[Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning - [chaotic issues]

[Mark Johnson]

Dear Lou, Joe and Terry,

I want to add something about transduction from Stafford Beer because I
think it is highly germane both to the issue of boundaries, and to the
issue of energy and antagonism which I understand is so important to Joe.
Personally, I find the antagonisms (maybe between Joe and Lou, pro and anti
GSB, etc) on the list productive, but they are invitations to enter the
detail of the dispute - to coin another of Beer's phrases, it's about
getting "Beyond Dispute"

I've put a couple of scans of Beer's "Diagnosing the System for
Organisations" here: Improvisation Blog: Beer on Transduction
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com/2025/01/beer-on-transduction.html__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZxCUHLcMk$ >.
This is a practical book, full of diagrams for teaching managers about
cybernetics. It uses a similar "E-prime" style to LoF, presenting
instructions for taking simple steps (e.g. "NOW DO THIS..."). It is also
not only about management, but about viable organisation in general.

Transduction is one of the basic concepts Beer introduces - he says
"Whenever the information carried on a channel capable of distinguishing a
given variety crosses a boundary, it undergoes transduction; the variety of
the transducer must be at least equivalent to the variety of the channel.".
In order for this transduction to work, there must be attenuation and
amplification on the channel so as to ensure that the variety on the
channel equals the variety of the transducer.

My personal view on this is that attenuation is selection of signals to
those signals which "matter", while amplification is the generation of
redundancy in order to assist in the construction of a niche for the
transduction to take place (rather like in Ulanowicz, and Leydesdorff) -
think about a spider spinning a web... Without attenuation and
amplification, transduction can't work.

This detail about transduction is particularly interesting with regard to
the philosophy of information - particularly that of Gilbert Simondon,
whose work revolves around this concept. Simondon's work is related to that
of Stephane Lupasco - I don't know, Joe, if you know more about their
relationship, but as I understand it, both Lupasco and Simondon place
emphasis on energy flow and antagonism.

In Lou's work antagonism appears through exploring the full implications of
self-reference and LoF marks. I understand Joe's objection to the binary
aspect of this, but following Lou's thought through to the emergence of
3-dimensionality, quaternions, time, quantum mechanics, etc takes us to a
similar place where antagonistic forces co-exist simultaneously - between
figure and ground, idealism and realism, marked and unmarked, formal
systems and undecidability, etc. It can give rise to higher-order
organisation, particularly in the world of quaternions - see Peter Rowlands
work, which Lou mentioned earlier.

There is more that unites than divides - and that which divides is
productive.

It is curious that "transduction" today is almost always considered a
cell-biological term. But maybe that provides a clue as to the difference
(and the opportunity) between human organisation and biological cell
organisation. Cellular transduction is an empirical example of energy flow
in nature and viable organisation. Surely it must embrace antagonism and
higher-order emergence just as Joe says here: Linking the Tao, biomathics
and information through the logic of energy - ScienceDirect
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610717300792__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZx_poL088$ >. How
does it do it? And why can't we?

John Torday would say that it works through symbiogenesis - endogenising
the environment in one way or another. It's a position which at least has
the benefit of some empirical data. Coming back to LoF, the cell boundary
isn't just crossed so that what was unmarked becomes marked, but crossing
the boundary changes the transducers. Whether GSB's Law of Crossing {{}} =
applies here, I've never been convinced (I think a mapping to reality is
probably an epistemological error). But Lou shows how the axioms that {}{}
= {} , and {{}} =  do lead to a sophisticated dimensional mathematical
landscape which can be used in a practical way.  [NOTE: I made an
embarrassing error by getting the "laws" {} muddled above in an earlier
version of this message. I don't have a very binary brain unfortunately.
Then I thought - does it matter?! - that, it seems to me, is a more
interesting question, relating to this issue of antagonism...]

What I'm saying is that it isn't either/or, but both - I'd appreciate any
thoughts on this. How would our thinking and our discourse be different if
we operated on those principles?

