<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html>
head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"></head><body><div dir="ltr"><p>Dear Krassimir and FIS
colleagues,</p><p> </p><p>Many thanks for your message &
effort to prepare the compilation to be published soon. It is good
counting with dissemination works that take these information debates
to different environments so that new insights and conceptual cross
fertilizations may occur. (These weeks I have been rather absent
minded, involved with the nasty task of closing my desk room and
having to transport home all my archives--throwing away lots and lots
of reprints and docs. No space available at home! It was very
fatiguing. Hopefully it is almost over.) Well, about Arturo's last
comment, am sorry about having to leave out of science most of
research activities of last centuries, including some of the Greatest
Founding Books of Biology (Darwin's), Neuroscience (Ramon y Cajal's,
Sherrington's) and many others. No maths there! Watson & Crick's
arch-famous paper with the DNA report had no maths either... They all
will join the heaps of papers I discarded! Well, more seriously, FIS
was conceived to articulate a common ground in between the different
info worlds, utterly separated, taking from the
physical/computational, to the biological/neuronal, and to the
personal/social. There was, and there is, no immediate "informational"
connection at all. Perhaps after taking various steps behind each one
of these realms, a sort of general interconnecting thread could be
discovered; this is what we thought long ago. Hélas, as all these
years discussions have witnessed, the itinerary resembles an
intransitable Moebius band rather than a linear path... But at least
there is fun in the attempt.</p><p>About data, "dataism", and some
other curiosities we will have a new discussion session at the end of
next week. Raquel del Moral will present the chair of this new
session.</p><p>Best wishes to all,</p><p>--Pedro</p><p> </p><p>On
Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:50:08 +0200
"Krassimir Markov" wrote:</p>
blockquote><p dir="ltr"></p><div style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY:
'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"><div> <p> </p><p>Dear FIS
Colleagues,</p><p> </p><p>The main result of our paper “Data
versus Information” is the
understanding that the data and
information are different (external and internal
kinds of reflection
for subjective consciousness), i.e. "Information = data +
something
in and by consciousness"</p><p> </p><p>After publishing the
paper, Arturo wrote an important remark
and I promise to answer in
this letter. In private conversation we had discussed
some aspects.
The conversation was interesting but it is not available for the
FIS-list and I have no permission to publish it. Because of this I
will use
abstract form of questions (Q) and answers (A). </p><p>Dear
Arturo, I apologize in advance but I hope there is
nothing bad in
this and it will be useful. </p><p> </p><p>The remark of Arturo
was: I'm just annoyed that the most
represented position among
FISers, i.e., that information is an objective,
quantitative,
physical measure linked to informational entropy, has not been
taken
into account at all. After all our efforts to maintain our firm
position, we have been censored.</p><p> </p><p>
(A): Usually we say “we collect
information” measuring different real features – temperature,
distance, weigh,
etc. Scientists from physics do this permanently.</p>
p> </p><p>The methodical error here is that really we collect
data.</p><p> </p><p>After processing the data in the
consciousness, the
information may be created in it. Reflections
(data) exist everywhere, but
information exists only in
consciousness. It is important that information in
the consciousness
of one subject is external for another, i.e. it is data for
him/her.
</p><p> </p><p>Yes, I know that many people believe in the
opposite, but
still there are no scientific basics this believing to
become scientific
theory.</p><p> </p><p>I am mathematician who
had worked in the institute of
mathematics more than 40 years and, in
particular, I have taught probability and
statistics. I absolutely
clearly know (and every good mathematician knows!) that
the
probabilities are a human model and do not exist in the reality.
Because of
this, all definitions of information based on probability
are the same what we
had published in the paper. This kind of
information exits only in the concrete
human consciousness! </p><p>
</p><p>The rest is data; sometimes called: "statistical
data".
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
(Q): Statistics is so
important,
that we can quantify the standpoint of our reality, i.e., quantum
mechanics, just through statistical tools. If you negate statistics
in the study
of reality, you fully destroy the medicine, the
scientific method and the
prospective and retrospective studies. It
is totally absurd to negate the
importance of statistics. I'm sorry,
but yours is just a metaphysical approach
to scientific problems.</p>
p> </p><p> </p><p>(A):
Yes, I agree that the
statistics is very important and useful. But we
discuss "what is the
information?" and not "is the statistics
important or not?".</p><p> </p><p>Only what I say is that the
statistics is pure humans'
activity. By processing statistical data
we may predict many events. But this
not excludes humans'. Computer
prosthesis of our brains does not change the
situation.</p><p>
</p><p>Animals do not process statistical data and do not compute
probabilities but very well process data which they receive via their
receptors.</p><p> </p><p>In the same time, humans may build
statistical models of
animals' activities.</p><p> </p><p>Let
remember that the mathematics at all ignore the subjects
in the
mathematical theories but this does not means that the subjects do not
exists. One and the same formula may be computed by one student who
knows how to
do this and could not be computed by other who does not
know this.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
(Q): "Animals do not
process
statistical data and do not compute probabilities "...</p><p> </p>
p>Do not forget that one of the most successful current brain
theory,
i.e., Karl Friston's free energy principle talk of Bayesian priors
endowed in our brain...</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
(A): NIce! But brains had
worked
this way many, many years before Bayes had invented his theories and
Karl
Friston had invented the free energy principle.</p><p> </p>
p>We may build many different models of the brain and all in
some
aspects will be adequate to what we may measure in and from the brain.
