27 research outputs found
The Computability-Theoretic Content of Emergence
In dealing with emergent phenomena, a common task is to identify useful descriptions of them in terms of the underlying atomic processes, and to extract enough computational content from these descriptions to enable predictions to be made. Generally, the underlying atomic processes are quite well understood, and (with important exceptions) captured by mathematics from which it is relatively easy to extract algorithmic con- tent. A widespread view is that the difficulty in describing transitions from algorithmic activity to the emergence associated with chaotic situations is a simple case of complexity outstripping computational resources and human ingenuity. Or, on the other hand, that phenomena transcending the standard Turing model of computation, if they exist, must necessarily lie outside the domain of classical computability theory. In this article we suggest that much of the current confusion arises from conceptual gaps and the lack of a suitably fundamental model within which to situate emergence. We examine the potential for placing emer- gent relations in a familiar context based on Turing's 1939 model for interactive computation over structures described in terms of reals. The explanatory power of this model is explored, formalising informal descrip- tions in terms of mathematical definability and invariance, and relating a range of basic scientific puzzles to results and intractable problems in computability theory
Stepping Beyond the Newtonian Paradigm in Biology. Towards an Integrable Model of Life: Accelerating Discovery in the Biological Foundations of Science
The INBIOSA project brings together a group of experts across many disciplines
who believe that science requires a revolutionary transformative
step in order to address many of the vexing challenges presented by the
world. It is INBIOSAâs purpose to enable the focused collaboration of an
interdisciplinary community of original thinkers.
This paper sets out the case for support for this effort. The focus of the
transformative research program proposal is biology-centric. We admit
that biology to date has been more fact-oriented and less theoretical than
physics. However, the key leverageable idea is that careful extension of the
science of living systems can be more effectively applied to some of our
most vexing modern problems than the prevailing scheme, derived from
abstractions in physics. While these have some universal application and
demonstrate computational advantages, they are not theoretically mandated
for the living. A new set of mathematical abstractions derived from biology
can now be similarly extended. This is made possible by leveraging
new formal tools to understand abstraction and enable computability. [The
latter has a much expanded meaning in our context from the one known
and used in computer science and biology today, that is "by rote algorithmic
means", since it is not known if a living system is computable in this
sense (Mossio et al., 2009).] Two major challenges constitute the effort.
The first challenge is to design an original general system of abstractions
within the biological domain. The initial issue is descriptive leading to the
explanatory. There has not yet been a serious formal examination of the
abstractions of the biological domain. What is used today is an amalgam;
much is inherited from physics (via the bridging abstractions of chemistry)
and there are many new abstractions from advances in mathematics (incentivized
by the need for more capable computational analyses). Interspersed
are abstractions, concepts and underlying assumptions ânativeâ to biology
and distinct from the mechanical language of physics and computation as
we know them. A pressing agenda should be to single out the most concrete
and at the same time the most fundamental process-units in biology
and to recruit them into the descriptive domain. Therefore, the first challenge
is to build a coherent formal system of abstractions and operations
that is truly native to living systems.
Nothing will be thrown away, but many common methods will be philosophically
recast, just as in physics relativity subsumed and reinterpreted
Newtonian mechanics.
This step is required because we need a comprehensible, formal system to
apply in many domains. Emphasis should be placed on the distinction between
multi-perspective analysis and synthesis and on what could be the
basic terms or tools needed.
The second challenge is relatively simple: the actual application of this set
of biology-centric ways and means to cross-disciplinary problems. In its
early stages, this will seem to be a ânew scienceâ.
This White Paper sets out the case of continuing support of Information
and Communication Technology (ICT) for transformative research in biology
and information processing centered on paradigm changes in the epistemological,
ontological, mathematical and computational bases of the science
of living systems. Today, curiously, living systems cannot be said to
be anything more than dissipative structures organized internally by genetic
information. There is not anything substantially different from abiotic
systems other than the empirical nature of their robustness. We believe that
there are other new and unique properties and patterns comprehensible at
this bio-logical level. The report lays out a fundamental set of approaches
to articulate these properties and patterns, and is composed as follows.
