Re: Reply to James Barham

From: by way of <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 18 Jun 2002 - 09:42:02 CEST

(from jgr@gi.alaska.edu):

JGR@DINO.GI.ALASKA.EDU

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear FISers:

This is a reply to the comments by James Barham (3 June). I apologize for
the delay, but his comments came when I just had returned to Alaska from
three weeks at ICTP in Italy. Not just work at the office awaited me: its
summertime in central Alaska, 22 hs of sunshine, 25�C average temperature,
plants grow like crazy, and I have to help my wife to put and keep the
garden in shape. Tomorrow I will reply to Pedro's comments of 5 June.

Comments received are preceded by >>

>>You seem to be saying that all pragmatic information use is communication.
Here I disagree. I think we have to allow for a single organism interacting
with the inorganic part of its environment as being an instance of genuine
information use, as well.

I really am not saying that! I should make that clear in my paper. I
definitely agree that an organism ACQUIRING information from the
environment, or STORING information in the environment, represents what I
call "information-based interactions" (i.e., a genuine use of information).
See further below the examples of prototype biological interactions.

>>So, the question of the locus of information must be posed for each of the
following four different cases:

>monadic:

>(A) inorganic, intrinsic

>(B) organic, intrinsic

>dyadic:

>(B-A) organic-inorganic interaction

>(B-C) organic-organic interaction

>In regard to my first remark above, I simply want to emphasize that the
dyadic relation (B-A) represents pragmatic information use just as much as
(B-C) does. Indeed, I feel it is the more basic kind of interaction. I am
not sure whether you will agree with me about this point, or not.

I absolutely agree! (Again, see below).

>>In regard to my second remark above, most here at FIS want to say that (A)
embodies intrinsic information, while you and I (and Pedro and Jerry, I
think) want to deny it. How can we clarify the point at issue between the
pan-informationists and the bio-informationists?

I certainly deny it. That is at the key of the reason why I prefer to start
everything with the process of INTERACTION as a "metaphysical primitive". By
definition, interaction means TWO or MORE bodies, systems or things.

James' comments in that 3 June mail convinced me of a weakness in my paper:
a lack of concrete examples, and a lack of clear grouping of prototypes (a
term that may not be metaphysically correct). Here is what I am going to add
to the paper's section 1 before submission (I apologize for the length):

***********************
""To elucidate more clearly the characteristics of information-based
interactions, identify different prototypes, and compare them with the class
of force-field driven interactions, let us analyze a few examples.

1. An electron scattered by a positive ion. From the point of view of
quantum electrodynamics, the interaction mechanism consists of the emission
and absorption of virtual photons by the interacting particles. In a
first-order Feynman diagram the electron (or the ion) emits a photon which
is then absorbed by the ion (or electron); energy and momentum balance at
each node (emission/absorption process) account for a change in the motion
of each particle. The end result, strictly reversible, is the sum total of
all possible photon exchange processes; the total energy (and momentum) of
the pair of particles is conserved. We are tempted to say (and often do so)
that in this interaction, any virtual photon "carries information" from one
particle to the other; however, this is purely subjective parlance: no
information, information-processing and purpose are at work at either end of
the emission/absorption process.

2. A small body orbiting an irregularly shaped massive asteroid. (e.g.,
asteroid Ida with its satellite Dactyl). This is a macroscopic physical
interaction. The resulting orbit, viewed from a system fixed to the
asteroid, is very complicated due to the latter's irregular mass
distribution; the resulting motion of the satellite is governed by the sum
total of the gravitational actions (forces) of each element of mass of the
asteroid, in each of which information and information-processing do not
play any role. There is strict to-and-fro energy coupling (and functional
continuity) between the orbital characteristics and the irregular features
of the asteroid's gravitational potential. As there is a correspondence
between the features of a particular orbit and the irregularities of mass
distribution, we are again tempted to say that the orbital shape "carries
information on the pattern of mass distribution in the asteroid". However,
no information is at work in this natural system; each element of the
pattern at the "source" or "sender" (the asteroid) contributes with a direct
dynamic effect on the "receiver" (the satellite) and there is no need to
invoke the concepts of information and information processing. Another
similar example is the footprint of a rock that has been lying on the soil
for a long time. Here we have a complex pattern on the ground carved by the
elastic interaction with the rock's irregular surface-an interaction in
which a fixed pattern has led to specific change in another "body". However,
the change was produced by point-by-point physical interactions in which
there was a direct coupling (force- and energy-wise) between the "source"
and the "recipient". Again, no purpose can be identified in this process.

In both above examples we have a physical interaction between two objects
mediated by a "field", with energy coupling and continuity. There is no
information, signals, messages, codes, decisions or purpose involved-unless
we, humans, put them there by making a mental model of the interaction
process in which analogies are drawn from subjective experience. The
following are prototypes of information-based interactions.

3. A dog walking around an obstacle. The dog responds to the visual
perception of the obstacle, a complex process that involves
information-processing and decision-making at the "receiver's" end with a
definite purpose. At the obstacle's (the sender's) side, we have scattering
and/or reflection of incident light waves; no information and no purpose are
involved-only physical processes are at work here. There is no energy
coupling between sender and receiver; like in the example of the insects of
Fig. 1, what counts is not the energy of the electromagnetic waves but the
pattern of their spatial distribution. This is the prototype of
information-based interactions that involves information extraction: it is a
fundamental element in the interaction of any organism with the environment.
The electromagnetic waves emitted by the obstacle and detected by the dog's
sensors are signals. In this article we shall distinguish clearly between
"signals" and "messages" (see example 5 below): thus defined, a signal has
neither purpose nor any information at its origin, it only becomes
information when it is detected and used (or deliberately discarded) by an
organism. Note that this class of interactions must evolve; they cannot
arise spontaneously in the abiotic world. As a matter of fact, Darwinian
evolution itself embodies a gradual, species-specific information extraction
from the environment (see section 4). Another example would be that of a
geologist's brain processing the visual image of the rock's footprint from
example 2 above.

4. An ant leaving a scent mark along its path. This is the reverse process
of the preceding example, in which information is deposited in the
environment for later use. The sender has a specific purpose and information
is involved. At the other end of the interaction (the path) only physical
(chemical) processes are at work (but later, another ant may eventually
extract information from these physical signals). This is an example of
deliberate environmental modification with a purpose. Writing an article is
another.

5. A person talking to another. Here clearly we have information
processes and purpose at both ends of the interactive link. The
corresponding acoustical waves carry a message; what counts in this
interaction is not the energy but the acoustical patterns. To function, a
common code must exist at both ends (see next section). The interactive
process is a prototype of communication. In principle, we can think of this
prototype as a succession of types 4 and 3, in that order.

Further on in the text, I will add the following remark:

""Concerning the interaction mechanism per se, there can be information
processing at the sender's end (example 4, section 1), at the recipient's
end (example 3) or at both ends (example 5). In all cases (excuse the purely
anthropomorphic language!) an accord, a common code must exist between
sender and recipient so that an interaction can take place (more on this in
section 4). Indeed, example 3 (section 1) requires the evolution of a
sensory apparatus able to detect and interpret the presence of the obstacle;
example 4 requires the existence of other ants that will respond to the
scent marks, and example 5 requires a common language.

*************************

Regards to all,

Juan
Received on Tue Jun 18 09:46:24 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:46 CET