BrainBrains: Remembering...

The areas of the brain involved in the cognitive processes of remembering, call it short term, medium term, working memory, whatever one wishes to call it, the areas of the brain involved exhibit only effects of a systemic multicausality that (co)implicates cellular and infra-cellular levels and respective quantum fields for the sustainability and respective integrity of the organisms, in which take place dynamics of intensive reflexivity needed to the sustainability of the dynamics of cognitive syntheses to the image projection and respective verbalization for communicational interfaces, cognitive syntheses worked in the brain, an organizer, integrator organ indispensable to the production of the order that keeps the system as permanent presence.

The brain is not the exclusive producer of order for the organism, the brain depends upon the cells and upon the cellular and infra-cellular activity. The brain is a part of an integrated whole, and when scientists observe effects, what they are observing is the expression of a mechanical terminal, and no more than that, the rest one must interpret, analyze, evaluate, otherwise the organic causality and respective fundament will always escape them. Memory and the processes of remembering begin at the level of the fields of sustainability of the organism, it is there that are the life, existence, survival records that imports to recover and reelaborate for the dynamics of remembering. The brain is at the end of the line.

"On Systems and Their Fields of Sustainability"

...where there are entities...

Where there are things, entities, there are fields, necessarily, and there is no field of relations, of sustainability, without gravity, therefore, there is no field of relations, of sustainability, without electromagnetism, if this is visible at the level of the effects, or not, depends upon the dynamics of the field, depends upon what is needed, but that does not mean in no way at all that the electromagnetic capability is not there, and this because electromagnetism is not an entity, the electromagnetism depends, dispositionally, upon the fields, depends, dispositionally, upon gravity, or, better, upon the gravitic dynamics.

Everything is possible, in this cosmos, in other cosmos, in this world, in other worlds, in this dimension, in other dimensions…, and, of course, without electromagnetism there is no record, there is no memory…, there is no system…,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/Escher%2C_Still_Life_and_Street.jpg

Crisis?! Crisis of what?!

Crisis?! Crisis of what?! Right..., just crisis!

Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, and so on…, the objective is not, and never was that of balancing the States’ accounts and resolving the problem of Countries' debt crises: that is the pretext. The objective was, always was, that of implementing the “shock doctrine” (Naomi Klein), defended by Milton Friedman: to take advantage of the crises in order to implement transformations that the people would never be in favor of.

Systematic unconstitutional measures are part of the strategy: to impoverish the people, to make Countries’ Constitutions fall, to impose a neoliberal dictatorship justified by programs of “external aid”/"bailouts".

The governments’ predictions fail because they are supposed to fail. False predictions are supplied, with the knowledge of government officials that these predictions will fail, they are supposed to fail: false predictions are a way of disguising that the goal is precisely to sink the middle class and Countries' economies making them dependent upon a global transnational financial system and respective elite, supported by a neoliberal ideology with a dictatorial program that needs the violation of freedoms and guarantees, in which the human condition, autonomy and dignity become targets.

The fiscal crises are the pretext and the opportunity to implement the program of unlawfully taking over of countries and peoples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anti-capitalism_color.jpg

...absurdus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tenniel_red_queen_with_alice.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extinction_Intensity.svg

Our survival is permanently managed at the razor’s edge...

Is existence sisyphic?! Absurdus/absurda?! (Camus)

Existence is indissociable from experience: experience of oneself, experience of the others, experience of the world, of the cosmos...

Existence is always conditioned by experience and by the initial formative systemic conditions, which means that the systemic growth and development structurally depend upon imposed anticipatory determinating rules, rules of integrity.

Of course, the systems can rewrite and do rewrite their initial conditions, but it is exactly that: to (re)write, to (re)write from what is there, and what is there will always remain, as initial formative condition.

Experience is always, the experience of some thing, of ourselves, of the others…, experience incorporates limits, conditions with conditioning intersubjective phenotypic effects: the judgments that we produce, the choices we make, what we are, is always conditioned by (co)existence and the (co)experience of our (co)existence.

