[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Information and Volition



I've been thinking about this while I slept, apparently... It's still on my mind this morning! The point at which complexity or complex systems seem to make the change where natural phenomena become information seems to be the same threshold at which complexity creates life. However, it seems to me that this is only true for organically derived, evolved, complex systems. The systems human beings create, like a computer internet for example.... seem to have a whole 'nother relationship with phenomena, data, and "information".
 
In organisms, the stability of the organization of that level of complexity (ie; a living organism's ability to maintain its internal environment within necessary parameters) seems to be what also makes possible the generation of relationships that turn outside phenomena into information. In other words, this is when percepts begin to have indirect causal effects on organismal processes. It looks to me (not being an ecologist or biologist, just an observer) that the difference between an automatic process and a process where information has been created and utilized is the level of complexity of the system.  The higher the level of complexity in an organism, the more capacity for relationships there is, and information plays a bigger and bigger role up the scale.
 
One question I have about smaller complex systems, like the atom (which bears on the "three-body problem"): What are the similarities and differences in the relationships formed between an atom and its environment compared with the relationships between an organism and ITS environment? The stability of complex systems even below the threshold for life is inherent in atomic structure-- (which my father probably would prefer to call "atomic organization"; structure being too static a word to apply to a complex system, really)-- That stability allows atoms to adapt and evolve in certain ways similar to the way organisms adapt and evolve. For example, an atom can absorb particles and continue to keep its basic organization, with certain changes to relationships within the atom (adaptation/evolution?). I don't see that the relationship between the atom and its environment could be characterized as a relationship where phenomena becomes "information".
 
Thus, it looks to me that complexity below a threshold has "automatic" interaction with its environment. Complexity above that threshold has both automatic and "volitional" interaction with anything outside itself and within itself...  Volitional implies the metamorphosis of phenomena to information. It seems to me that this is a key feature of biological systems. Is it a defining feature? Do all organisms possess the ability to turn phenomena into information? Does this partly explain the "internal predictive model" that my father discussed in Anticipatory Systems? Life emerges at the same threshold at which anticipatory behavior emerges, so it would make sense.
 
Judith
 
Judith
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Gwinn
To: ***
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Reductionism and information

Judith wrote:
Even a single celled phytoplankton has abilities to detect certain aspects of its environment. Temperature, light, salinity, and so forth... those things may be simple phenomena but as soon as they are perceived by a complex system and they act as a causal agent in ways that are not direct, then I would call that information. [red added]
 
The part marked in red touches upon my uncertainty about information. Robert Rosen defined information as a possible answer to a question. [EL 147, AS 406-409] As humans, we can pose such questions and thereby various perceived phenomena (internal or external) can be possible answers (information) in relation to the posed question.
 
This works well for humans, but what about other complex systems? Is there any sense in which a 3-body system or an atom "poses questions" to which there are possible answers? Or that some phenomena experienced by that system would "act as a causal agent in ways that are not direct"? At first glance, the answer seems to be clearly "no" to me. Yet, an "activation-inhibition network" (Rosen's network of interlocking differential equations), which represent  informational, semantic aspects of dynamical behavior [EL 334]  can represent the dynamics of a complex (but not necessarily biological) system when the differential forms are not exact.
 
When the forms are exact, then the system is simple, and the A-I network collapses down to a rate equation for the dynamics. The differentials of the equation can still be taken, but they tell us nothing that is not already embodied by the rate equation, and, it seems to me, that the information in the A-I network has become superfluous to us.
 
This latter item - that in a simple system the informational aspects become superfluous to us - leads me to wonder whether information in the A-I networks is only information insofar as it provides answers to questions we ask. That is, the "information" in an A-I network is not an image of "information" relative to the system, only relative to us - to our questions. I'm not sure yet.
 
This topic of information is definitely a worthwhile subject to discuss further.
 
Regards,
Tim
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of Judith Rosen
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 9:38 PM
To: ***
Subject: Re: Reductionism and information

It seems to me that information is a much bigger area than that limited definition:
(John K. wrote:)
1. Information is the property of scientists (and the like). Nature runs automatically and all of its effective processes can be described as conforming to absolute information, i.e., immutable laws that apply everywhere.
Not all aspects of nature "run automatically". Only the aspects that are simple, interacting with other simple aspects. As soon as complexity is involved, I think automatic activity is joined by other behaviors that cannot be seen as "automatic". Complex systems seem to convert natural phenomena into "information".
 
A gazelle that sees a certain kind of motion in the brush, on an African plain, is going to react to that "information". There is no way to predict whether that particular gazelle will interpret the information as a lioness closing in or as something else. It depends on the visual accuity of the gazelle, the past experience of the gazelle, how well integrated it's brain and its body are, whether the gazelle is healthy or injured, and so on, ad infinitum. Information would be a word to describe the change undergone by phenomena as soon as they are perceived by-- and become a causal agent to-- an organism. Even a single celled phytoplankton has abilities to detect certain aspects of its environment. Temperature, light, salinity, and so forth... those things may be simple phenomena but as soon as they are perceived by a complex system and they act as a causal agent in ways that are not direct, then I would call that information.
 
Information implies a relationship has formed; a relationship that has effects on that system. Information flows back and forth from being mere phenomena to being "information" depending on the system that is reacting to any given phenomenon. The more complex an organism is, the more evidence of information acting on it you will be able to document. Some things in nature are automatic, but many are not. Complexity again seems to be the threshold.
 
Judith