[Fis] Fwd: How Molecules Became Signs
Karl Javorszky
karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Fri Feb 25 11:51:53 CET 2022
Dear Francesco,
2022 02 25
Let me try to put the term ‘information’ into an economic context.
Information should be understood to be an inbuilt feature of Nature and of
our logical system. In our logical system, it is explained in the most
neutral wording by the Sequence in *oies.org/A242615
<http://oies.org/A242615>. *There, the basic duality is interpreted as the
number of logical sentences that describe an assembly, there being *two *ways
of describing an assembly: once with regard to the similarity relations
among the members of the assembly, once with regard to the diversity
relations among the members of the assembly.
There are many levels of information and many levels of describing its many
levels. It is the most neutral way of approach, if the definition of
information remains rooted in the numerical facts.
For human understanding, information has to be present as a property that
is inalienable to assemblies that are organised (*‘coherent collections’*).
Organised assemblies are a subject of economics.
*Example:*
Let us follow some Marxist ideas here. We consider Society to be composed
of several competing strata, which we simplify here into *two *opposing
camps, *labor **↔ capital.* The Gross Domestic Product is created by the
collaboration of the two. We write *f(labor) =a, f(capital)= b, f(labor,
capital)= c. *There is a profit (surplus) *s *from the economic activity
which is a part of the GDP *c. *
We now discuss which inbuilt potential for conflict exists, because we
shall equate that what is to be distributed proportionally to be an example
for the term ‘information’.
*Labor *maintains, that the surplus *s *coming from economic activity be
divided
* x % labor + y % capital = GDP = 100 % = costs(labor, capital) + surplus.*
*Capital *maintains, that the surplus *s *coming from economic activity be
divided
* q % labor + r % capital = GDP = 100 % = costs(labor, capital) + surplus.*
In our model, both parties to the social contract act reasonably,
rationally, moderate and cooperative. Their demands are rooted in their
nature-given facts, given that they both have proportionate costs to raise *k
*units of labor resp. capital.
Let us assume that it is the easiest and cheapest to raise teams of workers
in batches of around *12 workers. *(Because of extended family networks,
word-of-mouth works best in groups of around *11 – 12 *persons, where
contracting *1 *will make it relatively easy to contract *11 *more.)
Let us assume that it is the easiest and cheapest to raise means of
production other than humans (acres, horses, pieces of gold) in batches of *~
66 *units. (This having been since times immemorial the traditional reward
for a clan to have helped during a campaign against enemies.) The system is
best greased for dealing with commercial units of such a size. (1 carton, 1
palette, 1 container, 1 cargo, 1 province /*pro vinci/, *etc.)
There will be an incessant struggle around the just apportionment of the
profit, because the unit costs will be calculated differently by the two
participants. The capitalists will maintain that hiring *66 *workers can
cost no more than *6 times the cost of hiring 11 workers *(although they
should know that the recruiters have to sweep 6 villages to attract that
many workers), while union representatives will insist that maintaining *6
forges with each producing 11 tons of iron *can be no more costly than
having *1 *forge that produces *66 *tons of iron (although they should be
familiar with economies of size).
The two sides show their calculations to each other, but neither of them
yields. The controversy is inherent, immanent, inbuilt. *Let us call the
concept of an inherent, immanent, inbuilt controversy within the numbering
system to be the concept of information.*
In actual fact, it turns out that the *relative discrepancy* of the two
sides towards the immanent properties of the other is *minimised *in two
surroundings: *near 32, 97.* In such environments, the *sub-optimality *in
the results of both approaches is sufficiently comparable, and a stable
cooperation can be maintained.
Thank you for your insistence that information is a merchandise, a natural
resource and is subject of and to economic activity.
With compliments:
Karl
Am Do., 24. Feb. 2022 um 13:58 Uhr schrieb Francesco Rizzo <
13francesco.rizzo en gmail.com>:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> Da: Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan en gmail.com>
> Date: gio 24 feb 2022 alle ore 12:58
> Subject: Re: [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs
> To: Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.rizzo en gmail.com>
>
>
> Great!! You should send it to the list too.
> --Pedro
>
> El 24/02/2022 a las 7:09, Francesco Rizzo escribió:
>
> Dear Marcus
> Your questions are as problematic as the realities of life of everything
> that exists in the organic and inorganic world. So information always
> exists, because anything animate or inanimate is the result of a process
> that I call Trans-information.
> So, what varies according to the different contexts underlying the
> consensual, coordinated and recursive domains, is the meaning to be given
> to the information.
> The meaning, in turn, cannot do without the human interpretation of all
> the categories of information (mathematics, thermodynamics, genetics and
> semantics) that can, to a greater or lesser extent, in single and
> associated, more or less relative ways, concern all the mature and human
> sciences (including economics).