How does freedom fit here?! The question of autonomy?! The question of the arbitriu?! There are always some things that we cannot escape, we can choose between various paths available, but those paths must be previously available, and sometimes there are no paths, it is we who have to enact our way through. Perhaps our freedom is reduced to that. If we can, or not, enact the paths is not the point, the point is our self-determination, our effort, only there are we free. In this sense, Sisyphus was free.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Punishment_sisyph.jpg

Esse in re… esse in intellectu...

By: Maria Odete Madeira (Originally placed in this blog at 13/12/2009 but the guiling (?) singularity seems to have erased it:
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.pt%2Fgroup%2Ffilosofia-matematica-conhecimento%2Fbrowse_thread%2Fthread%2F1d3615509f6b5e1d&ei=QmsvULq_BoiXhQf72oCwDA&usg=AFQjCNFyG96oni3N-2uBciWpyin3M8rmhA&sig2=uoiEpEccig575Gkifi4-3Q&cad=rja)

Esse in re… esse in intellectu…, reality is that which resists to all the forms of negation…

Such as any other systems, all the systems said to be alive, follow an organizing genetics, conditioned by laws of structure that depend upon the initial formative systemic conditions, which means that the systemic growth and development structurally depend upon imposed anticipatory determinating rules, upon which the respective systems depend, in terms of integrity.

But what is a rule? What is the nature of a rule? What can be the ontological status of a rule? How can rules, that a system is unaware of and that, obviously, didn’t choose, condition all its life? All its choices? Its actions? Its paths? Because even if the system can rewrite its initial conditions, that rewriting will, still, be conditioned by its vital laws of structure.

In this context, what pertinence can there have the projection of scenarios, configured by pre-figurated degrees of freedom? Within what parameters would it be possible to consider planes of systemic transcendence?

Transcendence involves the concept of limit, to transcend is the act by which someone, or some thing surpasses or “escapes” the limits imposed by the immanence. An act of transcendence is an act of projective opening by which the system launches itself, or jumps, towards outside of itself in itself, in that which, with pertinence, can be designated by systemic jump, that is, the jump that installs in the systemic identity the ontological dyad, conceptually synthesizable as the other of itself, that which, in the system, is exterior and heterogeneous to the plane of immanence that determines it physically.

... experior haec exterior…

Capitalism: the Imperium Phase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jean_Dodal_Tarot_trump_13.jpg

The capitalist mode of production has attained its Imperium phase, the sustainability in the causes is very difficult, when the “catastrophe points” are more active, precisely at causality levels. In this phase, the nonlocality became, itself, a locality by (onto)synthesis, the risk exposure is tremendous, like a “god” trying to escape himself.

The system closed itself. How can a “god” escape himself?! By negation?! By disaggregation?! By suicide?! By extension to other “gods”?! Other “gods” by the excess produced by a “god” in trouble?! By hyperconsumption in trouble?!

The system entered in a systemic looping. Will it commit suicide as the solution?! Or will it continue grabbing on to the hyperconsumption dynamics, enacting an excess of itself as resource of sustainability, waiting for the evaporation of its BlackHoleness?!

Autopoiesis...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/DAPIMitoTrackerRedAlexaFluor488BPAE.jpg/320px-DAPIMitoTrackerRedAlexaFluor488BPAE.jpg

It is in the flux of the PresentNow that we, as integrated systems, must guarantee, in the FutureNow, the sustainability that guarantees our permanence as living systems. But what is this FutureNow?! What does it mean?! We are always a to be(ing) (verb). We must guarantee in the immediate future our conditions of (onto)presence, otherwise, we cannot survive.

The “future” is our position in the “flux” of permanence: we have to be before ourselves to be in ourselves, we must anticipate in the “flux” our presence in the permanence of ourselves, and this is our “afterness”: we, each of us, are after ourselves. Indeed, while, in terms of chronological ordering, the future comes after the present, in ontological terms, the FutureNow comes before the PresentNow, it is about permanence and sustainability as PresenceThere.

We must enact ourselves, we must enact the permanence of ourselves in ourselves: that is self-sustainability, that is autopoiesis.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Campo12Foto_2.JPG/320px-Campo12Foto_2.JPG

Quantum Complex Systems Science, Risk Science and Econophysics

BY: Carlos Pedro Gonçalves

From the complex sciences’ scientific basis, quantum complex systems science may offer new conceptual and modeling tools to address risk in complex systems, including human societies and economies.

