Dear FIS Colleagues, It is time for my second post this week.
Many thanks to Christophe Menant (for the profound question) and to all colleagues (for the very nice and useful comments)! ********************** Christophe Menant had written: “However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate information from data. A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data. But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctly demodulated. I would say that: 1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent. - A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (human voice, ant pheromone). - A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise). - A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal (interpretation/meaning generation). 2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received by different agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings for someone walking on the beach or for a person in a house). 3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account (human beings, ant-hill). Regarding your positioning of data, I'm not sure to understand your "reflections without meaning". Could you tell a bit more?“ Before answering, I need to make a little analysis of posts this week connected to my question about data and information. For this goal, below I shall remember shortly main ideas presented this week. Citations: Stanley N Salthe: “The simple answer to your question about data is to note the word's derivation from Latin Datum, which can be compared with Factum.” Y. X. Zhong: “It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information, related and also different to each other. The first one is the information presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the subject from the former. The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the pattern with which the state varies". No meaning and no utility at the stage. The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from the object information. So, it should have the form component of the object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object (semantic information), and the utility component of the object with respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage, the "meaning" comes out.” Karl Javorszky: “Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what we do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it is the background to that what we see by using the eyes. Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by the information, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhalt and Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ and context /relationships/)”. Dai Griffiths: “I'm curious about your use of the word 'dualistic'. Dualism usually suggests that there are two aspects to a single phenomenon. As I interpret your post, you are saying that information and meaning are separate concepts. Otherwise, we are led to inquire into the nature of the unity of which they are both aspects, which gets us back where we started. So I interpret 'dualistic' here to mean 'two concepts that are intertwined in the emergence of events'. Is this parallel to, for example, atomic structure and fluid dynamics (perhaps there are better examples)? If so, does that imply a hierarchy (i.e. you can have information without meaning, but not meaning without information)? This makes sense to me, though it is not what I usually associate with the word 'dualistic'.” Guy A Hoelzer: “If you start by explicitly stating that you are using the semantic notion of information at the start, I would agree whole heartedly with your post. I claim that physical information is general, while semantic information is merely a subset of physical information. Semantic information is composed of kinds of physical contrasts to which symbolic meaning has been attached. Meaningfulness cannot exist in the absence of physical contrast, but physical information can exist independently of sensation, perception, cognition, and contextual theory.” Jose Javier Blanco Rivero: “What is information at some stage of the process becomes data on other.” Loet Leydesdorff: "Data" is "given" or "revealed" by God. The search for an intuitive definition of information has led to unclear definitions. In a recent book, Hidalgo (2015, at p. 165), for example, has defined “information” with reference “to the order embodied in codified sequences, such as those found in music or DNA, while knowledge and knowhow refer to the ability of a system to process information.” However, codified knowledge can be abstract and—like music—does not have to be “embodied” (e.g., Cowan, David, & Foray, 2000). Beyond Hidalgo’s position, Floridi (2010, p. 21) proposed “a general definition of information” according to which “the well-formed data are meaningful” (italics of the author). Luhmann (1995, p. 67) posits that “all information has meaning.” In his opinion, information should therefore be considered as a selection mechanism. Kauffman et al. (2008, at p. 28) added to the confusion by defining information as “natural selection.” Against these attempts to bring information and meaning under a single denominator--and to identify variation with selection--I argue for a dualistic perspective (as did Prof. Zhong in a previous email). Information and meaning should not be confounded. Meaning is generated from redundancies (Bateson, 1972, p. 420; Weaver, 1949; see Leydesdorff et al., 2017). Lars-Göran Johansson: “I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one should not assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that Information is a property, an entity, is not necessary. We can proceed with scientific research, using any information concept we think useful, without assuming it refers to anything.” Robert K. Logan: “So now for my definition of information as can be found in the book: • Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or organization, the basic atoms of information, • Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives it context and significance, • Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve one's objectives, and • Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's values and within a larger social context.” Stanley N Salthe: “ {facts {data -->information {knowledge {understanding}}}} “ End of citations. Once more, thank you for the nice reasoning! I agree with all above! What is missing? Why we could not come to common understanding if practically we all talk about the same phenomenon and share the same idea? We all agree that there exist two dualistic forms of information (“what is information at some stage of the process becomes data on other”): - External information for the agent (Informational entity, interpreter, human brain, etc.) called “object information” (“data, information without meaning, what we see by using the eyes; physical information; "given" or "revealed" by God; pure and simple facts without any particular structure or organization, the basic atoms of information!”); - Internal information for the agent (interpreter, human brain, etc.) called “perceived information” (“syntactic information+semantic information+pragmatic information; seen by using the brain; semantic information; structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives it context and significance!”). What we have is the equation: “Internal information” = “external information reflected by the agent“ + “subjective for the agent meaning (or semantic)”. But, the internal information for one agent is external for all others and has no meaning (semantic) for them until they reflect it anyway (via some secondary reflections created in the environment by the first agent) and add a new meaning. This way we have seen that the meaning (semantic) is separated from the external and internal information and exist only in a special case. I.e. we have the same phenomenon in both cases plus some agent depended reaction - adding the meaning (“semantic; structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives it context and significance”). Finally, the problem with naming the pointed phenomenon has risen. I prefer to call it a “reflection” because of way it is generated - by reflection from the environment via all possible sensors of the agent. Now, it is not good for me (Occam’s razor!) to use name “information” for all the cases pointed above (External information and Internal information). I prefer to use concept “information” only in the second case - Internal information. For the first case (External information) I prefer to use concept “Data”. So, we come to what I had written: Data = Reflection; Information = Reflection + Meaning. ********************** I plan to publish the text above (between stars) in the next issue of the International Journal “Information Theories and Applications”. Because of this, I kindly ask colleagues, who are cited in the text as well as all other, to give me permission to cite them and to send to me a proper citation of publication where the presented ideas are published. If the ideas are not published please give me permission to cite your post in the list. Please, take in account that I have no money to buy publications, so all citations have to be in open access and corresponded links have to be given. Not open access publications do not exist for me! Friendly greetings Krassimir _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis