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

Re: Information and Volition



There is a very fine line between definitions certain words for certain uses. In this case, the definitions of choice and definitions of response to describe the behavior of an organism to some stimuli. The word "choice" is a tricky one! For example, if you "have no choice but to drive in the snowstorm", do you still choose? In the case of a single celled organism, that concept of choice is clearly silly and you don't mean it that way. You and I both know you don't. But...  we have such complicated uses and views of the word "choice" that it's a word fraught with booby traps in science. Some words are more likely to be red flags than others. All I can tell you is that I have learned to recognize some of them from my experiences travelling with my father and from his stories of various attacks that have been made on his theoretical ideas about organisms (like Anticipatory Systems).
 
It does have an element of "volition" in it, and it's hard to find other words to describe these differences between a simple chemical reaction in a fireplace and a similar chemicqal reaction in the metabolic processes of a cell. Function is the only word that can really delineate the boundary, because function is built into organisms and then life is one of the things that emerges. My father wanted to understand what that means, scientifically, as well as why it (function) was being treated as a dirty word by scientists and science in general.
 
My father makes a statement in Essays on Life, Itself very near to the bit I transcribed in my earlier post:
 
"There is at root only one reason to do either science or mathematics, and that is to understand what is going on."
 
I think that was exactly how HE felt about science and mathematics-- that they were tools to help humanity answer questions. But I think he was wrong in saying it's the only reason to do science or mathematics. The thing he missed is exactly the thing that caused so much of his professional trouble, namely; Some people do science or mathematics for OTHER REASONS. They aren't interested in answering deep questions... because they can make a cushie living answering lots of little questions with it.  Or maybe they aren't interested in using science and mathematics as a tool in the WAY my father did. Maybe they wanted to use science as a tool to make money. Maybe they wanted to use it as a means to prestige. OR.... Maybe they didn't want to USE it at all-- instead they made a religion out of it and treated it as a holy thing in and of itself. Maybe an infinite variety of other reasons and combinations of reasons..... Human beings interact via many different routes, one of which is the interaction between our consciousness-es. Is it any wonder things can get a bit... complicated???
 
Judith
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Gwinn
To: ***
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Information and Volition

Judith,
 
Again, I ask myself, for the sake of probing this deeper: "what does it mean to respond, rather than react"? I come up again with choice, volition.
 
I also agree that function is central. What I tentatively want to say is that information (in this biological sense) has to do with influence imposed on a functional organization, whereas reaction has to do with influence imposed on a structural organization. Exactly in what way such an influence is imposed on a functional organization I have not yet worked out. 
 
Regards,
Tim
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of Judith Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:12 PM
To: ***
Subject: Re: Information and Volition

Tim and all:
 
I can see that my attempted definition of my own (not my father's) idea of what constitutes information is not quite well-enough articulated! Let's see if I can tighten it up a bit...
 
My initial attempt was:
 
Anything that an organism percieves/senses/detects about itself or its environment, by whatever means, and then uses to make something happen is what I'm calling "information". 
 
Tim  asked "what does it mean to use perceived phenomena rather than to react to it?"
 
The difference is that the word "react" implies an automatic cause/effect type of relationship, such as one would find in a simple system. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Chemical reactions. Temperature reactions. Non-complexity. Environmental phenomena would not be "information" in this case-- not by the definition I'm trying to give to the word "information" here.
 
But the word "use", even if it's not done on a conscious level (in the human sense of consciousness)... that implies function. That implies a higher level of complexity than a random, automatic chemical reaction. Sensory perception in natural systems is the province of organisms. Organisms don't just react to environmental stimuli the way lesser complexity systems or simple systems do. If it's cold, an organism will do something more than molecules of water do... water reacts to cold temperatures. Organisms respond in some way. To an organism, the temperature would be one form of "information" about the environment. To a snowflake, temperature is just an environmental phenomenon that causes an automatic reaction.
 
Granted, this is semantic hair-splitting. But all communication is based on some form of this kind of definition analysis. Does that make the difference any clearer?
 
Judith