Hydrogen Cyanide and the Origin



William Morse <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
> > William Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in

> >> > All data storage in the real world is analogue. [...]

> >> Umm - whatever happened to your reductionist stance?
> >> Unless you are denying quantum mechanics, or are
> >> arguing for emergent properties, it would seem that
> >> your only logically consistent argument would be that
> >> all data storage in the real world is digital. [...]
> >>
> > You'll have to explain this to me. All I can see is that
> > if analogue systems can simulate digital ones (and I
> > don't quite see what the appeal to QM has to do with
> > this [...]
>
> [...] Last time I looked, a hot topic in computing was
> quantum computing, since it is in fact exactly digital,
> and one of the problems in classic silicon systems was
> that the circuits were getting small enough that the
> analog properties were getting jagged.

The "quantum" in "quantum physics" doesn't mean that it is
wholly discrete.

It means that *some* things are discrete. Spin and charge,
for example.

Other aspects of quantum physics may not be discrete - and
indeed the classical formulations are full of differential
equations - and are not discrete at all.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote
> or quoted:
> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > Jim Menegay <[email protected]> wrote or
> > > quoted:
>
> > > > The ideal digital bowling lane would slope toward
> > > > the gutters from the center (the threshold). And it
> > > > is this "basin of attraction" feature in the
> > > > dynamics that distinguishes digital from analog.
> > >
> > > ...but surely analog systems can exhibit basins of
> > > attraction as well.
> >
> > But surely an IDEAL analog system will not.

> ...but - "ideal" or otherwise - surely analog systems can
> exhibit things like Lorentz attractors and basins of
> attraction - just like any other dynamical system can.
>
> BTW, I'm not sure what "ideal" was intended to mean in
> this context.

"Ideal" was intended to mean well-engineered to preserve
information.

> If an "ideal analog system" is *defined* as being one with
> no attractors, then I can't see the utility of such a
> concept.

I could have been clearer. "Streaming" analog systems
frequently deliberately distort the analog signal at the
transmitter and then reverse the distortion at the receiver.
Dolby is an example. The idea is to suppress noise in those
regions of the spectrum where the noise is most annoying.

However, it is undesirable to have your signal being
continually distorted toward an attractor in an analog
information *storage* system, because this distortion is not
reversible unless you know how long it has been moving
toward the attractor.

Contrast this to a digital system in which a continual force
drawing the signal toward each of its two (in the binary
case) attractors is good engineering. We don't need or want
to reverse this kind of "distortion".
 
Jim Menegay <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote or
> > quoted:
> > > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > Jim Menegay <[email protected]> wrote or
> > > > quoted:

> > > > > The ideal digital bowling lane would slope toward
> > > > > the gutters from the center (the threshold). And
> > > > > it is this "basin of attraction" feature in the
> > > > > dynamics that distinguishes digital from analog.
> > > >
> > > > ...but surely analog systems can exhibit basins of
> > > > attraction as well.
> > >
> > > But surely an IDEAL analog system will not.
>
> > ...but - "ideal" or otherwise - surely analog systems
> > can exhibit things like Lorentz attractors and basins of
> > attraction - just like any other dynamical system can.
> >
> > BTW, I'm not sure what "ideal" was intended to mean in
> > this context.
>
> "Ideal" was intended to mean well-engineered to preserve
> information.

If by "ideal" you mean "reversible" then attractors might
indeed be difficult to come across.

> > If an "ideal analog system" is *defined* as being one
> > with no attractors, then I can't see the utility of such
> > a concept.
>
> I could have been clearer. "Streaming" analog systems
> frequently deliberately distort the analog signal at the
> transmitter and then reverse the distortion at the
> receiver. Dolby is an example. The idea is to suppress
> noise in those regions of the spectrum where the noise is
> most annoying.
>
> However, it is undesirable to have your signal being
> continually distorted toward an attractor in an analog
> information *storage* system, because this distortion is
> not reversible unless you know how long it has been moving
> toward the attractor.

The ability to reverse paths is only needed if it is
necessary to preserve *all* the information in a system.

However, an analog storage system could still work perfectly
well if it systematically kept some sorts of information -
while discarding others.

An analog storage system would not need to be reversible in
order to be accurate and reliable. Provided the information
is discards is not the information it has been asked to
remember I don't think there is any reason to require an
analog medium to be reversible.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.
 
William Morse <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > All data storage in the real world is analogue. The only
> > difference between analogue and digital is the fidelty
> > of replication. I think that any evolutionary process is
> > going to maximise the fidelity to the point where
> > further improvements would be too costly, no matter
> > whether it is cultural, biological or technological. I
> > completely agree with Tim, and would say that "digital"
> > is, in the real (as opposed to abstract) world, a name
> > for "very-high-fidelity reproduction" over analogue
> > substrates.
>
> Umm - whatever happened to your reductionist stance?
> Unless you are denying quantum mechanics, or are arguing
> for emergent properties, it would seem that your only
> logically consistent argument would be that all data
> storage in the real world is digital.
>
You'll have to explain this to me. All I can see is that if
analogue systems can simulate digital ones (and I don't
quite see what the appeal to QM has to do with this - data
storage occurs on macro-level systems here, and it is agreed
by all that they form analogue states of distribution rather
than digital binary states), any "digital" computer storage
is actually an attempt to make a digital system or data
stream out of what is inherently analgoue.
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au a little emptier, a
little spent as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote
> or quoted:
> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > Jim Menegay <[email protected]> wrote or
> > > quoted:
>
> > > > The ideal digital bowling lane would slope toward
> > > > the gutters from the center (the threshold). And it
> > > > is this "basin of attraction" feature in the
> > > > dynamics that distinguishes digital from analog.
> > >
> > > ...but surely analog systems can exhibit basins of
> > > attraction as well.
> >
> > But surely an IDEAL analog system will not. See my reply
> > to John.
>
> Can't seem to find that reply.

Damn, the reply seems to have been lost by Google Groups. It
was a long one and I didn't save a copy. Dumb of me.

I will try to compose an equivalent response within the next
few days. I am currently busy searching the web for
tutorials on information theory - particularly as applied to
analog signals. So, my eventual response may be much better
than the lost original

In the meantime, the main thrust of my response to John was
that any discussion on these topics has to take place in the
context of Shannon's communication theory. That means:

1. That information theory inevitably carries a dose of
teleology - it is an engineering discipline, not a
branch of pure descriptive science. Of course, Nature
(natural selection) is also an engineer. A central part
of this is Shannon's idea of the active channel.

2. Hence "analog" and "digital" cannot be understood
without taking into account someone's intention to
communicate. Analog and digital are names for two
different strategies for encoding information
physically. They are not the names for different
physical situations.

3. That an ideal analog channel for sending digital
information deliberately introduces distortions in the
analog signal (the basins). But, an ideal analog channel
for sending analog information does not distort.

