Sorry to have been absent from the conversation.
The topic puzzles me, and prompts me once again to suggest that FIS
needs if not a single clean statement of why we come here, at least a
few so we can refer to them.
The presumption is - at least in the first posts - that information
is something at the root of how the world works. Ethics in some form
may be also, so it makes sense to consider the relationship between
the two to glean insights into either. Subsequent comments have
drifted into discussions of ethics outside this useful notion, which
only Rafael's first question addresses.
I rephrase that question here: "What is it about the way that
physics, chemistry, biology work (or how we model how they work) that
can be seen as "natural law" and how does that relate as analogy (or
closer) to ethics and morality?"
Karl's notion is based on autoregulated behavior, conflating the
agent that conveys information with the one that regulates (and
sets?) rules over that information. He then suggests that a mechanism
can be built to rationally fold these responibilities, thereby
assuring us that we need not think in terms of analogies, but
constant principles that apply at all levels.
Pedro suggests in contrast that whatever the mechanics of information
and ethics, they are likely far apart. He implicitly assumes ethics
is intrinsic to the "external view" and therefore human, so it can be
applied only at the top level, what he calls "closure." He later
suggests a link in "fittedness" that percolates up and is seen
looking "down," then speculates on that fittedness (ethical
"constraints") driving Darwinian complexity and competence. A
connection is made to ethics perhaps this informing the "definitions
of information" conundrum. Still later, he avers that "morals" as the
code may be more tenable as this "informing the definitions of
information" task.
Michael N makes the link to art and meaning, primarily speaking to
other of Rafael's questions. Though he doesn't explicitly make the
link with the first question there may be a connection between what
he calls "new technologies" and new formal constructions to describe
nonhuman information flows. Thus, we implicitly inherit some of the
pandisciplinary perspectives from the prior conversation on art and
whether molecules make art.
Stan also sticks to the human side in worrying about how to
re-engineer current trends in societal information flows to reinstate
ethics, or the efficacy of ethics. If one extends this to all
information flows (not Stan's intent to be sure), then the notion
becomes truly interesting.
John H (if I understand the formatting of the email correctly)
suggests that independent of information, ethics requires a
source/force beyond information that compels, and allows that it
spans both the artificial and natural. In terms of information being
that which "makes a difference," ethics may be a difference, or
indicate one.
Jerry wonders if the notion of "coding" ethics is "in" the message or
can be, or whether it conveys or is sustained by another means.
Rafael reports the notion of a "descriptive ethics" which are in a
key sense reflective and bridge the inside and outside of the
"message."
Viktoras sustains Pedro's notion of fittedness, coming at it from the
complementary perspective of "glue" of societies (which I would read
as complex systems of all kinds). However, her notion is more severe
than Pedro's in the sense that the elements each have agency
sufficiently to "know" how they fit into the system and are ensured
of the quality of their existence. In other words, the ethics provide
the framework for the context and hence the assembly.
Michael L chimes in with the obverse notion, Paraphrasing, he opines
that each entity (he means human) can only be whole, integrated, in a
context of ethics. He implies that ethics is essential to this (and
sufficient?). Such integrated beings are already "pre-assembled" in a
way to form societies as a byproduct.
It is Michael's message that prompts me to enter. Naturally I agree
with nearly everyone who has written on this. But there is a
difference between being correct, insightful and true on this issue
and being useful in a particular context.
I am again at the beginning of a new project. This one will be more
ambitious than the last, as is always the case. For those who don't
know me, I design large synthetic worlds that interact with "real"
ones (or one, as you prefer). You might think of this as AI, but it
is hardly artificial. The goal is to replicate rather than model.
Generally, this fails when using conventional means. It is only
approachable if some new paradigm is used. The one I prefer sees the
world in terms of functions or transforms instead of particles,
objects, beings. With a talented colleague, we presented some
elements of this approach at Jerry's very fine symposium last month.
The point I wish to make is that functional interactions make the
nature of the information conveyed more apparent and it is quite
feasible to describe the world in terms of these "messages" and the
processes they invoke. What's more difficult is understanding why.
My collaborator and I have been working on structured urges. Now
understand, these are urges of molecules as well as humans, and in
our alternative abstractions roughly substitute for "forces and
fields." And they don't behave smoothly and always deterministically.
So this topic of ethics is apt, very apt for my present work. For me,
when I read "ethics" in the emails, I think in terms of the larger
set of driving motives, and though nearly all the discussion deals
with persons, I necessarily extend it to all interactions. No matter
how various are our notions of what FIS is, the idea that the
principles of information span scale is what binds us in this group,
yes?
I prefer Michael Leyton's viewpoint. Its because you have to assume
that whatever the urges, they are attached to and satisfy in some
way, the individual. Defining a society as the collection of
ethically-bound entities and then imputing the ethics derive somehow
from society seems circular to me.
Michael also has some ideas about memory and structure that are
useful to me because they allow a formal mechanics and fit rather
handily into what it means to "see and know" something in our way of
describing the world.
So let me propose a few ideas concerning ethics and information:
Starting with the ordinary notion of "things" and information and how
things organize into societal-like structures that become other
things and so on... FIS supposes that thinking in terms of
information can provide some new and perhaps universal insights.
There must be some motivating element that persists in attachment to
the object as it sends and receives messages. This would be beyond
matters of grammar and have some evaluative component. It would
necessary benefit the object by itself in some way, but at the same
time drive structured, presumably stable associations that benefit
the system and (most) of its constituents.
It should be modifiable/evolvable by the messages (using Jerry's word
here). It needs to have identity societally and individually though
they need not be the same, though I expect some reflexive dynamics to
be the case.
This is how I think of the category of stuff that we've denoted as
ethics. I think if we reason this way, we need some new definitions
of ethics to fit the more universal case. The ethics we know (or
think we do) in the human case would be only one instance.
If this were the case, and we started, say, with chemistry and
biomolecular networks, then I think we might say something useful
about protoethics or whatever we wish to call them.
When we make the switch from ordinary particle/noun representations
to Ted's urge/verb ones, most thing are turned inside out. The urges
become the agents, messages transform but some basic mechanics of
information should be the same in both paradigms. I presume this to
include the protoethic.
Sorry for the long message.
Best, Ted
--
__________
Ted Goranson
Sirius-Beta
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Apr 27 23:14:36 2006