In order to be effective, quantum complex systems science must generalize formalisms, tools and methodologies to be able to apply them effectively in different settings. Thus, from the underlying formalism of quantum mechanics, one may develop interdisciplinary work and apply it to different problems which are of concern to the complex systems sciences and to risk science.

A few examples of research centers directly concerned with complex quantum systems include:

“The Center for Complex Quantum Systems” ( http://order.ph.utexas.edu/), 

“Complex Quantum Systems Research Group” ( http://www.physik.uni-regensburg.de/forschung/richter/richter/), 

“The Dahlem Center for Complex Quantum Systems” (http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/en/einrichtungen/dahlem_center_cqs/),

CoQus  ( http://www.coqus.at/).

The above-quoted first research center works within the Brussels-Austin school for complexity, mainly influenced by Prigogine’s work and has a theoretical background that is strongly integrated with the conceptual basis of risk science.

Combining the Brussels-Austin approach with risk science, the dynamics of complex systems can be approached as a game of survival, such that complex systems need to expose themselves to risk situations, consuming resources and enacting adaptive dynamics towards the systemic sustainability, dynamics which are, themselves, generative of risk situations.

This conceptual basis for risk and complex systems’ dynamics results from the notion of  dissipative structure, introduced by Prigogine, within thermodynamics: a dissipative structure is an open system that feeds on energy and matter from the environment and dissipates heat as a way to sustain its systemic activity.

Conceptually, the notion of dissipative structure synthesizes a dynamics of survival, linked to processes of (eco)systemic management towards an adaptive sustainability in a permanent game of aggregation and disaggregation.

Combining the systemic thinking of Varela with Prigogine’s, one can address the notion of dissipative structure as a system whose autopoietic dynamics leads it to the survival far from a systemic regime of structural dissolution in a disaggregating flux (self-organization far from the thermodynamic equilibrium).

From the standpoint of risk science, a dissipative structure can be addressed in terms of a notion of risking structure, such that complex systems, worked from this notion, can be considered as enactors of systemic risk as an adaptive survival response when placed before permanent threats of disaggregating dissolution.

The dissipative structures/risking structures’ self-organizing processes constitute examples of adaptive processes related to a systemic struggle for survival, approached, within the Brussels-Austin School, from a notion of sustainability against a disaggregating flux, thus, these structures constitute examples of the notion of complex adaptive system, worked upon the Santa Fe Institute.

Quantum complex systems science can help address a general approach to risk and dynamics of complex adaptive systems whenever a mathematical approach is needed to incorporate the following elements:

a) Discrete state variables and continuous state averages with complex dynamical behavior (including (noisy) chaos);

b) Adaptive computation of risk;

c) Multiple intercoupled dynamics with different degrees of freedom;

d) Fluctuating population numbers;

e) Interacting adaptive fields on networks with quantized state variables.

The above elements make effective the usage of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics made available to interdisciplinary work through quantum game theory and, in the case of economics, through econophysics.

Application to Economics

In  the video below is an example of a model from a work that implements an application of quantum complex systems science and risk science to complex economic dynamics modeling.

The model, also available at Netlogo Commons (http://bit.ly/wyiWYc), is introduced in the article "Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics in a Quantum Artificial Economy" arXiv:1202.6647v1 [nlin.CD] (http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6647) and it constitutes an example of how quantum complex systems science can be applied to economics.

In most businesses, one deals with discrete business volumes (or in the case of companies that supply goods: discrete quantities), thus, to address economic chaotic dynamics one may, effectively, assume some quantization scheme of fundamental economic variables and economic equilibrium conditions, working with a business game process, in which the quantum averages, from transaction round to transaction roundm follow the continuous state classical chaotic dynamics of some (coupled) nonlinear map.

The work builds up on such a proposal, introducing a quantum artificial economy with (quantum) chaotic dynamics, by combining quantum game theory, quantum chaos theory and coherent state lattice field solutions.

At each transaction round, each company is characterized by a coherent state solution for the business volume (measured in quantities), which corresponds to a quantum business game equilibrium condition.

The nonlinear map introduces an adaptive walk on a hypercubic lattice, implementing a business' quantum economics version of Kaneko's self-organizing genetic algorithms. In this way, each company's binary string code corresponds to a core business strategic profile, where each bit of the binary string is a core business dimension (among core business dimensions one can include the mission statement and business concept).

The coupled quadratic map implements four types of evolutionary dynamics:

(A) - Local competition dynamics between companies that are close to each other in their core business strategic dimensions (local hypercubic lattice one-bit mutant neighors' coupling as per Kaneko's proposal of self-organizing genetic algorithms);

(B) - Global competitiveness' industry-wide evolutionary race;

(C) - Market share feedback effects upon a business fitness (this leads to a coupling between the quadratic map and the previous transaction round's company's market share, such that the previous round's quantum fluctuations affect the company's fitness dynamics).

(D) - Local fitness dynamics given by the quadratic map with nonlinearity parameter b.

Quantum chaos is a third approach to modeling economic nonlinear dynamics that can be added to the nonlinear deterministic and nonlinear deterministic plus noise modeling family of economic chaos. By addressing evolutionary quantum strategies one is not dealing with a plus noise approach but, instead, with an evolutionary systemic dynamics where probability distributions and chaotic dynamics are interconnected with risk cognition and business adaptive processes, thus, deepening the conceptual grounding on complex adaptive systems science and quantum complex systems science.

...probabilities...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hisstationand4aces-coolidge.jpg

Probabilis, probatio, probo are three Latin words that form a judicative entanglement committed, always, with a sense of judgment, plausibility, proof, verification and argumentation.

Probability, as a notion, is an evaluative cognitive synthesis about events, facts, situations, processes, contexts, future(s)...

The probability does not have an ontologically postulable algorithmic nature, the probability depends, always, upon the data, supplied by the systemic sustainability towards the event, the fact, the situation, etc...,

There is no such thing as a probabilistic dynamics, that is nonsense, the referent is the cognitive dynamics: in fundamental terms, the so-called “probabilistic dynamics” is a cognitive dynamics, depending upon the cognitive processing of the data supplied by the intensity of the systemic sustainability for an event to take place, sustainability which, in turn, depends upon some kairosean coincidence, that is, depends upon, until the last moment, there not taking place something unexpected that makes the system deviate itself from that which would become its trajective choice.

The sustainability is enacted by the system, from its own game of survival, a game that involves a web of players..., and just when the game wins such a sustainability that makes visible to all the players what the outcome will be, (oh no!‼) one of the players chokes, the cards are all exposed for everyone to see and the game ends not as it would.

The probability is not an operator of anything. The sustainability of the systems is the operator that guarantees, in the FutureNow, the flux that sustains the present moment that follows the present moment,..., and we, humans, with a very precarious desiring cognitive device, will have to make a serious effort to, in a here and now, guarantee the projective sustainability, so that a FutureNow guarantees us the next present moment. What is the role of the probability in this case?! Just a valorative cognitive synthesis that helps us decide.

In the end, the greater game is between the system’s sustainability and the systemic spontaneity itself. The Latin has, for the term spontaneity, a very interesting cognitive support: spontaneous is primitively radiculated in sponte from spons, mea/tua/sua sponte, which means: by my/your/its will/arbitriu.

No one imposes the system anything, no probabilistic delirium imposes whatever. The system, each system, has its own spontaneous/immediate survival responses in the evolutionary game of survival.

There is no ProbabilityField, there is survival, there are games..., also games of power: to can be, to can do, in the end, to can to survive, either competing, either cooperating. The probability judgment always depends upon the processing of data and it is always subjective/intersubjective.

The system does not show everything, the system does not show all its cards, and it waits for the opportunities to emerge, always hoping that the IntersystemicClinamenic does not become unfavorable..., and this is about risk, and this is about living, dying, and also about dignity, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HAtomOrbitals.png

...the human system...

