[Fis] [External Email] Fwd: TR: RE: How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out.

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Encyclopedists,



The heap of ideas that we produce begins to look like creating the
impression of an ordered whole. The following contribution from Stan could
be placed as Chapter VI – The relations as such – or later as Chapter XV:
Levels of Interaction. (We have a Chapter I: Big Boom, Magnetism, Leptons,
main organisational principles, Chapter X: Strict predictions, Chapter XX:
Logic in Reality.



Stan writes:

*… utility of the hierarchical approach in a specific instance. … any
discussion of complex problems such as those of information requires more
than one perspective. I suggest that in the future we might try to apply to
information the three approaches jointly and explicitly:*

*-          Hierarchies*

*-          Systems*

*-          Processes*

Having a tautomat at hand, we can point to hierarchies (that come from the
sequence of the terms of the queries, the *importance* of a property),
Systems (that come from the cycle being part and parcel of overall
processes), Processes (that are caused by the axiomatic periodic changes).
The tautomat is a reading of the natural numbers. Like *a² + b² = c² *became
widely used after scientists had learnt to look triangles into the picture
they see, (to decompose the picture into triangles), the tautomat will
become widely used after scientists will have learnt to look groups and
sequences into the picture they see. The idea needs being understood, but
the technique is simple and extremely helpful. We have a kind of Rubik
cube, where the paths for the elements are pre-weighted for probability for
each and any of periodic changes that can befall the assembly. The natural
numbers maintain the spectacle, and the spectacle shows properties which
Nature evidently makes use of. In the elaborate system of databases that is
a tautomat, there are *hierarchies, systems, processes. *Stan can produce
deictic definitions dozens a day by pointing his index to a specific web of
properties of natural numbers (which we visualise in that context eg as a
spatial distance), and say: this I call *hierarchy, *and then point to a
different kind of relations among natural numbers (which we visualise in
that context eg as charge level) and say: this I call a *system*, and so
forth.

To wilfully project *triangles* unto pictures was a dexterity the Greeks
have mastered. Our generation needs to learn to wilfully project unto
pictures *the deviation to the expected. *In Ch I we saw the actual and the
target values not yet differentiated in properties but they had become all
too near to each other for how many they were. As they became different,
they became also differently many. For how differently many they became,
they were too similar to be that near to each other. One can point to
numbers while one tells this story.

At Stan’s stage, we introduce *names. *Here, one can also point to numbers
to bring home the idea of the kind of interdependence one means.

In the Chapter relating to the tautologic nature of the genetic information
transfer and of the memory, we shall again point to numbers while saying
that the change of placement here in 2D causes, is actually the same as, a
restriction on what can attach somewhere else in 3D. That is a very special
case, and functions only under extremely ideal circumstances. There, that
path across the forest of alternatives is shown, where there are no
alternatives.

In all normal walks of life, alternatives are what the song is about. As
Stan writes:

*There is a gradation here between emphasis on ontological vs.
epistemological aspects. My concept of a logic of energy is applicable
primarily to processes, rather than hierarchies or systems per se, but it
can also capture a sense of the movement, more or less complete, from one
domain to another. … Processes will themselves be hierarchical. *

* … how to deal with the realities which are the basis of the “signs”? …
For me, molecules become other molecules, with new and different
structures, potential energies, and available reaction paths. *

We observe different levels of reality in the life cycle of natural
numbers. That during Reorder *X *element *k *occupies a place with
coordinates *(x,y,z) *is a basis, local level reality. That Reorder *X
*implicates
that *cycles q,r,w,… *run concurrently, and therefore element *k *will be
predictably contemporary with specific colleagues of parallel cycles, is a
reorder level reality. That the appearance of *k *at that place can
implicate not only that Reorder *X *takes place, but can as well signify
that Reorder *Y *takes place, is a transversal prediction level reality.
That the subsequent appearance of an element *g *on a specific place can
allow predictions about next coming into existence will be *h, if Reorder X
*is taking place, or that will be *i, if Reorder Y *is taking place, is a
sagittal prediction level reality.

