Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

[Michel Petitjean]

Dear Dick,
Replying to the following two questions may help:
(1) Is there information in the situation there is no data ?
(2) If yes, an example would be great; If no, is there information if
no data is conveyed ?
Best,
Michel.

2011/10/4 Dick Stoute :
> This is my first post to this list - so my apologies if I get it wrong.
>
> I am looking for arguments for/against the concept of information as "form
> conveyed by data".  Any references/ideas would be appreciated.
>
> Dick
>

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

[Gyorgy Darvas]

The question can be put even so:
Is there information only when the recipient is (or it is perceived) by a
conscious human being?  (in a weaker form: by a sensitive,
brain-equipped animal?)
or
Can we speak about information between inanimate objects as well? (e.g.,
when a valence electron of an atom "feels" the electric field
of the electron-shell of a nearby other atom.) 
Depending on the answers on the above questions, then we can ask, whether
can we speak about information on "there is a valence
electron", when there is no other atom at Coulomb-range to which
this data were conveyed?
In general: is information a subjective category, or independent of
whether it was perceived by somebody/something?
(Further, see my paper in "Information" FIS-Beijing issue, this
summer.)
Regards,
Gyuri

At 12:08 2011.10.04.ÿ, you wrote:
Dear Dick,
Replying to the following two questions may help:
(1) Is there information in the situation there is no data ?
(2) If yes, an example would be great; If no, is there information
if
no data is conveyed ?
Best,
Michel.
2011/10/4 Dick Stoute :
> This is my first post to this list - so my apologies if I get it
wrong.
>
> I am looking for arguments for/against the concept of information as
"form
> conveyed by data".  Any references/ideas would be
appreciated.
>
> Dick
>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es

https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis






Recent publications online: 
- Mathematical description of a so far undisclosed symmetry of
nature: 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3189v1 
- Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded
conservation law: 


http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0&aqId=1788954&download=1&checkval=489b8c72cdf8948cf719b8838b49e656
 
- Spontaneous symmetry breaking in non-Euclidean systems: 


http://www.springerlink.com/content/k272555u06q2074w/?p=14dd4c9c5b5e4c1396b3e4855a87e9e2&pi=1




Symmetry Festival 2009, Keynote and Plenary lectures 
__ 
Gyorgy Darvas 
E-mail / Skype; 
S Y M M E T R I O N 
Address: c/o MTA KSZI; 18 Nador St., Budapest, H-1051 Hungary 
Fax: 36 (1) 331-3161;    Phone: 36 (1)
312-3022;   36 (1) 331-3975 
Monograph:

Symmetry; 
Course of
lectures 
___



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

[Loet Leydesdorff]

(1) Is there information in the situation there is no data ?
(2) If yes, an example would be great; If no, is there information if
no data is conveyed ?



Dear Michel, 

 

In my opinion, the issue is the "is" in the above sentences. Traditionally,
one would label such a question as ontological. "Is" is derived from the
Latin "esse" as is "onto-". Since Descartes "Cogito ergo sum", one is able
to distinguish between res cogitans and res extensa. Information
(Shannon-type, uncertainty) does not exist as a stone or a table "exists",
namely as "esse".

 

Let's move to "uncertainty" because of the confusing connotations of
"information". (Bateson's "difference which makes a difference" for a system
of reference.) The beauty of Shannon's mathematical theory of communication,
in my opinion, is that "uncertainty" can be made measurable. Thus, one
quantify res cogitans. Within this domain, one can distinguish between
cogitantes and cogitata. (For Descartes, the cogitatum was God: the
transcendent Other of the contingent Cogito). Now-since Shannon-one has
access to objectified uncertainty; we can measure it. This can be done in
the abstract as a math (entropy statistics or calculus) or when using it for
building and testing our theories about extensa.