“...uma horda de animais; na floresta dos meus próprios signos e nas memórias da minha memória...” (Derrida, L’Animal que donc je suis.)

“...a hoard of animals; in the forest of my own signs and in the memories of my memory...”

The human system is formatted, in terms of fundamental causality, by a pathos of biological entanglement of survival that follows rules/laws of structure that are ontologically radiculated in a cosmos (our cosmos) which conditions the intersystemic game of evolutionary sustainability.

The systems are integrated wholes dynamically enacted by the interdependent relations of the parts. The human system, as any other system, depends upon the self-sustained entanglement of the respective parts.

In this sense, what can be done/what each of us can do is always conditioned by the adequability of what must be done. There is always some “thing” that conditions us: our initial formative conditions, the initial formative conditions of the others, the initial formative conditions of our cosmos, that “originated” us: each individual’s self-determination is permanently played in an atribulated survival patchwork of difficult management.

Thus, the operative use of practices and pragmatics, oriented by criteria of “control” towards strategies of power, are, such as the Laplacian daimon postulate, not very intelligent. That which, in HumanAnimal language, is designated by “power” depends upon an operative dynamics, configured by an entanglement of interactive “forces”, systemically enacted, characterized by a nonlocality and constituted by crossovers of rhythms, conditioned by the stories, the trajects, the unstable and heterogeneous individual/collective techniques and tactics, sustained from the mobile points that orbit critical systemic borders permanently threatened by the porous rotativity of the points of catastrophe enacted, in turn, by the systems in survival interface.

“Control” is an egophagic notion. We can and we must, intelligently, manage and coordinate projectively, but we are insane when we invest in a protoplasm of deliriant control, responsible for the practices of desiring egotistical greed that dragged/drag us to the situation of catastrophe in which we, human system, inhabit.

We are prisoners in the technological Doppler effect, formatted by the EgoNarcissic isotopy: I-am-therefore-I am, therefore I am-therefore-am...; we are the inhabitants of an ondulatory of “naked singularity”, in which the system, in a survival despair, seems to have (re)written its initial conditions without having been able to enact the rules/laws of structure, responsible for the sustainability of its integrity.

...we are the prisoners...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Noahs_Ark.jpg/276px-Noahs_Ark.jpg

We are the prisoners in the technological Doppler effect, formatted by the EgoNarcissistic isotopy: I-am-therefore-I-am, therefore I-am-therefore-am…; we are the inhabitants of an ondulatory of “naked singularity”.

Borrowing from Cioran: only suffering is ubiquitous, not God; had Noah possessed the gift of foreseeing the future, there is no doubt that he would have sank the Ark.

Economics, Life and The Stubborn Black Swans...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Cygnus_Atratus_Singapore.jpg/320px-Cygnus_Atratus_Singapore.jpg

«Does today's dominant economic and financial thinking violate the laws of physics?»

«low probability high impact risks and unknown unknowns or black swans»

«New Model of Economics based on Physics (...) A new model of economics ought to aim to contribute to the development of the scientific understanding of the way our economic systems work holistically (…)»

http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/301211.php

“Laws of physics”?!?

There are rules/laws of structure that necessarily follow the evolving dynamics of life/death and that, therefore, necessarily change at the rhythms of the things, in their evolving entanglement in survival interface, from the imminent FutureNow to the sustainability flux of the PresentNow.

The so-called “black swans”, that Taleb worked from Popper, are necessary to the autopoietic/systemic sustainability, there are always “black swans” out there, they are only unexpected to human cognitive schemes that are unreasonably focused upon “monstrative” situations of control, incompatible with the dynamics of survival: control of the others, of other species, control of life, of the differences, control of evolution itself by part of a single species: the human.

The crossing-over of different disciplinary areas is desirable, more, necessary to the general entangled pathos of survival, because of that, not only a dialogue with Physics is needed, but also with the Life Sciences and all the other sciences, which Economics, necessarily, has to deal with/coordinate itself with/relate itself with/dialogue with...

...but, above all, it is necessary to make a cognitive effort to think things beyond the models' conditioning. It is necessary to free ourselves from a certain obsession with control.

