<div dir="auto">Dear Krassimir, <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks for the excellent summary of the diverse opinions. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Please add to my citation the following sentence :</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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 /.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks </div><div dir="auto">Karl </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">Am 07.10.2017 20:07 schrieb "Krassimir Markov" <<a href="mailto:markov@foibg.com">markov@foibg.com</a>>:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear FIS Colleagues,<br>
<br>
It is time for my second post this week.<br>
<br>
Many thanks to Christophe Menant (for the profound question) and to all<br>
colleagues (for the very nice and useful comments)!<br>
<br>
**********************<br>
<br>
Christophe Menant had written:<br>
“However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate information<br>
from data. A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data.<br>
But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctly<br>
demodulated.<br>
I would say that:<br>
1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent.<br>
- A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (human<br>
voice, ant pheromone).<br>
- A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise).<br>
- A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal<br>
(interpretation/meaning generation).<br>
2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received by<br>
different agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings for<br>
someone walking on the beach or for a person in a house).<br>
3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account<br>
(human beings, ant-hill).<br>
Regarding your positioning of data, I'm not sure to understand your<br>
"reflections without meaning".<br>
Could you tell a bit more?“<br>
<br>
Before answering, I need to make a little analysis of posts this week<br>
connected to my question about data and information. For this goal, below<br>
I shall remember shortly main ideas presented this week.<br>
<br>
Citations:<br>
<br>
Stanley N Salthe:<br>
“The simple answer to your question about data is to note the word's<br>
derivation from Latin Datum, which can be compared with Factum.”<br>
<br>
Y. X. Zhong:<br>
“It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information,<br>
related and also different to each other. The first one is the information<br>
presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's<br>
perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood<br>
by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the<br>
second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the<br>
subject from the former.<br>
The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the<br>
pattern with which the state varies". No meaning and no utility at the<br>
stage.<br>
The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from<br>
the object information. So, it should have the form component of the<br>
object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object<br>
(semantic information), and the utility component of the object with<br>
respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage,<br>
the "meaning" comes out.”<br>
<br>
Karl Javorszky:<br>
“Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what we<br>
do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it is<br>
the background to that what we see by using the eyes.<br>
Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by the<br>
information, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhalt<br>
and Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ and<br>
context /relationships/)”.<br>
<br>
<br>
Dai Griffiths:<br>
“I'm curious about your use of the word 'dualistic'. Dualism usually<br>
suggests that there are two aspects to a single phenomenon. As I interpret<br>
your post, you are saying that information and meaning are separate<br>
concepts. Otherwise, we are led to inquire into the nature of the unity of<br>
which they are both aspects, which gets us back where we started.<br>
So I interpret 'dualistic' here to mean 'two concepts that are intertwined<br>
in the emergence of events'. Is this parallel to, for example, atomic<br>
structure and fluid dynamics (perhaps there are better examples)? If so,<br>
does that imply a hierarchy (i.e. you can have information without<br>
meaning, but not meaning without information)? This makes sense to me,<br>
though it is not what I usually associate with the word 'dualistic'.”<br>
<br>
Guy A Hoelzer:<br>
“If you start by explicitly stating that you are using the semantic notion<br>
of information at the start, I would agree whole heartedly with your post.<br>
I claim that physical information is general, while semantic information<br>
is merely a subset of physical information. Semantic information is<br>
composed of kinds of physical contrasts to which symbolic meaning has been<br>
attached. Meaningfulness cannot exist in the absence of physical<br>
contrast, but physical information can exist independently of sensation,<br>
perception, cognition, and contextual theory.”<br>
<br>
Jose Javier Blanco Rivero:<br>
“What is information at some stage of the process becomes data on other.”<br>
<br>
Loet Leydesdorff:<br>
"Data" is "given" or "revealed" by God.<br>
The search for an intuitive definition of information has led to unclear<br>
definitions. In a recent book, Hidalgo (2015, at p. 165), for example, has<br>