As background, I have found an online copy of Shannon's
original paper, which is worth reading even if you skip over
some of the math:

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> William Morse <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
>> > William Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
>
>> >> > All data storage in the real world is analogue.
>> >> > [...]
>
>> >> Umm - whatever happened to your reductionist stance?
>> >> Unless you are denying quantum mechanics, or are
>> >> arguing for emergent properties, it would seem that
>> >> your only logically consistent argument would be that
>> >> all data storage in the real world is digital. [...]
>> >>
>> > You'll have to explain this to me. All I can see is
>> > that if analogue systems can simulate digital ones (and
>> > I don't quite see what the appeal to QM has to do with
>> > this [...]
>>
>> [...] Last time I looked, a hot topic in computing was
>> quantum computing, since it is in fact exactly digital,
>> and one of the problems in classic silicon systems was
>> that the circuits were getting small enough that the
>> analog properties were getting jagged.
>
> The "quantum" in "quantum physics" doesn't mean that it is
> wholly discrete.
>
> It means that *some* things are discrete. Spin and charge,
> for example.
>
> Other aspects of quantum physics may not be discrete - and
> indeed the classical formulations are full of differential
> equations - and are not discrete at all.

Very true. And of course many properties depend on whether
the property is observed or not, as in the light-slit
experiment. In fact I seem to recall that someone has
demonstrated the equivalent, at a quantum level, of the old
adage that a watched pot never boils! I was mostly just
trying to catch Dr. John in a logical inconsistency - since
in fact some data storage is ultimately digital - but he
refuses to admit it :)

Yours,

Bill Morse
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jim Menegay <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> > Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Jim Menegay <[email protected]> wrote or
> > > quoted:
>
> [snip agreement]
>
> > > > So far, analog and digital seem identical - at least
> > > > in principle. But when you start looking at the
> > > > details, there are differences.
> > > >
> > > > The error rate for a good digital operation is
> > > > something like one error per thousand. That is 0.1%
> > > > of the time, the information is changed, whereas
> > > > 99.9% of the time, it is unchanged.
> > > >
> > > > The error rate for a good analog operation is
> > > > something like one part per thousand. That is, 100%
> > > > of the time the information is changed, but it is
> > > > not changed by much - only by about 0.1%
> > >
> > > I am not aware of anything about the definition of the
> > > terms "analog" and "digital" that specifies what error
> > > rates they exhibit.
> >
> > Perhaps I was unclear. My numbers were intended as an
> > illustration that both analog and digital are subject to
> > noise, but that the noise manifests itself in different
> > ways. I did not mean to suggest the particular error
> > rates that I used in my example as part of the
> > definition of digital or analog.
> >
> > > In the real world, both sorts of system are subject to
> > > noise - and neither has perfect fideleity. If you
> > > assume that analog storage media have high error
> > > rates, then your conclusion follows.
> >
> > I made no such assumption. I tried to make the error
> > rates equivalent.
>
> A 1 chance of a bitflip every 1000 bits is roughly
> equivalent (in terms of the error rate) to a +/- 1/1000
> change in an 0-999 integer value?
>
> It isn't. It isn't anywhere remotely equivalent:
>
> Store 1000 bits of information in both media.
>
> That's 1000 bits of digital information - and about 98
> numbers from 0-999.
>
> How much information is needed to store the details of
> what errors took place in one generation?
>
> In the digital case a number between 0 and 999 should
> normally suffice to describe the location of the error.
> Sometimes more will be needed - but sometimes less - so
> the error can be described in 10 bits.
>
> In the analog case you need about one bit per value to
> encode whether the error is "+" or "-". So that's about
> 98 bits.
>
> About ten times much information is needed to describe the
> locations of the errors in the analog case.
>
> That's about the same as saying there was ten times as
> much error occurring in the analog medium.
>
> No wonder it doesn't make such a good information storage
> device, in your example - the error rate is effectively
> ten times as big.
>
> This doesn't reflect badly on analog media, though - it
> just shows that the error rates you pulled out of the air
> happened to heavily favour digital media.

Hmmm. You seem to be correct, and my intuition was incorrect
as to what would be equilivalent error rates between analog
and digital.

However, since I did not use these error rates in my
argument, I think that my argument still stands. And the
argument was that analog media, whatever their benefits for
short term use, have severe problems when compared to
digital as a medium of biological heredity. Those problems
stem from the fact that the two media have qualitatively
different failure modes in the presence of noise. Analog
data tends to drift, whereas digital data tends to break. My
intuition, which is now proved to be suspect ;-(, is that
digital is better because it permits more effective
proofreading. With digital, you are proofreading against a
standard that is possibly broken, but probably not. With
analog, you are proofreading against a standard which has
certainly drifted. My intuition says that digital
proofreading works better. But to turn this into a proof, I
am going to have to understand better what constitutes an
equivalent error rate between the two media. Any links that
you can provide related to information theory would be
appreciated.
 
[email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> William Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > All data storage in the real world is analogue. The
>> > only difference between analogue and digital is the
>> > fidelty of replication. I think that any evolutionary
>> > process is going to maximise the fidelity to the point
>> > where further improvements would be too costly, no
>> > matter whether it is cultural, biological or
>> > technological. I completely agree with Tim, and would
>> > say that "digital" is, in the real (as opposed to
>> > abstract) world, a name for "very-high-fidelity
>> > reproduction" over analogue substrates.
>>
>> Umm - whatever happened to your reductionist stance?
>> Unless you are denying quantum mechanics, or are arguing
>> for emergent properties, it would seem that your only
>> logically consistent argument would be that all data
>> storage in the real world is digital.
>>
> You'll have to explain this to me. All I can see is that
> if analogue systems can simulate digital ones (and I don't
> quite see what the appeal to QM has to do with this - data
> storage occurs on macro-level systems here, and it is
> agreed by all that they form analogue states of
> distribution rather than digital binary states), any
> "digital" computer storage is actually an attempt to make
> a digital system or data stream out of what is inherently
> analgoue.

Who is "by all"? Last time I looked, a hot topic in
computing was quantum computing, since it is in fact exactly
digital, and one of the problems in classic silicon systems
was that the circuits were getting small enough that the
analog properties were getting jagged.

My position on this is admittedly ambiguous. My knowledge of
information theory is rudimentary at best, but I thought
that for most cases analog and digital systems are
interchangeable. So as the discussion applies to biological
systems, I actually agree with you and Tim.

But my objection to your statement still stands - the "real
world" is ultimately quantum, not analog, i.e. your
statement about macro-level systems is simply statistical
smoothing. It might be an interesting philosophical question
as to whether choice could in fact ever occur if the
universe was analog "all the way down" - what would ever
trigger the choice?