Things can only be perceived in their cognitive completeness, if we are able to think ourselves in relation to ourselves and in relation to the things, without disconnecting ourselves from the projective rotative pathos that operates at the level of the dynamics of systemic sustainability.

By pathos one should understand its primitive sense, of some thing that happens, both in reference to what happens as well as in reference to what is affected by what happens.

Revolutionem, Revolutus, Revolvere… Revolution?

Revolution?

The system is us, the institutions are us, the agents are us, the markets are us, the responsibility is ours. The revolution must be in us.

When the altruistic practices become an effective permanence, we can speak of a revolution.

When the dignity ceases to be just a postulate to become a generalized effective practice, we can speak of a revolution.

When the tolerance and cooperation replace the Darwinian competition, we can speak of a revolution…

…until then, any social revolution will only be the replacement of a predatory power by other predatory powers.

..“But what next?”....

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/10/05/occupation-nation-ritual-arrests-and-candle-light-vigils-what-next/

“But what next?”

For now, and with some inspiration in Baudrillard’s matrix, what we have is a desperate biocapitalism sustained by a Moebian Double Bind operationalized in manipulation by anticipation.

The discourses and contra-discourses are programmed and simulated towards effects of banalization and respective integration, idiotically sustained in perspectives of system control by inertia and closing. Inertia because the people cease to react, closing by control by way of normative formatting of discourses and the respective contra-discourses.

The final goal is the zombification by iterative banalization. This is systemically dangerous for all, also for those that, in their pathological delirium of power, think themselves Laplacian daimones.

...on transcendence...

All the systems are conditioned by rules/laws of structure that are determined, in fundamental terms, by their respective formative initial conditions.

But what is a rule/law? What is the nature of a rule/law? What can be the ontological status of a rule/law? How can the rules/laws of structure, determined by initial conditions that the system did not choose, condition all its life? All its choices? Its actions? Its paths? Because even if the system can rewrite its initial conditions, that rewriting will, still, be conditioned by its vital laws of structure responsible for the system’s integrity.

In this context, what pertinence can there have the projection of scenarios, configured by pre-figurated degrees of freedom? Within what parameters would it be possible to consider planes of systemic transcendence?

Transcendence involves the concept of limit, to transcend is the act by which someone, or some thing surpasses or “escapes” the limits imposed by the immanence.

An act of transcendence is an arbitrary act of projective opening that gifts the system with the ability to launch itself, or jump, towards outside of itself, as position of itself in itself, in that which, with pertinence, can be designated by systemic jump, that is, the jump that installs in the systemic identity the ontological rotative dyad, conceptually synthesizable as the other of itself in itself.

Transcendence is the dynamics, in the immanence, for the enacting of a systemic surpassing, still sustained by the immanence: this is about growth, development, evolution...

...reciprocity...

Any system enacts an anomaly when it refuses the vital dynamics of reciprocity: the enacted anomaly is, in the system, the motifeme – the invariant entity without adaptive clinamen – of the tautological narrateme without humus..., without world, without the others in face of oneself and with oneself.

When the human agents refuse a vital dynamics of reciprocity, they are enacting an anomaly of themselves: excluding themselves from that which connects them with the others and with themselves: the “mutuum”. When the agents put themselves as monstrative reifications of dogmatic divine postulates, they are enacting an anomaly of themselves.

On Information - Definition

With the growth and development of the scientific, technical and technological work, there have been localized and signalized sequences of coexistent conceptual systems, organized, articulated, distributed and circulated around the problems that are specific of each epoch and that configurate webs of theoretical/empirical statements, constituents of the domains of discourse and of memory, in which it is related what was learnt, what was seen, what is deduced or induced, what is admitted as probable, true or valid and what is postulated.

The techniques and technologies with which we, currently, work and (co)exist are a consequence of the human labor applied to science and technique.

Presently, and borrowing some words of Pierre Lévy (2000), we participate in the silent explosion of the hypercortex infinitely reticulated of the World Wide Web, dynamically configured as a new workspace, interpreted from two fundamental notions: the notion of knowledge and the notion of information, with root in the Latin informatio, from the verb informo with the meaning of: action of forming, representing, sketching, planning... .

