<p dir="ltr">Pedro suggested that I send these comments to the whole group, so here they are</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: "Alex Hankey" <<a href="mailto:alexhankey@gmail.com">alexhankey@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: 29 Jun 2016 21:20<br>Subject: Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics?<br>To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <<a href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>><br>Cc: <br><br type="attribution"><p dir="ltr">Dear Pedro, </p>
<p dir="ltr">Your claim that information is SPECIES SPECIFIC is completely at variance with the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that I presented in my 3 week session that the minds of different animal species have used the same encoding of gestalt forms for the past 400 million years since the evolution of the amniotes.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Study of response of plants to human intentions has simlar implications related to Rupert Sheldrake's 'Sense of being stared at'. These WELL authenticated phenomena have hugely important implications for our understanding of information in Experience - the topic of my presentation. Best wishes, <br>
Alex Hankey</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 29 Jun 2016 4:24 pm, "Pedro C. Marijuan" <<a href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es" target="_blank">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Dear Marcus, Loet, Bob... and All,<br>
<br>
Again very briefly, your exchanges make clear the limits of the
received Shannonian approach and the (narrow?) corridors left for
advancement. I find this situation highly reminiscent of what
happened with Mechanics long ago: an excellent theory (but of
limited scope) was overstretched and used as a paradigm of what
All science should be... it contributed well to technology and to
some other natural science disciplines, but was far from useful
--nefarious?-- for humanities and for the future of psychological
and social science studies. <br>
<br>
The figure from Weaver in Loet's excellent posting leaves a few
aspects outside. The why, the what, the how long, the with whom,
and other aspects of the information phenomenon do not enter. By
doing that we have streamlined the phenomenon... and have left it
ready for applying a highly successful theory, in the
technological and in many other realms (linguistics, artif.
intelligence, neurodynamics, molec. networks, ecol. networks,
applied soc. metrics, etc). Pretty big and impressive, but is it
enough? Shouldn't we try to go beyond?<br>
<br>
I wonder whether a far wider "phenomenology of information" is
needed (reminding what Maxine argued months ago about the whole
contemplation of our own movement, or Plamen about the "war on
cancer"?). If that inquiry is successful we could find for
instance that:<br>
<br>
1. There are UNIVERSALS of information. Not only in the
transmission or in the encoding used, well captured by the present
theory, but also in the generation, in the "purpose", the
"meaning", the targeted subject/s, in the duration, the cost, the
value, the fitness or adaptive "intelligence", etc.<br>
<br>
2. Those UNIVERSALS are SPECIES' SPECIFIC.<br>
<br>
3. Those UNIVERSALS would be organized, wrapped, around an
ESSENTIAL CORE. It would consist in the tight ingraining of
self-production and communication (almost inseparable, and both
information based!). In the human special case, it is the whole
advancement of our own lives what propels us to engage in endless
communication --about the universals of our own species-- but with
the terrific advantage of an open-ended communication system,
language.<br>
<br>
4. Those UNIVERSALS would have been streamlined in very different
ways and taken as "principles" or starting points for a number of
disciplines--remembering the discussion about the four Great
Domains of Science. A renewed Information Science should nucleate
one of those domains. <br>
<br>
Best regards to all, <br>
(and particular greetings to the new parties joined for this
discussion)<br>
--Pedro<br>
<br>
<font size="+2"><br>
</font>El 27/06/2016 a las 12:43, Marcus Abundis escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>Dear Loet,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> I hoped to reply to your posts sooner as of all the
voices on FIS I often sense a general kinship with your views.
But I also confess I have difficulty in precisely grasping
your views – the reason for my delay.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>>[while Shannon’s] concept of information (uncertainty)
<</div>
<div>> is counter-intuitive. It enables us among other things
<</div>
<div>> to distinguish between "information" and "meaningful
<</div>
<div>> information". <</div>
<div>• Easily agreed; *how* to distinguish a presumed meaning
(or meaningless-ness) then becomes the remaining issue.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> Providing . . . meaning presumes the specification
<</div>
<div>> of a system of reference; for example, an
observer.< </div>
<div>• It is telling for me (in viewing our differences and
likenesses) that you suggest an observer. My “system of
relating“ accommodates but does not require an observer (okay
– observer, defined how?), as shown immediately below.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>>Different[ly] . . . expected information is
dimensionless<</div>
<div>> ("a priori"). <</div>
<div>• I suggest the act of “expectation“ already infers minimal
dimensions – for example, who/what/how is doing the expecting?
Thus, in my view, this is not truly a priori. A “readiness“ or
a compelling functional need innate to any “system of
relating“ has bearing. For example, a single Oxygen atom has a
compelling/innate need to react with other elements, just as
any agent is compelled to react to “nutrients.“ Both imply
dimensional expectations, no? (obviously – of different
orders/types).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> In my opinion, a "real theory of meaning" should
enable <</div>
<div>> us to specify/measure meaning as redundancy /
reduction <</div>
<div>> of uncertainty given . . . I took this further in . .
. <</div>
<div>> The Self-Organization of Meaning and the Reflexive . .
.<</div>
<div>• My weak grasp of the concepts in this paper leads me to
think you are actually modeling the “processing of meaning,“
related-to-but-distinct-from “generating meaning“ that I
target. I also vaguely recall(?) in an offline exchange I
asked you if you saw this paper as presenting a “theory of
meaning“ and you answered “No.“ </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>• In your later response to Pedro, I found your citation
matrix a interesting example of your thinking, but still too
“high-order“ for my reductive-but-meaningful aim. Your matrix
(for me) presents an essential complexity of high-order views,
but in itself it is too simple to detail *how* a citation is
*meaningfully used.* Still, an intriguing concept that might
be meaningfully expanded? Perhaps there are more useful
details in the additional papers you list, which I have not
had a chance to explore.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>• Your last post then reinforces my sense you are actually
exploring the processing of meaning, rather than the
generation of meaning. Diverse “systems of relating“ you name
seem to be “on point“ and </div>
<div>> can be considered as a semantic domain
(Maturana,1978)<</div>
<div>But I find this unsatisfying as exactly *what(s)* is being
related, and exactly *how* it is being related, does not seem
to be covered. It is in precisely naming those “whats“ and
“hows“ that true a priori models become possible. For example,
a *system of relating* between “a hominid and a rock“ affords
certain types of meaning, equally a *system of relating*
between “the same rock and an ant“ affords wholly different
types of meaning – all in regards to an identical (autonomous)
rock.</div>
<div>> the same information is delineated differently and
<</div>
<div>> considered from a different perspective <</div>
<div>arguing for essential subjectivity? This seems to point to
my use of delta O and delta S in the video.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>• I am unsure if we are in: radical agreement, radical
disagreement, or if we just name subtle differences. . . but I
thought I should at least attempt a reply to your posts and
see what ensues. </div>
<div>> In my opinion, the task is to specify mechanisms which
<</div>
<div>> generate redundancy <</div>
<div>This leads me to believe we essentially agree but focus on
different levels of operation and complexity. Any thoughts you
have to share are appreciated.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sincerely,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Marcus</div>
<table style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-size:14px;font-family:proxima-nova-1,proxima-nova-2,Tahoma,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;border-spacing:0px;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:18px" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">
<tr style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">
<td style="padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-size:0px;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;width:auto;height:30px"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">
<td style="padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;width:auto"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">
<td style="padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-size:0px;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;width:auto;height:20px"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre cols="72">--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
<a href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es" target="_blank">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/" target="_blank">http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</a>
-------------------------------------------------
</pre>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</div>