[Fis] Information and data

[Karl Javorszky]

Well-informed vs. Well-dated



Let me go into psychology on the distinction Krassimir raised. We have
quite different associations on “She is a well-informed person” compared to
“She is a well-dated person”.



One wonders, whether the connotations of “even” and “odd” (in German:
“gerade” and “ungerade” , ca. “straight” and “crooked”; in Hungarian
“paired” and “lacking a match”) have been created around the neutral
meanings of the numbers 2,4,6,… vs. 1,3,5,… or the other way around: once
the Sumerians, Phoenicians, Indians, Chinese, or whoever had accomplished
giving these descriptive names to the subsets of N, the emotional
insinuations of fine, ok, as-it-should-be vs. extra, loose, unfinished have
been wearing off by use post factum.



The situation may be similar today with informative and factual,
instructive and dry, descriptive and actual, information-oriented or
data-oriented. Maybe we have not yet accepted the set of connotations that
distinguish the two concepts: information and data.



Stating, as Arturo does, that not only we are not able to figure out and
give a clear definition to the meanings covered by the words “information”
and “data”, but that there is no clear idea behind the word “information”,
is a defeatist approach in my eyes. We are on a good trail by smelling the
difference, even if we might not be able to come to a consensus on the
wording of the distinguishing semantic markers. Information is something
that needs to be actionable to act on, while data has no such properties.
Whether we act on data is purely our own decision. Information can be true
or false, while data are facts, therefore beyond questioning regarding
their truthfulness.



Let me try to sell my proposal of a definition: 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/).



Of course, if we had accepted the proposals contained in “Learn To Count In
Twelve Easy Steps”, if we counted in terms of consolidating of
displacements, that is: in terms of cycles of cyclic permutations, the
difference would be as easy to point out as the difference between odd and
even numbers: data is the element with sequential number x and information
is in which cycle(s) this element is included in. But that may take some
while yet, until people get used to the idea that straight and crooked are
not only personality traits but also applicable to abstract entities like
numbers. So, we will keep phantasising about a beautiful maiden who is
well-dated but not well-informed and her nemesis Papageno, who is
well-informed but not well dated.



We shall return to the subject, hopes yours truly:



Karl
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Heretic 2

[tozziarturo]

In sum, 
I will never use anymore in my papers the useless term "information".
--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Heretic

[tozziarturo]

Dear FISers,
After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term 
"information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, unique 
definition of information.
Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!) 
empirical  testable prevision able to assess "information".  
For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms?
Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian sense.  
Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists.  Therefore, 
my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very 
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
It is a waste of your  precious time to focus yourself in something that is so 
vague.  It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is 
information, if nobody knows what does it mean.  
--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Guy A Hoelzer]

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 
> 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" 
> 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 
> > 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

Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Jose Javier Blanco Rivero]

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"  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  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 

Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Guy A Hoelzer]

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  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 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
> 

Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear colleagues,

Using the concept of "data", one loads the discussion with an ontology. 
"Data" is "given" or "revealed" by God. (In antiquity, the holy was 
hidden and guarded by priests, but Christianity brought the idea of 
Revelation.) In physics, one talks about "data" and "nature" as given.


It seems to me that we don't need this in a discussion about 
information. Distributions contain information or, in other words, the 
expected information content of a distribution can be expressed in bits 
(dits, nits, etc.) of information. I assume that this is equivalent to 
Prof. Zhong's object information. The specification of the object ("what 
is distributed") provides the information with meaning. "In particular, 
information must not be confused with meaning." (Weaver, 1949, p. 8).


Best,
Loet

PS. When, there is no "given," but only constructs, uncertainty (that 
is, Shannon-type information) prevails. Instead of a cosmology 
("given"), one moves to a chaology of different constructs. The 
constructs differ in terms of "what is distributed", that is, the 
specification of "the object". L.



Loet Leydesdorff

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

l...@leydesdorff.net ; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London;

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en


-- Original Message --
From: "Alex Hankey" 
To: "Krassimir Markov" ; "FIS Webinar" 


Sent: 10/3/2017 8:08:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?


This is a titbit in support of Krassimir Markov.
There was a very interesting paper by Freeman Dyson in about 1970, 
about which he gave a Colloquium at the MIT Department of Physics which 
I attended.
Dyson had analyzed data taken from higher nuclear energy levels in 
particular
bands far above the ground state - probably using the Mossbauer effect 
if I remember rightly, because it has a very high resolution. .


Dyson's question was simple: Does the data contain any useful 
information?

His analysis was that the eigenvalues represented by this selection of
data were no different from those of matrix with Random Entries.
The data were equivalent to a set of random numbers.

Dyson therefore concluded that, 'The Data Contained No Useful 
Information' for the purpose of understanding the nuclear physics 
involved.




On 3 October 2017 at 16:46, Krassimir Markov  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 

[Fis] Information Periodic Table (IPT) or the Periodic Table of Information Science (PTIS)

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Fisers,

The following set of words tend to occur together in discussing "information":


1) data

2) information

3) knowledge

4) meaning

5) communication

6) message

7) messenger

8) language

9) coding

10) sign

11) interpretation

12 interpreter

13) objective informaiton

14) subjective informaiton

15) perception

16) cognition

17) measurement

18) mind

19) 'information is physical'

etc.

One way to organize these terms in a coherent manner may be to use the ITR 
(Irreducible Triadic Relation) diagram I discussed often on this list and 
elsewhere [1, Chapter 9).  To me the ITR diagram is akin to the Bohr's atomic 
model that organized the structures of chemical elements known to the 19th 
century chemistry in the form of the chemical periodic table [2].  Perhaps 
similarly, the ITR diagram may help us organize the multifarious kinds and 
tokens of 'information' known to the 21st century 'Information Science' in the 
form of what may be called the 'information periodic table' (IPT) or the 
'periodic table of Information Science' (PTIS).  One example of  IPT is 
suggested in Table 1.

All the best.

Sung


Table 1.  The periodic table of the information science (?) based on a 
parametric definition of
information.
 (S. Ji 10/03/2017)

Type


f  g
  A  -->  B   -->  C
   |
 ^
  Z=|  |
   |___|
 h
Figure 1.  A diagrammatic representation of the principles of irreducible 
triadic relation (ITR) of C. S. Peirce (1819-1914) and  of the commutative 
triangle of  the category theory [1, Chapter 9].   Z is the communication 
system constituted by a set of three irreducible elements denoted as A, B and  
C [1; see Triadic Monism in Section 10.21].

A

B

C

f

g

h

Tokens

1

Object

Sign

Interpretant

Sign production

interpretation

Information flow/ correspondence

2

Source

Information

receiver

encoding

decoding

Information flow

3

DNA/RNA

Proteins

Chemical waves

Transcription/
Translation

Enzyme catalysis

Genetic information flow

4

Reality

Data/Sign

Information/
Knowledge

Measurement

Interpretation

Correspondence/
information flow

5

Matter

Curved spacetime

Motion

Curving of spacetime

Geodesy

Gravitational force

6

Objective information

Data/Sign

Subjective information

Measurement

Perception

Information flow

7

Hylomorph

Matter

Form

Natural process

Mental process

Information flow

8

Substance
Extension

Thought

Natural process

Mental process

Information flow

9

Flesh

Body

Mind

Natural process

Mental process

Information flow




1 = Peircean Semiotics
2 = Shannon’s communication theory
3 = Gene expression/heredity
4 = Quantum physics
5 = General relativity
6 = Theory of perception/cognition
7 = Aristotle’s metaphysics
8 = Spinoza’s metaphysics
9 = Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s metaphysics

[1] Ji, S. (2017). The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter, World 
Scientific, New Jersey.
[2] Bohr model.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model





From: Fis  on behalf of Christophe Menant 

Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 12:37 PM
To: John Collier; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS


Dear John,
It is interesting you bring us to the Interpretant in the Peircean triad where 
“meaning” is indeed key.
The Interpretant is understood as the 
meaning
 of a sign, created by the mind of the Interpreter (Nöth, Handbook of 
Semiotics).
But the triad Sign/Object/Interpretant does not explicit the Interpreter and 
considers it as somehow implicit. The many writings about the Object, the Sign 
and the Interpretant tell almost nothing about the Interpreter. This is 
surprising.
The Interpreter looks to me as key as it is the place where the 
meaning
 generation happens in the Peircean triad, allowing the Interpretant to exist.
Your knowledge of 

Re: [Fis] Fw: PRINCIPLES OF IS. The Pre-Science of Information

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Joseph, Pedro and FISers,


On 02 Oct 2017, at 10:45, Joseph Brenner wrote:


Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,

In the 2 weeks I have been away, an excellent discussion has self- 
organized as Pedro noted. Any preliminary comments and criticisms of  
Pedro’s 10 Principles I could make now can refer to this. I would  
have said first that Pedro is to be thanked for this construction.  
Preparing a list of principles involves defining not only the  
content but also the number, order and relation between the entries.  
Zou, Stan and Ted in particular have recognized the existence of the  
list as such and the work involved.


My own view is that we are all currently involved in reworking the  
Foundations of Information Science. These Foundations are not  
themselves science, but they look forward to the increased  
understanding of Information Science as Terry suggests. I propose  
the term “Pre-Science” for this process activity, a pun on the word  
‘prescience’ whose normal definition is foreknowledge or foresight.  
The people who tend to make mistakes in this effort will be those  
who claim that any simple concept or set of concepts can do the job  
itself, supported by claims to authorities such as Peirce. Sets of  
principles, on the other hand, are tools more difficult to use but  
they permit directed consideration of several perspectives at the  
same time.


