<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Marcus and FIS Colleagues,<br>
<br>
You are right in your complaint. We have been saying very similar
things concerning information generation--and also in your
symbolic introduction of Darwin in your scheme concerning that
series of complementary questions. Sorry for being so brief but I
need some extra time to re-read your initial doc in this light and
the very cogent responses you have been producing, particularly to
Loet's points. In my first penny of next week I will comment on
those matters. Now I respond to other comments (which partially
dovetail with your themes).<br>
<br>
To Loet, fine, we think very differently. Rather than Althusser's
derogatory remark, I look at Schrodinger's disclaimer in his
famous "What is Life": <i>"...[necessaryly] some of us should
venture to embark on a synthesis of facts and
theories, albeit with second hand and incomplete knowledge of
some of them—and
at the risk of making fools of ourselves.” </i>Whether such
kind of synthetic approaches (performed by each new scientific
generation) can be successful or not today, is something that
neither you nor me can foretell. At the very least, the enormous
expansion of bio-info-comp disciplines in our times makes this
demand more necessary than ever. No "hidden program" in my
previous post but the open constatation that we have an excellent
opportunity today in order to delineate those potential
"universals" and "essential core" in an almost completely
describable living system--bacteria. At least the rudiments of
such approach appear in my team's work on Proyariotic Signaling
Systems and in "How the Living...". Anyhow, when I referred to
"principles" I was not meaning your interpretation as "origins"
but to the usual way practicing scientists work on them. For
instance, after more than 30 years of painful experimental,
microscopy work on nervous systems, Ramon y Cajal wrote his
formidable "Textura del Sistema Nervioso del Hombre y los
Vertebrados", considered as the foundational opus of modern
neurosceince. There he exposed the new "Doctrine of the Neuron",
based on a few revolutionary principles... Mutatis mutandis, it
might be an interesting case-model regarding the info science
renewal commented in the previous post. <br>
<br>
To Alex, I see the opposite. Making the "universals" species
specific means that you can communicate and share gestalts far
more easily within your own phylum or class, or order, than with
the far distant ones. So, other mammals can approximately "read"
your facial expressions and postural stance, and get your meaning,
while starfish or insects will not. Don't you think so?<br>
<br>
To Bob (offline comment), many thanks for the comprehension. I am
happy that from different angles we see in common some stumbling
blocks to win. Actually, one needs both kinds of criticisms,
positive and negative, in order to advance a little more in this
viscous terrain... but making constructive criticisms becomes a
more difficult task.<br>
<br>
Apologies if I have missed some other more brief comments. And
sorry Marcus if this was sort of a disruption, but I think that
your discussion topic invites quite a lot to transgress the
boundaries.<br>
<br>
Best--Pedro<font size="+2"><br>
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:ES;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"
lang="EN-GB"><br>
</span></font>
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<link rel="File-List"
href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CPCMARI%7E1.IAC%5CCONFIG%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-language:ES;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabla normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--><br>
El 29/06/2016 a las 17:31, Marcus Abundis escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACJqm9zUZORNOrP+fNLR_D7nNO_m4M12=wd4nWJS8NjxNWQMEQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Pedro, thank you for your excellent
post. </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Oddly, I have the feeling you think that
you and I differ, but I saw little to disagree with in
your note. As with Loet(?), I believe that *for now* I
simply focus on a different level.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">> the limits of the received Shannonian
approach and <</div>
<div dir="ltr">> the (narrow?) corridors left for
advancement . . highly <</div>
<div dir="ltr">> reminiscent of what happened with
Mechanics long ago . .<</div>
<div dir="ltr">• If I did not see those limits I could not
pursue this project. Still, it seems many do fail to see
the limits here; especially in computer science (or
*fill in the blank*). I suggested an origin for this
“iceberg“ in my post on Cultural Legacy. Terry Deacon
has also noted this odd “scientific failure“ – I say, so
