Re: Entering the Observer

Dear Cristophe and colleagues,

Sorry but I could not answer your really interesting message 29/5/02 --it
was too hot the fis weather. Now, more quietly, here there are some points
about your comments.
 
>Your theme "entering the observer" addresses several interesting
>items, among them the horizon of observers and the risk of
>reductionism that the observer introduces in info sciences. Let me
>try to join these two points vs the degree of complexity addressed.
>I agree with you that the horizon of observers is wide: from cells
>to firms, including insects (swarm intelligence) and humans. And
>perhaps the spectrum could be widened even more with your other
>theme "molecular recognition" (assuming we can consider
>molecule as an observer. Would you ?).

-- There should be some minimal conditions for 'observers', in my opinion.
At least, they should be able to 'categorize' the received info and have ad
hoc knowledge and internal representations, conducing to effective action
(of adaptive nature). Their material stuff has to be very especial to allow
these capabilities (for instance, a living cell, with an intact genome and
protein sysnthesis-degradation looks capable, also a brain, or a firm...).
Conversely, an isolated molecule has only 'conformations', is not adaptive,
has no representations, etc. This rules even for the most complex enzymes
or proteins, or for a piece of DNA. Once they have been extracted from the
organization of the living cell, they leave the realm of the informational
and enter into the '3 mechanics' provinces: classical, statistical,
quantum, and associated disciplines.

>Now, regarding the risk of reductionist approaches to info entering
>the game, I also agree with you about the reality of that risk,
>especially when pointing at the notion of meaning. But with so wide
>an horizon of covered items, I feel the risk can be managed. And
>one can estimate that there is place for several different models of
>observers, so avoiding being taxed of reductionism. The question
>will then be about the coverages of the proposed models and about
>the completeness of used hypothesis.
>For cells or insects, I believe we can look at them as
>"living machines" and find some ways to modelize them as
>observers with little risk of reductionism.

-- I agree with you except in the closing sentence (for me, 'living
machines' is but an oxymoron: in my paper there is a strong rebuttal of a
famous similar quotation, by Shannon, echoed by Gell-Mann). The problem
with reductionism is not that it is a priori wrong (quite much good science
is reductionist) but that it lacks an appropiate balance in the form of
'integrative' or 'integrationist' science. Unfortunately, making good
integrative science is far more difficult than its counterpart, if only
because of its multidisciplinary demands. The problems to advance such type
of science become really worsened when an official ideology declares the
absence of such integration problem, the exclusivity of the downwards
causation, and the futility of any balancing efforts. Information is then
automatically lost. (At least, in the sense I deffend, as communication
intertwined within an 'evanescent permanence', that can only be appreciated
looking at the 'whole' dance of structural elements). In simpler biological
terms it is the dismissal of synthetical physiology for the sake of
molecular biology analytical tools.

>When we reach the level humans (sorry for the gap...), then
>comes for sure a risk of reductionism: modelization of human
>as observer is not possible today. I mean globally. Our
>ignorance about the nature of human brings us to address
>only limited and very partial possible models. This because we
>do not understand the nature of reflected consciousness, of
>emotions, of free will, and so. Philosophy, neurosciences,
>psychology, cognisciences and others are still turning around
>these subjects, looking for a way in. The "hard problem"...

-- I absolutely agree.

>But coming back to the level of insects, a simple modelization can
>do it. Like the one proposed for a "meaning generator system"
>(Information and Meaning. FIS 2002). For instance, pheromone
>smell can be looked at as a signal creating a meaningful
>information in an ant. The meaningful information being
>"pheromone smell has some positive link with vital constraints to
>be satisfied, so trail is to be followed".

-- Your paper is quite intriguing, and I believe it points out a fertile
direction ofpragmatic bioinfo modelling. My ad hoc suggestion: why you do
not try to apply it to the 'two component system' that controls cellular
motility and many other functions in prokaryots? Besides, if you have a
glance into my cellular scheme (FIS2002) you may find a few further
categories to consider in relation to the contents of your model (in
Lahoz-Beltra FIS 2002 too). Perhaps the future discussion of these two
papers together in the same batch would be interesting.

>Now, observer/meaning at the level of human or firms address
>degrees of complexity that have little to do with insects. Other
>models are needed, � priori. But it is interesting (and risky
>reductionism wise) to investigate a possible usage of previous
>model by transfering the complexity increase to the constraints
>of the meaning generator system. More precisely, by trying to
>imagine how some new constraints to be satisfied came up during
>the course of evolution. This approach is to be looked as an
>hypothesis to be validated (not validated as of today).

 -- Your use of the 'constraints' is wise. I was using the term
'principles' for such theoretical constructs that are directly related to a
functional optimization (your 'to stay alive' is for me 'keep your fitness
intact'). These principles are enigmatic entities, bridging different
functional levels, and endowed with a profund asymmetry (remember Ted's
posting). How do they work?, and how do they interrelate? Well, it depends
on the direction we look at them. The progressive addition of constraints
upon living cells is a necessary condition for the emergence of further
complexity, for they unify and simplify organismic functions... but I have
no idea on how this can be expressed formally (beyond trite systems of
equations). It is a fundamental question of the biological 'integration'
problem. Maybe we could find inspiration in the engineering design of
complex systems (Kauffman's Boolean views seem interesting, but really?).

>And there may come in also some form of the Schumpeter
>"creative destruction" you propose to introduce. A constraint
>could be satisfied only at the expense of a new (cheaper)
>constraint, coming in as more acceptable for the system
>(group survival vs individual survival, pleasure/reality and
>Freudian repressions, ...).

-- I believe you are right about that. Although I was introducing
Schumpeter "creative destruction" as a case example of the structural
flexibility (and continuous self-production/self degradation) in which all
natural observers are immersed--otherwise there is no informational
properties emerging. As you imply, new constraints and principles, to be
added, have to be adaptive, somehow contributing to a competitive advantage
(fitness, behavioral efficiency, economic benefit) and so to perform the
funtions cheaper.
  
>Many are the Foundations of Information Science...

Indeed! This modest e-conf., in spite of all its problems and limitations,
is converging upon several 'islands' of relevance for future work of the
natural, computer and social scientists involved in this Foundations
enterprise: info & physics, partitions vs symmetry, molecular recognition,
bioinformation ('computational') principles, abstract underpinning of firms
and social info... The philosophical and semiotic interpretations are a
good company for science, no doubt about that, but very rarely do
contribute to advance it.

best greetings to all

Pedro
=========================================
Pedro C. Mariju�n
Fundaci�n CIRCE
CPS, Univ. Zaragoza, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
TEL. (34) 976 762036-761863, FAX (34) 976 732078
email: marijuan@posta.unizar.es
=========================================
Received on Fri Jun 14 10:58:43 2002