 

In my opinion, it is least confusing to consider "uncertainty" as an
attribute of discursive knowledge and theorizing and therefore at the
epistemological level. At the ontological level, one can assume that
uncertainty prevails. Perhaps, one can consider this as the basis of a
chaology given that knowledge can no longer ground itself in God or His
Revelation ("Nature"). 

 

Best wishes, 

Loet

 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

[Dick Stoute]

Thanks to all respondents - Gyorgy Darvas is more along the lines I was
thinking.

There are two ways we can use the idea "in-form".

(a) A cannon ball can "inform" a wall - the energy and the "signal" are both
delivered by the ball. Similarly an artist can in-form clay to create a work
of art. In this case the recipient (wall, clay) is passive.

(b) A relatively weak signal, say one broadcast by a radio station can
"inform" a radio.  The radio uses the form of the signal to modulate energy
that comes from a different source - it selects the signal from many others
(by tuning) and amplifies it using energy it gets from batteries or the
grid.

I think that (b) is how the term is used in a modern context while (a) is
more historical.

It is in the context of (b) that I pose the question about information being
the form conveyed by data. In (b) the recipient plays an active role to
select a particular signal which then modulates or informs some internal
activity.  We can think of human perception in this way - we detect and
select signals and use them to create models of our environment.

This (b) model can be used to describe a range of activity from Shannon type
communication to biological (DNA) activity, but I am not sure it can be
applied to chemical activity.

To my "un-informed" way of thinking chemical interaction is more like (a) -
a passive response - rather than a selective active response as in (b).

Dick Stoute

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Gyorgy Darvas  wrote:

>  The question can be put even so:
>
> Is there information only when the recipient is (or it is perceived) by a
> conscious human being?  (in a weaker form: by a sensitive, brain-equipped
> animal?)
> or
> Can we speak about information between inanimate objects as well? (e.g.,
> when a valence electron of an atom "feels" the electric field of the
> electron-shell of a nearby other atom.)
> Depending on the answers on the above questions, then we can ask, whether
> can we speak about information on "there is a valence electron", when there
> is no other atom at Coulomb-range to which this data were conveyed?
> In general: is information a subjective category, or independent of whether
> it was perceived by somebody/something?
>
> (Further, see my paper in "Information" FIS-Beijing issue, this summer.)
>
> Regards,
> Gyuri
>
>
> At 12:08 2011.10.04.ÿ, you wrote:
>
> Dear Dick,
> Replying to the following two questions may help:
> (1) Is there information in the situation there is no data ?
> (2) If yes, an example would be great; If no, is there information if
> no data is conveyed ?
> Best,
> Michel.
>
> 2011/10/4 Dick Stoute :
> > This is my first post to this list - so my apologies if I get it wrong.
> >
> > I am looking for arguments for/against the concept of information as
> "form
> > conveyed by data".  Any references/ideas would be appreciated.
> >
> > Dick
> >
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
>  https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>  Recent publications online: - Mathematical description of a so far
> undisclosed symmetry of nature: http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3189v1 -
> Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded conservation
> law: 
> http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0&aqId=1788954&download=1&checkval=489b8c72cdf8948cf719b8838b49e656
>  -
> Spontaneous symmetry breaking in non-Euclidean systems: 
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/k272555u06q2074w/?p=14dd4c9c5b5e4c1396b3e4855a87e9e2&pi=1
>
>  Symmetry Festival 
> 2009,
> Keynote and Plenary lectures 
> __
> Gyorgy Darvas  E-mail / 
> Skype<%20darv...@iif.hu>;
> S Y M M E T R I O N  Address: c/o MTA KSZI; 18 Nador
> St., Budapest, H-1051 Hungary Fax: 36 (1) 331-3161;Phone: 36 (1)
> 312-3022;   36 (1) 331-3975 Monograph: 
> Symmetry;
> Course of lectures 
> ___
>
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Ø  There are two ways we can use the idea "in-form". 



Yes, this is the other notion of information. Shannon-type information does
not “inform”, but is counter-intuitively defined as uncertainty (or
probabilistic entropy) and measured, for example, in bits of information. It
is based on probability distributions.