Our ideas need a clear concept of hierarchy. We need to investigate closely
the kinds and types of mental relation patterns we establish. For etalon
and taxonomy reasons, an agreement would be interpersonally agreeable if it
referred to natural numbers.

*… a real process (e.g. a biochemical reaction) has its own meaning-for-us
as part of knowledge. … “Becoming other molecules” itself involves
hierarchical arrangement of its environment. … the information field, and
any activities contributing to it, exist at different scales.*

Each of these 3 sentences show that whatever apparent dissonance in our cat
concert, we sing from the same page.

Let us collect more Chapters in a long but interesting explanation of what
is information.

Karl

Am Sa., 19. März 2022 um 20:42 Uhr schrieb Stanley N Salthe <
ssalthe en binghamton.edu>:

> Dear All,
>
> Stan’s message brings home, if need be, the utility of the hierarchical
> approach in a specific instance. I agree with his reordering. Moreover, it
> suggests that any discussion of complex problems such as those of
> information requires more than one perspective. I suggest that in the
> future we might try to apply to information the three approaches jointly
> and explicitly:
>
> -          Hierarchies
>
> -          Systems
>
> -          Processes
>
> There is a gradation here between emphasis on ontological *vs. *epistemological
> aspects. My concept of a logic of energy is applicable primarily to
> processes, rather than hierarchies or systems *per se*, but it can also
> capture a sense of the movement, more or less complete, from one domain to
> another.
>
>      S: Processes will themselves be hierarchical. Thus, for example, a
> mousetrap will have been activated by larger than it human hands. When a
> mouse blunders into it, forces of larger scale than its own will come
> crashing down on it. This results in internal damage of smaller scale than
> the mouse as a whole so that its life activities will be interrupted
> fatally.
>
> .As a test, recursive case, what might the above mean in relation to the
> original subject of this thread, “How Molecules Became Signs”? My
> conclusion is that we are examining here a hierarchical, epistemic concept.
> The title itself begs several ontological questions, such as how to deal
> with the realities which are the basis of the “signs”.
>
> For me, molecules become other molecules, with new and different
> structures, potential energies, and available reaction paths. Their
> designation as signs is possible in some hierarchical. epistemic framework,
> but I do not consider it necessary since a real process (*e.g.* a
> biochemical reaction) has its own meaning-for-us as part of knowledge.
>
>       S: “Becoming other molecules” itself involves hierarchical
> arrangement of its environment.
>
>
> I am not arguing that even the above approach is the only one possible or
> necessary, only that it might be taken into account for progress in the
> information field.
>
>       S: And the information field, and any activities contributing to it,
> exist at different scales.
>
> STAN
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 6:34 AM joe.brenner en bluewin.ch <
> joe.brenner en bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
>> Dear Christophe and All,
>>
>> In his note, reproduced below, Christophe provides an interim answer to
>> my first response to his of the same day (March 13). In looking at the
>> relation between Information and Meaning, he looked forward (as I certainly
>> do) to further input by Terry regarding the potential of information as
>> meaning and the process of emergence. (One should perhaps better write
>> information_as_meaning.) In the meantime, I offer my own interpretation
>> from my recent (2020) book with Andrei Igamberdiev:
>>
>>
>> "I summarized the concept developed in LIR (Logic in Reality) in the
>> following points:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.      Information generation and transfer occur in nature as a natural
>> process that is constituted by and requires energy.
>>
>> 2.      Information is present throughout nature, but its conversion to
>> meaning requires organisms capable of recursive processing of it.
>>
>> 3.      Meaning is constituted by all the information valuable to a
>> living organism for its survival, reproduction and well-being.
>>
>> 4.      Information processes follow principles applicable to energy and
>> energetic processes in general
>>
>>
>>
>> Many authors have noted the complexity of information and the difficulty
