Jose, I agree that the semantic and physical notions of ‘information’ are intertwined, and I think we can be more explicit about how the are related. 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.
Regards, Guy On Oct 3, 2017, at 12:53 PM, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero <javierwe...@gmail.com<mailto:javierwe...@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear all, What if, in order to understand information and its relationship with data and meaning, we distinguish the kind of system we are talking about in each case? We may distinguish systems by their type of operation and the form of their selforganization. There are living systems, mind systems, social systems and artificial systems. What information is depends on the type of system we are talking about. Maybe distinguishing between information and meaning in living systems and artificial systems might not make much sense, but it is crucial for social systems. Bits of information codify possibilities of experience and action (following somewhat loosely Luhmanns social systems theory) and meaning cristalizes when a posibility is fulfilled for a particular subsystem (interaction systems, organizations...). The role of language in social systems is another reason to distinguish information from meaning. In artificial systems it might make sense to distinguish between data and information, being data everything a computer needs to make a calculations and information the results of those calculations that enable it to do more calculations or to render an output of whatever kind. So what is information at some stage of the process becomes data on other. It is obvious that all of these systems operate closely intertwined. They couple and decouple, retaining their specificity. Best regards, El oct 3, 2017 4:28 PM, "Guy A Hoelzer" <hoel...@unr.edu<mailto:hoel...@unr.edu>> escribió: Dear Krassimir et al., Your post provides an example of the importance that semantics plays in our discussions. I have suggested on several occasions that statements about ‘information’ should explicitly distinguish between a purely heuristic definition, such as those involving ‘meaning’, and definitions focused on a physical phenomena. I personally prefer to adopt the latter definition, which would make your post false. For example, when I type the symbol ‘Q’ I have created information because there is a contrast between white and black regions of its local space. Meaning is utterly irrelevant to the attribute of ‘information’ from this perspective. I can create an instance of information by writing ‘Q’, and you can receive that information by viewing it, even if it means nothing to either of us. The symbol ‘Q’ might be attached to some meaning for one or both of us, but for me that is irrelevant to the question of information content which can be measured in a variety of ways in this example. If we agree on a symbolic meaning of ‘Q’, then the information transfer can also carry the transfer of ‘meaning’. In other words, I would argue that data is indeed information, unless it is perfectly uniform. Meaning is attached to data by putting the data in the context of a theory, but this is an analytical option. For example, you could always display the data on graphs without a theoretical context, and such an analysis might make trends or patterns more evident, even without meaning attached. Descriptive or observational data are often presented this way in young scientific disciplines that have yet to develop a rich theoretical context in which to interpret the meaning of data. On the other hand, 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. Best Wishes, Guy > On Oct 3, 2017, at 4:16 AM, Krassimir Markov > <mar...@foibg.com<mailto:mar...@foibg.com>> wrote: > > Dear John and FIS Colleagues, > > I am Computer Science specialist and I never take data to be information. > > For not specialists maybe it is normal "data to be often taken to be > information" but this is not scientific reasoning. > > Simple question: if "data = information", why we need both concepts? > > > Friendly greetings > > Krassimir > > > Dear list, > > > As Floridi points out in his Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press, > 2010. A volume for the Very Short Introduction series. data is often taken > to be information. If so, then the below distinction is somewhat > arbitrary. It may be useful or not. I think that for some circumstances it > is useful, but for others it is misleading, especially if we are trying to > come to grips with what meaning is. I am not sure there is ever data > without interpretation (it seems to me that it is always assumed to be > about something). There are, however, various degrees and depths of > interpretation, and we may have data at a more abstract level that is > interpreted as meaning something less abstract, such as pointer readings > of a barometer and air pressure. The pointer readings are signs of air > pressure. Following C.S. Peirce, all signs have an interpretant. We can > ignore this (abstraction) and deal with just pointer readings of a > particular design of gauge, and take this to be the data, but even the > pointer readings have an important contextual element, being of a > particular kind of gauge, and that also determines an interpretant. Just > pointer readings alone are not data, they are merely numbers (which also, > of course, have an interpretant that is even more abstract. > > So I think the data/information distinction needs to be made clear in each > case, if it is to be used. > > Note that I believe that there is information that is independent of mind, > but the above points still hold once we start into issues of observation. > My belief is based on an explanatory inference that must be tested (and > also be useful in this context). I believe that the idea of mind > independent information has been tested, and is useful, but I am not going > to go into that further here. > > > Regards, > > John > > PS, please note that my university email was inadvertently wiped out, so I > am currently using the above email, also the alias > coll...@ncf.ca<mailto:coll...@ncf.ca> If > anyone has wondered why their mail to me has been returned, this is why. > > > > > On 2017/09/30 11:20 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote: > > Dear Christophe and FIS Colleagues, > > I agree with idea of meaning. > > The only what I would to add is the next: > > There are two types of reflections: > > 1. Reflections without meaning called DATA; > > 2. Reflections with meaning called INFORMATION. > > Friendly greetings > Krassimir > > > ------------------------------ > Krassimir Markov > Director > ITHEA Institute of Information Theories and Applications > Sofia, Bulgaria > presid...