Universal, basic, trustworthy categories, if they exist, may be
considered axiomatic such that theorems can be drawn from them.
Flourishing: the more that brings on more.
Life, Death.
Environment, Organism.
Capability.
meta-capability: capability to prioritize among multiple capabilities
Interaction:
input: Information from the environment
output: action on the environment
in between: map from capability and information to action
Priority among capabilities given information about facts (Emotional/motivational valuation of facts).
Execution of response.
Consider a 1 bit logic system embodied according to this axiomatic structure:
Biological Tautological 1 bit Processor
Discussion
We assume axiomatically a certain domain of discussion, namely a
domain in which organisms, or without loss of generality an organism
or any organism, is doing its thing.
Does it say anything to assert that there exists an organism, in this
domain of discussion?
No. H.
Does it say anything to assert that there exists an environment,
in this domain of discussion ? Every organism exists in an
environment; the very definition of any organism assumes its
environment. So, No. H.
Does it say anything to assert that the organism has multiple
capabilities? I know of none without, so
No. H.
Does it say anything to assert that having survived in some
variety of environmental conditions by doing different things the
organism has the ability to differentially prioritize and activate
its capabilities, to use its different capabilities which implies
doing different things? That would be the definition of surviving
by using different capabilities. So,
No. H.
Does it say anything that if it does different things using different capabilities
then it has in fact prioritized and activated those different capabilities?
No. H.
Does it say anything that the organism transduces external
conditions to somehow-appropriate activities? That it effectively
perceives conditions in its environment, distinguishing among them
in its own way and for its own relevant purposes, that it
evaluates and assesses those distinguished conditions such that
consistent with some hierarchy of purposes it can execute one or
another class of responses? This is true for a paramecium
transducing a toxicity gradient into flagella movements through a
biochemical cascade; it is true for fungi and plants; it is
certainly true for higher animals. An organism might combine all
three logical aspects into one chemical cascade, but logically we
could analyse its activities as comprising
perception (which distinguishes among external conditions),
evaluation/assessment (which according to some hierarchy
or motivational system selects among its capabilities, prioritizing
some over others), and
execution (which does something by activating some of its capabilities).
Informational transduction from environment to action or stimulus to
response, through making and therefore representing distinctions and
prioritization is just one way of thinking about the activities of
any black box which is responsive to its environment and can do more
than one thing. It says nothing about what the black box is, to say
that it can be considered in this way; it could be a thermostat.
So, No. H.
Having done different things in different circumstances, does it
say anything more that the organism has some form of
representation of the different options (at least two) and that
through its actions it has produced different external
consequences? I think not:
No. H.
Is there anything else drawn in this model? No, that is the whole
model. Is the model therefore logical, indeed tautological given
its axioms or assumptions, and is denial of any part indefensible?
I think so.
"A Bit"
Yes and No could mean a few things, in various contexts.
In Nomological networks, an arrow may be labelled with a number,
having different meanings. It could be:
discrete as in A X {0,1} or A X {-1,1}.
fuzzy {w1,w2}|0$le;w1,w2$le;1 (a fuzzy set membership value is a number in the range 0..1).
probabilistic in process, with (+A X p) or (-A X (1-P)), with a P the parameter of a Bernoulli random variable.
a statistical correlation, r, whereby a link from source to either +A or -A is correlated to
a value at the source to a degree between 0 and 1.
Information-theoretic: the information in a choice between two outcomes is maximally 1 bit when P=0.5
and less when P is closer to 0 or 1. (defining the information -E=sum p log p summing over possible outcomes)
and probably more.
Note that we did not restrict what a bit might mean in this
enumeration, and hence we are perfectly general in the statement.
Similarly given axiomatic categories of environment etc., the
following diagram expresses no more than what must be so.