[Fis] Bill Miller's contribution: the "It" of a machine, truth and trust

[JOHN TORDAY]

Hi Joe , I would like to reply in [brackets] to your thoughtful email
regarding the role of gravity in science and philosophy....

I wish to apologize for not having recognized previously my failure to see
and express the fundamental role played by gravity in science and
philosophy as you have now expressed it. Please let me expand a little
(like the universe, at this point) by calling attention to the fact that
the force of gravity, or gravitational field,  is inhomogeneous. We also
exist by capitalizing (storing) the potential energy available from the
differences in the strength of the field between two space-time points. We
drink by catching part of a waterfall, converting gravitational energy from
actual to potential in our cupped hands.

*[I have implicated the force of gravity in the initiation of life, as have
Claassen and Spooner, who showed that the protocellular micelle is also
contingent on the force of gravity. Importantly, the force of gravity also
shows up during the water-land transition some 500 mya when boney fish
emerged from water onto land due to a greenhouse effect (Romer), increasing
the effective force of gravity on land vs in water....the swim bladder of
fish morphing into the lung, but I think it was the force of gravity on the
skeleton that was the first in a series of adaptations (on 5 separate
occasions) that started the serial effect of gravity on land vertebrates
(See Clack, 2012). My point is that the force of gravity exemplifies Gould
and Vrba's 'exapatations' principle, or pre-adaptations, which comport with
the Fibonacci sequence as the mathematical foundation for all of this, the
future adaptation being predicted by the previous two factors, like
gravity + swim bladder= lung]*

However, to explain the further development of phenomena to the point at
which one can start to talk about information requiires an additional
fundamental principle, the Lupasco principle of Dynamic Opposition: all
systems move from states constituted by more potential and less actual
energy - gravitational, electromagnetic, electrostatic - to the reverse,
reciprocally and sinusoidally, without ever returning to exactly the point
of origin. (Machines are also subject to this principle, but at short time
scales it can be ignored to all intents and purposes - just a little wear
at a microscopic level).

*[With all due respect, I don't think the principle factor for evolution is
'information', I think it's energy flows, the latter being consistent with
homeostatic control of the cell. When differentiated cells are deprived of
the force of gravity (= energy) they lose their phenotypes.....no
information can have that same effect. I am of the opinon that the
mathematics of the Cosmos (Plato) was co-opted by organisms due to the
Symbiogenic mechanism, assimilating factors in the environment to maintain
homeostatic balance....including their mathematics. This provides a common
denominator for the mathematics of the Cosmos and that of the organism in
order for the latter to situate itself in its lowest energy state vis a vis
its environment....Darwinists describe this a 'Natural Selection' and
'Fitness', but I'm providing a mechanistic explanation.]*

I thus am forced to a position that information is not more (but also not
less) than the epistemic descriptions of those states. However our
knowledge of these states as information is also not static. It is an ontic
process of knowing which is itself subject to movement between actual and
potential, becoming causally effective when transduced to muscle cells,
*etc*. Other cognitive examples of the operation of this principle are our
changing *views* of part and whole, or figure and ground.

*[I am of the opinion that energy is common to both ontology and
epistemology in the form of the cell, responding to change in its
environment due to the ever-expanding Cosmos. In embryology we tend to
focus on the change in form from zygote to two cells, four cells, etc,
until the offspring comes forth, its physiology carrying on the energy flow
until we die....the embryologic process, for example, is a series of high
energy phosphate exchanges, sparked by a 'zinc burst' of energy when the
sperm fertilizes the egg.]*

Please let me know if you see any merit in this proposed synthesis of our
ideas.

*[Not really if you follow what I am saying above, with all due respect. We
have placed far too much emphasis on the material, by and large ignoring
the energy flows, which form the basis of Alfred North Whitehead's "Process
Philosophy" and LL Whyte's 'Unified Field Theory', though neither had the
science to substantiate their work....but now we have it]*

Best, John

John S. Torday
Professor of Pediatrics
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Evolutionary Medicine
UCLA

*Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts*


On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 8:17 AM <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch> wrote:

> Dear John,
>
> I wish to apologize for not having recognized previously my failure to see
> and express the fundamental role played by gravity in science and
> philosophy as you have now expressed it. Please let me expand a little
> (like the universe, at this point) by calling attention to the fact that
> the force of gravity, or gravitational field,  is inhomogeneous. We also
> exist by capitalizing (storing) the potential energy available from the
> differences in the strength of the field between two space-time points. We
> drink by catching part of a waterfall, converting gravitational energy from
> actual to potential in our cupped hands.
>
> However, to explain the further development of phenomena to the point at
> which one can start to talk about information requiires an additional
> fundamental principle, the Lupasco principle of Dynamic Opposition: all
> systems move from states constituted by more potential and less actual
> energy - gravitational, electromagnetic, electrostatic - to the reverse,
> reciprocally and sinusoidally, without ever returning to exactly the point
> of origin. (Machines are also subject to this principle, but at short time
> scales it can be ignored to all intents and purposes - just a little wear
> at a microscopic level).
>
> I thus am forced to a position that information is not more (but also not
> less) than the epistemic descriptions of those states. However our
> knowledge of these states as information is also not static. It is an ontic
> process of knowing which is itself subject to movement between actual and
> potential, becoming causally effective when transduced to muscle cells,
> *etc*. Other cognitive examples of the operation of this principle are
> our changing *views* of part and whole, or figure and ground.
>
> Please let me know if you see any merit in this proposed synthesis of our
> ideas.
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
> Joe
>
> Le 18.05.2025 11:48 CEST, JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu> a écrit :
>
>
> To Mark, Mike, Bill, Joe, Tom, fis,
> I wanted to remark on the heels of the comments by Mark, Joe, Tom
> regarding machines vs organisms, that simply put, organisms are 'holisms'
> that are greater than the sums of their parts, machines are just the sums
> of their parts, without something 'greater than' themselves. In my opinion,
> the 'greater than' is the consequence of the force of gravity that caused
> the transition from non-life to life in the first place (Torday JS.
> Parathyroid hormone-related protein is a gravisensor in lung and bone cell
> biology. Adv Space Res. 2003;32(8):1569-76). I would like to point out that
> that experiment and that of others showed that it is the energy of gravity
> that is necessary for evolution, not information, with all due respect.
> There is no singular piece of information that one could deprive the cell
> by doing a so-called 'knockout' experiment that would have the same
> fundamental effect. And as for ontology and epistemology, I am of the
> opinion that to identify the fundamental nature of life, both of them must
> be accounted for by the same mechanism, as in the case of the effect of
> gravity, causing the protocell to react as an 'equal and opposite reaction'
> (Newton's Third Law of Motion). Subsequently, life is constituted by serial
> homeostatic control of energy by the organism, facilitated by
> Symbiogenesis, Lynn Sagan's explanation that, for example, bacteria were
> assimilated by archaea to form eukaryotes in order to maintain homeostatic
> balance in an ever-changing environment due to an expanding Cosmos.
>
> Best, John
>
>
> John S. Torday
> Professor of Pediatrics
> Obstetrics and Gynecology
> Evolutionary Medicine
> UCLA
>
> *Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts*
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 5:25 PM Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Bill, Mike and John
>
> First of all thank you to Bill and Mike for continuing the very
> stimulating discussion that began in the video call a few weeks ago.
>
> There are, as is often the case on FIS, a number of ontological assertions
> flying around which make navigating this space rather difficult. Mike does
> his best to address this head-on in his identification of two fundamental
> problems: "First, the belief that we can objectively and uniquely nail down
> what something is. And second, that our formal models of life, computers or