Bateson (1973) and many others did define information as “a difference which
makes a difference”. Probability distributions contain only differences. If
these first-order differences make a difference in a second dimension then a
system of reference is assumed for which the first-order difference may make
a difference. This system of reference may then discard some incoming
information as noise and provide meaning to other information. Perhaps, it
is useful to call this meaningful information (or observed information) as
different from the expected information (or uncertainty) in the case of
Shannon-type information.

The system of reference does not have to be “an observer” as is often
presumed in the cybernetic tradition; it can also be discourse. Does this
contribution make a difference for the discourse? The two notions of
information are to be kept apart because otherwise the discussion becomes
confused.

Best wishes, 
Loet 


(a) A cannon ball can "inform" a wall - the energy and the "signal" are both
delivered by the ball. Similarly an artist can in-form clay to create a work
of art. In this case the recipient (wall, clay) is passive. 

(b) A relatively weak signal, say one broadcast by a radio station can
"inform" a radio.  The radio uses the form of the signal to modulate energy
that comes from a different source - it selects the signal from many others
(by tuning) and amplifies it using energy it gets from batteries or the
grid. 

I think that (b) is how the term is used in a modern context while (a) is
more historical. 

It is in the context of (b) that I pose the question about information being
the form conveyed by data. In (b) the recipient plays an active role to
select a particular signal which then modulates or informs some internal
activity.  We can think of human perception in this way - we detect and
select signals and use them to create models of our environment. 

This (b) model can be used to describe a range of activity from Shannon type
communication to biological (DNA) activity, but I am not sure it can be
applied to chemical activity. 

To my "un-informed" way of thinking chemical interaction is more like (a) -
a passive response - rather than a selective active response as in (b).   

Dick Stoute

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Gyorgy Darvas  wrote:

The question can be put even so:

Is there information only when the recipient is (or it is perceived) by a
conscious human being?  (in a weaker form: by a sensitive, brain-equipped
animal?)
or
Can we speak about information between inanimate objects as well? (e.g.,
when a valence electron of an atom "feels" the electric field of the
electron-shell of a nearby other atom.) 
Depending on the answers on the above questions, then we can ask, whether
can we speak about information on "there is a valence electron", when there
is no other atom at Coulomb-range to which this data were conveyed?
In general: is information a subjective category, or independent of whether
it was perceived by somebody/something?

(Further, see my paper in "Information" FIS-Beijing issue, this summer.)

Regards,
Gyuri


At 12:08 2011.10.04.ÿ, you wrote:



Dear Dick,
Replying to the following two questions may help:
(1) Is there information in the situation there is no data ?
(2) If yes, an example would be great; If no, is there information if
no data is conveyed ?
Best,
Michel.

2011/10/4 Dick Stoute :
> This is my first post to this list - so my apologies if I get it wrong.
>
> I am looking for arguments for/against the concept of information as "form
> conveyed by data".  Any references/ideas would be appreciated.
>
> Dick
>

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

 

Recent publications online: 

- Mathematical description of a so far undisclosed symmetry of nature: 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3189v1 

- Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded
conservation law: 

http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0

&aqId=1788954&download=1&checkval=489b8c72cdf8948cf719b8838b49e656 

- Spontaneous symmetry breaking in non-Euclidean systems: 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k272555u06q2074w/?p=14dd4c9c5b5e4c1396b3
e4855a87e9e2
 &pi=1 

Symmetry Festival 2009
 ,
Keynote and Plenary lectures 

__ 

Gyorgy Darvas 

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

[Robin Faichney]

Title: Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data


Thursday, October 6, 2011, 7:24:09 AM, Loet wrote:





Ø  There are two ways we can use the idea "in-form". 

Yes, this is the other notion of information. Shannon-type information does not “inform”, but is counter-intuitively defined as uncertainty (or probabilistic entropy) and measured, for example, in bits of information. It is based on probability distributions.