Best wishes,

Mark

On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 19:40, Terrence W Deacon <deacon at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Dear Louis, Mark, and all,
>
>
>      I have remained a spectator in these last two threads of discussion,
> even though the nature of emotion is of particular interest to me from a
> neurophysiological perspective (and I think is largely misunderstood both
> philosophically and in the cognitive neurosciences).
>
>      I also have a particular fondness for GSB's *Laws of Form* and its
> semiotic and Gödelian implications (as should be evident from my book
> Incomplete Nature). I think that its depth and elegance has been
> under-appreciated, in part because of the hint of mysticism that GSB
> implies and because logicians often consider it a kind of knock-off of
> Scheffer's stroke (I remember as a grad student receiving a stinging rebuke
> from one of my heroes, WVO Quine, when I mentioned that I thought LoF was
> insightful - I still think he was wrong).
>
>      But because I am wary of getting drawn into discussions where my
> contrary views will lead to endless back and forth debates that are often
> animated by unacknowledged incompatible semantic uses of the same term (a
> problem with the term 'information' in particular), I will only contribute
> the following comment.
>
>
>      I regularly find the concept of "transduction" useful in my
> neuroscience research, to refer to the form-energy transfer processes
> between neurons. It is especially useful with respect to perception (where
> the concept is often applied). Below, I quote some etymological analyses of
> the term to illustrate its potential relevance, and to help us avoid
> semantic quibbles.
>
>
> — Terry
>
>
> *https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.etymonline.com/word/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZxkLs0Tvo$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.etymonline.com/word/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZxkLs0Tvo$ >*
>
> *transduction (n.)*
>
> "act of leading or carrying over," 1650s, from Latin *transductionem*/
> *traducionem* (nominative *transductio*) "a removal, transfer," noun of
> action from past-participle stem of *transducere*/*traducere* "change
> over, convert," …
>
>
> *https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZxx-w3yyc$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZxx-w3yyc$ >*
>
> *transduction (n.)*
>
>      (biology) The transfer of genetic material from one cell to another
> typically between bacterial cells, and typically via a bacteriophage or
> pilus.
>
> The process whereby a transducer converts energy from one form to another.
>
>      (physiology) The conversion of a stimulus from one form to another.
>
> (physics) The conversion of energy (especially light energy) into another
> form, especially in a biological process such as photosynthesis or in a
> transducer.
>
>      (logic) Particularly in the discipline of artificial intelligence, a
> form of inference, according to which the response appropriate to a
> particular known case, also is appropriate to another particular case
> diagnosed to be functionally identical. This contrasts with induction, in
> which general rules derived from past observations are applied to future
> cases as a class (compare also analogy).
>
>      (logic design) The improvement of an electronic logic network by
> reduction of redundant components in an initial version, using an
> established pruning procedure, then applying permissible functions for
> transformation of the network into a workable form. Thereafter the
> transformation and reduction may be repeated till no worthwhile further
> improvement results
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 12:08 AM Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Mark,
>> I looked up “transduction” and found:
>>
>> “Transduction is the process by which a virus transfers genetic material
>> from one bacterium to another. Viruses called bateriophages are able to
>> infect bacterial cells and use them as hosts to make more viruses.”
>>
>> Perhaps you have something else in mind.
>> Please elucidate what you mean by transduction.
>>
>> It is certainly the case that indication reaches a “viral” level in that
>> we can repeat indications and send them around.
>> Indication is how we infect one another with ideas of distinction and
>> indication. Transduction in this sense is a perfect
>> description of the human literary and academic process, not to speak of
>> our social and political processes (but I do speak of them). We also infect
>> ourselves by fundamental indicative recursion.
>> Heinz von Förster: “I am the observed relation between myself and
>> observing myself.”
>> But in that fundamental relationship of the self (and the other) there is
>> more than just the multiplying of viral indicators.
