[Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Krassimir,

Thanks for the excellent summary of the diverse opinions.

Please add to my citation the following sentence :

A numeric approach uses the concept of counting in terms of consolidation
of displacements, and points out the data as a specific element of a cycle,
the information part being the communication about which cycle the element
is part of /= data about the remaining elements /.

Thanks
Karl

Am 07.10.2017 20:07 schrieb "Krassimir Markov" <markov at foibg.com>:

> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> It is time for my second post this week.
>
> Many thanks to Christophe Menant (for the profound question) and to all
> colleagues (for the very nice and useful comments)!
>
> **********************
>
> Christophe Menant had written:
>  “However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate information
> from data.  A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data.
> But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctly
> demodulated.
> I would say that:
> 1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent.
>      - A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (human
> voice, ant pheromone).
>      - A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise).
>      - A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal
> (interpretation/meaning generation).
> 2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received by
> different agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings for
> someone walking on the beach or for a person in a house).
> 3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account
> (human beings, ant-hill).
> Regarding your positioning of data, I'm not sure to understand your
> "reflections without meaning".
> Could you tell a bit more?“
>
> Before answering, I need to make a little analysis of posts this week
> connected to my question about data and information. For this goal, below
> I shall remember shortly main ideas presented this week.
>
> Citations:
>
> Stanley N Salthe:
>  “The simple answer to your question about data is to note the word's
> derivation from Latin Datum, which can be compared with Factum.”
>
> Y. X. Zhong:
> “It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information,
> related and also different to each other. The first one is the information
> presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's
> perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood
> by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the
> second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the
> subject from the former.
> The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the
> pattern with which the state varies". No meaning and no utility at the
> stage.
> The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from
> the object information. So, it should have the form component of the
> object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object
> (semantic information), and the utility component of the object with
> respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage,
> the "meaning" comes out.”
>
> Karl Javorszky:
> “Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what we
> do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it is
> the background to that what we see by using the eyes.
> Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by the
> information, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhalt
> and Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ and
> context /relationships/)”.
>
>
> Dai Griffiths:
> “I'm curious about your use of the word 'dualistic'. Dualism usually
> suggests that there are two aspects to a single phenomenon. As I interpret
> your post, you are saying that information and meaning are separate
> concepts. Otherwise, we are led to inquire into the nature of the unity of
> which they are both aspects, which gets us back where we started.
> So I interpret 'dualistic' here to mean 'two concepts that are intertwined
> in the emergence of events'. Is this parallel to, for example, atomic
> structure and fluid dynamics (perhaps there are better examples)? If so,
> does that imply a hierarchy (i.e. you can have information without
> meaning, but not meaning without information)? This makes sense to me,
> though it is not what I usually associate with the word 'dualistic'.”
>
> Guy A Hoelzer:
> “If you start by explicitly stating that you are using the semantic notion
> of information at the start, I would agree whole heartedly with your post.
> I claim that physical information is general, while semantic information
> is merely a subset of physical information.  Semantic information is
> composed of kinds of physical contrasts to which symbolic meaning has been
> attached.  Meaningfulness cannot exist in the absence of physical
> contrast, but physical information can exist independently of sensation,
> perception, cognition, and contextual theory.”
>
> Jose Javier Blanco Rivero:
> “What is information at some stage of the process becomes data on other.”
>
> Loet Leydesdorff:
> "Data" is "given" or "revealed" by God.
> The search for an intuitive definition of information has led to unclear
> definitions. In a recent book, Hidalgo (2015, at p. 165), for example, has
> defined “information” with reference “to the order embodied in codified
> sequences, such as those found in music or DNA, while knowledge and
> knowhow refer to the ability of a system to process information.” However,
> codified knowledge can be abstract and—like music—does not have to be
> “embodied” (e.g., Cowan, David, & Foray, 2000).
> Beyond Hidalgo’s position, Floridi (2010, p. 21) proposed “a general
> definition of information” according to which “the well-formed data are
> meaningful” (italics of the author). Luhmann (1995, p. 67) posits that
> “all information has meaning.” In his opinion, information should
> therefore be considered as a selection mechanism. Kauffman et al. (2008,
> at p. 28) added to the confusion by defining information as “natural
> selection.”
> Against these attempts to bring information and meaning under a single
> denominator--and to identify variation with selection--I argue for a
> dualistic perspective (as did Prof. Zhong in a previous email).
> Information and meaning should not be confounded. Meaning is generated
> from redundancies (Bateson, 1972, p. 420; Weaver, 1949; see Leydesdorff et
> al., 2017).
>
> Lars-Göran Johansson:
> “I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one should
> not assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that Information is
> a property, an entity, is not necessary. We can proceed with scientific
> research, using any information concept we think useful, without assuming
> it refers to anything.”
>
> Robert K. Logan:
> “So now for my definition of information as can be found in the book:
> • Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or
> organization, the basic atoms of information,
> • Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives
> it context and significance,
> • Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve
> one's objectives, and
>  • Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's
> values and within a larger social context.”
>
> Stanley N Salthe:
> “ {facts {data -->information {knowledge {understanding}}}} “
>
> End of citations.
>
> Once more, thank you for the nice reasoning!
> I agree with all above!
>
> What is missing?
> Why we could not come to common understanding if practically we all talk
> about the same phenomenon and share the same idea?
>
> We all agree that there exist two dualistic forms of information (“what is
> information at some stage of the process becomes data on other”):
>
>      - External information for the agent (Informational entity,
> interpreter, human brain, etc.) called “object information” (“data,
> information without meaning, what we see by using the eyes; physical
> information; "given" or "revealed" by God; pure and simple facts
> without any particular structure or organization, the basic atoms of
> information!”);
>
>      - Internal information for the agent (interpreter, human brain, etc.)
> called “perceived information” (“syntactic information+semantic
> information+pragmatic information; seen by using the brain; semantic
> information; structured data, which adds meaning to the data and
> gives it context and significance!”).
>
> What we have is the equation:
>
> “Internal information” = “external information reflected by the agent“ +
> “subjective for the agent meaning (or semantic)”.
>
> But, the internal information for one agent is external for all others and
> has no meaning (semantic) for them until they reflect it anyway (via some
> secondary reflections created in the environment by the first agent) and
> add a new meaning.
>
> This way we have seen that the meaning (semantic) is separated from the
> external and internal information and exist only in a special case. I.e.
> we have the same phenomenon in both cases plus some agent depended
> reaction - adding the meaning (“semantic; structured data, which adds
> meaning to the data and gives it context and significance”).
>
> Finally, the problem with naming the pointed phenomenon has risen. I
> prefer to call it a “reflection” because of way it is generated - by
> reflection from the environment via all possible sensors of the agent.
>
> Now, it is not good for me (Occam’s razor!) to use name “information” for
> all the cases pointed above (External information and Internal
> information). I prefer to use concept “information” only in the second
> case - Internal information. For the first case (External information) I
> prefer to use concept “Data”.
>
> So, we come to what I had written:
>
> Data = Reflection;
> Information = Reflection + Meaning.
>
> **********************
>
> I plan to publish the text above (between stars) in the next issue of the
> International Journal “Information Theories and Applications”. Because of
> this, I kindly ask colleagues, who are cited in the text as well as all
> other, to give me permission to cite them and to send to me a proper
> citation of publication where the presented ideas are published. If the
> ideas are not published please give me permission to cite your post in the
> list.
>
> Please, take in account that I have no money to buy publications, so all
> citations have to be in open access and corresponded links have to be
> given.
> Not open access publications do not exist for me!
>
> Friendly greetings
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20171007/7e8589b8/attachment.html>