Surely Shannon information is not uncertainty, but its opposite: the reduction of uncertainty. And it has that in common with meaningful or semantic information.





Bateson (1973) and many others did define information as “a difference which makes a difference”.






Probability distributions contain only differences. If these first-order differences make a difference in a second dimension then a system of reference is assumed for which the first-order difference may make a difference. This system of reference may then discard some incoming information as noise and provide meaning to other information. Perhaps, it is useful to call this meaningful information (or observed information) as different from the expected information (or uncertainty) in the case of Shannon-type information.



I find it useful to view Shannon information as "pure pattern". But that might be specific to my particular interest in it, which is its relationship to physical information. (I don't mean that in other contexts it might be wrong to view it that way, but it might not always be the most useful way to look at it.)





The system of reference does not have to be “an observer” as is often presumed in the cybernetic tradition; it can also be discourse. Does this contribution make a difference for the discourse?



Who or what but an observer can make that judgement? Only to a mind is anything ever meaningful. I read "a difference that makes a difference" as "a significant difference", and only a mind can judge significance.





The two notions of information are to be kept apart because otherwise the discussion becomes confused. 



I certainly agree with that!

-- 
Robin Faichney
<http://www.robinfaichney.org/>

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

[Gavin Ritz]

This (b) model can be used to describe a range of activity from Shannon type
communication to biological (DNA) activity,

DNA and information have nothing to do with each other. 

but I am not sure it can be applied to chemical activity. 

That's what DNA is a molecule.



To my "un-informed" way of thinking chemical interaction is more like (a) -
a passive response - rather than a selective active response as in (b).   

Dick Stoute

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Gyorgy Darvas  wrote:

The question can be put even so:

Is there information only when the recipient is (or it is perceived) by a
conscious human being?  (in a weaker form: by a sensitive, brain-equipped
animal?)
or

Neither there is no such thing as information use by biological organisms.
It's a daft idea.


 Replying to the following two questions may help:
(1) Is there information in the situation there is no data ?
(2) If yes, an example would be great; If no, is there information if
no data is conveyed ?
Best,
Michel.

2011/10/4 Dick Stoute :
> This is my first post to this list - so my apologies if I get it wrong.
>
> I am looking for arguments for/against the concept of information as "form
> conveyed by data".  Any references/ideas would be appreciated.
>
> Dick
>

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

 

Recent publications online: 

- Mathematical description of a so far undisclosed symmetry of nature: 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3189v1 

- Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded
conservation law: 

http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0

&aqId=1788954&download=1&checkval=489b8c72cdf8948cf719b8838b49e656 

- Spontaneous symmetry breaking in non-Euclidean systems: 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k272555u06q2074w/?p=14dd4c9c5b5e4c1396b3
e4855a87e9e2
 &pi=1 

Symmetry Festival 2009
 ,
Keynote and Plenary lectures 

__ 

Gyorgy Darvas   

E-mail / Skype  ;  S Y M M E T R I O N
  

Address: c/o MTA KSZI; 18 Nador St., Budapest, H-1051 Hungary 

Fax: 36 (1)   331-3161;Phone: 36 (1)
312-3022;   36 (1)   331-3975 

Monograph: Symmetry
 ;  Course of
  lectures 

___


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

[karl javorszky]

On Form Conveyed By Data

Among the terms in the question "form conveyed by data" the term "data" is
the least ambiguous.
We will doubtlessly agree that 1,2,3,... are "data"

Whether a sequence "123456...16" is in a different form to a sequence e.g.
"42315...11" is a subject of semantics.

We know that children order things according to their size on a request "now
please bring this in a nice form". So it seems that the term "form" may be
applied to an ordered sequence as opposed to an un-ordered sequence. The
former will be experienced by average humans to be in a "right form" while
the latter will be described as "not in the right 'way'" as an answer to the
question "please tell me, which of these heaps is in a proper form".