> materials tell the entire story of their capabilities and limitations."
>
> Channelling Warren McCulloch, and perhaps in response to those who ask
> "what is a machine?", I would like to ask "What is a machine that we might
> know it, and what are we that we might know a machine?"
>
> What follows from the formulation such a question (whether you ask about
> number, distinction, etc), is that any determination of "what a machine is"
> - the "it" of a machine - is both contingent and necessary. It is
> contingent because it must depend on the determination by the observer
> (Maturana). It is necessary because without any determination of what a
> machine is, we would have no machines, no science, no institutions, no
> coordination - the world would not be like the world we experience.
>
> Our arguments about ontology are an expression of the contingency of
> definition. The fact that we keep on going at it is indicative of the
> necessity of definition. We perhaps should be mindful that alongside
> contingency, is paraconsistency in definition: it is not x OR y,
> information OR energy. It is probably x AND y.
>
> This gives rise to something that doesn't often come up on this list,
> which I have been reflecting on, which is dialectic. If you take necessity
> and contingency together, you get a dialectical process. This is political.
> I know (I'm sure he won't mind me saying this) that behind John's
> passionate emphasis on energy is a personal story about the pathology of
> humankind, and a fear that misapprehending the underlying mechanism of
> evolutionary development will lead to the kind of terrible consequences we
> saw in the middle of the last century. Personally, I very swayed by his
> arguments - they run very deep.
>
> Indeed, behind much of the anxiety of AI are political feelings, which are
> not properly inspected. As scientists, we are often rather too buttoned-up,
> pretending this is all completely rational. Well, we know it isn't. There
> are feasible dystopias and infeasible dystopias, and equally infeasible
> utopias.
>
> The politics comes from the dialectics which comes from the contingency
> and necessity of definition of what a machine is. This is not to say that
> there cannot be coordinated stability through science. But it fundamentally
> requires trust and humility, and acceptance of contingency and
> paraconsistency. As Von Foerster pointed out many years ago, the word
> "truth" has the same root as the word "trust" (see
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/Mc6YFUoPWSI?feature=shared__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UgUtz3hqJvbQUlole1xafBjLC1QkPtU4gdyDCpKOo9xVo2d180H2aMF7mmlGxUce4gVh2UYknXY_cWoR1Do$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/Mc6YFUoPWSI?feature=shared__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Wsl84qM48TWmEsBlAC9YhD2IHxjMVlFr6erxin6en2yFgbYBGQlM8a5NGAk5ong88K_SAvMIBduo89SVofc$>)
>
>
> Trust appears to be some kind of physiological process. Do machines help
> us to trust each other? Well, what do you think? You're in a machine right
> now. Do you trust me? If this wasn't email, what might we do to engender
> trust between us better? Could a machine help? How?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 22:02, JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Pedro, Bill and fis,with all due respect,  I have attached my replies
> to Bill's *Information in a cellular framework – abstract for discussion*
> *William B. Miller, Jr.*
>
> John S. Torday
> Professor of Pediatrics
> Obstetrics and Gynecology
> Evolutionary Medicine
> UCLA
>
> *Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts*
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu>
> Date: Wed, May 14, 2025 at 4:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Bill Miller's contribution
> To: Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
>
>
> Dear Pedro and Bill and fis, I have attached my responses to Bill's
> "Information in a Cellular Framework".....
>
> John S. Torday
> Professor of Pediatrics
> Obstetrics and Gynecology
> Evolutionary Medicine
> UCLA
>
> *Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts*
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 3:45 PM Pedro C. Marijuán <
> pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Given the archive difficulties with attached files, systematically
> scrubbed by the server, I am posting Bill's text as a regular message
> (today I finally could do that!).
> It is an angle pretty different from the mechanism/non mechanism
> one...      Regards --Pedro
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *Information in a cellular framework – abstract for discussion William B.
> Miller, Jr.*
>
> A long-standing presumption among many physicists and mathematicians is
> that biology is a descriptive endeavor and any deep understanding of the
> living frame must issue from their more rigorous disciplines. Nonetheless,
> neither physics nor mathematics has explained the non-equilibrium living
> state in which intelligent self-referential cells deploy problem-solving
> competencies to sustain themselves across living scales. Consequently, some
