[Fis] a simple question

Krassimir Markov markov at foibg.com
Mon Sep 21 15:44:41 CEST 2020

Dear Joseph and Pedro,

I still do not agree with the first principle.

Joseph had written and Pedro had confirmed that :

“information (2) is produced in MAKING a distinction on an adjacent difference = information (1)

In other words, information (n) is created from information (n-1).

This is simple series which we may write as follow:

information (0) –> information (1) –> ... –> information (n-1) –> information (n) –> ....

A Simple Question:

Who creates information (0) ?

Friendly greetings

From: Joseph Brenner 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:19 PM
To: 'Krassimir Markov' 
Cc: fis 
Subject: RE: [Fis] Fwd: The 10 Principles. Information as Process

Dear Pedro, Dear Krassimir,

For me, the problem is clearly a result of using a common noun, information, to describe a complex process rather than a participle form – informationing. Then, “information IS a distinction” should be replaced by “information (2) is produced in MAKING a distinction on an adjacent difference = information (1). Then, of course the 1st principle is recursive, but correctly so! 





From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Krassimir Markov
Sent: vendredi, 18 septembre 2020 21:40
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fwd: The 10 Principles


Dear Pedro,


I still not agree with the first principle.
In this form it is recursive!

Information needs itself to became information, because difference could not be distinguished without information.
In this form, the first principle sound like this:


Information is distinction of information !   



Friendly greetings






From: Pedro C. Marijuan 

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 9:01 PM

To: 'fis' 

Subject: Re: [Fis] Fwd: The 10 Principles


Dear All,
Thanks to Jose Javier for his comments. Regarding the loop you mention about distinction, you are right, but this is a very characteristic of life (see that Maturana and Varela already said something pretty similar in their Tree of Knowledge). In the other biological principles that follow (below)  I try to clarify that notion in several directions, particularly concerning signaling systems, a concept which was completely ignored until well in the 1990s. Your second comment may be partially responded looking at those further principles dealing with the symbolic communication via language and the social narratives, not far from what you have pointed. Thus I include the whole principles herein.

1. Information is distinction on an adjacent difference. 

2. Information processes consist in organized action upon differences collected onto structures, patterns, sequences, messages, or flows.

3. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production process –the life cycle– anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy flows.

4. Proto-phenomena of meaning, knowledge, and cognition (& intelligence) emerge via signaling systems of living cells, fully developed in the action/perception cycle of central nervous systems.

5. Information/communication exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organization at all scales.

6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication exchanges of individuals —and constitutes the core of human "social nature."

7. Human information can be transformed into efficient knowledge by following the "knowledge instinct", further enhanced and delimited by collectively applying rigorous methodologies.

8. Human cognitive limitations are partially overcome via "knowledge ecologies", where knowledge circulates and recombines socially in a continuous actualization that involves "creative destruction" of theories, practices, and disciplines.

9. Narratives become encapsulated forms of “natural intelligence”, tailored to capture collective attention and memory, and essential for the cohesion of social, political, and economic structures.

10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on how information and knowledge surround individual lives, with profound consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social governance.


Briefly referring to the other discussion track (Christophe), I quite agree with situating the origins of (genuine) meaning with living beings, but have some trouble with "constraints" when generally applied to biological cognition. I think they may be more useful in other fields (originated in kinematics, they become more and more volatile as used in Dynamic Systems Theory, and similarly weakened when going from AI to biological cognition). For instance,  given 3,000 genes in Ecoli, organized in mixed clusters of fiendish complexity, how do you establish meaningful constraints? Or can even attribute separate "functions"? You may see in DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.07.002   the very dimensions of this ontology problem.

Regarding Marcus' comment on life as imprecisely defined (and whether viruses or Gaia are 'alive'), the fundamental issue in natural sciences is "explaining" rather than defining. And fortunately the advancement in our explanations of life in last decades has been fantastic. Life can now be characterized in every basic aspect with amazing depth. One cannot give a precise definition of life, but one can provide a list of essential characteristics, and at the center are the informational ones. Empirically, the point is that information appears to be so ingrained in the molecular organization of life that scores of new bio-disciplines have been recently launched around it: bioinformatics, bioinformation, biocomputation, all the "omic" fields, signaling science, etc. Biosemiotics could be included too, but Hélas, most biosemioticians continue to "read" the DNA meaning via the genetic code, rather than exploring the "signals" abduced from the environment and "distinctionally worked out and transcribed in genes--from which ultimately "meaning" emerges. About viruses concretely, they have been essential in the origins of eukaryotic complexity and in the dynamic balance of marine and terrestrial ecosystems... irrespective on how we consider their degree of "aliveness". And finally "non comment" about some (baiting?) expressions in your previous reply. 

I see right now the careful "review" by Loet: better for a next occasion!


PS. The Three Messages per Week are counted following the international business week (from Monday to Sunday included).

-- -------------------------------------------------Pedro C. MarijuánGrupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/-------------------------------------------------  

     Libre de virus. www.avast.com 


Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es

Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
Puede encontrar toda la informacisn 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 esta suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicacisn en el momento en que lo desee.

Този имейл е проверен за вируси от Avast.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200921/6f25829f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list