The case will become more logical if we consider the multitude of ways a
collection can be ordered according to several aspects.

I would say that the Addition Table is a good example to support the answer
- which I give to the question "can form be conveyed by data (in the context
of information transmission)?": "Yes, form can be conveyed by data".
Distinct orders are in distinct forms. The distinctions are recognisable and
communicable, therefore interpersonal (="objective").

Karl




2011/10/6 Loet Leydesdorff 

> **Ø  **There are two ways we can use the idea "in-form".
>
> 
>
> Yes, this is the other notion of information. Shannon-type information does
> not “inform”, but is counter-intuitively defined as uncertainty (or
> probabilistic entropy) and measured, for example, in bits of information. It
> is based on probability distributions.
>
> Bateson (1973) and many others did define information as “a difference
> which makes a difference”. Probability distributions contain only
> differences. If these first-order differences make a difference in a second
> dimension then a system of reference is assumed for which the first-order
> difference may make a difference. This system of reference may then discard
> some incoming information as noise and provide meaning to other information.
> Perhaps, it is useful to call this meaningful information (or observed
> information) as different from the expected information (or uncertainty) in
> the case of Shannon-type information.
>
> The system of reference does not have to be “an observer” as is often
> presumed in the cybernetic tradition; it can also be discourse. Does this
> contribution make a difference for the discourse? The two notions of
> information are to be kept apart because otherwise the discussion becomes
> confused.
>
> Best wishes,
> Loet 
>
>
> (a) A cannon ball can "inform" a wall - the energy and the "signal" are
> both delivered by the ball. Similarly an artist can in-form clay to create a
> work of art. In this case the recipient (wall, clay) is passive.
>
> (b) A relatively weak signal, say one broadcast by a radio station can
> "inform" a radio.  The radio uses the form of the signal to modulate energy
> that comes from a different source - it selects the signal from many others
> (by tuning) and amplifies it using energy it gets from batteries or the
> grid.
>
> I think that (b) is how the term is used in a modern context while (a) is
> more historical.
>
> It is in the context of (b) that I pose the question about information
> being the form conveyed by data. In (b) the recipient plays an active role
> to select a particular signal which then modulates or informs some internal
> activity.  We can think of human perception in this way - we detect and
> select signals and use them to create models of our environment.
>
> This (b) model can be used to describe a range of activity from Shannon
> type communication to biological (DNA) activity, but I am not sure it can be
> applied to chemical activity.
>
> To my "un-informed" way of thinking chemical interaction is more like (a) -
> a passive response - rather than a selective active response as in (b).
>
> Dick Stoute
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Gyorgy Darvas  wrote:
>
> The question can be put even so:
>
> Is there information only when the recipient is (or it is perceived) by a
> conscious human being?  (in a weaker form: by a sensitive, brain-equipped
> animal?)
> or
> Can we speak about information between inanimate objects as well? (e.g.,
> when a valence electron of an atom "feels" the electric field of the
> electron-shell of a nearby other atom.)
> Depending on the answers on the above questions, then we can ask, whether
> can we speak about information on "there is a valence electron", when there
> is no other atom at Coulomb-range to which this data were conveyed?
> In general: is information a subjective category, or independent of whether
> it was perceived by somebody/something?
>
> (Further, see my paper in "Information" FIS-Beijing issue, this summer.)
>
> Regards,
> Gyuri
>
>
> At 12:08 2011.10.04.ÿ, you wrote:
>
> 
>
> Dear Dick,
> Replying to the following two questions may help:
> (1) Is there information in

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data--Jamie Rose

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

(message from Jamie Rose)
--

The "difference that makes a difference" puts the situation into a 
larger context
that includes the observing system / encountering system.  This is 
irrespective of
the sentience or cybernetic (secondary/tertiery/etc) 
awareness/interpretive/reapplication

capability of the sensoring system.