Principles are the basis for an interpretation of what is in the  
physical and biological processes that are the proper subjects for  
non-computational Information Science, without – yet – providing any  
explanations. Now this is a lot more philosophical that may have  
been expected when the discussion started. However, today, unlike  
when Pedro and his colleagues started out, we have the Philosophy of  
Information of Luciano Floridi and Wu Kun to work with, as well as  
my logic. I am surprised that no-one has yet referred to Floridi or  
Wu.


Going back over the postings to-date, I have noted a few which seem  
constitutive of a ‘Pre-Science’ of Information: Emmanuel’s  
‘duality’, Stan’s hierarchies; Michel Godron’s and John Torday’s  
bridges to biology, Pedro’s reworking of communication, etc. I will  
resist comments that the concepts of Pre-Science are to be thrown  
out as part of non-science or ‘just’ philosophy. As Koichiro clearly  
said on 20.09, information can, and in my view is already, bringing  
in something new empirically to questions of space and time.  In the  
Pre-Science of Information, ideally, it should be possible to retain  
mechanism and materialism or realism; computationalism and non- or  
natural computationalism;



It is hardly possible to retain digital mechanism (computationalism)  
and materialism at the ontological level. But we keep them at the  
phenomenological level, and this makes it more solid, somehow, and yet  
quasi-vaccinated against reductionism.


That might not concern you, except by being neutral on mechanism.  
Mechanism is not much a question of truth than of right. The eventual  
question will be "do you accept that your daughter or son marries  
someone who get an accident but survived with an artificial digital  
brain.


People must keep distinct the idea that we are this or that machine,  
(the metaphor use) with the idea that we have a description level at  
which a universal machine can emulate us. I have shown that Mechanism  
makes the physical reality, and consciousness, essentially non  
computable things, and that all machines eventually can understand why  
it has to be like that IF they are correct (or consistent) machines.


If we are machine, we cannot know which machine we are, and the  
physical becomes a sort of statistics on machine's "dreams" ("dreams"  
are computations seen from inside, defined using recursion theoretical  
method (alas rarely known).




information as a physical reality and a non-physicalappearance.


Why not "information as mental reality" and a physical appearance? (We  
might come back on this, but I don't think there are any evidence for  
a primitive physical reality, even without computatiionalism. Indeed  
my woprk consists ins showing how the obsevre this and get evidence  
for primitive matter or matter evolving from "machine's dream").


So I don't know. I agree with Pedro that we should clarify our  
relation with respect to Plato and Aristotle, or just be clear on what  
we are willing to assume at the start. What follows are just some  
remarks around this.


Information has third person aspects, like with Shannon theorem, and  
first person, subjective, aspects, like meaning. Here mathematical  
logic has a lot to say. I know better the semantic of Tarski and  
Kripke than the semiotic of Peirce, but it seems to me that some  
relation could be made, and could be related with the intensional/ 
extensional semantics of computer programs and formal  belief systems.  
In this context category theory might be helpful to build 

Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS

[Christophe Menant]

Dear John,
It is interesting you bring us to the Interpretant in the Peircean triad where 
“meaning” is indeed key.
The Interpretant is understood as the meaning of a sign, created by the mind of 
the Interpreter (Nöth, Handbook of Semiotics).
But the triad Sign/Object/Interpretant does not explicit the Interpreter and 
considers it as somehow implicit. The many writings about the Object, the Sign 
and the Interpretant tell almost nothing about the Interpreter. This is 
surprising.
The Interpreter looks to me as key as it is the place where the meaning 
generation happens in the Peircean triad, allowing the Interpretant to exist.
Your knowledge of Peirce being much higher than mine, could you tell us how you 
feel about the neglected Interpreter?
All the best
Christophe


De : Fis  de la part de John Collier 

Envoyé : lundi 2 octobre 2017 08:28
À : fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS


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 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
www.ithea.org





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
(http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/211,
https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2)
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  de 

[Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Krassimir,

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.

Reminder:

3)  Definition

>From “Natural Orders”:

8.3.3.3 Information is a description of what is not the case. [Let *x = a*
*k*. This is a statement, no information contained. Let *x = a**k* and
*k  **  **{1,2,...,k,...,n}*. This statement contains the
information *k *** *{1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}*
.]

(Sorry for the included & not-included symbols not making it thru the
simplified  text editor in use here.)

Am 03.10.2017 13:21 schrieb "Krassimir Markov" :

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 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
www.ithea.org





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
(http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/211,
https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2)
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  de la part de
tozziart...@libero.it 
Envoyé : vendredi 29 septembre 2017 

[Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Krassimir Markov]

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 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
www.ithea.org





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
(http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/211,
https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2)
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  de la part de
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://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108784/

In short, Street shows how information can be clearly 

Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS

[John Collier]

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 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
www.ithea.org





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
(http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/211,
https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2)
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  de la part de
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://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108784/

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

http://arturotozzi.w­ebnode.it/


--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

venerdì, 29 settembre 2017, 01:31PM