the nature of FIS exchanges (re Loet's 14 July note).
>
> *There are many different views in this list (see eg, what Karl compiles
> in his recent message). As there are many "street lamps" in the info
> fields, and the temptation is to remain searching close to one of the
> "local lights", rather than going toward the obscure place where the car
> keys were lost (as says the trite anecdote often told by physicists on the
> drank driver). The place to look for the info keys would be where,
> originally, info implies the whole retinue of meaning, knowledge,
> adaptation, complexity, etc.etc.  It starts with living cells and radiates
> in multiple directions. Life has two basic characteristics: the active
> elements are coded inside inner memory banks of the system, and the system **itself
> **replicates along a functional trajectory --life cycle-- open both to
> environmental energy flows and to signaling (info) flows. This does not
> exist at all in inanimate matter, and the sheer molecular complexity it
> generates is just abysmal, incomparable. *
>
> – If you see LIFE as Primary in all informational respects, I disagree
> with this (as you know). To say LIFE is Primary ignores Evolution by
> Natural Selection (EvNS) which ultimately defines what all LIFE looks like
> – what is extant, what Lives and what is Extinct/Dead. In turn, EvNS is
> guided by indifferent 'selection forces' (purifying, divisive, and
> directional) which are themselves ultimately 'inanimate' [unless you
> subscribe to super-naturalism?]. As such, the inanimate defines what the
> animate is: the INANIMATE is Primary in guiding what the ANIMATE *might*
> be, but the inverse is not true. LIFE does not direct atoms and elementary
> particles in how they might behave, or what they might *be*. Still, this
> does not *by any means* negate LIFE's vital informatics – it merely places
> LIFE in an adaptive role, that of adapting to inanimate (but still
> dynamic/chaotic) matter. This schism between what is Primary and what is
> Secondary, I think, must first be resolved if FIS is to ever advance on its
> presumed 'foundational' goal.
>
> *When your computer compositional elements --SiO2 doped lumps plus
> different metals and plastics-- are at work, they become immersed in a
> systemic dynamics that "enslaves" them. The SiO2 in desert sands is "more
> free", but it cannot show its potential semiconductor properties that the
> fabrication & later functioning make manifest. The inanimate is used by a
> higher order organization because of its basic properties, not viceversa
> (formerly, vacuum tubes were used instead of Silicon). Then, about the role
> of natural selection, there is an ongoing serious debate on the limits of
> that conceptualization. Probably, the term covers only half of the
> biological evolutionary process. As it lacks the crucial reference to the
> generation of "variety" --curiously, most of the proponents of that debate
> (James Shapiro, Denis Noble, John Torday, William Miller, Robert Reid,
> Guenther Witzany, even Marcello Barbieri...) try to establish in
> informational terms the "innovation" component that Darwinians omit. To put
> a familiar example, we may state that it is the market which "selects" the
> winner cell phone artifacts and technologies...  So, evolution by market
> selection? Nope! would immediately shout the thousands engineers and
> technologists working in the phone industry innovations, the winner ones
> and the eliminated ones as well. How biological innovation crafts the
> varieties that go to the selection markets? Basic aspects are not yet well
> understood, for instance, the role of viruses, or the "hot points" of
> meiosis, or epigenetic inheritance, or symbiosis... For Witzany and
> Villarreal, viruses have been dismissed but they probably were behind most
> further codes developed by multicellulars, and pathogenic viruses would
> appear as the debris left along the eukaryotic evolution of complexity
> --they ceaseless struggle to enter into our own epigenetic systems as other
> ancestors achieved (now the case of covid-19).*
>
>
> – To be clear when we say inanimate we mean 'lacking conscious will or
> power (survival intent) in manifest acts and deeds'. But inanimate does NOT
> mean lacking force or energy in the underlying dynamics of EvNS. It is more
> that simple atoms, etc. do not bother with adaptive survival, but LIFE is
> mostly concerned with survival . . . given its relatively 'higher-order'
> vulnerable complexity.
>
> *I do not belittle the microscopic (quantum information) world within the
> "inanimate". There is some classical, great work by Michael Conrad in that
> regard. But the discussion would go beyond the present context.*
>
> – Lastly, you alternatively speak of 'points' and 'principles' which are
> entirely different things (which I am sure you know). Still, I am unsure if
> the list you offer is meant to convey 'points' or 'principles'? Would you
> please clarify this. As 'points' it seems little new is added. I do not see
> how point 1 significantly improves Donald MacKay's “Information is a
> distinction that makes a difference” or Bateson's 'a difference that makes
> a difference' – could you offer some clarifying examples, or a bit more
> detail? The 'adjacent' role you name in point 1 is in scare quotes and
> unspecific. I do not address later points, as I presume they are shown in a
> step-wise manner, and I must agree the first point before focusing on later
> points.
>
> *It is work in progress. Talking about points makes discussion easier, I
> think, but the goal is that they become principles. Although the whole set
> is very heterogeneous and who knows whether it will be workable enough...
> time will tell. I prefer to leave the discussion on Point 1 for a next
> exchange, as this has already become too long.*
>
> *Thanks for the comments.*
>
>
> *--Pedro *
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Libre
> de virus. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_-519988281572813159_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200725/82a1e9a4/attachment-0001.html>