Gyorgy's question therefore is very important and needs clinical 
answering in _new ways_.
(beyond Bateson, Shannon, Weaver, et al. 

"Simplistic" action/reaction responsive systems are also worthy 
of 'information analysis'. 

A key characteristic is - is a system so constructed and organized that 
it will recognize 
(let lone be responsive to) energy/temporal/situational variances in its 
environment ?


We humans are awash in radio signals, but don't have the 
organs/organelles sensitive
to acknowledge their presence around us. "Information" is there -- but 
so what?


In contrast, atoms/molecules EM fields are exquisitely sensitive to 
fields variances
('information changes') all around them.  We harness and use this in 
human electronic
civilization -- but we design threshholds in the machinery we build.  
This prevents un-wanted
information (otherwise labelled as 'noise') from corrupting the data and 
effects desired.
We require that data-bit states be protected, until modified 
('informationed') by choice and
with utility concerns involved (cybernetic tiered information 
coordination, as it were).


A major change in appreciation of 'information systems' is needed.  What 
are they in regard to human information processing?  Whay is an 
information organelle in the natural world? 
What is an information system/component - more fundamentally - in the 
natural world?


But, most importantly -- what is a theoretical essense of an information 
'mechanism/function' ?


To be so bold, I will place something into the ether here for your 
consideration.


I made a presentation at the 1998 Univ Arizona, "Towards a Science of 
Consciousness"
conference.  While attending and listening to presentations during the 
week long conference,
I began to ponder in the variety of 'information' definitions floated 
about.  Wondering about
the possibility of general shared criteria and characteristics - I 
focussed on Shannon, and,
on Taylor's discussion of the fundamentals of The Calculus, 
and characteristics of physical

'tuned sensitivity radio equipment'.

Taylor, Leibnitz and Newton were particularly aware of measuement limits 
in regard to
mathemathics.  The notion of measured partitioning - heading toward the 
infinitely small/short -
required an important statement/disclaimer about the full domain of math 
and dimensional
and spatial measuring/sizing.  It was stated as an a priori axiom 
than no matter what size
partitions were under a curve or distance consideration, there would 
always be a distance
measure 'e', smaller/shorter than any partition size at any moment of 
consideration.


This is a critically important assertion. It is tantamount to saying 
that no matter how small
a partition (otherwise definable in current vernacular) as an 
'information bit', the mathematical
"apparatus' would always be more sensitive than any partition-bit and 
would always be able to
'recognize' the information values - individually and cummulatively.   
An intangible always
sensitive mechanism cabale of encountering any and all information 
varainces. (smaller than

any wave length; shorter than any limit (ala Planck).


They were designing an intangible/virtual 'information processing 
mechanism', even if they didn't
express it in those terms; the Shannon-esque notion of 'defining 
information'.   What becomes humorous it the tautology this 
presents.  Shannon built his probability definition of 'information'
using the Calculus -- which was already an 'information processing 
function/mechanism' -- built  
on the Shannon-esque concept that there is such a thing as 'information' 
(bit/variance/probability).


This extraordinary cognition of what information can be, what 
mathematics and the Calculus
are as manulipators and processors of information datums -- already ;  
opens new vistas
to appreciate plural simultaneous information processing.   
Material/energy systems engage
and process 'information' -- sometimes in regard to human concerns, but 
ongoing and self-pertinent and self functional according to the nature 
and extent and capability of construction

themselves.

It is not incorrect to examine and evaluate any system as an 
'information system',  besides
whatever meaning, value or engagement (cybernetic translation or 
accomodation) potential for
other systems or alternate tiers/orders of systems in the companion 
environment(s).