>> of giving a ‘single, clear’ definition of it. Attempts to do so are typical
>> of standard substance ontologies, where firm definitions – identities - are
>> automatically given preference. The failure of such attempts suggests that
>> a major categorial error is being made. I therefore made the following
>> lapidary statement:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Meaningful information is reality in potential form.*
>>
>>
>>
>> It is derived from the Lupasco/LIR conception of consciousness which
>> basically looks at the real dialectical interactions in and between
>> internal and external, and internalizing and externalizing processes as
>> they move between potentiality and actuality.
>>
>> I suggest that the above can be placed in relation to Christophe's
>> Systemic Theory of Meaning, most recently of March 2020, (his reference
>> MENITA-7 below), which constitutes the primarily epistemological part of a
>> more complete theory embodying my ontological ideas as well.
>> These fit well, at least in my view, with Christophe's treatment of
>> anxiety in which potential states are critical, also for emergence.
>>
>> Thank you and best wishes,
>> Joseph
>>
>> *De :* Christophe Menant <christophe.menant en hotmail.fr>
>> *Envoyé :* dimanche 13 mars 2022 18:26
>> *À :* joe.brenner en bluewin.ch <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
>> *Objet :* RE: RE: [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out.
>> OFF-LINE for one point
>>
>>
>> Joseph,
>>
>> We can agree that a process transforms an input into an output.
>> Reverse engineering, as I know it,  is a tool to improve processes. We
>> know what we want at the output. We look at how the process builds it in
>> order to see if it is the best way to do so (other ways may exist and be
>> better).
>> The output is then the starting point. It needs to be clearly defined and
>> understood to address possible improvements of the process that builds it.
>> Our case is about an evolutionary process that transforms meaningless
>> states present in a-biotic matter into meaningful states present in living
>> matter. We need there a precise definition of what is expected as output of
>> the process (meaningful information) in order to look at how the
>> evolutionary process may have produced it.
>>
>> Best
>> Christophe
>> ------------------------------
>> *De :* joe.brenner en bluewin.ch <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
>> *Envoyé :* dimanche 13 mars 2022 15:12
>> *À :* christophe.menant en hotmail.fr <christophe.menant en hotmail.fr>
>> *Objet :* Re: RE: [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out.
>> OFF-LINE for one point
>>
>> Before giving a full response to your very promising note, please let me
>> ask you one question about reverse engineering: is it really necessary to
>> know the *outcome *of the process, which may be difficult or impossible?
>> If Information IS Meaning, then the relative weight of actual and potential
>> defines the probability of an outcome, not the outcome itself. Qu'est-ce
>> que tu en dit?
>>
>> Best,
>> Joseph
>>
>> ----Message d'origine----
>> De : christophe.menant en hotmail.fr
>> Date : 13/03/2022 - 14:46 (CEST)
>> À : joe.brenner en bluewin.ch
>> Cc : fis en listas.unizar.es, deacon en berkeley.edu
>> Objet : RE: [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out
>>
>> Thanks Joseph for your position.
>>
>> If I understand you well:
>> 1) There is information and meaning in our world (I&M).
>> 2) There is no information nor meaning in an a-biotic/inert world.
>> 3) In that a-biotic/inert world there is only “potential for information
>> as meaning”.
>> 4) Information is defined in the process of its emergence from some
>> energetic ground.
>>
>> In addition, I feel we can say that:
>> a) I&M can be defined (https://philpapers.org/rec/MENITA-7
>> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Frec%2FMENITA-7&data=04%7C01%7C%7C51d6eef991104b4f37b108da04fb8e0e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637827775706215913%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=e2LmaRbblxmlDLTa90ByDnVicS4oek6hA%2Bjm4g4qb8c%3D&reserved=0>
>> ).
>> b) Having from Terry his definitions for I&M would allow a better
>> understanding of the “potential for information as meaning” and of the
>> “process of emergence”.
>> This is about the well known reverse engineering activity where the
>> outcome of a process is available, and when we look for some understanding
>> about the process itself. The more we know about the outcome of the
