[Fis] Information, Natural Values & Subjectivity (Oh my!)

[Karl Javorszky]

Thanks for asking.

Deictic definition :

Point to something and say "this i call....".

Cycles 3 and 6 of Cohort 16:

You surely have done the introductory exercise with 12 books. If not yet,
do it today. (take 12 different books, line these up in the sequence author
- title. Reorder the 12 books into the sequence title - author. Note the
subcollections of books that replace each other. These we call cycles.)

Cohort 16 contains 136 pairs of (a, b), from (1,1) to (16,16).

Reordering C16 from ab into ba generates 12 cycles. Count and find cycles 3
and 6 (with 18 and 30 members).

Recognize differences :

Enumerate the properties of the 2 cycles. Count the sum(a), sum(b) for
both, and the "run", that is sum(distance (member_i, member_i+1)) also for
both.
Create expressions (sum(b) - sum(a)) / run for both.

Call the vector of the differences between values for cycle 3 and cycle 6
the vector of differences. Say aloud "this i call information" while you
point to the vector of differences.

Hope you have now understood the idea of information being the differences
between expected and observed values. (if cycle 3 had the same relation
between (sum(b) - sum(a)) / say e.g. number of members like cycle 6, the
information value of this would be zero.)

There are nice pictures to the definition in the article Update on a + b =
c.

You will see whether you just waste time pretending you want to learn a new
insight by observation of your behavior. If you reorder 12 books on your
table and keep being awake while you do so, then you can credit yourself
with the good will of at least having gone a step towards understanding.

Let me hope that you are actually interested in the subject of information.
You will find that cycles are an important tool of understanding.

Wishing you a good exercise and looking forward to your report on the
cycles your 12 books have produced.

Karl
PS how have you managed to include pictures in your messages to FIS?


Katherine Peil Kauffman <ktpeil at outlook.com> schrieb am Fr., 14. Juni 2024,
00:44:

> *Dear friends,*
>
> While my official session may be over, I offer follow-up comments given
> your many thoughtful responses:
>
> *Francesco: *Thank you for sharing your hexagonal theory of value. I
> agree in that all six dimensions - The Good, The Beautiful, The Useful, The
> True, The Right & The Legal - unite in our embodied emotional sentience. I
> would also add “The Healthy” with its universal Yes~No logic that living
> systems experience as Pleasure~Pain. This addition underscores an important
> caveat to “The Legal”: That our diversity of socio-cultural constructions
> designed *to regulate one another - *the “Rule of Law” (from tribal
> mores, to local codes, to national and international laws) - cannot be
> legitimate or attain long-term success unless they remain tethered the
> universal *self-regulatory* logic of the body. Most religions do this by
> aligning virtue with the divine “fruits of spirit”, all of which flow
> naturally from cultivating thoughts and actions consonant with the complex
> positive emotions (Joy, Love, Faith, Peace, Gratitude, Patience,
> Self-control, etc). Where they go awry is in degrading of defiling “the
> self”, when mediating one’s functional identity is fundamental to how life
> works. (And of course, inventing false dichotomies such as Us~Them and
> Good~Evil.)
>
> *Pedro:* My addition above of The Healthy, gets at the pure pragmatics of
> biological function upon which we agree. But you extend this further still
> into my Tao Metaphor with your “distinction on the adjacent” – a lovely
> Kauffmanian twist that blends well with Bateson’s “difference that makes a
> difference”. To add the emotion science is to emphasize that “the
> difference” always concerns “me” – the self. Damasio shows this with the
> emotion mediating the “proto-self” awareness “via the feeling of what is
> happening” – to which I add “…to me”. This also honors Joesph LeDoux’s
> distinction between cognitive computations (thoughts) and affective
> computations (emotions - always about the self and leading to action). But
> it also takes us into the realm of Whitehead, and the transactions between
> Domains 0 and 1 that emerge as “actual occasions”. I mentioned earlier my
> graduate student that recently reworked Whitehead as an emotion theory.
> When your life evens out I hope to continue our conversations along these
> lines.  I’ve also been meaning to ask, in terms of complex and/or
> foundational algorithms, what do we think about Stephen Wolfram’s Principle
> of Computational Equivalence?
>
> *Karl: *You are definitely one of those Scarecrows that I will miss the
> most. (Although legitimate Wizard might be better still). Although each of
> your communications have been crisp, complete and precise, I’m still
> swirling confused in your foreign yet resonant Koans.  For example, you say
> “deviations of the properties of cycles 3,6 of *the reorder ab - ba* of
> Cohort 16”. In my over-simplicity, I hear the bit in bold to reflect the
> dual-identity state transitions between parts~wholes (we~me; me~we identity
> informational swaps) central to cyclic transformations between domains 0
> and 1 in my Tao story. The rest sounds like very specific and important
> aspects of the maths (and complex algorithms) involved in pattern formation
> in one or both realms that I’d like to learn, albeit unrealistic in this
> lifetime. But when you say a “formal deictic definition of the concept” I
> hear a definition of information that spans “time, space, and self” and
> we’re back in my territory. So please help me understand “deviations of
> properties of cycles”.  Might we find common language in complex networks
> and phase transitions?
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/phase-transition-phenomenon__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QjiDTz0QzOZZPQYpmNBJfUT84v76Xvbu-m3x2aTkKfoBo0cJrraTTT3xLTsOTOCt1Xo9NzS9s920kk_rur-rmUeSHOo$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/phase-transition-phenomenon__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VC9-xBaqhuNPdS7q41hhWR2xLwPt9Xsr1Zc1nnkeDeV7bH-e23zB4NjalhRAOt15uK7qHzuCohC7Ofz5DA$>.
>
>
> *ERIC:* You are reflecting some of my own ennui over the roadblock of
> formalizing subjectivity, as well as its saddling of economics and even
> moral psychology with an impoverished view of human value systems. But we
> can get there even when starting with the objective observables: The common
> physio-chemical mechanisms of sensory-motor control in simple living
> systems, the overtly appetitive or hedonic approach~avoidant behavior that
> results, the role of that same chemistry in cell signaling and all
> functional regulatory networks, and building learning, decision-making and
> prediction models based on neural networks. (This is the project of AI
> engineers hoping to build general intelligence, but now struggling with
> framing, contextuality and relevance problems.) But adding the subjective –
> evaluative - informational component within our emotional biology, with all
> that it implies (identity, agency, compatible free will, creativity,
> purpose) changes the game, opening conceptual doors for more further and
> deeper empirical investigations. I’ve offered my Tao story to address some
> of the deeper questions, but the missing self-regulatory  function  also
> bridges cleanly to huge swaths of literature in the social sciences.
> Indeed, there is a suite of universal human needs (mediated by both
> positive and negative emotions) that can better inform the notion of
> utility, usher progress in behavioral economics, and even offer a form of
> Purple Populism that can help transcend tribal political divisiveness. I
> have heard echoes of these directions in both yours and Joe’s approaches
> and would be happy to continue our discussions.  As for souls? I’ve
> described this work as the “new vitalism” because our emotional biology
>  serves as the mechanism the old vitalists suggested was missing –
> providing both the animation and guidance captured in terms like *spirit*
> or *soul*. But the take-home here is that any such additional identity
> construct is *fully embodied*. This is why I find it essential to put
> subjective experience back at the center of empirical science. Our
> embodiment allows us to experience events that remain unexplained but
> should never be denied. Thanks so much for all your inspiration and that
> fabulous cartoon. I will treasure it always.
>
> With fond affections all around,
>
> Kate Kauffman (Kung Fu Kate)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240614/427c9547/attachment.html>