Yours,

Bill Morse
 
William Morse <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > William Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > All data storage in the real world is analogue. The
> >> > only difference between analogue and digital is the
> >> > fidelty of replication. I think that any evolutionary
> >> > process is going to maximise the fidelity to the
> >> > point where further improvements would be too costly,
> >> > no matter whether it is cultural, biological or
> >> > technological. I completely agree with Tim, and would
> >> > say that "digital" is, in the real (as opposed to
> >> > abstract) world, a name for "very-high-fidelity
> >> > reproduction" over analogue substrates.
> >>
> >> Umm - whatever happened to your reductionist stance?
> >> Unless you are denying quantum mechanics, or are
> >> arguing for emergent properties, it would seem that
> >> your only logically consistent argument would be that
> >> all data storage in the real world is digital.
> >>
> > You'll have to explain this to me. All I can see is that
> > if analogue systems can simulate digital ones (and I
> > don't quite see what the appeal to QM has to do with
> > this - data storage occurs on macro-level systems here,
> > and it is agreed by all that they form analogue states
> > of distribution rather than digital binary states), any
> > "digital" computer storage is actually an attempt to
> > make a digital system or data stream out of what is
> > inherently analgoue.
>
> Who is "by all"? Last time I looked, a hot topic in
> computing was quantum computing, since it is in fact
> exactly digital, and one of the problems in classic
> silicon systems was that the circuits were getting small
> enough that the analog properties were getting jagged.
>
> My position on this is admittedly ambiguous. My knowledge
> of information theory is rudimentary at best, but I
> thought that for most cases analog and digital systems are
> interchangeable. So as the discussion applies to
> biological systems, I actually agree with you and Tim.
>
> But my objection to your statement still stands - the
> "real world" is ultimately quantum, not analog, i.e. your
> statement about macro-level systems is simply statistical
> smoothing. It might be an interesting philosophical
> question as to whether choice could in fact ever occur if
> the universe was analog "all the way down" - what would
> ever trigger the choice?
>
Quantum computing is still in the promissory stage. I would
expect we'd see DNA computing first. But even if quantum
computing turns out to be workable, the computing model on
which we are now basing the apparently "magical" properties
of digital inheritance is straight up analogue, for whatever
value of "digital" "analogue" may turn out to be...
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au a little emptier, a
little spent as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
 
Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote:

> John Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> > William Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
>
> > > > All data storage in the real world is analogue. The
> > > > only difference between analogue and digital is the
> > > > fidelty of replication. I think that any
> > > > evolutionary process is going to maximise the
> > > > fidelity to the point where further improvements
> > > > would be too costly, no matter whether it is
> > > > cultural, biological or technological. I completely
> > > > agree with Tim, and would say that "digital" is, in
> > > > the real (as opposed to abstract) world, a name for
> > > > "very-high-fidelity reproduction" over analogue
> > > > substrates.
> > >
> > > Umm - whatever happened to your reductionist stance?
> > > Unless you are denying quantum mechanics, or are
> > > arguing for emergent properties, it would seem that
> > > your only logically consistent argument would be that
> > > all data storage in the real world is digital.
> >
> > You'll have to explain this to me. All I can see is that
> > if analogue systems can simulate digital ones (and I
> > don't quite see what the appeal to QM has to do with
> > this - data storage occurs on macro-level systems here,
> > and it is agreed by all that they form analogue states
> > of distribution rather than digital binary states) [...]
>
> Many argue that the world is fundamentally discrete.
>
> Ed Fredkin is one:
>
> http://digitalphilosophy.org/
>
> I also have a site on the subject:
>
> http://finitenature.com/
>
> It is not currently known whether physics is best modelled
> as being discrete or not.
>
> *If* the universe is discrete, all data storage in the
> real world would be fundamentally digital in nature.

And *if* the world is analogue (I am not entirely convinced
by the QM and Planck principle arguments, since there seems
to this amateur to be a certain amount of probabilistic
rather than deterministic behavior at such scale), all
digital storage in the real world is analogue. The
conclusion to draw is that "digital" is just analogue model
to some set number of decimal points, while "analogue" is
just some digital model to an infinite number of decimal
points. They are interconvertible.

The power claimed by Dawkins in _River out of Eden_ for
digital information is really just the power claimed by
Fisher in 1930 for particulate heredity. The "digitality" of
genes is really little more than a metaphor, reinterpreting
old facts in terms of the leading technology of the day,
like the way they thought of brains as telegraphic systems
in the 1920s.

As to QM, whatever may be the case at that scale, the scales
we are interested in are clearly analogue to the degree of
accuracy we require. I say we should take the Planck out of
our own eyes...
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au a little emptier, a
little spent as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
 
Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote or
> > quoted:
> > > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > Jim Menegay <[email protected]> wrote or
> > > > quoted:
> >
> > > > > The ideal digital bowling lane would slope toward
> > > > > the gutters from the center (the threshold). And
> > > > > it is this "basin of attraction" feature in the
> > > > > dynamics that distinguishes digital from analog.
> > > >
> > > > ...but surely analog systems can exhibit basins of
> > > > attraction as well.
> > >
> > > But surely an IDEAL analog system will not. See my
> > > reply to John.
> >
> > Can't seem to find that reply.
>
> Damn, the reply seems to have been lost by Google Groups.
> It was a long one and I didn't save a copy. Dumb of me.
>
> I will try to compose an equivalent response within the
> next few days. I am currently busy searching the web for
> tutorials on information theory - particularly as applied
> to analog signals. So, my eventual response may be much
> better than the lost original

Most of my really excellent articles get lost, leaving only
the mediocre ones. Can't exactly explain it...
>
> In the meantime, the main thrust of my response to John
> was that any discussion on these topics has to take
> place in the context of Shannon's communication theory.
> That means:
>
> 1. That information theory inevitably carries a dose of
> teleology - it is an engineering discipline, not a
> branch of pure descriptive science. Of course, Nature
> (natural selection) is also an engineer. A central
> part of this is Shannon's idea of the active channel.

Shannon began his classic paper by observing that it didn't
matter what the meaning of the message was in his theory, so
long as the stream received was the stream sent. I don't
think this is in any way a teleological theory, and I
believe you are overinterpreting. It applies nicely to a
nonteleological system (for example, cell--cell signalling).
>
> 2. Hence "analog" and "digital" cannot be understood
> without taking into account someone's intention to
> communicate. Analog and digital are names for two
> different strategies for encoding information
> physically. They are not the names for different
> physical situations.

That is how many people interpret the distinction, Jim,
although I agree with you here. It is an abstract rather
than a concrete difference.
>
> 3. That an ideal analog channel for sending digital
> information deliberately introduces distortions in the
> analog signal (the basins). But, an ideal analog
> channel for sending analog information does not
> distort.