> In telegraphic style, let me say that:
> * Minkowski, with the stratagem of "economies of thought". unifies
> three-dimensional space and imaginary time with an artifice that gives
> mathematical form to natural laws having the requirements of restricted
> relativity. The artifice of the imaginary unit of the famous factor √(-1)
> is a purely formal or interpretable knowledge. The imaginary and/or complex
> numbers used to conceive the "Minkowski universe" transform time into
> space, from B. Riemann, Poincarè, etc, allowing A. Einstein to make a
> brilliant revolution, deep and universal. In my small way I invented a
> theory of imaginary capitalization essay.
> * According to the theorem of Tarski the semantic concept of "true" is not
> definable, but only interpretable; in posing the problem of the antinomy of
> the Liar we realize that it arises from the fact that in it are confused
> the two levels, the syntactic and semantic.
> *In Peirce's semiotic conception the interpreter is a material, an idea or
> a thought that interprets the sign and is subjective and inconstant.
> Kind regards,
> Francesco
>
>
> Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
>
> Il giorno mer 23 feb 2022 alle ore 14:33 Francesco Rizzo <
> 13francesco.rizzo en gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Caro Pedro,
>> grazie del consiglio. Ti mando tradotta in inglese la mia ultima mail.
>> Spero bene, nella speranza che le traduzioni
>> non si rivelino un tradimento. Comunque, non è solo l'ignoranza della
>> lingua inglese che mi porta a non riconoscere
>> i sistemi di traduzione, ma anche la necessità di impiegare quel poco
>> tempo, che mi resta a disposizione, per scrivere-pubblicare
>> la storia dello sviluppo del mio pensiero economico.
>> Un affettuoso saluto
>> Francesco
>> Dearest Terrence,
>> at last You have re-appeared. I concluded the Fis email of 28/1/2022 with
>> the P.s.: "How is Terry Deacon, friend of the happiest discussions?".
>> Perhaps it was an empathetic, enigmatic and synchronic question that
>> called You into question. In my humble opinion, Your hermeneutic strategy
>> is in-centered:
>> *on the triad of measuring, evaluating, interpreting subtended by the
>> three senses: "mathematical-statistical, relational-referential and
>> pragmatic-functional" that I too have always used in my New Economy (cf.
>> for all Value and Evaluation, FrancoAngeli, Milan, 1999);
>> *on the four possible information: natural or thermodynamic, genetic,
>> mathematical and semantic;
>> *on being, having, doing and knowing;
>> * on a molecular semiotics, implying a single definition of
>> (trans)information (taking or giving or losing form) and many ways of
>> measuring, evaluating and interpreting it according to the different
>> "fields of form" of the different disciplines considered;
>> * on the onto-logic comparison that does not presuppose a univocal
>> cognitive reality, but a multifaceted one.
>> In this regard, I would like to quote a brief excerpt from my
>> aforementioned work:
>> "In conclusion, I reiterate the need for an epistemological turn (?)
>> based on the com-presence and com-plementarity of the empathy-abstraction
>> pair and the sense-symbol pair, in scientific processes, for the three
>> dimensions: personal, intersubjective and macro-systemic. This can be
>> achieved by adopting an onto-genetic-dialogical model in-centered on the
>> ambivalence or duality of being, acting and knowing, i.e., characterized by
>> the difference-equality, internal-external, abstraction-empathy,
>> subjective-objective, sense-symbol pair" (p. 272).
>> Thank you and sorry if I misunderstood. It's never too late to learn,
>> especially when the additional teaching comes from someone like You.
>> An affectionate embrace.
>> Francis, 22 February 2022, 6.49 a.m.
>>
>>
>>
>> Il giorno mer 23 feb 2022 alle ore 12:51 Pedro C. Marijuan <
>> pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es> ha scritto:
>>
>>> Dear Francesco,
>>>
>>> You should think seriously about using English in your messages.
>>> Given the multiple resources available for automatic translation, it is
>>> not decorous ignoring them.
>>>
>>> The best one: https://www.deepl.com/translator
>>> Another: https://www.linguee.com
>>> Another: https://translate.google.it/
>>>
>>> It is a pity that we cannot follow what you mean...
>>> Best--Pedro
>>>
>>> El 22/02/2022 a las 6:49, Francesco Rizzo escribió:
>>>
>>> Carissimo Terrence,
>>> finalmente Ti sei ri-fatto vivo. Ho concluso la mail del 28/1/2022 con
>>> il P.s.:"Come sta Terry Deacon,
>>> amico delle discussioni più liete?", Forse è stata una empatica,
>>> enigmatica e sincronica domanda
>>> che Ti ha Chiamato in causa.
