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 in
different circumstances the organism has consistently demonstrated
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? No! 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 by
activating different capabilities, does it say anything more that
the organism has some form of representation of the different
options (at least two) (here I propose to label them +A and -A),
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.
I have argued that given axiomatic, undeniable categories of
environment, organism, and capability, the above diagram expresses no
more than what must be so, and in particular there is in the
organism's true functional description what must be
considered Logical possibilities, bits, like +A and -A.
A bit, 0 or 1, Yes and No, +A or -A, could mean a few things, in
various contexts. Typically some kind of a number, it could be:
discrete as in \(A \in {0,1}\) or \(A \in {-1,1}\).
fuzzy \( \{w_A | 0\leq w_A \leq 1 \} \) (a fuzzy set membership
value is a number in the range 0..1).
probabilistic in process, with (+A ~ p) or (-A ~ (1-P)), with a P
the parameter of a Bernoulli random variable or process.
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. (Information is defined as E where
\(-E=\sum_{outcomes} p*log(p) \).)
and probably more.
It could also be a Biological Bit.
Within the hard logic of evolution, where survival and reproduction
are relatively discrete events, either yes or no would seem to be
clear in case of an individual's outcome.
Over evolutionary time, across sustaining numbers of members of a
population, and facing their environment's challenges, it is the
statistically prevalent outcome which matters, and the set of outcomes
is discrete. Either cheetahs can prevalently catch dinner, or not,
and if not, then no more cheetahs. Discrete.
Similarly any capability among capabilities if prioritized and
exercised consistent with species flourishing, it has or does not have
its function, which is to do something, or not do it, and if it
survived, it did.
So the logic bit in a prioritized capability in an organism may be
statistically picked out by the Percieve|Evaluate|eXecute PEX loop,
but the choices are logical, discrete, and hard, as they lead to
species survival, or not.