@ithea.org<mailto:presid...@ithea.org> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.ithea.org&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7Cdd33e9a23e744d86677d08d50a50c1a6%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=k31hEBMs49sEmkNsPI%2F32AUigU2Z5BU1cBPIGDXUlgk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > Dear FISers, > > > A hot discussion indeed... > We can all agree that perspectives on information depend on the context. > Physics, mathematics, thermodynamics, biology, psychology, philosophy, AI, > ... > > But these many contexts have a common backbone: They are part of the > evolution of our universe and of its understanding, part of its increasing > complexity from the Big Bang to us humans. > And taking evolution as a reading grid allows to begin with the simple. > As proposed in a previous post, we care about information ONLY because it > can be meaningful. Take away the concept of meaning, the one of > information has no reason of existing. > And our great discussions would just not exist. .... > Now, Evolution + Meaning => Evolution of meaning. As already highlighted > this looks to me as important in principles of IS. > As you may remember that there is a presentation on that subject > (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2504-3900%2F1%2F3%2F211&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7Cdd33e9a23e744d86677d08d50a50c1a6%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=vPJInvbBB5MFoPNKkWQCkZyIsAgvUaWSMn%2Fq95owq1Y%3D&reserved=0, > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Frec%2FMENICA-2&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7Cdd33e9a23e744d86677d08d50a50c1a6%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=rAh0dte2xNe3lRQ1mGGn08aswsLOL52MsDlaqasLNs8%3D&reserved=0) > The evolution of the universe is a great subject where the big questions > are with the transitions: energy=> matter => life => self-consciousness => > ... > And I feel that one way to address these transitions is with local > constraints as sources of meaning generation. > Best > > Christophe > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > De : Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> > de la part de > tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it> > <tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>> > Envoyé : vendredi 29 septembre 2017 14:01 > À : fis > Objet : Re: [Fis] Principles of IS > > Dear FISers, > Hi! > ...a very hot discussion... > I think that it is not useful to talk about Aristotle, Plato and Ortega y > Gasset, it the modern context of information... their phylosophical, not > scientific approach, although marvelous, does not provide insights in a > purely scientific issue such the information we are talking about... > > Once and forever, it must be clear that information is a physical quantity. > Please read (it is not a paper of mine!): > Street S. 2016. Neurobiology as information physics. Frontiers in > Systems neuroscience. > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC5108784%2F&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7Cdd33e9a23e744d86677d08d50a50c1a6%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=7nM49pzMYDacZGvoYJ%2FwlgNlqEcuwR7Li5wdF60uzkw%3D&reserved=0 > > In short, Street shows how information can be clearly defined in terms of > Bekenstein entropy! > > Sorry, > and BW... > > > Arturo Tozzi > > AA Professor Physics, University North Texas > > Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy > > Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farturotozzi.w&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7Cdd33e9a23e744d86677d08d50a50c1a6%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=XZQOw6FpZ5e2DljZOj%2FlRQqN%2FSy8%2F2srZTJUve8OzlU%3D&reserved=0ebnode.it/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Febnode.it%2F&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7C63b7647844ec40f9276b08d50a987865%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=2PkGtKGAHyOjOgWs4GswLvuPzHOXiTSCySuHIkwlQ5g%3D&reserved=0> > > > -- > Inviato da Libero Mail per Android > > venerdì, 29 settembre 2017, 01:31PM +02:00 da Rafael Capurro > raf...@capurro.de<mailto:raf...@capurro.de>: > > > Dear Pedro, > > thanks for food for thought. When talking about communication we should > not forget that Wiener defines cybernetics as "the theory of messages" > (not: as the theory of information) (Human use of human beings, London > 1989, p. 15, p. 77 "cybernetics, or the theory of messages" et passim) > Even for Shannon uses the (undefined) concept of message 'as' what is > transmitted (which is not information) is of paramount importance. And so > also at the level of cell-cell communication. > > The code or the difference message/messenger is, I think, a key for > interpreting biological processes. In this sense, message/messanger are > 'archai' (in the Aristotelian) sense for different sciences (no > reductionism if we want to focus on the differences between the > phenomena). 'Archai' are NOT 'general concepts' (as you suggest) but > originating forces that underline the phenomena in their manifestations > 'as' this or that. > > From this perspective, information (following Luhmann) is the process of > interpretation taking place at the receiver. When a cell, excuse me these > thoughts from a non-biologist, receives a message transmitted by a > messenger, then the main issue is from the perspective of the cell, to > interpret this message (with a special address or 'form' supposed to > 'in-form' the cell) 'as' being relevant for it. Suppose this > interpretation is wrong in the sense that the message causes death (to the > cell or the whole organism), then the re-cognition system (its immune > system also) of the cell fails. Biological fake news, so to speak, with > mortal consequences due to failures in the communication. > > best > > Rafael > > Dear FISers, > > I also agree with Ji and John Torday about the tight relationship between > information and communication. Actually Principle 5 was stating : > "Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie > the complexity of biological organizations at all scales." However, let me > suggest that we do not enter immediately in the discussion of cell-cell > communication, because it is very important and perhaps demands