This
in one hand!</p><p> </p><p>In other hand, this again
confirms that all information
processes are provided just in the
brain but not in the stones and in the water
somewhere outside of the
brain.</p><p> </p><p>So, we have the same:
"Information = data + something in and by
consciousness"</p><p>
</p><p> </p><p>(Q): Mmmm...
the problem
is exactly your "something"... it smells of untestable,
therefore useless and
metaphysical. Gimme just one testable prevision
of your model!</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
(A): For the first step,
please
imagine that you enter in your room.</p><p> </p><p>What do you
expect to see - table, chairs, maybe any friend,
etc.</p><p> </p>
p>Now, what if you passing the door will see the sea - dark blue
water with very big waves?</p><p> </p><p>Your "something in
consciousness" will alarm "stop, this is
not your way"!</p><p>
</p><p>Your brain will compare the "something in consciousness" with
incoming reflection (data) and as far is the new data to it so
unexpected it
is.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>*** End of
conversation ***</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The
important keyword in this conversation is the concept
“model”. Models
are created by or reflected in the consciousness. </p><p> </p><p>
Because of this, my simple question is:</p><p> </p><p> </p>
div> <p> </p>What is the “mental model”? </div><p> </p>
p> </p><div> <p> </p>Friendly
greetings</div><p>
</p><p>Krassimir</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
p> </p><p> </p><p>From: tozziarturo@libero.it </p><p>Sent:
Monday, February 19, 2018 12:42 PM</p><p>To: fis@listas.unizar.es ;
Krassimir Markov </p><p>Subject: Re: [Fis] The polite and high
scientific style of the
posts to be published in an International
Journal are OBLIGATED!</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Dear Krassimir,
</p><p> </p><p>There is a misundertanding.</p><p> </p><p>I'm
not discussing the quality of the Journal, nor the absence
of my
name.</p><p> </p><p>I'm just annoyed that the most represented
position among
FISers, i.e., that information is an objective,
quantitative, physical measure
linked to informational entropy, has
not been taken into account at all.
After all our efforts to
mantain our firm position, we have been
censored.</p><p> </p><p>
Il 18 febbraio 2018 alle 23.15 Krassimir Markov
<markov@foibg.com> ha scritto:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
Dear Arturo,</p><p> </p><p>1. You are not correct and not right!
</p><p> </p><p>If it is written as you have seen, it is just as it
is!</p><p>Three times we kindly asked for permission but no
answer.
</p><p>It is possible that my letters were rejected automatically as
spam.</p><p>What to do? Only what we could to do was to cite posts
and to
give links.</p><p> </p><p>In addition, it is impossible
to include long posts in a short
paper. </p><p>Because of this, they
have to be shortened by author
(preferred) or by the editor.</p><p>
</p><p>2. The main result from our work on the paper is clearly
summarized in my final words in the paper.</p><p>No problems,
if you could not read them.</p><p>My next post next week will remember
it.</p><p> </p><p>3. Finally, the paper in not stenographic
protocol. </p><p>Not every post is connected to the given theme and it
is clear
that it could not be taken in a short paper.</p><p>The theme
of discussion for the paper usually is pointed in my
“simple
questions”.</p><p> </p><p>If your posts will concern the
discussed theme, please clearly
point this.</p><p> </p><p>4. In
the next discussion which will start soon, everybody is
kindly
invited to take part and to be included in the future paper.</p><p>
</p><p>The polite and high scientific style of the posts to be
published in an International Journal are OBLIGATED!</p><p> </p>
p>Friendly greetings</p><p>Krassimir</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>From:
tozziarturo@libero.it</p><p>Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 10:58 PM
</p><p>To: Krassimir Markov ; fis@listas.unizar.es</p><p>Subject: Re:
[Fis] The FIS paper "Data versus Information " is
published</p><p>
</p><p> </p><p>Dear, prominent Authors,</p><p> </p><p>
You write in this paper: " Several posts are not included in
the text
below due to lack of permission from their authors".</p><p> </p>
p>I think that several post were not included in the text just
because they were too critical against the loose, flabby concepts of
information
provided in this paper. </p><p> </p><p>Some
contributions are very interesting, but others deserve
the despising
label of pseudoscience. </p><p> </p><p>On the other side, If you
provide ELEVEN (more or less, I
cannot be sure, I counted it, but I
lost my attention after the Greeek Gods...)
different definitions of
information, how do you hope to be trusted? </p><p> </p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Forgive me to be honest, but FIS means
also harsh
discussion! </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Il 18 febbraio 2018 alle 20.49
Krassimir Markov
<markov@foibg.com> ha scritto:</p><p> </p>
p> </p><p>Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,</p><p> </p><p>I am
glad to inform you that the paper which was created by a
group of FIS
members is ready.</p><p>It is published with open access in the
International Journal
“Information Theories and Applications”, Volume
24, Number 4, pages
303-321.</p><p> </p><p>The title of the
paper is “Data versus
Information“.</p><p>It contains a small part of
FIS discussions but it is
representative how creative is the FIS
society!</p><p>Many thanks to authors of the paper – more than three
months
we work on the paper!</p><p> </p><p>Links:</p><p>IJ ITA
Vol. 24: <a
href="http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita-fv24.htm">
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita-fv24.htm</a></p><p>Direct link
to the paper: <a
href="http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita24-04-p01.pdf">
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita24-04-p01.pdf</a></p><p>
</p><p>Friendly greetings</p><p>Krassimir</p><p> </p><p> </p>
p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
_______________________________________________</p><p>Fis mailing list
</p><p>Fis@listas.unizar.es</p><p><a
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a></p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
Arturo Tozzi</p><p> </p><p>AA Professor Physics, University North
Texas</p><p> </p><p>Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy</p><p>
</p><p>Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba</p><p> </p><p><a
href="http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/">http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
</a> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
_______________________________________________</p><p>Fis mailing list
</p><p>Fis@listas.unizar.es</p><p><a
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a></p><p>
</p></div></div></blockquote><p> </p></div></body></html>