However, given the nature of thermodynamics, any channel
introduces extraneous noise...
>
> As background, I have found an online copy of Shannon's
> original paper, which is worth reading even if you skip
> over some of the math:
>
> http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html

--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au a little emptier, a
little spent as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
 
William Morse <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim Tyler <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > William Morse <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
> >> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
> >> > William Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in
> >
> >> >> > All data storage in the real world is analogue.
> >> >> > [...]
> >
> >> >> Umm - whatever happened to your reductionist stance?
> >> >> Unless you are denying quantum mechanics, or are
> >> >> arguing for emergent properties, it would seem that
> >> >> your only logically consistent argument would be
> >> >> that all data storage in the real world is digital.
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> > You'll have to explain this to me. All I can see is
> >> > that if analogue systems can simulate digital ones
> >> > (and I don't quite see what the appeal to QM has to
> >> > do with this [...]
> >>
> >> [...] Last time I looked, a hot topic in computing was
> >> quantum computing, since it is in fact exactly digital,
> >> and one of the problems in classic silicon systems was
> >> that the circuits were getting small enough that the
> >> analog properties were getting jagged.
> >
> > The "quantum" in "quantum physics" doesn't mean that it
> > is wholly discrete.
> >
> > It means that *some* things are discrete. Spin and
> > charge, for example.
> >
> > Other aspects of quantum physics may not be discrete -
> > and indeed the classical formulations are full of
> > differential equations - and are not discrete at all.
>
> Very true. And of course many properties depend on whether
> the property is observed or not, as in the light-slit
> experiment. In fact I seem to recall that someone has
> demonstrated the equivalent, at a quantum level, of the
> old adage that a watched pot never boils! I was mostly
> just trying to catch Dr. John in a logical inconsistency -
> since in fact some data storage is ultimately digital -
> but he refuses to admit it :)
>
Since Tim just made my case for me, of course I refuse to
admiti it :)

My own understanding of quantum physics is best expressed
by Terry Pratchett's characters when they say "It's
probably quantum."

--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au a little emptier, a
little spent as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
 
"John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote
> > > or quoted:
> > > > See my reply to John.
> > >
> > > Can't seem to find that reply.
> >
> > Damn, the reply seems to have been lost by Google
> > Groups. It was a long one and I didn't save a copy. Dumb
> > of me.
>
> Most of my really excellent articles get lost, leaving
> only the mediocre ones. Can't exactly explain it...
> >
> > In the meantime, the main thrust of my response to John
> > was that any discussion on these topics has to take
> > place in the context of Shannon's communication theory.
> > That means:
> >
> > 1. That information theory inevitably carries a dose of
> > teleology - it is an engineering discipline, not a
> > branch of pure descriptive science. Of course,
> > Nature (natural selection) is also an engineer. A
> > central part of this is Shannon's idea of the active
> > channel.
>
> Shannon began his classic paper by observing that it
> didn't matter what the meaning of the message was in his
> theory, so long as the stream received was the stream
> sent. I don't think this is in any way a teleological
> theory, and I believe you are overinterpreting. It applies
> nicely to a nonteleological system (for example, cell--
> cell signalling).
>
As it happens, my lost post anticipated and dealt with this
response. You need to imagine three levels here. Meaning
reduces to information, which in turn reduces to physical
state. Shannon deals only with the lower two levels, but the
information level retains a modicum of teleology. Here is
the quote from Shannon that you referred to, with my
EMPHASIS added:

The fundamental PROBLEM of communication is that of
reproducing at one point either exactly OR APPROXIMATELY a
message selected at another point. Frequently the messages
have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated
according to some system with certain physical or
conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of
communication are irrelevant to the ENGINEERING PROBLEM.
The significant aspect is that the message is one selected
from a set of possible messages. The system MUST BE
DESIGNED to operate for each possible selection ...

However, it must be that you use the word teleological
differently than I do. Cell-to-cell signalling is quite
teleological, as I use the word, assuming of course that
this signalling is an adaptation created by natural
selection to serve some function. Your reductionist
tendencies (or perhaps tendencies toward Cartesian dualism)
may be worse than I thought. Natural selection EXPLAINS the
appearance of design - it does not dispell it. To my mind,
NS restores the respectability of teleology in biology - it
doesn't demand that teleological language and forms of
explanation be suppressed.
 
Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > or quoted:
> > > > > See my reply to John.
> > > >
> > > > Can't seem to find that reply.
> > >
> > > Damn, the reply seems to have been lost by Google
> > > Groups. It was a long one and I didn't save a copy.
> > > Dumb of me.
> >
> > Most of my really excellent articles get lost, leaving
> > only the mediocre ones. Can't exactly explain it...
> > >
> > > In the meantime, the main thrust of my response to
> > > John was that any discussion on these topics has to
> > > take place in the context of Shannon's communication
> > > theory. That means:
> > >
> > > 1. That information theory inevitably carries a dose
> > > of teleology - it is an engineering discipline,
> > > not a branch of pure descriptive science. Of
> > > course, Nature (natural selection) is also an
> > > engineer. A central part of this is Shannon's idea
> > > of the active channel.
> >
> > Shannon began his classic paper by observing that it
> > didn't matter what the meaning of the message was in his
> > theory, so long as the stream received was the stream
> > sent. I don't think this is in any way a teleological
> > theory, and I believe you are overinterpreting. It
> > applies nicely to a nonteleological system (for example,
> > cell--cell signalling).
> >
> As it happens, my lost post anticipated and dealt with
> this response. You need to imagine three levels here.
> Meaning reduces to information, which in turn reduces to
> physical state. Shannon deals only with the lower two
> levels, but the information level retains a modicum of
> teleology. Here is the quote from Shannon that you
> referred to, with my EMPHASIS added:
>
> The fundamental PROBLEM of communication is that of
> reproducing at one point either exactly OR
> APPROXIMATELY a message selected at another point.
> Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they
> refer to or are correlated according to some system
> with certain physical or conceptual entities. These
> semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the
> ENGINEERING PROBLEM. The significant aspect is that the
> message is one selected from a set of possible
> messages. The system MUST BE DESIGNED to operate for
> each possible selection ...

That there is a design problem in Shannon systems is a fact
about the context in which Shannon developed the maths. It
has no more teleology in it that game theory needs rational
egoists to make sense. In a *telegraphic* system there is an
element of intentional design, because that is how
telegraphic systems get made and why. But application of
Shannon theory to a biological system does not involve
teleology, any more than the application of game theory to
genetics or evolution requires reflective self-interest-
maximising agents.
>
> However, it must be that you use the word teleological
> differently than I do. Cell-to-cell signalling is quite
> teleological, as I use the word, assuming of course that
> this signalling is an adaptation created by natural
> selection to serve some function. Your reductionist
> tendencies (or perhaps tendencies toward Cartesian
> dualism) may be worse than I thought. Natural selection
> EXPLAINS the appearance of design - it does not dispell
> it. To my mind, NS restores the respectability of
> teleology in biology - it doesn't demand that teleological
> language and forms of explanation be suppressed.