glaring that it would be comic if it were not so tragic.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">• Re Mechanics, can you please point me to
a time frame for that session so I can see what the
archives hold?</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>far from useful --nefarious?-- for
humanities and for the<</div>
<div dir="ltr">> future of psychological and social
science studies. <</div>
<div dir="ltr">• This is a bit painful to read, when I
started the project I saw it as attempting a new
structural psychology (social and individual). My
thinking became more reductive (a priori) as I sought a
firm base for modeling. Videos are available on this
other "elevated" aspect (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://vimeo.com/evolv">vimeo.com/evolv</a>),
but they stray for the focus of *this* session.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">>The why, the what, the how long, the
with whom, and other<</div>
<div dir="ltr">> aspects of the information phenomenon
do not enter. <</div>
<div dir="ltr">• You name Loet’s post here, and I saw the
same issue – “processing meaning” versus “generating
meaning.” But then my model synthesizes Shannon,
Bateson, and Darwin; at the least Darwin targets why,
what, how long, whom, etc. While this note of mine heads
into “advanced material“ (papers #3, #4), I ask “How
does my model fail to *minimally* frame these facets?“</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">> Pretty big and impressive, but is it
enough? Shouldn't <</div>
<div dir="ltr">> we try to go beyond? . . a far wider
"phenomenology of <</div>
<div dir="ltr">> information" is needed <</div>
<div dir="ltr">• This is clear, but “exclaiming the need“
does not “answer the need“; a reason to explore specific
models (and the reason for this session, no?). At the
least I thought paper #3 on Selection Dynamics might
intrigue your biological interests.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">> 1. There are UNIVERSALS of
information. Not only in . . <</div>
<div dir="ltr">• Named in items 1 and 2 of the
introductory text, and reiterated in J Brenner’s post as
“order and disorder” – I would merely add dynamic
interactions between them. Still, you also point to “the
duration, the cost, the value, the fitness or adaptive
"intelligence", etc.“ This evokes the entire body of the
offered material.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">> 2. Those UNIVERSALS are SPECIES'
SPECIFIC.<</div>
<div dir="ltr">• Assuredly, named in item 5 of the
introductory text.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">> 3. Those UNIVERSALS would be
organized, wrapped, around < </div>
<div dir="ltr">> an ESSENTIAL CORE . . . <</div>
<div dir="ltr">• This is hard to miss as needed, I label
the model “natural (core) informatics.”</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">> universals of our own species [or
human universals] — <</div>
<div dir="ltr">> but with the terrific advantage of an
open-ended <</div>
<div dir="ltr">> communication system, language.<</div>
<div dir="ltr">• Agree, now pointing to cultural
anthropology, and fond/early study of mine . . .</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">> 4. Those UNIVERSALS [are] streamlined
in very different <</div>
<div dir="ltr">> ways as "principles" [in diverse]
disciplines [re] four <</div>
<div dir="ltr">> Great Domains Science. A renewed
Information Science <</div>
<div dir="ltr">> should nucleate one[?!] of those
domains.<</div>
<div>• Here, we might explore what exactly "science" *is*
and *is not.* Science supposedly reinvents itself, but
what is the *creative narrative* that drives this. How
does intuition/inference/etc. all arise . . . the ugly
secret being that "it is all psycho-logical," or even
worse "sub-conscious," no? – not sure how far "down that
rabbit hole" we want to chase.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>• Also, "nucleate" as in "a priori", no? How do we
disagree . . . I am having trouble seeing it. But "one
domain," this surprises me a bit . . . you must have
more to say about just *one* rather than *all* domains
(other than the project quickly becomes absurdly
unwieldy).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As usual, I appreciate your fine synthetic thinking,
and admittedly there is much complexity that is n to
targeted in this session . . . but *my* aim is to find a
firm foundation, and to then proceed from there.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for your thoughts!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Marcus</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/">http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</a>
-------------------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>