>> So, using transduction in this sense, I would say that it is describing a
>> level where only indication is recognized and the allowance and letting go
>> of indication, the movement toward unity, is ignored. Of course I am saying
>> here what cannot be said.
>> What cannot be said shows itself.
>> Best,
>> Lou
>>
>> Transduction is the process by which a virus transfers genetic material
>> from one bacterium to another. Viruses called bacteriophages are able to
>> infect bacterial cells and use them as hosts to make more viruses.
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2025, at 1:37 AM, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Lou - that's helpful.
>>
>> If I can push this a little bit further, I take the point about my wish
>> to say indication = transduction. Indeed that is what I'm saying.
>>
>> Taking "one cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction"
>> (with which I completely agree), I might say "a distinction is the result
>> of transduction" - at the very least our senses or consciousness. We cannot
>> not transduce. I think Simondon said something similar.
>>
>> Is it reasonable then to transpose the question "what is the structure of
>> an indication?" to "what is the structure of a transduction?" (and what
>> cannot be transduced.). This does open the door to the biologists and
>> experimentalists...
>>
>> What I find fascinating in your work, and what I want to understand if my
>> interpretation resonates with you at all, is that from the structures of
>> LoF you arrive at a 3-dimensional topology, Clifford algebra, etc - all of
>> which provides a powerful answer to the question "what is the structure of
>> an indication?".
>>
>> I want to stick my neck out and say that to conceive of this approach as
>> being about the structure of transduction is potentially more practical in
>> addressing some of what Jason and others point out. Am I mistaken?
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025, 00:05 Louis Kauffman, <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Mark,
>>> GSB’s diagrams are intended for “digital circuitry” (maybe
>>> transcendental digital circuitry!) and we use them that way with a possible
>>> assignment of a “time delay” across the mark. The “signal” that traverses
>>> the mark in the diagram undergoes a flip from value A to value <A> (cross
>>> A).
>>> In the usual interpretation we have only the values marked and unmarked
>>> happening at the lines in the diagrams. Already this is very rich. People
>>> including myself have used these diagrams more generally so that the mark
>>> is a black box, or a more general boundary and the signals running through
>>> are also more complex. At that point the diagram could actually be any
>>> directed graph with various interpretations for its parts. Stafford is
>>> advocating using directed graphs to indicate flow of information or goods
>>> or spirituality or … and all this is close to very general descriptions of
>>> the systems. Some people like to restrict to just Spencer-Brown type
>>> boundaries and indicate how boundaries are crossed between different
>>> sometimes nested domains. You will see this is in Dirk Baecker’s work.
>>> Diagrams can have many interpretations and one does not need to speak as
>>> though these interpretations are necessarily implicit in say Spencer-Brown
>>> from the beginning.
>>>
>>> I believe that the correct understanding is that what Spencer-Brown
>>> shows us, the structure that he shows us and that we can develop further if
>>> we wish, is inherent in any and all indicative domains. LoF is about the
>>> structure of indication. And it is obliquely therefore about what cannot be
>>> indicated. One cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction.
>>>
>>> But when you start asking questions in the form "In GSB transduction
>>> must happen "in the line" of the mark. In not specifying exactly what is
>>> going on there, is GSB saying that the transduction occurs in the observer?
>>> (and so doesn't need to be shown on the page?)” you are making a mistake of
>>> a peculiar kind. YOU are the one who wishes to make indications about
>>> transduction! If you find that it fits to be “on the line” fine do that. If
>>> you wish to understand the relationship with the observer, fine do that. It
>>> is ALL your responsibility and ALL your creation!
>>> Best,
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 23, 2025, at 12:30 PM, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Lou and Joe,
>>>
>>> It's interesting, Lou, that you raise Stafford Beer's diagrams, because
>>> these have an intimate connection to GSB (by virtue of the Beer's
>>> facilitation of LoF). Beer's tribute to GSB is in his archive in Liverpool
>>> - a children's story called "Kate gets a Bird" (example picture here - Improvisation
>>> Blog: Beer's Tribute to Laws of Form
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com/2025/01/beers-tribute-to-laws-of-form.html__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WRuR2-u4W5LHuc7pCqkoZ5hxc6RMwobVWfbAcmo-u0rMOaSoBcIgju1DxQ8NhsI8RJuOKYx8vhIokzhl$>
>>> ).
>>>
>>> What's different between Beer's diagrams and GSB is that Beer draws the
>>> transducers in his diagrams as lines between boxes, converting variety from
>>> one form to another. In GSM transduction is presumably the mechanism by
>>> which the unmarked becomes marked. For Beer, transduction always infers
>>> amplification and attenuation of variety. It's just that GSB doesn't show
>>> it.
>>>
>>> In GSB transduction must happen "in the line" of the mark. In not
>>> specifying exactly what is going on there, is GSB saying that the
>>> transduction occurs in the observer? (and so doesn't need to be shown on
>>> the page?)
>>>
>>> However, if we could zoom-in on a line/mark, we would probably encounter
>>> transducers within transducers within transducers - like Beer's diagrams.
>>> That, it seems to me, is a "moving picture". I'm not sure it's the kind of
>>> moving picture that Joe or Lupasco would approve of, but it is dynamic -
>>> particularly when taken together with the form of the mark itself.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 07:47, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>> I have already answered this in some other ways, but lets try again.
>>>>
>>>> Diagrams
>>>> (a) A diagram is not particularly static. It could be a movie or an
>>>> injunction to make a movie.
>>>> It could be a dance or a ritual, a temple or a war.
>>>>
>>>> That is how you might view the diagrams about topology of DNA
>>>> recombination.
>>>> And it is in that mode that diagrammatic work and the possibility of
>>>> creating a diagram from the “microword” by electron microscopy, led to the
>>>> understandings about
>>>> Knotted DNA and topological enzymes. These in turn have had an effect
>>>> at some medical levels since if your topo enzymes do not work, your cells
>>>> cannot divide and you die.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.excedr.com/resources/topoisomerase-overview*:*:text=In*20pharmaceuticals*2C*20topoisomerases*20are*20used,anticancer*20therapeutics*20other*20than*20chemotherapy__;I34lJSUlJSUlJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZxCGeFyA0$ 
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.excedr.com/resources/topoisomerase-overview*:*:text=In*20pharmaceuticals*2C*20topoisomerases*20are*20used,anticancer*20therapeutics*20other*20than*20chemotherapy__;I34lJSUlJSUlJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_ygvadEF65$>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> So here you have a real example of how diagrammatic topological
>>>> mathematics is closely allied with applications that can save lives.
>>>>
>>>> (b) For the design of quantum algorithms and all things quantum field
>>>> theoretic we use diagrams quite intensively.
>>>> The same is true for working out the reactions that lead to the bomb.
>>>> So diagrams can also be used to kill en masse, as can all of language.
>>>>
>>>> (c) Written language is a work of diagrams. Those little characters you
>>>> string together are stylized diagrams, rather static by themselves. And if
>>>> you live in China or Japan your
>>>> Language is an incredible pastiche of diagrams.
>>>>
>>>> (d) Actually all of mathematics is a pastiche of diagrams for all sorts
>>>> of conceptual and calculational purposes.
>>>>
>>>> (e) I refer you to C.S. Peirce for the role of diagrams and signs in
>>>> thought.
>>>>
>>>> (f) The greatest masters of diagrams in Cybernetics were Strafford Beer
>>>> and Humberto Maturana. Perhaps you see some value in their work.
>>>>
>>>> (f) The GUI that began with Mac and infiltrated PC is the
>>>> diagrams of finitely nested boxes
>>>> that are the basis of the distinctions and indications of LOF.
>>>> LOF is about distinctions and indications.
>>>> Its diagrams are just a particular representation of that.
>>>> Mac uses these diagrams and never had to pay any royalties to GSB.
>>>>
>>>> Religion
>>>> (g) The Heart Sutra explains clearly how to use the unmarked state
>>>> (emptiness) to solve all human problems.
>>>> That it has not been applied to this end is not the fault of either GSB
>>>> or the Buddha.
>>>>
>>>> (h) I am aware that no matter what I say,
>>>> someone will complain
>>>> about something
>>>> that comes up for them
>>>> when we get near to no-thing.
>>>> That is the nature of it.
>>>> Believe it or not,
>>>> I am not an advocate of the absolute binary distinction.
>>>> It is in contrast to what cannot be said.
>>>> See the quote below that fell into my email from Malcolm Dean.
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZxTPPXOzU$ 
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_yggIa9BkE$>
>>>>   GIF by Etienne Jacob
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bleuje.com/mp4set/2019/2019_25.mp4__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_ygkOzwPOE$>* used
