> Reply to Mario Vaneechoutte:
>
> >> Your cake example is very nice! I agree with your definition of
> >> emergence. However, there is (at least) one difficult part in it:
> >> you need a definition of qualities. Who is determining qualities?
> >> If only humans determine qualities, then your emergence would be
> >> an anthropocentric notion. But if you consider qualities broader,
> >> then you have to define a non-human observer who determines
> >> qualities.
> >
> >As I understand it, you assume that qualities only exist when they are
> >observed.Maybe there is confusion with value. I consider value as the
> >interpretation of the quality by an observer (a processor).
> >
> >Maybe an exerpt of the manuscript I am preparing may explain what I
> >mean.
> >
> >"Indeed, this definition of experience also enables us to propose
> >generally applicable definitions for 'quality' and 'value'. Quality
> >could be defined as the true fit, the true usefulness of a substrate for
> >a process. Value is the quality of a substrate as it is experien-ced by
> >a processor.
> >For example, the activity of DNA-polymerases (which pick nucleotides out
> >of the environment and incorporate these into an elongating
> >polynucleotide chain, taking an existing DNA-strand as the model) needs
> >correction by proof reading DNA-polymerases, since wrong nucleotides can
> >be built in. Correspondingly, DNA-polymerases can incorporate synthetic
> >nucleotides, which differ slightly from the natural ones, but which may
> >end the process of elongation. The above examples can be described as
> >the phenomenon whereby the true quality of a substrate for an ongoing
> >process is misvalued by a processor.
> >Animals must make such quality estimates all of the time (think of food
> >and partner choice) and other organisms try to influence this decision
> >making all of the time by for instance mimicry (for example poisonous
> >looking prey may be very nutritive, one may try to look better than one
> >is in an effort to attract what is the best possible partner according
> >to one's judgement, which itself may be fooled by tricks of the
> >potential partner.). Humans are even more confronted with the problem of
> >valuing the quality of a product. For instance, for a large series of
> >products with comparable quality (for example wash powders), commercials
> >try constantly to make us assign more value to some of these."
> >
> >So, I consider quality as a truly existing property of matter, while
> >value is how it is interpreted by a processor (an enzyme, a cell, an
> >animal). E.g., when I misinterprete (assign the wrong value/properties)
> >to a poisonous substance, I certainly will experience the true quality
> >of the poison later on.
>
> I don't argue that qualities and values (in your definition) are
> different things. But I disagree that qualities are observer-independent
> whereas values are observer-dependent. Both are observer-dependent,
> but the observer is a human being. If this human being builds a
> physical model of the process (e.g., DNA polymerization) he gets
> "qualities". When he builds a semiotic model, he gets "values" (in
> your definition). These models are complementary according to Pattee,
> But in both cases there is a human being who makes suggestions what
> is good for this process and what is bad.
>
> The danger is that this human being may make a wrong assumption
> about the goals of the system (or process). For example, if the
> DNA-polymerasa attaches a "wrong" nucleotide that stops further
> polymerization, we consider it as an error. But who knows, in some
> systems, this "error" may be useful for some other purpose. Our
> judjement on what fits and what does not fit is based on our
> subjective understanding of the goals of the system. And you
> call it an objective quality!
First, I try to avoid anthropocentrism, so many of your criticisms do not
really apply to what I am trying to say.Second, maybe we can come to some
agreement when I use the word property instead of quality. A
dideoxynucleotide has the property to end the process of DNA-elongation when
built in in the new strand: this makes a difference, since a process will go
on or will stop depending on the inclusion of deoxy resp. dideoxynucleotide.
Since the function of a polymerase has been naturally selected for
DNA-duplication it misinterprets the value of the substrate when taking a
dideoxy. This does not depend on whether a human describes the process.
(Bateson's description of information comes back here as well: a difference
(deoxy or dideoxy) which makes a difference (elongation or stop of
elongation).)
>
>
> Death is not a physical category, but a semantic
> category. Death is optional considering that each life problem
> can be solved in a variety of ways.
???? Could you explain?
>
>
> >Some people claim that the world does not really exist when there is no
> >observer. Is it
> >possible that you are thinking in the same direction?
>
> Does it really matter if the world exists when there is no
> observer? WHO cares? If our model of the world looks better
> if we assume the existence of the world without observer, this
> is neither a proof nor disproof. Why to argue on the matter
> that does not matter?
I did not argue. I asked a question.
> We are free to make any models of the
> world that work. This is the major idea of pragmatism of
> Peirce and James.
Yes, but in science what we try to do is to develop a model which also works
when applied in reality. So, that is what we try to do here: find a model on
which we can agree.
>
>
> But despite our differences in philosophy, I like very much what
> you write about perception and motivation at the molecular level.
> And I agree with your notion of emergence. I came to the same
> conclusion myself, but have not written anything.
>
>
> Best regards,
> -Alexei
> -------------------------------------------------
> Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
> Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
> Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
> Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html
-- Mario.Vaneechoutte Department Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology & Immunology University Hospital De Pintelaan 185 9000 GENT Belgium Phone: +32 9 240 36 92 Fax: +32 9 240 36 59 E-mail: Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.beJ. Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission: http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/