Jamie Rose
- 
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data--Jamie Rose

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Thanks, Jamie, for the great posting; you raise several fundamental 
points, particularly for my taste when talking about maths and calculus 
as manipulators and processors of information. My contention is that we 
"extrovert" our open-ended conceptual mechanisms for the performance of 
a new type of action/perception cycles, standardized, objectified ones  
---but always with a long history of consensus, normative agreements, 
etc. Perhaps info science has to create and agree on new standards 
precisely about the creation of standards for collective 
action/perception in a disciplinary basis. Simply, imposing a normative 
"definition" of information, like the meter standard in Paris, or the 
time units... The coming year we will have a fis Summer school in Varna, 
it may be a good occasion to overcome the inherent "undefinition of 
information" and artificially fix it.  all the best ---Pedro




(message from Jamie Rose)
--

The "difference that makes a difference" puts the situation into a 
larger context
that includes the observing system / encountering system.  This is 
irrespective of
the sentience or cybernetic (secondary/tertiery/etc) 
awareness/interpretive/reapplication

capability of the sensoring system.
 
Gyorgy's question therefore is very important and needs clinical 
answering in _new ways_.
(beyond Bateson, Shannon, Weaver, et al. 
 
"Simplistic" action/reaction responsive systems are also worthy 
of 'information analysis'. 
 
A key characteristic is - is a system so constructed and organized 
that it will recognize 
(let lone be responsive to) energy/temporal/situational variances in 
its environment ?
 
We humans are awash in radio signals, but don't have the 
organs/organelles sensitive
to acknowledge their presence around us. "Information" is there -- but 
so what?
 
In contrast, atoms/molecules EM fields are exquisitely sensitive to 
fields variances
('information changes') all around them.  We harness and use this in 
human electronic
civilization -- but we design threshholds in the machinery we build.  
This prevents un-wanted
information (otherwise labelled as 'noise') from corrupting the data 
and effects desired.
We require that data-bit states be protected, until modified 
('informationed') by choice and
with utility concerns involved (cybernetic tiered information 
coordination, as it were).
 
A major change in appreciation of 'information systems' is needed.  
What are they in regard to human information processing?  Whay is an 
information organelle in the natural world? 
What is an information system/component - more fundamentally - in the 
natural world?
 
But, most importantly -- what is a theoretical essense of an 
information 'mechanism/function' ?
 
To be so bold, I will place something into the ether here for your 
consideration.
 
I made a presentation at the 1998 Univ Arizona, "Towards a Science of 
Consciousness"
conference.  While attending and listening to presentations during the 
week long conference,
I began to ponder in the variety of 'information' definitions floated 
about.  Wondering about
the possibility of general shared criteria and characteristics - I 
focussed on Shannon, and,
on Taylor's discussion of the fundamentals of The Calculus, 
and characteristics of physical

'tuned sensitivity radio equipment'.
 
Taylor, Leibnitz and Newton were particularly aware of measuement 
limits in regard to
mathemathics.  The notion of measured partitioning - heading toward 
the infinitely small/short -
required an important statement/disclaimer about the full domain of 
math and dimensional
and spatial measuring/sizing.  It was stated as an a priori axiom 
than no matter what size
partitions were under a curve or distance consideration, there would 
always be a distance
measure 'e', smaller/shorter than any partition size at any moment of 
consideration.
 
This is a critically important assertion. It is tantamount to saying 
that no matter how small
a partition (otherwise definable in current vernacular) as an 
'information bit', the mathematical
"apparatus' would always be more sensitive than any partition-bit and 
would always be able to
'recognize' the information values - individually and cummulatively.   
An intangible always
sensitive mechanism cabale of encountering any and all information 
varainces. (smaller than

any wave length; shorter than any limit (ala Planck).
 
 
They were designing an intangible/virtual 'information processing 
mechanism', even if they didn't
express it in those terms; the Shannon-esque notion of 'defining 
information'.   What becomes humorous it the tautology this 
presents.  Shannon built his probability definition of 'information'
using the Calculus -- which was already an 'information processing 
function/mechanism' -- built  
on the Shannon-esque concept that there is such a thing as 
'information' (bit/variance/probability).
 
This extraordinary cognition of what information