some more > exchanges on the preliminary info matters. > > May I return to principles and Aristotle? I think that Rafael and Michel > are talking more about principles as general concepts than about > principles as those peculiar foundational items that allow the beginning > of a new scientific discourse. Communication between principles of the > different disciplines is factually impossible (or utterly irrelevant): > think on the connection between Euclidean geometry and politics, biology, > etc. I think Ortega makes right an interpretation about that. When > Aristotle makes the first classification of the sciences, he is continuing > with that very idea. Theoretical sciences, experimental or productive > sciences, and applied or practical sciences--with an emphasis on the > explanatory theoretical power of both physics and mathematics (ehm, Arturo > will agree fully with him). I have revisited my old reading notes and I > think that the Aristotelian confrontation with the Platonic approach to > the unity of knowledge that Ortega comments is extremely interesting for > our current debate on information principles. > > There is another important aspect related to the first three principles in > my original message (see at the bottom). It would be rather strategic to > achieve a consensus on the futility of struggling for a universal > information definition. Then, the tautology of the first principle ("info > is info") is a way to sidestep that definitional aspect. Nevertheless, it > is clear that interesting notions of information may be provided relative > to some particular domains or endeavors. For instance, "propagating > influence" by our colleague Bob Logan, Stuart Kauffman and others, and > many other notions or partial definitions as well--I include my own > "distinction on the adjacent" as valuable for the informational approach > in biology. Is this "indefinability" an undesirable aspect? To put an > example from physics, time appears as the most undefinable of the terms, > but it shows up in almost all equations and theories of physics... > Principle three means that one can do a lot of things with info without > the need of defining it. > > As for the subject that is usually coupled to the info term, as our > discussion advances further, entering the "information flows" will tend to > clarify things. The open-ended relationship with the environment that the > "informational entities" maintain via the channeling of those info > flows--it is a very special coupling indeed--allows these entities the > further channeling of the "energy flows" for self-maintenance. Think on > the living cells and their signaling systems, or think on our "info" > societies. Harold Morowitz's "energy flow in biology" has not been > paralleled yet by a similar "information flow in biology". One is > optimistic that the recent incorporation of John Torday, plus Shungchul Ji > and others, may lead to a thought-collective capable of illuminating the > panorama of biological information. > > (shouldn't we make an effort to incorporate other relevant parties, also > interested in biological information, to this discussion?) > > Best wishes--Pedro > > El 23/09/2017 a las 21:27, Sungchul Ji escribió: > > Hi Fisers, > > > > > I agree. > > Communication may be the key concept in developing a theory of informaton. > > > > > Just as it is impossible to define what energy is without defining the > thermodynamic system under consideration (e.g., energy is conserved only > in an isolated system and not in closed or open systems; the Gibbs free > energy content decreases only when a spontaneous process occurs in > non-isolsted systems with a constant temperature and pressure, etc), so it > may be that 'information' cannot be defined rigorously without first > defining the "communication system" under consideration. If this analogy > is true, we can anticipate that, just as there are many different kinds of > energies depending on the characteristics of the thermodynamic systems > involved, so there may be many different kinds of 'informations' depending > on the nature of the communication systems under consideration. > > > > > The properties or behaviors of all thermodynamic systems depend on their > environment, and there are three system-environment relations -- (i) > isolated (e.g., the Universe, or the thermos bottle), (ii) closed (e.g., > refriegerator), and (iii) open (e.g., the biosphere, living cells). > > > > > It is interesting to note that, all communication systems (e.g., cell, > organs, animals, humans) may embody ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) > which I found it convenient to represent diagramamatically using a 3-node > network arrows as shown below: > > > > > f g > > A ----------> B ---------> C > | > ^ > | > | > |__________________| > h > > > > > Figure 1. The Irreducible Triadic Relation (ITR) of C. S. Peirce > (1839-21914) represented as a 3-node, closed and directed network. The > arrows form the commutative triangle of category theory, i.e., operations > f followed by g leads to the same result as operation h, here denoted as > fxg = h. > > f = information production; g = information interpretation; h = > correspondence or information flow. Please note that Processes f and g > are driven by exergonic physicochemical processes, and h requires a > pre-existing code or language that acts as the rule of mapping A and C. > > > > > Again, just as generations of thermodynamicists in the 19-20th centuries > have defined various kinds of "energies" (enthalpy, Helmholtz free energy, > Gibbs free energy) applicable to different kinds of thermodynamic systems, > so 'information scientists' of the 21st century may have the golden > opportunity to define as many kinds of 'informations' as needed for the > different kinds of "communcation systems" of their interest, some examples > of which being presented in Table 1. > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Table 1. A 'parametric' definition of information based on the values of > the three nodes > of the ITR, Figure 1. > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > Communication system A B > C > (Information) > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > Cells DNA/RNA > Proteins Chemcal reactions > (Biological informations) > or chemical waves > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Humans Sender > Message Receiver > (Linguistic informations) > > _________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Signs Object > Representamen Interpretant > (Semiotic informations, or > > 'Universal informations' (?)) > __________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > With all the best. > > > > > Sung > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> > on behalf of JOHN TORDAY > <jtor...