defined “information” with reference “to the order embodied in codified<br>
sequences, such as those found in music or DNA, while knowledge and<br>
knowhow refer to the ability of a system to process information.” However,<br>
codified knowledge can be abstract and—like music—does not have to be<br>
“embodied” (e.g., Cowan, David, & Foray, 2000).<br>
Beyond Hidalgo’s position, Floridi (2010, p. 21) proposed “a general<br>
definition of information” according to which “the well-formed data are<br>
meaningful” (italics of the author). Luhmann (1995, p. 67) posits that<br>
“all information has meaning.” In his opinion, information should<br>
therefore be considered as a selection mechanism. Kauffman et al. (2008,<br>
at p. 28) added to the confusion by defining information as “natural<br>
selection.”<br>
Against these attempts to bring information and meaning under a single<br>
denominator--and to identify variation with selection--I argue for a<br>
dualistic perspective (as did Prof. Zhong in a previous email).<br>
Information and meaning should not be confounded. Meaning is generated<br>
from redundancies (Bateson, 1972, p. 420; Weaver, 1949; see Leydesdorff et<br>
al., 2017).<br>
<br>
Lars-Göran Johansson:<br>
“I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one should<br>
not assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that Information is<br>
a property, an entity, is not necessary. We can proceed with scientific<br>
research, using any information concept we think useful, without assuming<br>
it refers to anything.”<br>
<br>
Robert K. Logan:<br>
“So now for my definition of information as can be found in the book:<br>
• Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or<br>
organization, the basic atoms of information,<br>
• Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives<br>
it context and significance,<br>
• Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve<br>
one's objectives, and<br>
• Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's<br>
values and within a larger social context.”<br>
<br>
Stanley N Salthe:<br>
“ {facts {data -->information {knowledge {understanding}}}} “<br>
<br>
End of citations.<br>
<br>
Once more, thank you for the nice reasoning!<br>
I agree with all above!<br>
<br>
What is missing?<br>
Why we could not come to common understanding if practically we all talk<br>
about the same phenomenon and share the same idea?<br>
<br>
We all agree that there exist two dualistic forms of information (“what is<br>
information at some stage of the process becomes data on other”):<br>
<br>
- External information for the agent (Informational entity,<br>
interpreter, human brain, etc.) called “object information” (“data,<br>
information without meaning, what we see by using the eyes; physical<br>
information; "given" or "revealed" by God; pure and simple facts<br>
without any particular structure or organization, the basic atoms of<br>
information!”);<br>
<br>
- Internal information for the agent (interpreter, human brain, etc.)<br>
called “perceived information” (“syntactic information+semantic<br>
information+pragmatic information; seen by using the brain; semantic<br>
information; structured data, which adds meaning to the data and<br>
gives it context and significance!”).<br>
<br>
What we have is the equation:<br>
<br>
“Internal information” = “external information reflected by the agent“ +<br>
“subjective for the agent meaning (or semantic)”.<br>
<br>
But, the internal information for one agent is external for all others and<br>
has no meaning (semantic) for them until they reflect it anyway (via some<br>
secondary reflections created in the environment by the first agent) and<br>
add a new meaning.<br>
<br>
This way we have seen that the meaning (semantic) is separated from the<br>
external and internal information and exist only in a special case. I.e.<br>
we have the same phenomenon in both cases plus some agent depended<br>
reaction - adding the meaning (“semantic; structured data, which adds<br>
meaning to the data and gives it context and significance”).<br>
<br>
Finally, the problem with naming the pointed phenomenon has risen. I<br>
prefer to call it a “reflection” because of way it is generated - by<br>
reflection from the environment via all possible sensors of the agent.<br>
<br>
Now, it is not good for me (Occam’s razor!) to use name “information” for<br>
all the cases pointed above (External information and Internal<br>
information). I prefer to use concept “information” only in the second<br>
case - Internal information. For the first case (External information) I<br>
prefer to use concept “Data”.<br>
<br>
So, we come to what I had written:<br>
<br>
Data = Reflection;<br>
Information = Reflection + Meaning.<br>
<br>
**********************<br>
<br>
I plan to publish the text above (between stars) in the next issue of the<br>
International Journal “Information Theories and Applications”. Because of<br>
this, I kindly ask colleagues, who are cited in the text as well as all<br>
other, to give me permission to cite them and to send to me a proper<br>
citation of publication where the presented ideas are published. If the<br>
ideas are not published please give me permission to cite your post in the<br>
list.<br>
<br>
Please, take in account that I have no money to buy publications, so all<br>
citations have to be in open access and corresponded links have to be<br>
given.<br>
Not open access publications do not exist for me!<br>
<br>
Friendly greetings<br>
Krassimir<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>