This term arose, in the 13th Century, designating the set of acts susceptible to establish the proof of an infraction and of revealing its authors, in the course of the preliminary instruction of a process. Later on, information came to be defined as designator of events or of facts that are given to know to someone, individual or collective.

From the 20th Century, information acquired new semantic contents, through its usage, by some disciplinary areas. Thus, in Biology, it designates the set of elements that a living being receives in permanence, through its own organism or through its ecosystem, making part of the exchanges of energy and matter that allow for the maintenance of its structure and that impede its disaggregation.

Later on, Systems Theory approached and developed, in terms of epistemological framework, the notion of information as an equivalence to the mathematical measure of probability of an event, to occur, in the set of possible events. The quantity of information is defined, in Information Theory, in terms of an entropy measure.

At the root of Information Theory, there were the concerns, by part of the Bell society, to encounter a means of transmission of messages that would be, simultaneously, more economic and safer, thus aimed at a theoretical construction of a system of communications to a practical application in which a transmitter could transmit, through a certain channel, a message to a receiver.

The adaptive flexibility, linked to the development of the concept of information in its theoretical/practical use, agilized its application to all the disciplinary areas, making indispensible its usage as a fundamental scientific criterion of any statement.

In ontological terms: the information is not fact, is not act, is not thing, is not entity, is not place, has no topos that is proper to it,..., the information is a systemic dynamics towards the fact, towards the act, towards the thing, towards the entity, towards the place, towards the topos... .

Currently, and ever more, by way of the technological developments, linked to the expansion of the Internet, the information flows reticularly through self-referent polissemic planetary webs, crossing over local/global strategic arbitria of power radiculated in hybrid intentionalities of obsolete arbitrariness, perceived by syntheses of cognitive presentiment of metaphysical root of fundament, linked to the vital impulse of survival of search for causes, search for reasons of existence, of life, of search for reasons of legitimacy, reasons of dignity.

Censorship in the US Free(?)Media: NPR

The following link is an article in NPR on the origin of life:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/08/16/139673287/hunting-the-replicators-how-did-life-begin

Below are the comments that were placed in NPR, the last ones, as will be indicated, were censored by NPR.

Perhaps it is a bit reductive to make depend a notion of life upon self-replication. Both the amoeba as well as the rock are two concrete physical existents that make exchanges with the environment in a dynamics of aggregation and disaggregation, in the case of the amoeba, life and death.

Both the rock as well as the amoeba are two self-motivated agents. Regarding a rock, it can be a mix of organic and inorganic. In the amoeba as well as in the rock there take place self-sustained dynamics necessary to the maintenance of the integrity of both structures/systems...

Interesting would be to take a conjectural look at the molecular dynamics, to perceive a kind of "social and associative instinct" of the atomic elements that enacted the molecules. There is a kind of sociability that makes the molecules fit to make associations, linkages and exchanges towards a greater thermodynamic stability.

In Philosophy, being, existence and life are still open issues. Science is very much concentrated on the issue of life, but before life there is the issue of the existence. Because if there are doubts in the classification of what is or is not life, what is a fact, and, because of that, is the case, is that all things there in the world, in the cosmos, if one prefers, are all existent things/entities/agents, be these things/entities/agents: rocks, amoebas, viruses, humans, ants, or even aliens...,

Mark, I don't get your point. The origin of reproduction and/or replication was not the issue that I raised.

My question is about the definition of life and the relation between life and existence.

All the living systems are existents, but not all the existents/systems are, in scientific terms, considered as living systems, what I state is that: to base, in fundamental terms, a definition of life upon reproduction or replication dynamics is quite reductive, which does not mean that I do not wish to know how reproduction and/or replication were enacted by the systems that are not classified as life.

All the chemical elements that constitute the brain of each of us existed in the cosmos long before us..., long before any system classified as living. Whatever is called life was enacted by such chemical elements.

Well, it is my conviction that to state that reproduction is an "attribute" is an error. Reproduction is dispositional, this is a fact, such as consciousness of the human animals is dispositional.

But this dispositional, in regards to reproduction, as capability to life generate more life was enacted by what?