I think you need to read up on the way teleology has been
dealt with since Mayr and Pittenrigh <sp?> worked out the
notion of a teleonomic system. Teleonomy is goal-seeking
behavior, teleology is goal-directed behavior. Shannon
building a telegraphy system for Bell is teleological,
because Shannon is a gaol-directed system. Cell--cell
signaling is a teleonomic system because it seeks a
particular outcome, but it does so because of decidedly
nonteleological processes.

Think of it like this:

"Blind" systems include teleonomic systems include
teleological systems. The pre-evolutionary view was the
exact reverse.
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au a little emptier, a
little spent as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
 
"John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message news:[email protected]...
> > > Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > > [Regarding the definition of "analog" and "digital"]
> > > > [The] main thrust of my response to John was that
> > > > any discussion on these topics has to take place in
> > > > the context of Shannon's communication theory. That
> > > > means:
> > > >
> > > > 1. That information theory inevitably carries a
> > > > dose of teleology - it is an engineering
> > > > discipline, not a branch of pure descriptive
> > > > science. Of course, Nature (natural selection)
> > > > is also an engineer. A central part of this is
> > > > Shannon's idea of the active channel.
> > >
> > > Shannon began his classic paper by observing that it
> > > didn't matter
what
> > > the meaning of the message was in his theory, so long
> > > as the stream received was the stream sent. I don't
> > > think this is in any way a teleological theory, and I
> > > believe you are overinterpreting. It
applies
> > > nicely to a nonteleological system (for example, cell--
> > > cell
signalling).
> > >
> > As it happens, my lost post anticipated and dealt with
> > this response. You need to imagine three levels here.
> > Meaning reduces to information, which in turn reduces to
> > physical state. Shannon deals only with the lower two
> > levels, but the information level retains a modicum of
> > teleology. Here is the quote from Shannon that you
> > referred to, with my EMPHASIS added:
> >
> > The fundamental PROBLEM of communication is that of
> > reproducing at one point either exactly OR
> > APPROXIMATELY a message selected at another point.
> > Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they
> > refer to or are correlated according to some system
> > with certain physical or conceptual entities. These
> > semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to
> > the ENGINEERING PROBLEM. The significant aspect is
> > that the message is one selected from a set of
> > possible messages. The system MUST BE DESIGNED to
> > operate for each possible selection ...
>
> That there is a design problem in Shannon systems is a
> fact about the context in which Shannon developed the
> maths. It has no more teleology in it that game theory
> needs rational egoists to make sense. In a *telegraphic*
> system there is an element of intentional design, because
> that is how telegraphic systems get made and why. But
> application of Shannon theory to a biological system does
> not involve teleology, any more than the application of
> game theory to genetics or evolution requires reflective
> self-interest-maximising agents.

I am clearly using "teleology" in a broader sense than you
would prefer. More on this below. But in response to this
specific point, I would claim that any analysis of an
information theoretic nature must take into account that
there is some goal, purpose, or function involved in the
preservation or transmission of the information. Otherwise,
the "information" is not really information, it is just an
interesting pattern of noise.

Similarly, any application of game theory involves some kind
of objective function or goal of the agents - that is why
the key parameter is called a "payoff". The same math can be
used on other kinds of systems; ones that don't involve goal-
oriented (I'm trying to avoid "directed" or "seeking")
agents. But then it is no longer "game theory".

> > However, it must be that you use the word teleological
> > differently than I do. Cell-to-cell signalling is quite
> > teleological, as I use the word, assuming of course that
> > this signalling is an adaptation created by natural
> > selection to serve some function. Your reductionist
> > tendencies (or perhaps tendencies toward Cartesian
> > dualism) may be worse than I thought. Natural selection
> > EXPLAINS the appearance of design - it does not dispell
> > it. To my mind, NS restores the respectability of
> > teleology in biology - it doesn't demand that
> > teleological language and forms of explanation be
> > suppressed.
>
> I think you need to read up on the way teleology has been
> dealt with since Mayr and Pittenrigh <sp?> worked out the
> notion of a teleonomic system.

I thank you for directing my attention in that direction.
"Teleomatic", and "teleonomic" seem to be useful terms.
However, in the course of researching this, I find that
"teleological" is used in two senses. In the broad sense, it
is a subject area that encompasses all of the "teleo-"
words. In the narrow sense, it means "goal-directed" and
seems to carry a connotation of consciousness to some
commentators. More on the narrow sense below, but here is a
link to a broad sense use:
http://www.hku.hk/philodep/courses/ac/2011telogic.html

> Teleonomy is goal-seeking behavior, teleology is goal-
> directed behavior. Shannon building a telegraphy system
> for Bell is teleological, because Shannon is a gaol-
> directed system.

Surely all of Shannon is not gaol directed - only the heavy
drinking, football watching portion of the population. ;-)

> Cell--cell signaling is a teleonomic system because it
> seeks a particular outcome, but it does so because of
> decidedly nonteleological processes.

By Jove, I believe that we have Dr. Wilkins committing the
fallacy of composition, led in that direction by Ernst
Mayr! Certainly, the ontogenic development of signaling
apparatus by a cell is teleonomic, rather than narrowly
teleological. In Mayr's terms, the cell is following a
"program". Same goes for the use and operation of that
apparatus. An extreme reductionist might even call these
events "teleomatic" because we are simply witnessing the
working out of physical laws.

But what about the *design* of the signaling apparatus? That
is, what explanation do we give for the fact that almost all
cells of that type in that species construct the same
apparatus and apparently use it for the same function? In my
world-view, a designer can be identified - it is "Nature",
also known as "Natural Selection".

Is NS acting teleonomically? Mayr and Wilkins apparently
think so, but they are reasoning fallaciously by
composition. Each cell is following a program, but is the
"species" of such cell types following a program? Is NS
following a program? I will argue below that it is not.

Of course, our extreme reductionist could claim that the
whole process is teleomatic at all levels. Such a viewpoint
is irrefutable, but not particularly useful (except perhaps
to someone who spends too much time on talk.origins, and is
motivated to refute the argument from design.)

> Think of it like this:
>
> "Blind" systems include teleonomic systems include
> teleological systems. The pre-evolutionary view was the
> exact reverse.

In the course of my research, I was directed to a particular
FAQ archive containing the following essay:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html
which seems to be the only source for the idea that
teleomatic systems include teleonomic systems, which include
strictly teleological systems. I'm not sure which direction
of inclusion is more useful, so for the remainder of this
discussion, I am going to assume they are disjoint. (Hence
the "strictly", below.)

I would define:

A (strictly) TELEOMATIC system is one whose behavior is
"hardwired". It simply follows physical law. While its
behavior may be constrained by its surroundings, it is in no
sense "informed" by the surroundings. Examples might include
(1) the behavior of a dropped rock, which only seems to seek
the center of the earth, (2) a mixture of chemicals, which
only seems to be directed towards equilibrium and the
maximization of the world's entropy.

