"semantic information", stability

[Cliff Joslyn 931215 13:00]

[Martin Taylor 931214 16:00]
(Tom Bourbon 931214.1217)

attractive collective states of a dissipative dynamical system. Semantic
information appears to be created in dynamical systems by a cooperativity
among participating elements."

I'd be VERY skeptical of those claiming some form of "semantic
information". I'll look up the reference, though, since I haven't
heard of this Japanese group.

By the way, SEMIOTICS is the appropriate place to look for a synthesis
of information and meaning. Byt precious few semioticians,
dynamicists, biologists, or systems people/cyberneticians appear to
agree with me.

As I've commented before here, IT as such is inherently non-semantic.
Many have chased an illusory "semantic information theory" over the
years, beginning with Carnap and Bar-Hillel. This issue, the origin of
meaning, purpose, intention, life (= control?) from physical processes
(where IT DOES have some validity) is the expression in modern science
of mind/body dualism.

The last quoted sentence implies that Kelso is
thinking of something entirely different, and it sounds a bit mystical
to me.

Agreed.

I have a suspicion that the confusion might be lessened if you think of
what they are doing as looking for what Dag calls a description, rather
than a model.

Well, every description is a kind of model (perhaps just not a very
good or tight one).

My understanding is eased a great deal when I enter a new term to
synthesize between "control" and "attractor". The term is STABILITY.
Both good control and dynamical attractors results in stability, but
for very different reasons and in very different ways.

These so-called "dynamicists" appear to make the error of identifying
ALL stability with attractors. So when they observe a stability, they
ASSUME that there is some attractor present. Whereas, it might REALLY
be control (or might not).

O----------------------------------------------------------------------------->

Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician at Large, 327 Spring St #2 Portland ME 04102 USA
Systems Science, SUNY Binghamton NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
cjoslyn@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu joslyn@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov

V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .

From Tom Bourbon [931215.1552]

[Cliff Joslyn 931215 13:00]

(Tom Bourbon 931214.1217)

Tom (quoting Kelso):

attractive collective states of a dissipative dynamical system. Semantic
information appears to be created in dynamical systems by a cooperativity
among participating elements."

Cliff:

I'd be VERY skeptical of those claiming some form of "semantic
information". I'll look up the reference, though, since I haven't
heard of this Japanese group.

I'm pleased to see that you, and a few others, might follow up on some of
the sources I cited. Let us know what you learn about the Japanese group.

One of the gratifying things about some of the responses to my posts on
dynamical analysts is the idea that some of you might have a better insight
into why PCT modelers often appear overly sensitive to posts on information
theory or dynamical systems. You have had a chance to sample the wares of
people whose paths often cross, and sometimes block, ours.

By the way, SEMIOTICS is the appropriate place to look for a synthesis
of information and meaning. Byt precious few semioticians,
dynamicists, biologists, or systems people/cyberneticians appear to
agree with me.

You are already in trouble on your own, and you *still* hang out on a PCT
net? You must be some kind of nut.

As I've commented before here, IT as such is inherently non-semantic.
Many have chased an illusory "semantic information theory" over the
years, beginning with Carnap and Bar-Hillel. This issue, the origin of
meaning, purpose, intention, life (= control?) from physical processes
(where IT DOES have some validity) is the expression in modern science
of mind/body dualism.

Until someone checks out the sources cited by Kelso, we don't know for
certain what he meant by "semantic information." Remember, Kelso was writing
about Fitts, who wrote about the time required to move from a point of rest,
to the center of a target. With that idea in mind, I wouldn't want to
predict what is actually in the articles Kelso cited.

Cliff:

These so-called "dynamicists" appear to make the error of identifying
ALL stability with attractors. So when they observe a stability, they
ASSUME that there is some attractor present. Whereas, it might REALLY
be control (or might not).

Agreed!

Until later,

Tom