Dear Mark Pharaoh
>>> pt 1... To say that "Sensory systems of some kind" are the device of nature that turns the physics of interaction into the commodity of information is dismissive and ducks the question. If a sensor registers 484kHz in the electromagnetic spectrum and another 528kHz, in what way is that information to system (noting also that sensory systems cannot 'count' frequency anyway)? One physical frequency is different to the other but in the absence of a frequency count, how is the former informing one way and the latter another? At some point in your explanation you have to explain how a physical interaction equates to the creation (or movement or measurement) of information and furthermore, from that starting point, how one piece of information can be equated to another and thereby a meaningful difference assimilated. How does a physical process invent information from inert physical transaction? To say simply that "the system does it" is 'a just so' answer: it isn't an answer.
Sigh. I did not have space to give a whole discussion of the brain and physiology. Please read my book on top down causation, or a good book on how the mind works such as Marr's book on vision. Information is read in a contextual way through the neural network properties of the brain, which is continually adapting to the environment in response to interactions that have taken place. It thereby distinguishes meaningful information from what is irrelevant.
>>> Again, you say the structure of the gate determines the comparative meanings, which are in turn determined by genetic information. Many scientists likewise use the term 'information' as a conceptual placeholder that equivocates between mechanism and meaning. In this regard, 'information' is a flawed concept, i.e. when it is used in a manner that is self-justificatory--when it is used in a way that presupposes meaning through mechanism. The concept is being used without qualification as its own solution to the naturalisation problem.
I cannot undertake a full answer here but the key point is that to discuss this properly you must do so in the context of the modular hierarchical structure of living beings, as discussed in my book, whereby lower level interactions get meaning through being part of a complex whole where top-down interactions take place as well as bottom up ones.
>>> There is a related problem with the idea that information can be read. What, in physical terms, makes a physical interaction a process where something, or some existential commodity 'gets read'? In other words, at what point during the interactions of one atom with another can we say that 'reading takes place' (now who is anthropomorphising?) and information gets moved from one physical expression to another?
Reading takes place not at the atomic level but at the molecular level where base pair sequences in DNA are used by molecular mechanisms to produce proteins that then have specific functions in a living organism.
>>> In answer to pt 2... you say, "Please see here Life as Non-equilibrium for why life is regarded as a non-equilibrium process." I understand the confusion now; I looked at the link you provided. It says, "Such dissipative structures [as life] reside permanently in states of non-equilibrium, unlike inanimate matter." and "Equilibrium is the state of maximum entropy: uniform temperature and maximum disorder". The confusion is that you are using the term 'equilibrium' to mean 'thermodynamic equilibrium'; equilibrium in this context is thermodynamic/ entropic(?).
That is the physics understanding of the word.
>>> But of course, equilibrium proper does not mean 'thermodynamic equilibrium'. Equilibrium is from Latin aequilibrium "an even balance". So you see, lifeforms are on an even keel or balance. If they were not, they would dissipate. They are a dynamic equilibrium state--I grant you, far from thermodynamic equilibrium.
You can redefine words if you want to. You won't relate to the physics literature, or the work by Prigogine and others.
>>> The question is how relevant thermodynamics are to life and explaining mental content. See http://mind-phronesis.co.uk/incomplete-nature for a critique of Richard Deacon stance. His view that thermodynamics is the primary means for explaining evolutionary biology and mental content is highly questionable.
I completely agree, that is why I emphasize the role of adaptive selection. Another version of this thesis is now being proposed by Jeremy England.
>>> When I suggested the following, "Can we not say of any stable physical system that their purpose is to maintain a state of equilibrium," you said "Well that is an anthropomorphism. It's not purpose in a sense related to someone's will." Ah, but if in both examples, the link relates to "an even balance" to "the maintenance of a state of equilibrium (not in the thermodynamic sense)" then we have a connection between physics and mental content and therein lies the solution to the question posed in the essay contest, vis a vis my essay.
Many physiological systems maintain what you call a state of equilibrium by feedback processes which are not equilibrium processes, they are the dynamic processes of homeostasis. These systems have been built to be what they are precisely in order to attain that goal. The mind acts on the world to ensure survival (temporarily) and attain goals in various ways that change society and the world. This is all excluded by your hypothesis, as life in the real world is surely not a state of equilibrium even in your extended sense.