A (strictly) TELEONOMIC system is one whose behavior is
"programmed". It "senses" some aspects of its surroundings,
and adjusts its behavior in response in a way that optimizes
some objective function, such that it can be said to be goal-
seeking. Since such systems very likely include non-
linearities in their feedback cycles, they may have a kind
of "memory" and can be said to contain a rudimentary model
of their surroundings. A slightly more traditional word for
"telonomic" is "cybernetic". Examples of teleonomic systems
might include (1) the famous rotating pressure regulator for
steam engines,
(2) homeostasis, or cell-to-cell signaling, in the context
of a single organism.

A strictly TELEOLOGICAL system is one whose behavior is
"intelligent" or even "rational" in a broad sense. Such
systems go beyond simply maintaining a model of the
surroundings. They actively construct such models, and
perform "thought experiments" or physical experiments to
answer "What if?" questions. They are goal-directed, and
they achieve those goals, typically, by designing and
constructing teleonomic/teleomatic systems that will achieve
those goals. Examples might include (1) Claude Shannon, (2)
the US NASA, though it is not very good at it, (3) an AI
system, if such a thing is ever constructed, and (4) more
controversially, Natural Selection.

Only someone who insists that the "consciousness" (whatever
THAT is) of the agent and the agent's "understanding" of its
goal must be part of the definition of "teleological" could
disagree. (And, to someone of my world view, such
restrictions would make "teleological" a useless word,
having no real-world entities to describe.) NS is a very hands-
on kind of thinker. She models in the same medium in which
she constructs. Her model of a species is a subpopulation of
a species. She finds the answers to her "What if?" questions
by carrying out physical experiments on a restricted scale.
If her experimental designs are successful, then they are
rolled into full scale production.

So, to summarize, and to return to the original question of
"analog" vs "digital": these words are terms of art, and are
properly used only in the case of systems that are at least
teleonomic. They ought to be used to describe strategies
used to store or transmit information, though they are
sometimes used more loosely to say whether the message has
been selected from a discrete or a continuum set. They are
almost certainly not used appropriately in the analysis of
teleomatic systems, which have no use for "information". You
pretty much agreed with this on another thread, unless I
misread you.

But we seem to have a new issue - whether Nature is acting
strictly teleologically when she designs teleonomic systems.
I am willing to distinguish two different kinds of strict
teleology, and to relegate Nature's kind of teleo- to a
lower level that that of you or I. But I don't think that
Nature is acting strictly teleonomically. In making this
claim, I am partly drawing on my intuition that NS has more
"foresight" than she is usually given credit for. But even
without this bit of heresy on my part, my case seems pretty
good that NS is not merely teleonomic.
 
Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > message news:[email protected]...
> > > > Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > [Regarding the definition of "analog" and
> > > > > "digital"] [The] main thrust of my response to
> > > > > John was that any discussion on these topics has
> > > > > to take place in the context of Shannon's
> > > > > communication theory. That means:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. That information theory inevitably carries a
> > > > > dose of teleology - it is an engineering
> > > > > discipline, not a branch of pure descriptive
> > > > > science. Of course, Nature (natural selection)
> > > > > is also an engineer. A central part of this is
> > > > > Shannon's idea of the active channel.
> > > >
> > > > Shannon began his classic paper by observing that it
> > > > didn't matter what the meaning of the message was in
> > > > his theory, so long as the stream received was the
> > > > stream sent. I don't think this is in any way a
> > > > teleological theory, and I believe you are
> > > > overinterpreting. It applies nicely to a
> > > > nonteleological system (for example, cell--cell
> > > > signalling).
> > > >
> > > As it happens, my lost post anticipated and dealt with
> > > this response. You need to imagine three levels here.
> > > Meaning reduces to information, which in turn reduces
> > > to physical state. Shannon deals only with the lower
> > > two levels, but the information level retains a
> > > modicum of teleology. Here is the quote from Shannon
> > > that you referred to, with my EMPHASIS added:
> > >
> > > The fundamental PROBLEM of communication is that of
> > > reproducing at one point either exactly OR
> > > APPROXIMATELY a message selected at another point.
> > > Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they
> > > refer to or are correlated according to some system
> > > with certain physical or conceptual entities. These
> > > semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to
> > > the ENGINEERING PROBLEM. The significant aspect is
> > > that the message is one selected from a set of
> > > possible messages. The system MUST BE DESIGNED to
> > > operate for each possible selection ...
> >
> > That there is a design problem in Shannon systems is a
> > fact about the context in which Shannon developed the
> > maths. It has no more teleology in it that game theory
> > needs rational egoists to make sense. In a *telegraphic*
> > system there is an element of intentional design,
> > because that is how telegraphic systems get made and
> > why. But application of Shannon theory to a biological
> > system does not involve teleology, any more than the
> > application of game theory to genetics or evolution
> > requires reflective self-interest-maximising agents.
>
> I am clearly using "teleology" in a broader sense than you
> would prefer. More on this below. But in response to this
> specific point, I would claim that any analysis of an
> information theoretic nature must take into account that
> there is some goal, purpose, or function involved in the
> preservation or transmission of the information.
> Otherwise, the "information" is not really information, it
> is just an interesting pattern of noise.

And this is *entirely* a matter of how it is described by
the observer, so is it any wonder that there is some
intentional aspect of the description? But physically, any
system that can be described using (in this case) Shannon
maths is an "information-transmitting" system, no matter if
there is intention in it or not.

The mistake is to infer from our use of intentional
metaphors that anything we can describe in that way must be
intentional (which is what we have when we infer from the
intentionality of a Shannon-designed system to any other
natural system that any Shannonesque system must be
intentional also). It is simply projection.

"Noise" in one formalisation can be a "signal" in another -
consider using a different frequency of a TV signal to
carry, say, the stock reports. The picture may be degraded
by that interference, and be noise relative to the TV
signal. What is noise depends on the uses made by humans, or
on descriptions of processes made by humans.
>
> Similarly, any application of game theory involves some
> kind of objective function or goal of the agents - that is
> why the key parameter is called a "payoff". The same math
> can be used on other kinds of systems; ones that don't
> involve goal-oriented (I'm trying to avoid "directed" or
> "seeking") agents. But then it is no longer "game theory".

The maths is identical. Game theory is the maths. You
surprise me, Jim; I thought you would not make that
sort of claim.
>
> > > However, it must be that you use the word teleological
> > > differently than I do. Cell-to-cell signalling is
> > > quite teleological, as I use the word, assuming of
> > > course that this signalling is an adaptation created
> > > by natural selection to serve some function. Your
> > > reductionist tendencies (or perhaps tendencies toward
> > > Cartesian dualism) may be worse than I thought.
> > > Natural selection EXPLAINS the appearance of design -
> > > it does not dispell it. To my mind, NS restores the
> > > respectability of teleology in biology - it doesn't
> > > demand that teleological language and forms of
> > > explanation be suppressed.
> >
> > I think you need to read up on the way teleology has
> > been dealt with since Mayr and Pittenrigh <sp?> worked
> > out the notion of a teleonomic system.
>
> I thank you for directing my attention in that direction.
> "Teleomatic", and "teleonomic" seem to be useful terms.
> However, in the course of researching this, I find that
> "teleological" is used in two senses. In the broad sense,
> it is a subject area that encompasses all of the "teleo-"
> words. In the narrow sense, it means "goal-directed" and
> seems to carry a connotation of consciousness to some
> commentators. More on the narrow sense below, but here is
> a link to a broad sense use:
> http://www.hku.hk/philodep/courses/ac/2011telogic.html

I find that biologists often do not quite get teleology,
which is why they so often return to it. But you are being
misled by words, that's all.