>>>> to illustrate Bits forming an Information process.*
>>>>
>>>> "The *tentative and non-black-and-white nature of categorization* is
>>>> inevitable, and yet *the act of categorization often feels perfectly
>>>> definite and absolute* to the categorizer, since many of our most
>>>> familiar categories seem on first glance to have *precise and sharp
>>>> boundaries*, and this naïve impression is encouraged by the fact that
>>>> people’s everyday, run-of-the mill use of words is seldom questioned; in
>>>> fact, every *culture constantly, although tacitly, reinforces the
>>>> impression that words are simply automatic labels that come naturally to
>>>> mind and that belong intrinsically to things and entities*. If a
>>>> category has fringe members, they are made to seem extremely quirky and
>>>> unnatural, suggesting that nature is really *cut precisely at the
>>>> joints by the categories that we know*. The resulting illusory sense
>>>> of the *near-perfect certainty and clarity of categories* gives rise
>>>> to much confusion about categories and the mental processes that underlie
>>>> categorization. The idea that category membership always comes in shades of
>>>> gray rather than in just black and white *runs strongly against
>>>> ancient cultural conventions*and is therefore disorienting and even
>>>> disturbing; accordingly, it gets swept under the rug most of the time."
>>>>
>>>> (i) Oh, and what did you think Hofstader was about?
>>>> Did you think that he was bragging about the clarity and perfection of
>>>> logic?
>>>> He was telling you the story of how logic in the hands of human
>>>> understanding
>>>> slayed the Jabberwock of the completeness of formality.
>>>> Don’t worry. You are not the only one who did not listen.
>>>> We sell you fake word makers to do your job.
>>>> And in the year of our T, you can buy cryptocurrency, watches and
>>>> bibles  from your leader.
>>>>
>>>> *"It was one of those pictures
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_yglukToEj$> which
>>>> are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move."*
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 19, 2025, at 4:14 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <
>>>> gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>> I’m having some difficulty understanding the message conveyed through
>>>> the pictures you’ve shared.
>>>> For instance, the images representing EU countries depict flames coming
>>>> from burning cars.
>>>> However, Europe is vast and diverse, and such scenes can be found all
>>>> over the world.
>>>> It would be helpful if you could clarify your intention in plain
>>>> English, so I can better grasp the context and meaning behind.
>>>> Additionally, the last four pictures have no country labels and address
>>>> issues concerning humanity on a global scale.
>>>> Extraterrestrials I don’t know where to place conceptually.
>>>> Looking forward to your clarification.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Gordana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Jason Hu <jasonthegoodman at gmail.com>
>>>> *Date: *Sunday, 19 January 2025 at 19:11
>>>> *To: *Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se>
>>>> *Cc: *fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning -
>>>> [chaotic issues]
>>>>
>>>> Dear Gordana, these roughly illustrate what I meant for the question
>>>> you asked, maybe you're not aware of. I hope each of these images is clear
>>>> enough. If not, please let me know. Best - Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 9:43 AM Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <
>>>> gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You say: ”the chaotic social issues in the U.K. and the Europe”
>>>> I wonder which countries are you referring to with “the chaotic social
>>>> issues”?
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2266__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZxcjthmQg$ 
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2266__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RS9jkPrXovtaK9OrMobFA5d-EXulXksAnRW7oZifSq9nxdVB2X27XUh6Co48niXvyVseo1lew6BDerrJGfgXTFnKLUxXAA$>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Gordana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Jason Hu <
>>>> jasonthegoodman at gmail.com>
>>>> *Date: *Sunday, 19 January 2025 at 16:01
>>>> *To: *"joe.brenner at bluewin.ch" <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
>>>> *Cc: *"Pedro C. Marijuán" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>, Jerry Swatez <
>>>> swatez at mac.com>, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I second Joe strongly here, "*they are a possibly misleading way of
>>>> describing natural physical processes, including and especially cognition.*
>>>> *"*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I used to be a fan of Hofstadter's "Gedel, Escher, Bach" in my younger