@ucla.edu<mailto:jtor...@ucla.edu>> > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:44:33 AM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> > Subject: [Fis] Principles of IS > > Dear Fis, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but suffice it to say that I > have spent the last 20 years trying to understand how and why physiology > has evolved. I stumbled upon your website because Pedro Maijuan had > reviewed a paper of ours on 'ambiguity' that was recently published in > Progr Biophys Mol Biol July 22, 2017 fiy. > Cell-cell communication is the basis for molecular > embryology/morphogenesis. This may seem tangential at best to your > discussion of Information Science, but if you'll bear with me I will get > to the point. In my (humble) opinion, information is the 'language' of > evolution, but communication of information as a process is the mechanism. > In my reduction of evolution as communication, it comes down to the > interface between physics and biology, which was formed when the first > cell delineated its internal environment (Claude Bernard, Walter B Cannon) > from the outside environment. From that point on, the dialog between the > environment and the organism has been on-going, the organism internalizing > the external environment and compartmentalizing it to form what we > recognize as physiology (Endosymbiosis Theory). Much of this thinking has > come from new scientific evidence for Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance > from my laboratory and that of many others- how the organism internalizes > information from the environment by chemically changing the information in > DNA in the egg and sperm, and then in the zygote and offspring, across > generations. So here we have a fundamental reason to reconsider what > 'information' actually means biologically. If you are interested in any of > my publications on this subject please let me know > (jtor...@ucla.edu<mailto:jtor...@ucla.edu>). > Thank you for any interest you may have in this alternative way of > thinking about information, communication and evolution. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7Cdd33e9a23e744d86677d08d50a50c1a6%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=%2FiGjoi2sQMKOCV7XVdrThqQpOss%2Bb%2FXzoNRMkS3jUYw%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Dear FIS Colleagues, > > As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple > of previous comments may be in order. > First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was > motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea > of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory" > (posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information science seems > to be very different from other sciences, rather multifarious in > appearance and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What > could be the specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening > homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these information > principles would appear as a sort of "portals" that connect with essential > topics of other disciplines in the different organization layers, but at > the same time they should try to be consistent with each other and provide > a coherent vision of the information world. > And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too > optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first > glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very > interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier, > Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments / > criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and > Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival > end to this info principles discussion (both attended the Madrid bygone > FIS 1994 conference)... > But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and the > chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with the > only customary limitation of two messages per week. > > Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro > > > 10 PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE > > 1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy. > > 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or flows. > > 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed > (either computationally or non-computationally). > > 4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production > processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying > energy flows. > > 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie > the complexity of biological organizations at all scales. > > 6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication > exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social > nature." > > 7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient > knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by > applying rigorous methodologies. > > 8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially > overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies." > > > 9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous > actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and > disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna. > > > 10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the information > and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with profound > consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social > governance. > > > > > > -- > John Collier > Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate > Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban > Collier web page > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7Cdd33e9a23e744d86677d08d50a50c1a6%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=%2FiGjoi2sQMKOCV7XVdrThqQpOss%2Bb%2FXzoNRMkS3jUYw%3D&reserved=0 > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7Cdd33e9a23e744d86677d08d50a50c1a6%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=%2FiGjoi2sQMKOCV7XVdrThqQpOss%2Bb%2FXzoNRMkS3jUYw%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7C63b7647844ec40f9276b08d50a987865%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1&sdata=5UokVim6uCoZa3tf%2FRuA8UB0AtGl7eutZHtvL2a%2BsGU%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
