Re: Conscious Layer Speculations

At 11:56 AM 10/13/98 -0100, you wrote:
>Fisers--
>
>For some reason, the "virtual conference" has not taken off in this
>session. Let me try to jump-start the traffic by extending my introductory
>message with some provocative speculations.
>
>You'll recall that we supposed that there are two kinds of information,
>Info (1) which is the ordinary kind, but which I wish in the present
>context to limit to kinds of abstractions and messages that support (the
>mechanics of) a science and Info(2) the impetus to organize. I submit that
>they are different and the challenge is to have them merge, which is more
>likely possible in the social layer.
>
>Here are the speculations:
>
>1. Existence of info(2) posits a requirement (not just a tendency) for
>organization. That organization is always increasing.
>
>2. When a system exceeds a certain complexity, it creates new abstractions
>within which it can work. Thus, for instance, molecules "grow" into cells.
>The laws of these "vertical" layers are wholly determined by the
>abstractions of their generators.
>
>[The combination of these two would seem to imply that the existence of
>elementary particles in our universe mandates the existence of life.]
>
>3. The laws which codify these new abstraction spaces (and ideally the
>mechanism which defines them) will be the most basic discoverable laws.
>This is to say that the mapping between info(1) and (2) will be not in
>terms of information per se, but the definition of the abstraction spaces
>which define information. Since Category Theory is the mathematics of
>abstraction, it may provide some useful formal techniques.
>
>4. The abstractions that define consciousness are what merges info(1) and
>(2), or more precisely: that layer is where info(1) emerges from (2). That
>is why this layer is of particular attention.
>
>5. Almost certainly, the primitives of interest, the abstractions we noted,
>bear no intuitive relationship to the apparent units of "horizontal"
>organization. Values, Ethics and Morals might be useful as an
>information-based organizational principle at the social layer, or peptide
>bonds at the biochemical layer (and so onŠ). The real challenge to my mind
>is to find the underlying abstract principles that:
>
>a. drive the various, useful horizontal mechanisms
>
>b. create new abstraction spaces at vertical boundaries, and (most
>important for FIS)
>
>c. in particular at one boundary, define info(1) and thus science.
>
>6. Quite possibly, the layers are not single-threaded. For instance, the
>biological layer might build several types of "societies" or other higher
>order organizations.
>
>7. Also possibly, the layers are circular, so that the info(1), science, as
>a higher level creates a "law" space where universal laws are sustained,
>feeding the physics layer.
>
>8. The abstract primitives are symmetry-based and geometric in the sense
>that general relativity and the standard model are, and opposed to quantum
>mechanics, modal logics and probability.
>
>That should be controversial enough to spark a dialog. These are not firmly
>held ideas, but speculations thrown out for discussion. Everything depends
>on the consciousness of the "top" layer which we are discussing.
>
>Best, Ted
>
>_____________
>Ted Goranson
>Sirius-Beta, Virginia Beach USA
>757/426-6704, fax 757/721-0781
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 15 04:51:05 1998