Sections 1 through 4 (preamble, introduction, motivation and major biomathematical
problems) are incipient. Section 5 describes the issues affecting
Integral Biomathics and Section 6 -- the aspects of the Grand Challenge
we face with this project. Section 7 contemplates the effort to
formalize a General Theory of Living Systems (GTLS) from what we have
today. The goal is to have a formal system, equivalent to that which exists
in the physics community. Here we define how to perceive the role of time
in biology. Section 8 describes the initial efforts to apply this general theory
of living systems in many domains, with special emphasis on crossdisciplinary
problems and multiple domains spanning both âhardâ and
âsoftâ sciences. The expected result is a coherent collection of integrated
mathematical techniques. Section 9 discusses the first two test cases, project
proposals, of our approach. They are designed to demonstrate the ability
of our approach to address âwicked problemsâ which span across physics,
chemistry, biology, societies and societal dynamics. The solutions
require integrated measurable results at multiple levels known as âgrand
challengesâ to existing methods. Finally, Section 10 adheres to an appeal
for action, advocating the necessity for further long-term support of the
INBIOSA program.
The report is concluded with preliminary non-exclusive list of challenging
research themes to address, as well as required administrative actions. The
efforts described in the ten sections of this White Paper will proceed concurrently.
Collectively, they describe a program that can be managed and
measured as it progresses
Glossarium BITri 2016 : Interdisciplinary Elucidation of Concepts, Metaphors, Theories and Problems Concerning Information
222 p.Terms included in this glossary recap some of the main
concepts, theories, problems and metaphors concerning
INFORMATION in all spheres of knowledge.
This is the first edition of an ambitious enterprise covering
at its completion all relevant notions relating to
INFORMATION in any scientific context. As such,
this glossariumBITri is part of the broader project
BITrum, which is committed to the mutual understanding
of all disciplines devoted to information
across fields of knowledge and practic
Psychology as Philosophy, Philosophy as Psychology--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019
Since philosophical problems are the result of our innate psychology, or as Wittgenstein put it, due to the lack of perspicuity of language, they run throughout human discourse and behavior, so there is endless need for philosophical analysis, not only in the âhuman sciencesâ of philosophy, sociology, anthropology, political science, psychology, history, literature, religion, etc., but in the âhard sciencesâ of physics, mathematics, and biology. It is universal to mix the language game questions with the real scientific ones as to what the empirical facts are. Scientism is ever-present and Wittgenstein, arguably the greatest intuitive psychologist of all time, has laid it before us long ago, beginning with the Blue and Brown Books in the early 1930âs.
Language is programmed in our genes and is involved in nearly all our social behavior. Philosophy in the strict sense (i.e., academic philosophy), is as Wittgenstein showed us, the study of the way language is used (language games) and I regard it as the descriptive psychology of higher order thought (i.e., pretty much everything involving language which is often called System 2 or slow thinking). However, as I hope I have shown in my writings over the last decade, nonlinguistic behavior or System 1 or fast thinking is also described with language and this leads to endless confusion which I have tried to clarify here and which is summarized in the tables that I present.
It is my contention that the table of intentionality (rationality, mind, thought, language, personality etc.) that features prominently here describes more or less accurately, or at least serves as an heuristic for, how we think and behave, and so it encompasses not merely philosophy and psychology, but everything else (history, literature, mathematics, politics etc.). Note especially that intentionality and rationality as I (along with Searle, Wittgenstein and others) view it, includes both conscious deliberative linguistic System 2 and unconscious automated prelinguistic System 1 actions or reflexes.
I provide a critical survey of some of the major findings of two of the most eminent students of behavior of modern times, Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle, on the logical structure of intentionality (mind, language, behavior), taking as my starting point Wittgensteinâs fundamental discovery âthat all truly âphilosophicalâ problems are the sameâconfusions about how to use language in a particular context, and so all solutions are the sameâlooking at how language can be used in the context at issue so that its truth conditions (Conditions of Satisfaction or COS) are clear. The basic problem is that one can say anything, but one cannot mean (state clear COS for) any arbitrary utterance and meaning is only possible in a very specific context. I analyze various writings by and about them from the modern perspective of the two systems of thought (popularized as âthinking fast, thinking slowâ), employing a new table of intentionality and new dual systems nomenclature. I show that this is a powerful heuristic for describing behavior with critical reviews of the writings of a wide variety of behavioral scientists (i.e., everyone).
The first group of articles attempt to give some insight into how we behave that is reasonably free of theoretical delusions. In the next three groups I comment on three of the principal delusions preventing a sustainable worldâ technology, religion and politics (cooperative groups). People believe that society can be saved by them, so I provide some suggestions in the rest of the book as to why this is unlikely via short articles and reviews of recent books by well-known writers