Of course, one can always recur to the easiest solution, the solution that one has always in the pocket, ok it was God. But that is the solution of those who wish to resolve the issue more quickly.

Avoiding God's argument, probably, we have to state something like: only life could generate life, and the capability of replication could only be generated by life itself, and the question remains: what is life?

To classify is easy, to explain is harder.

For instance to explain the difference between life and existence is certainly hard.

Life is autopoietic, self-referent, one might well keep that in mind.

And existence? What is that?

I like to think of the noumenon as that which hides itself in what shows itself, it is that which we do not see in what we see. Which does not mean that we do not have the noumenic experience...

Mark, that perspective points towards a dependence of life upon reproduction/replication, that is, a reproduction/replication system comes before life. Then, what is life? And what is that which enacted a reproduction/replication system? If life comes after a reproduction/replication system then..., this reasoning enters into a looping worst than the egg and the chicken.

If there is only life because there is replication, then life is an effect of a replicating system that is not being classified as life, or is it? And you are pointing towards an eternity: that there has always been life? If one considers that life had a beginning somewhere in this cosmos you can make a reduction until God, but is God a living entity? Is God an existing entity? Does God exist? Is God a replicating system (God forbid, this Universe was enough)?

Ok, Seth, I opened the way for the statement that the thinking is to one side and the experience is to the other. But these things are complicated and complex. Gnosis has the primitive sense of action of knowing, action of learning through a certain (co)naturality of knowing by direct and spontaneous contact through perception (aisthesis/aistheton).

Of course, I am pointing towards a certain systemic synchronization between the perception and the perceived thing.

I defend that replication is dispositional, and I think that there is not a robust definition of life that allows us, human animals, to perceive the fundamental causality that is at the origin of life.

If I ask you, Mark, what the nature of life is, by nature understand that which some thing is necessarily, what some thing must be without which it would lose its integrity, how would you answer? Why does life enact replicating agents, for instance? Yes, because agents are life, but they are not the life, they are not life itself.

If life is a proprium of the living things, what is the proprium of life itself?

What about the humus? Does live need its individuated replicators?

We are talking about life here, but we should actually talk about LifeAndDeath, because what we have, in general terms is life and death everywhere, and not simply life. We cannot solve the problem of definition of life, without incorporating in that definition the definition of death as a fundamental necessity of life itself, in constitutive terms.

The following was censored by NPR.org:

Well, Mark, we are all here looking for explanations, we are all here looking for explanatory causes, we are all here looking for the origin of the things. Probably, if we were not motivated by a certain “idea” of control, we would obtain better answers, because we would ask better questions.

Each of us can be considered a manifestation or an expression, or even a position (in Spinozan terms) of life, we are life, but we are not the life, nor even parts of life. Thus, reproduction is dispositional in each of us, living manifestations, or manifestations of life, but reproduction is not a part of us, such as a thought or a feeling is not a part of us, but we are the ones thinking and feeling, reproduction is just a to be able to, in each of the beings that are us.

Life and death do not mean that life is a part of death or that death is a part of life, it just means that: that which we call living is sustained by a LifeAndDeath dynamics.

If we radicalize and go back to a fundamental approach, probably that which can be localized as an asymmetry is a problem of human cognition, which processes things in accordance with a before and after, or in accordance with dualities either-or, in the sense that LifeAndDeath constitute an ontological unit in terms of permanence in the existence of all the things.

Of course a definition of life, in the sense of The Life, has to cognitively synthesize a constitutive antinomy at the level of the causes and a paradox at the level of the effects and incorporate that synthesis in the understanding of the nature of that which we call life.

We have to start to understand that there are noumenic reasons that are simultaneously and spontaneously the affirmation and the negation of itself, without rupture, without fracture, without loss of permanence of itself as position of itself. Of course, this points towards an eternity.

If life can be eternal? It can!

If the existence is before life? Yes!

If the existence depends upon life? No, not at all. This is my conviction.

But upon what does existence, itself, depend? Upon the being, itself, because existence is!

And upon what does the being, itself, depend? Probably upon the nothing, that is still being..., and here we are in a cognitive strange looplooping...