>>> A mio modesto giudizio, la Tua strategia ermeneutica si in-centra :
>>> *sulla terna misurare, valutare, interpretare sottesa dai tre sensi:
>>> "matematico-statistico, relazionale-referenziale
>>> e pragmatico-funzionale" che anch'io ho sempre utilizzato nella mia
>>> Nuova economia (cfr. per tutti "Valore e valutazioni",
>>> FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1999);
>>> *sulle quattro informazioni possibili: naturale o termodinamica,
>>> genetica, matematica e semantica;
>>> * sull'essere, sull'avere, sul fare e sul conoscere;
>>> * su una semiotica molecolare, implicante un'unica definizione di
>>> (tras-)informazione ( prendere o dare o perdere
>>> forma) e tanti modi di misurarla, valutarla e interpretarla in ragione
>>> dei diversi "campi di forma" delle diverse discipline
>>> considerate;
>>> * sul confronto onto-logico che non presuppone una realtà
>>> cognitiva-univoca univoca, ma poliedrica.
>>> A questo proposito mi permetto di riportare un breve stralcio della ia
>>> mia suddetta opera:
>>> "In conclusione, ribadisco la necessità di una svolta (?) epistemologica
>>> basata sulla compresenza e sulla com-
>>> plementarità della coppia empatia-astrazione e della coppia
>>> senso-simbolo, nei processi scientifici, per le tre dimensioni:
>>> personale, intersoggettiva e macro-sistemica. Ciò si può
>>> ottenere adottando un modello onto-genetico-dialogico centrato
>>> sull'ambivalenza o dualità dell'essere, dell'agire e del conoscere,
>>> caratterizzato cioè, dalla coppia differenza-uguaglianza,
>>> interno-esterno, astrazione empatia, soggettivo-oggettivo,
>>> senso-simbolo" (p. 272)..
>>> Grazie e scusami se ho capito male. Non è mai troppo tardi per
>>> apprendere, specialmente quando il supplemento di inse-
>>> gnamento viene da uno come Te.
>>> Francesco.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Il giorno lun 21 feb 2022 alle ore 18:02 Terrence W. DEACON <
>>> deacon en berkeley.edu> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Dear FIS colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> I am grateful to Pedro Marijuán for this opportunity to share this
>>>> recently published Open Access paper with all of you. I look forward to
>>>> this new FIS format for discussing recent publications, in addition to the
>>>> annual solicited discussion paper, and am honored to be included. I hope
>>>> this article is of interest. Here is a brief introduction.
>>>>
>>>> As many scholars since the 1930s have pointed out, the concept of
>>>> information is regularly used in at least three distinct and nested senses:
>>>> a physical-statistical sense, a relational-referential sense, and a
>>>> pragmatic-functional sense. In the paper “How molecules become signs” I
>>>> show how the latter two senses can be understood in terms of molecular
>>>> evolution, without invoking any atypical physical-chemical properties or an
>>>> extrinsic observer perspective. In other words, I attempt to identify the
>>>> minimal systemic properties that are necessary and sufficient for a
>>>> physical system to be able to use a molecule (such as RNA) to be “about”
>>>> the relationships between other molecules that are relevant to the
>>>> continued existence of this same capacity. This is intended to provide what
>>>> amounts to a proof of principle using a simple-as-possible model system, in
>>>> which all processes are explicitly known and fully understood, and
>>>> empirically testable.
>>>>
>>>> It has a number of implications that may be of interest to the FIS
>>>> community.
>>>>
>>>> 1. It implies that molecular template replication (such as invoked in
>>>> RNA-world and related replicator-first theories) cannot be understood as
>>>> providing intrinsically referential or functional information, except as
>>>> interpreted by an extrinsic observer (causing its semiotic properties to
>>>> appear epiphenomenal).
>>>> 2. It shows how the constraints on the release of energy that
>>>> constitutes the work required to reconstitute these same constraints in new
>>>> substrates is the basis of what can be described as the “interpretive”
>>>> capacity of a physical system.
>>>> 3. It demonstrates how materially “displaced” informational
>>>> relationships (such as in the case of DNA) depend on and grow out of prior
>>>> linked mutual information (iconic) and correlational information
>>>> (indexical) relationships, and how this can be hierarchically recursive,
>>>> providing a scaffolding logic for the evolution of increasing informational
>>>> depth.
>>>> 4. It suggests that Crick’s so-called “central dogma” of biological
>>>> information flow in organisms is the reverse of information accretion in
>>>> evolution - i.e. where referential-functional information flows from
>>>> dynamical constraints onto material constraints (e.g. molecular structure),
>>>> from whole to part, and thus is offloaded from dynamics to structure in
>>>> evolution. This may suggest new research paradigms for studying the
>>>> evolution of genetic information.