>>>> years, but gradually started realizing that type of thoughts might be an
>>>> intellectual trap - an endless rabbit hole that leads to just
>>>> self-entertainment or self-glory but no useful actions, no tools for
>>>> handyman to do everyday work to benefit normal people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, *"**I have just written may not be completely correct (what is?)*
>>>> *" *so I welcome any of you to prove me wrong or even change my mind,
>>>> by offering some solid example of how GSB thinking has been beneficial to
>>>> solve/resolve/dissolve the huge conflicts going on in the Middle East, or
>>>> the deep divide among the Americans between Trump supporters and Trump
>>>> haters, or the chaotic social issues in the U.K. and the Europe. If no such
>>>> examples exist so far, at least point out to me how it could be, under what
>>>> conditions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards - Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 3:29 AM <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Lou and All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just some comments to explain my resistence to GSB and much of Lou's
>>>> otherwise essential work: the diagrams used do not nove; they are
>>>> "eternal". They accurately reflect *only epistemic self-reference* and
>>>> not recursion or  ontic hetero-reference. Therefore, they are a possibly
>>>> misleading way of describing natural physical processes, including and
>>>> especially cognition. Information applies to the content of the diagram
>>>> below, but the mental "movement" from figure to ground and back, and its
>>>> logic, is at a low level of complexity. Information more broadly. however,
>>>> is easily seen as a dynamic phenomenon, embodying and describing
>>>> *change.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I submit that what I have just written may not be completely correct
>>>> (what is?), but that it has received insufficient serious attention.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you and best wishes,
>>>> Joseph
>>>>
>>>> Le 19.01.2025 02:08 CET, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Karl,
>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Background.
>>>> Figure and Ground.
>>>> Yes.
>>>> And in starting with the idea of a distinction one needs to have an
>>>> unfettered notion of background.
>>>> That notion is emptiness.
>>>> The empty set is placed against a background of non-membership and it
>>>> has no members.
>>>>
>>>>        { }
>>>> The GSB mark is a relative of the empty set and stands for a
>>>> distinction and for that state obtained by crossing from emptiness
>>>> (the first distinction, if you will.)
>>>> <image002.png>
>>>> As soon as one fixes on a representation of a concept, that
>>>> representation has more properties, more inherent and indicated
>>>> distinctions, than the concept “itself”.
>>>> Thus the curly brackets of the representation of the empty set, { },
>>>>  are not necessary for the concept. And the right angle bracket is not
>>>> necessary for the mark.
>>>> We sometimes use < > for the mark as it is useful in typing, but
>>>> execrable as an icon since < > is two characters representing one
>>>> distinction. And so it goes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is in fact very powerful to understand the backgrounds that are
>>>> appropriate for discourse and keep them as minimal as possible.
>>>> In LOF, GSB uses the notational plane as a background, not the line.
>>>> This has some eplstemological advantages and some drawbacks.
>>>> After studying any indication set-up it is useful to examine what kind
>>>> of background is being used.
>>>> Mathematical advances and scientific advances have resulted from such
>>>> scrutiny.
>>>> At the level of the Heart Sutra the concept of emptiness can be the
>>>> basis for (everything).
>>>> Very best,
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 2025, at 3:55 PM, Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Remark: this is usually called BACKGROUND.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 18. Jän. 2025, 22:43:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Pedro,
>>>> It depends on how you look at it.
>>>> Consider the Heart Sutra.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In Mathematics, all forms are brought forth from emptiness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> { }
>>>> {{}}
>>>> {{},{{}}}
>>>> …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Emptiness can mean “that which is not (yet) articulated or indicated”.
>>>> At the bottom of what is indicated is what is not indicated.
>>>> What is not indicated is not marked.
>>>> Emptiness is a word for what is not marked.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very best,
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 2025, at 3:05 PM, Pedro C. Marijuán <
