[Fis] 10 Principles

Sat Jul 25 12:23:51 CEST 2020

Cari colleghi,
intanto, grazie per la discussione che state svolgendo, senza temere le
critiche. Bisogna sempre
essere consapevoli che il dis-accordo è un'armonia migliore dell'armonia
dell'accordo.
Mi permetto, inoltre di dirVi che la mia Nuova economia è in-centrata sui
fondamenti biologici della
conoscenza, a partire da Lorenz o da Maturana e Varela. Il processo di
tras-in-formazione è proprio un
esempio di sistema ad-attativo.
Quindi, secondo me, non è tanto onto-logico ritenere che l'informazione sia
limitata alla vita biologica in senso stretto.
Ringrazio Karl per le-mail del 17 luglio scorso.
Un saluto affettuoso

Il giorno sab 25 lug 2020 alle ore 09:17 Marcus Abundis <55mrcs en gmail.com>
ha scritto:

> 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 en 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 en 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_808445431965337098_m_-5202512930793533722_m_-519988281572813159_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis en 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
>> ----------
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en 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
> ----------
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200725/35513d69/attachment-0001.html>