>>>> 5. It implicitly describes a mode of autonomous virus-like proto-life
>>>> forms that may exist in conditions that are otherwise hostile to life, such
>>>> as in deep petroleum deposits or other planets.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to insights and criticisms from the FIS community. The
>>>> target article is also being published with commentaries, along with my
>>>> responses, and the journal may continue to accept commentaries from the FIS
>>>> community to be included in future issues.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Terry
>>>>
>>>> In honor of the 80th birthday of our brilliant departed colleague:
>>>> Jesper Hoffmeyer
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 2:38 PM Terrence W. DEACON <deacon en berkeley.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear FIS colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am grateful to Pedro Marijuán for this opportunity to share this
>>>>> recently published Open Access paper with all of you. I look forward to
>>>>> this new FIS format for discussing recent publications, in addition to the
>>>>> annual solicited discussion paper, and am honored to be included. I hope
>>>>> this article is of interest. Here is a brief introduction.
>>>>>
>>>>> As many scholars since the 1930s have pointed out, the concept of
>>>>> information is regularly used in at least three distinct and nested senses:
>>>>> a physical-statistical sense, a relational-referential sense, and a
>>>>> pragmatic-functional sense. In the paper “How molecules become signs” I
>>>>> show how the latter two senses can be understood in terms of molecular
>>>>> evolution, without invoking any atypical physical-chemical properties or an
>>>>> extrinsic observer perspective. In other words, I attempt to identify the
>>>>> minimal systemic properties that are necessary and sufficient for a
>>>>> physical system to be able to use a molecule (such as RNA) to be “about”
>>>>> the relationships between other molecules that are relevant to the
>>>>> continued existence of this same capacity. This is intended to provide what
>>>>> amounts to a proof of principle using a simple-as-possible model system, in
>>>>> which all processes are explicitly known and fully understood, and
>>>>> empirically testable.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has a number of implications that may be of interest to the FIS
>>>>> community.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. It implies that molecular template replication (such as invoked in
>>>>> RNA-world and related replicator-first theories) cannot be understood as
>>>>> providing intrinsically referential or functional information, except as
>>>>> interpreted by an extrinsic observer (causing its semiotic properties to
>>>>> appear epiphenomenal).
>>>>> 2. It shows how the constraints on the release of energy that
>>>>> constitutes the work required to reconstitute these same constraints in new
>>>>> substrates is the basis of what can be described as the “interpretive”
>>>>> capacity of a physical system.
>>>>> 3. It demonstrates how materially “displaced” informational
>>>>> relationships (such as in the case of DNA) depend on and grow out of prior
>>>>> linked mutual information (iconic) and correlational information
>>>>> (indexical) relationships, and how this can be hierarchically recursive,
>>>>> providing a scaffolding logic for the evolution of increasing informational
>>>>> depth.
>>>>> 4. It suggests that Crick’s so-called “central dogma” of biological
>>>>> information flow in organisms is the reverse of information accretion in
>>>>> evolution - i.e. where referential-functional information flows from
>>>>> dynamical constraints onto material constraints (e.g. molecular structure),
>>>>> from whole to part, and thus is offloaded from dynamics to structure in
>>>>> evolution. This may suggest new research paradigms for studying the
>>>>> evolution of genetic information.
>>>>> 5. It implicitly describes a mode of autonomous virus-like proto-life
>>>>> forms that may exist in conditions that are otherwise hostile to life, such
>>>>> as in deep petroleum deposits or other planets.
>>>>>
>>>>> I look forward to insights and criticisms from the FIS community. The
>>>>> target article is also being published with commentaries, along with my
>>>>> responses, and the journal may continue to accept commentaries from the FIS
>>>>> community to be included in future issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Terry
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 1:12 PM Pedro C. Marijuán <
>>>>> pedroc.marijuan en gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear FISers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are going to start the new discussion modality based on specific
>>>>>> publications. The initial contribution to comment is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *"How Molecules Became Signs**."* By *Terrence W. Deacon*, recently
>>>>>> appeared in Biosemiotics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At his earlier convenience, Terry will send a leading text to start
>>>>>> the discussion.
>>>>>> Now, given that there is a doi
>>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9 (for freely downloading
>>>>>> the paper),
>>>>>> interested parties may read in advance the publication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best greetings to all,
>>>>>> --Pedro
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS. Given that there are another three contributions tentatively
>>>>>> arranged, a time span of around 2-3 weeks could be adequate. But we will
>>>>>> see on the spot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <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_-5362086811296352760_m_4632129942311674548_m_-8696675805481380008_m_1748068268581210092_m_2010457695052054378_m_517739923505699619_m_-1920997102068984856_m_-4879470826922797663_m_7595816000984545838_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
>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
>>>>> University of California, Berkeley
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
>>>> University of California, Berkeley
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 listFis en listas.unizar.eshttp://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
>>> ----------
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Grouppedroc.marijuan en gmail.compcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>>>
>>> Editor special issue: Evolutionary dynamics of social systemshttps://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/biosystems/special-issue/107DGX9V85V
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220225/048fe608/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list