>>>> pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Lou and List,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to you (and Eric) for the thought-provoking exchange. Along it,
>>>> I was reminded of a maverick approach to distinctions I read long ago. It
>>>> was pointing to a set with N elements carrying multiple "signs" or "marks".
>>>> The distinctions between these elements carrying heterogeneous signs within
>>>> the set were expressed by means of partitions, actually multidimensional
>>>> partitions. Other related authors tried to systematically obtain and
>>>> compile those multidimensional partitions via a few 'logical' principles
>>>> (economy, parsimony, symmetry) applied to the pruning of redundant signs,
>>>> and subsequently the 'canonical' multid.partitions could be obtained
>>>> 'almost' algorithmically (at least for small N)... etc. etc. At least, in
>>>> my non-mathematical mind I could make some practical sense of this
>>>> distinctional stuff (in which I was interested regarding cellular signaling
>>>> systems and the way receptors combinations were occupied by different
>>>> signaling molecules).
>>>> I disagree with the closing statement (THE FORM WE TAKE TO EXIST ARISES
>>>> FROM FRAMING NOTHING), because it situates itself above the conditions of
>>>> any previous kind of existence. IMO it is a Barón of Münchhausen's type of
>>>> statement. Maths as I pointed days ago inherit the inner dynamics of our
>>>> sensorimotor transformations from which language developed. Maths, as it
>>>> has often been recognized, is a particular form of collective language. It
>>>> partakes of an enormous historical accumulation of thought-experimentation
>>>> and pruning, particularly trying to capture the transformations of the
>>>> external world. The implicit subject is always "us", the writer plus the
>>>> concerned learned community of 'practitioners' of that particular math
>>>> 'dialect'. And concerning distinctions, it obviously includes the
>>>> possibility of entering into the scheme of other subjects (as Eric points)
>>>> endowed with genuine distinctional capability--from living cells to...
>>>> Anyhow, in spite of the disagreement, your message was a great reading.
>>>> Thanks for those GSB quotations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Concerning Kate's recent emphasis on E. coli's two component system in
>>>> charge of motion control, the discoveries on prokaryotic signaling during
>>>> last two decades have left a richer panorama. For instance, E. coli counts
>>>> with about 100 one-component-systems (1CSs), 28 of the 2 CSs class, and
>>>> just two of the 3 CSs (actually one of them is the motion control). The
>>>> 1CSs are more simple and primitive (evolutionarily), and slower, with
>>>> respect to the faster, more specific, and more evolved 2CSs, which in their
>>>> turn are less complex and sophisticate than 3CSs, which are applied to the
>>>> treatment of very important signals than need a further layer of
>>>> intervening processes. It always depend on the whole advancement of the
>>>> cell cycle, or life history, which endowment the bacterium will contain...
>>>> Anyhow, the whole signaling panorama of 'primitive' cells is
>>>> fascinating--it is indeed the beginning of biological sensing &
>>>> communication.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By the way, Jason, thanks for that amazing report on the proton innards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greetings to all,
>>>> --Pedro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El 17/01/2025 a las 21:57, Louis Kauffman escribió:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Eric,
>>>> There is a confusion here that is quite natural.
>>>> LOF is a book of mathematics and philosophy. It discusses the idea of a
>>>> distinction.
>>>> When one takes a mathematical approach one attempts to begin with very
>>>> simple structures and
>>>> explore outward into complexity. LOF dwells on the possibility of one
>>>> distinction throughout the whole book.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “We take as given the idea of distinction and the idea of indication
>>>> and that one cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction.
>>>> We take therefore the form of distinction for the form.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As such LOF is not concerned with where or how the distinction is made.
>>>> In the same way, a mathematics book about number is not concerned with
>>>> particular representations of numbers.
>>>> Of course we have these concerns and we want to understand more and
>>>> more about numbers in general
>>>> and we feel that some representations will help and some ways to use
>>>> signs and symbols will help.
>>>> The same is the case with the idea of distinction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GSB does have his ontology (or lack thereof!).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some people are made a bit nervous by declarations that the world is