> scientists argue that the reverse may be correct: biology might
> productively
> inform physics and mathematics, offering insights into how natural laws
> might extend beyond known physical and mathematical principles.
> In the same spirit, examining the specific attributes of biological
> information processing and living information management as specifically
> exemplified by cells might provide a productive further thrust to the
> fundamental action-logic of those theoretical information systems
> formulated
> by visionary information theorists.
>
> To stimulate that initiative, it is proposed that information theorists
> might
> direct their attention to the specific informational characteristics of
> intelligent,
> measuring cells, which represent the basal strata of our living planetary
> system.
>
> Several specific attributes of biological information have been
> empirically verified at the cellular level, thereby defining the
> informational
> conditions of our living system:
>
> --All cells are cognitive, problem-solving agents.
>
> --Their living context is the ambiguity of information.
>
> --The uncertain validity of environmental stimuli governs the cellular
> reception, analysis, and deployment of all cellular resources.
>
> --Imperfect information requires cells to internally measure their
> received information.
>
> --Accordingly, all cellular information is a product of infoautopoiesis,
> entailing that all the information that any cell has about its external
> environment is exclusive, self-referential, and self-produced.
>
> --Cellular infoautopiesis drives an obligatory and little appreciated
> derivative: each cell, and then we as cellular beings, create our
> exclusive self-referential representations of reality and act upon that
> self-generated purview.
>
> --Obliged informational uncertainties stimulate the collective cellular
> analysis of self-generated cellular information, driving ubiquitous
> planetary multicellularity as a cellular expression of the familiar
> 'wisdom of crowds'.
>
> --Cellular information processing directs toward narrowing distinctions
> on the adjacents to diminish their obligatory uncertainty gap, yielding
> the effective minimization of surprisal in conformity with the Free
> Energy Principle.
>
> --Every cell does work to sustain its self-directed state of homeorhetic
> preferential flux.
>
> --Narrowing the distinctions on the adjacents as the effective
> minimization of surprisal enables cellular predictions and
> anticipations.
>
> --Self-referential cellular states of homeorhetic preference drive
> multicellular eukaryotic macroorganic behaviors and emotions.
>
> *SOME BASIC QUESTIONS (for the discussion)*
>
> Information in the living frame has been commonly defined according to
> Bateson’s familiar definition as a 'difference that makes a difference over
> time.' How might that definition explain internal self reference that
> governs
> our lives, enabling living information management? Might other definitions
> serve better?
>
> How can previously formulated information theories illuminate the cellular
> living process within its obligatory context of informational ambiguity?
> How do current information theories explain the presence of inference,
> prediction, and anticipation.
>
> Why do these informational cues, which must first manifest at the level of
> cells as exclusive states of self-referential homeorhetic preference,
> exert in
> multicellularity as nuanced multicellular behaviors and emotions?
> Recent research confirms the remarkable competencies of diverse
> intelligences across living scales. How might applying information systems
> theory contribute to our debate about any categorical distinctions between
> the
> living frame and the abiotic realm? If a fluid continuum is asserted, how
> might that be rationalized?
>
> Is our understanding of biological systems improved by asserting an
> immaterial Platonic informational platform permitting cells to interrogate
> a
> constrained portion of universal informational space-time (? phase space
> partition) as part of a universal informational fabric?
>
> Given the extraordinary competencies of current AI systems and projected
> future abilities, how might information theory inform constructive
> responses
> to inevitable social, economic, and cultural pressures?
> What should govern our ethical responses to the still-developing organic
> constructs
>  which will include synthetic combinations of digital competencies and
> living cells?
> If 'consciousness' is determined to be a litmus of our ethical stance
> toward
> other living entities, what practical informational threshold exists, if
> any?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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 
> ----------
>
>
>
> --
> 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!UgUtz3hqJvbQUlole1xafBjLC1QkPtU4gdyDCpKOo9xVo2d180H2aMF7mmlGxUce4gVh2UYknXY_CCR_Ekc$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Wsl84qM48TWmEsBlAC9YhD2IHxjMVlFr6erxin6en2yFgbYBGQlM8a5NGAk5ong88K_SAvMIBduo1JSG9f0$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20250518/9aa21cda/attachment-0001.html>