I wrote this once before, if I may quote myself here:

"Quite generally in biology, teleology appears to have been
decisively rejected, despite the resurgence of so-called
"systems" theory in popular environmentalism. Mayr makes the
point that goal-directed thinking in biology is rarely
teleological in the sense of Teilhardian Omega Points or
inevitable progress, but rather is functionalist. O'Grady
and Brooks (1986), following Mayr's initial (1982)
discussion, distinguish between three types of "end-
attaining" activity: teleomatic ("end-resulting", referred
to in the Figure as "lawlike"), teleonomic ("end-directed")
and teleological ("goal-seeking"). Generally, philosophers,
under Aristotle's influence, assume the teleological
approach. They nest the three kinds into each other (Figure
right side). The idealist (Kantian) conception of purpose
according to Mayr's characterisation is exactly the inverse
of the Darwinian, and as a result, evolutionary change since
Lamarck has often been seen as necessarily directed to an
end, since there is an over-riding purpose to all facets of
nature. Thus, purpose is the more general set, including the
other two in reverse order. Still, the only process that is
undeniably teleological, in the sense of being actively goal
seeking, is the cognitive process of higher animals. Other
processes may be apparently or arguably goal seeking, but as
with many neo-Kantian doctrines, this one often puts the
cart before the horse. Darwin overturned that cart, and
denied that because we need to see purpose in processes,
that purpose was required to explain those processes. Under
a darwinian model, according to Mayr, purposive behaviour is
a special case of general functional processes (Figure left
side). This satisfies my own biases and intuitions.

Darwinian conception Idealist conception
teleomatic---------lawlike processes----+ +-----teleological
| |
includes | | includes
| |
teleonomic---------functional processes----------
teleonomic
| |
includes | | includes
| |
teleological-------cognitive processes-----+ +--------
teleomatic

The significance of this for a general theory of evolution
is that it resolves many of the confusions that arise when
biologists discuss functional systems - where it is more
than merely convenient to refer to the processes of a system
as goal seeking. By being able to refer to the state-
maintaining processes as teleomatic, and where necessary as
teleonomic, without implications of agency or purpose,
allows us to make clear distinctions between different kinds
functional systems without anthropomorphic confusion such as
trailed the publication of Dawkins' 1977."
>
>
> > Teleonomy is goal-seeking behavior, teleology is goal-
> > directed behavior. Shannon building a telegraphy system
> > for Bell is teleological, because Shannon is a gaol-
> > directed system.
>
> Surely all of Shannon is not gaol directed - only the
> heavy drinking, football watching portion of the
> population. ;-)

Claude Shannon was a population? Are you going all
Minskyan on me?
>
> > Cell--cell signaling is a teleonomic system because it
> > seeks a particular outcome, but it does so because of
> > decidedly nonteleological processes.
>
> By Jove, I believe that we have Dr. Wilkins committing the
> fallacy of composition, led in that direction by Ernst
> Mayr! Certainly, the ontogenic development of signaling
> apparatus by a cell is teleonomic, rather than narrowly
> teleological. In Mayr's terms, the cell is following a
> "program". Same goes for the use and operation of that
> apparatus. An extreme reductionist might even call these
> events "teleomatic" because we are simply witnessing the
> working out of physical laws.

It doesn't take an *extreme* reductionist to do this.
Ordinary science will be able to call processes teleomatic
even when cells are following (and I note the necessary
scare quotes) "programs". Which is another metaphor...
>
> But what about the *design* of the signaling apparatus?
> That is, what explanation do we give for the fact that
> almost all cells of that type in that species construct
> the same apparatus and apparently use it for the same
> function? In my world-view, a designer can be identified -
> it is "Nature", also known as "Natural Selection".

The use of the term "design" is yet another metaphor.
Evolution doesn't design things - it makes things look to
systems that do recognise design
- us - as if they were designed. Dawkins calls this
designoids, I call it "quasidesign" (where "qua si" means
"as if" in Latin). Selection doesn't design - it
quasidesigns. And the recognition of that design lies
totally in our pattern recognition capacities. And *we*
evolved to both design and recognise design.
>
> Is NS acting teleonomically? Mayr and Wilkins apparently
> think so, but they are reasoning fallaciously by
> composition. Each cell is following a program, but is the
> "species" of such cell types following a program? Is NS
> following a program? I will argue below that it is not.
>
> Of course, our extreme reductionist could claim that the
> whole process is teleomatic at all levels. Such a
> viewpoint is irrefutable, but not particularly useful
> (except perhaps to someone who spends too much time on
> talk.origins, and is motivated to refute the argument from
> design.)

I have larger ambitions than that. I think that intentional
language ought to be restricted to systems that are actually
capable of having intentions. So I was to drop "function" as
well as "goal", "purpose" and "design" from descriptions of
the natural world, and realise that these intentional
aspects of things actually reflect the nature of our models
rather than the nature of the modeled things (unless we are
dealing with intentional systems, like us).
>
>
> > Think of it like this:
> >
> > "Blind" systems include teleonomic systems include
> > teleological systems. The pre-evolutionary view was the
> > exact reverse.
>
> In the course of my research, I was directed to a
> particular FAQ archive containing the following essay:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html
> which seems to be the only source for the idea that
> teleomatic systems include teleonomic systems, which
> include strictly teleological systems. I'm not sure which
> direction of inclusion is more useful, so for the
> remainder of this discussion, I am going to assume they
> are disjoint. (Hence the "strictly", below.)