>>>> created from nothing.
>>>> But you can investigate this if you are not annoyed by it.
>>>> What could ’things’ be ‘made of’?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you’re bothered, then you are bothered.
>>>> Mathematics is similarly annoying
>>>> as we have systematically shown
>>>> how to build it all from nothing
>>>> but the act of collecting/distinguishing
>>>> and the act of creating signs and indications.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone has their niche of ideas and ways that they want to continue
>>>> to use.
>>>> In the approach of a big general idea, what we already “know" looks too
>>>> good be abandoned,
>>>> and so we keep demanding that the other talk in our language.
>>>> GSB created new language.
>>>> Wittgenstein pointed out the ontological consequences of the
>>>> limitations of language.
>>>> Both are very challenging.
>>>> Neither are making religions.
>>>> These are anti-religions.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> THE FORM WE TAKE TO EXIST ARISES FROM FRAMING NOTHING.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 17, 2025, at 6:19 AM, Eric Werner <eric.werner at oarf.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Lou,
>>>> To point 4. Yes, I admit it was sarcasm. To me a distinction requires a
>>>> subject. And that subject's neuro-hardware or firmware or software limits
>>>> the distinctions that that subject can make. For example, the distinctions
>>>> made by an ant, a frog, a cat or a human may be quite different.
>>>> I realize you are probably the world top expert on Spencer Brown so you
>>>> probably have a reply. But my instinct is that GSB is claiming too much by
>>>> using 'distinction' as an ONTOLOGICAL or metaphysical foundation for what
>>>> requires a subjective capacity. OK, this last sentence is not fully clear,
>>>> but I think GSB is confusing subject and being.
>>>> As for the sarcasm, it is a more personal emotional reaction having
>>>> little to do with you. Although you may unknowingly have had a role in the
>>>> matter through your publications.  I have friends who study early
>>>> Wittgenstein and GSB as if their texts were biblical texts. Going to the
>>>> library every day to read the Tractatus and LOF like a disciple doing his
>>>> or her religious studies.
>>>> At the onset of puberty and the ability to consciously reason, my
>>>> mother took each of us into the kitchen and taught us to be critical of the
>>>> bible, both the old and new testament. We were raised Christian but there
>>>> were also Jews in my mother's ancestry. Who knows why, but I have
>>>> maintained my religious skepticism and hence my perhaps inappropriate
>>>> reaction when I smell religiosity. Apologies dear Lou.
>>>> In spite of my critical attitude, I do believe there is more to the
>>>> universe. There may be a God or Gods and angels.  There may be life after
>>>> death. Life is always surprising. So, I am open to that.
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>> ----------
>>>> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
>>>>
>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>>>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n 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 est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>>>> baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>> ----------
>>>> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
>>>>
>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>>>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n 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 est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>>>> baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Mark William Johnson
>>> Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
>>> University of Manchester
>>>
>>> Department of Science Education
>>> University of Copenhagen
>>>
>>> Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
>>> University of Liverpool
>>> Phone: 07786 064505
>>> Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
>>> Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZxwCydAjs$ 
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WRuR2-u4W5LHuc7pCqkoZ5hxc6RMwobVWfbAcmo-u0rMOaSoBcIgju1DxQ8NhsI8RJuOKYx8viBacWGE$>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> ----------
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Professor Terrence W. DeaconUniversity of California, Berkeley*
>


-- 
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
University of Manchester

Department of Science Education
University of Copenhagen

Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
University of Liverpool
Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U2h-ZMdZs8V3XpQ9NB_ugahPuBamPVobinh2jJnyJVnfvF5sQlmTkhhrtwLFYcU2GWwxbqi0XTOBgsZxwCydAjs$ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250127/457bf843/attachment-0001.html>