>> process, the more we can pretend understanding the process.
>> Here we need to clearly know the outcome of the process. We need
>> definitions for I&M by Terry. Their availability is needed to look at
>> understanding the “potential for information as meaning” and the
>> “process of emergence”.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *De :* joe.brenner en bluewin.ch <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
>> *Envoyé :* dimanche 13 mars 2022 11:51
>> *À :* christophe.menant en hotmail.fr <christophe.menant en hotmail.fr>
>> *Cc :* fis en listas.unizar.es <fis en listas.unizar.es>; deacon en berkeley.edu <
>> deacon en berkeley.edu>
>> *Objet :* Re: [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs. One Way Out
>>
>> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>>
>> There is one way out of the dilemma which has not been directly refuted.
>> When Christophe and others ask if can we talk of information in an a-biotic
>> or pre-biotic world, if information means something actual, present, the
>> answer is no. If one asks instead did  the *potential * for  information
>> as meaning exist, the answer for me is yes.
>>
>> An additional statement must be added, otherwise the above is no more
>> than a trivial tautology. It is that information is defined in the process
>> of its emergence from some energetic ground. Since no process, nothing *in
>> process* is complete, complete and *incomplete *parts of the process are
>> present simultaneously and dynamically. The locus of this "nascent"
>> information is the detailed physico-chemical structure of the living
>> entities involved and their non-living constituents. These or parts of them
>> move from actual to potential and *vice versa *and this movement is what
>> ultimately defines their meaning.
>>
>> One reading of the above is that I have given a new interpretation of the
>> nature of a sign. I would gladly accept this, provided it can be
>> subsequently decided whether or not the concept of sign adds further
>> information. It may not.
>>
>> Thank you and best wishes,
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>>
>> ----Message d'origine----
>> De : christophe.menant en hotmail.fr
>> Date : 13/03/2022 - 00:02 (CEST)
>> À : deacon en berkeley.edu, fis en listas.unizar.es
>> Objet : [Fis] How Molecules Became Signs
>>
>> Dear Friends,
>> that war is a horrible drama for innocent civilians. And I agree with
>> your comments.
>> Our FIS discussions cannot bring much help to that human drama, but our
>> tentative analysis of what is “information” may somehow lead to a better
>> understanding of human motivations guide behaviors.
>> Let me add another comment to Terry’s work.
>>
>> Dear Terry,
>> In addition to my Feb 23 post I would appreciate some information on
>> parts of your paper I may not have understood that well.
>> Regarding the concept of information, you consider that information in a
>> pragmatic-functional sense can be understood in terms of molecular
>> evolution.
>> This brings to consider that “information” is present in an a-biotic or
>> pre-biotic world (a purely molecular world). Such pre-biotic world has
>> existed before the emergence of life in our universe. But can we talk of
>> information and meaning, of signs, in such a world? How should they be
>> understood in a purely material world devoid of living entities?
>> As said,  it would be nice if you could clarify these points by making
>> available definitions for information, meaning and sign in such an a-biotic
>> world. This would allow a better understanding of your starting point.
>> Also, I do not see that well using the Peircean term of “Interpretant”
>> for an inert world. We know that the Interpretant (the meaning) needs an
>> Interpreter (the meaning generator). So introducing Interpretants in your
>> paper also brings to introduce Interpreters in an inert world. Your
>> sentence “In Peircean terms, this amounts to asking what sort of molecular
>> system is competent to produce the Interpretants” is equivalent to: “what
>> sort of molecular system is competent to generate meanings”. I’m not sure
>> that meaning generation by a molecular system in a purely material and
>> inert world can be clearly understood by today science or philosophy.
>> And I do not remember Peirce theory of sign being about inert matter. Could
>> you tel us more about your position on these subject?
>> Thanks again for your time
>> Christophe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20220329/ed828fd5/attachment-0001.html>