See above. Besides, the author was just a tyro at the time
he wrote that.
>
> I would define:
>
> A (strictly) TELEOMATIC system is one whose behavior is
> "hardwired". It simply follows physical law. While its
> behavior may be constrained by its surroundings, it is in
> no sense "informed" by the surroundings. Examples might
> include (1) the behavior of a dropped rock, which only
> seems to seek the center of the earth, (2) a mixture of
> chemicals, which only seems to be directed towards
> equilibrium and the maximization of the world's entropy.
>
> A (strictly) TELEONOMIC system is one whose behavior is
> "programmed". It "senses" some aspects of its
> surroundings, and adjusts its behavior in response in a
> way that optimizes some objective function, such that it
> can be said to be goal-seeking. Since such systems very
> likely include non-linearities in their feedback cycles,
> they may have a kind of "memory" and can be said to
> contain a rudimentary model of their surroundings. A
> slightly more traditional word for "telonomic" is
> "cybernetic". Examples of teleonomic systems might include
> (1) the famous rotating pressure regulator for steam
> engines,
> (2) homeostasis, or cell-to-cell signaling, in the context
> of a single organism.
>
> A strictly TELEOLOGICAL system is one whose behavior is
> "intelligent" or even "rational" in a broad sense. Such
> systems go beyond simply maintaining a model of the
> surroundings. They actively construct such models, and
> perform "thought experiments" or physical experiments to
> answer "What if?" questions. They are goal-directed, and
> they achieve those goals, typically, by designing and
> constructing teleonomic/teleomatic systems that will
> achieve those goals. Examples might include (1) Claude
> Shannon, (2) the US NASA, though it is not very good at
> it, (3) an AI system, if such a thing is ever constructed,
> and (4) more controversially, Natural Selection.
>
> Only someone who insists that the "consciousness"
> (whatever THAT is) of the agent and the agent's
> "understanding" of its goal must be part of the definition
> of "teleological" could disagree. (And, to someone of my
> world view, such restrictions would make "teleological" a
> useless word, having no real-world entities to describe.)
> NS is a very hands-on kind of thinker. She models in the
> same medium in which she constructs. Her model of a
> species is a subpopulation of a species. She finds the
> answers to her "What if?" questions by carrying out
> physical experiments on a restricted scale. If her
> experimental designs are successful, then they are rolled
> into full scale production.
>
> So, to summarize, and to return to the original question
> of "analog" vs "digital": these words are terms of art,
> and are properly used only in the case of systems that are
> at least teleonomic. They ought to be used to describe
> strategies used to store or transmit information, though
> they are sometimes used more loosely to say whether the
> message has been selected from a discrete or a continuum
> set. They are almost certainly not used appropriately in
> the analysis of teleomatic systems, which have no use for
> "information". You pretty much agreed with this on another
> thread, unless I misread you.
>
> But we seem to have a new issue - whether Nature is acting
> strictly teleologically when she designs teleonomic
> systems. I am willing to distinguish two different kinds
> of strict teleology, and to relegate Nature's kind of teleo-
> to a lower level that that of you or I. But I don't think
> that Nature is acting strictly teleonomically. In making
> this claim, I am partly drawing on my intuition that NS
> has more "foresight" than she is usually given credit for.
> But even without this bit of heresy on my part, my case
> seems pretty good that NS is not merely teleonomic.

True. It is purely teleomatic...
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au a little emptier, a
little spent as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
 
[email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message news:[email protected]...
[snip]
> > > Teleonomy is goal-seeking behavior, teleology is goal-
> > > directed behavior. Shannon building a telegraphy
> > > system for Bell is teleological, because Shannon is a
> > > gaol-directed system.
> >
> > Surely all of Shannon is not gaol directed - only the
> > heavy drinking, football watching portion of the
> > population. ;-)
>
> Claude Shannon was a population? Are you going all
> Minskyan on me?
[snip]

I chose to misinterpret your second "Shannon" as a reference
to the region, rather than the man. Perhaps I would have
been clearer if I has said "rugger playing" instead of
"football watching".

http://www.shannondev.ie/VintageRugby/index.html

That would have made "heavy drinking" redundant, as well.

Regarding the ways in which you have chosen to misinterpret
my postings, I find that they don't have much to do with
"Analog vs Digital" either, so I will make them the subject
of two new threads:
* Applied math(s) - Information and game theory
* Teleomatic, teleonomic, and teleological
 
[email protected] (Jim Menegay) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > "John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> > message news:[email protected]...
> [snip]
>> > > Teleonomy is goal-seeking behavior, teleology is goal-
>> > > directed behavior. Shannon building a telegraphy
>> > > system for Bell is teleological, because Shannon is a
>> > > gaol-directed system.
>> >
>> > Surely all of Shannon is not gaol directed - only the
>> > heavy drinking, football watching portion of the
>> > population. ;-)
>>
>> Claude Shannon was a population? Are you going all
>> Minskyan on me?
> [snip]
>
> I chose to misinterpret your second "Shannon" as a
> reference to the region, rather than the man. Perhaps I
> would have been clearer if I has said "rugger playing"
> instead of "football watching".
>
> http://www.shannondev.ie/VintageRugby/index.html
>
> That would have made "heavy drinking" redundant, as well.

I think John did not recognize that he had misspelled "goal"
- and I am not sure that Australians readily recognize gaol
as jail - but then most Americans don't either. I for one
thought your deliberate misinterpretation was quite clever,
even though I have never heard of Shannon as a region, and
tend to immediately assume that football refers to the
American variant, rather than either association football or
rugby football :)

Yours,

Bill Morse
 
William Morse <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Jim Menegay) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > [email protected] (John Wilkins) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Perplexed in Peoria <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > "John Wilkins" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> > message news:[email protected]...
> > [snip]
> >> > > Teleonomy is goal-seeking behavior, teleology is
> >> > > goal-directed behavior. Shannon building a
> >> > > telegraphy system for Bell is teleological, because
> >> > > Shannon is a gaol-directed system.
> >> >
> >> > Surely all of Shannon is not gaol directed - only the
> >> > heavy drinking, football watching portion of the
> >> > population. ;-)
> >>
> >> Claude Shannon was a population? Are you going all
> >> Minskyan on me?
> > [snip]
> >
> > I chose to misinterpret your second "Shannon" as a
> > reference to the region, rather than the man. Perhaps I
> > would have been clearer if I has said "rugger playing"
> > instead of "football watching".
> >
> > http://www.shannondev.ie/VintageRugby/index.html
> >
> > That would have made "heavy drinking" redundant,
> > as well.
>
> I think John did not recognize that he had misspelled
> "goal" - and I am not sure that Australians readily
> recognize gaol as jail - but then most Americans don't
> either. I for one thought your deliberate
> misinterpretation was quite clever, even though I have
> never heard of Shannon as a region, and tend to
> immediately assume that football refers to the American
> variant, rather than either association football or rugby
> football :)
>
Oops. No spellchecker on MacSOUP...
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au a little emptier, a
little spent as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
 
> From: [email protected] ([email protected])
> Would it not be true that social knowledge is analog data
> - since it is stored in the brain, which seems to be an
> analog device. Hence, the evolution of social knowledge

Yes, it would *not* be true (for longterm storage).
Generally longterm social memory is achieved by putting the
idea into words. That's why famous sayings such as those of
Aesop and Franklin are popular, as well as Biblical
commandments and other popular passages, and nursery rhymes.
Usually a person remembers such a famous saying, then needs
to figure out again what it means because the analog memory
had faded since the saying was last used. Sometimes somebody
can remember the exact words of the saying but not figure
out what it really means. In some cases different people
remember the exact same words but argue about their meaning,
such as whether the prohibition against killing applies to
unborn fetuses.