Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
fused with my grandmother's spectacles, nor with the program that computes this
utterance, nor with the representation (physical manifestation) of this program.
6.81 However, a relation between the utterance, the objects, and the algorithms
computing both, is computable (see 9.4).
7. A living organism
W
is a third-order relator (
W=
RL
(3)
) which computes the
relations that maintain the organism's integrity [1] [2]:
W
Equ R
[
(
W
(
Obj
)
)
,
S
(
Eve
(
W
)
)
]
This expression is recursive in
W.
7.1 An organism is its own ultimate object.
7.2 An organism that can compute a representation of this relation is self-
conscious.
7.3 Amongst the internal representations of the computation of objects Obj(x
i
)
within one organism W may be a representation Obj(W*) of another organism W*.
Conversely, we may have in W* a representation Obj*(W) which computes W.
7.31
Both representations are recursive in W, W* respectively. For instance, for W:
()
(
(
)
(
(
)
(
(
)
(
(
)
(
)
)
)
)
)
Obj
n
W
*
n
-
1
Obj*
n
-
1
W
n
-
2
Obj
n
-
2
...
W
*
.
7.32
This expression is the nucleus of a theory of communication.
8. A formalism necessary and sufficient for a theory of communication must
not contain primary symbols representing “communicabilia” (e.g., symbols, words,
messages, etc.).
8.1 This is so, for if a “theory” of communication were to contain primary com-
municabilia, it would not be a theory but a technology of communication, taking
communication for granted.
8.2 The nervous activity of one organism cannot be shared by another organism.
8.21 This suggests that indeed nothing is (can be) “communicated.”
8.3 Since the expression in 7.31 may become cyclic (when Obj
(k)
= Obj
(k-2i)
), it is
suggestive to develop a teleological theory of communication in which the stipu-
lated goal is to keep Obj(W*) invariant under perturbations by W*.
8.31 It is clear that in such a theory such questions as: “Do you see the color of
this object as I see it?” become irrelevant.
8.4 Communication is an observer's interpretation of the interaction between
two organisms W
1
, W
2
.
8.41 Let Evs
1
∫ Evs (W
1
), and Evs
2
∫ Evs(W
2
), be
sequences
of events Eve(t
j
), (
j
=
1, 2, 3, . . .) with regard to two organisms W
1
and W
2
respectively; and let
Com
be an
observer's (internal) representation of a relation between these sequences of events:
OB
(
Com
(
Evs , Evs
1
)
)
2
8.42 Since either W
1
or W
2
or both can be observers (W
1
= OB
1
; W
2
= OB
2
) the above
expression can become recursive in either W
1
or in W
2
or in both.
8.43 This shows that “communication” is an (internal) representation of a relation
between (an internal representation of) oneself with somebody else.
(
(
)
)
R
W
(
n
+
1
,
)
Com
W W
( )
n
,
*
8.44
Abbreviate this by
(
)
C
WW
()
,*.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search