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

[Robert E. Ulanowicz]

Dear Michel,

I spent my career doing much the same thing with mutual information, which
in this case quantifies the degree of constraint among the species.

Encouraged by the suggestions of E.P. Odum, I hypothesized that ecosystems
would naturally increase in the product of their gross activities times
the mutual information among the network of interactions -- a product
(fashioned after the Gibbs/Helmholz free energies) that I called system
"ascendency".

After about two decades of measuring the ascendencies of diverse
ecosystems, the data were telling me that my hypothesis was wrong.
Ecosystems do not continually progress in increasing ascendency, but
rather achieve a balance between ascendency (a surrogate for efficiency)
and its complement, the system overhead (which mirrors reliability).
Furthermore, the quantitative nature of the balance is notably insensitive
to the type of ecosystem under study, averaging about 40% efficiency and
60% redundancy. (See Figure 7 on p1890 of
.)

Now, you might argue that constraint is not information and so these
results are not germane to our discussion, but I (and I think Stan) would
propose that constraint is actually the most generalized form of
information, and the Bayesian forms of the Shannon measure beautifully
parse the division between efficiency and reliability.

While I didn't set out to falsify my initial hypothesis, that is indeed
what eventually happened. Notice that it was accomplished in quantitative
fashion and without any recourse whatsoever to system dynamics. The
decades-long exercise demonstrates, I think, a phenomenological approach
to the science of life pursued in abstraction of (but not contradiction
to) the underlying physics and chemistry.

Je lis un peu francais et voudrais bien lire de votre travail sur
l'information mutuelle.

Cordialement,
Bob

> Dear colleagues
>
> Loet thinks that "Nobody of us provide an operative framework and a
> single (just one!) empirical  testable prevision able to assess
> "information"
>
> In my ecological work, I try  to know the relations between living
> organisms and their environment, and I use Brillouin's formula (and
> non-inferential statistics) to compute the "mutual information" between
> each species of plant or animal and  and each constraint of the
> environment. The testable prevision is, for example, the potential area
> of a species.
>
> The book where that method is explained is written in french, but I
> could translate this example in english if you think that it could be
> published.
>
> Cordialement. M. Godron
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>


___
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?

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Cher Michel,

Loet thinks that "Nobody of us provide an operative framework and a 
single (just one!) empirical  testable prevision able to assess 
"information"

I did not say this, but reacted to one of our colleagues saying this.

Best,
Loet


___
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?

[Michel Godron]

Dear colleagues

Loet thinks that "Nobody of us provide an operative framework and a 
single (just one!) empirical  testable prevision able to assess 
"information"


In my ecological work, I try  to know the relations between living 
organisms and their environment, and I use Brillouin's formula (and 
non-inferential statistics) to compute the "mutual information" between 
each species of plant or animal and  and each constraint of the 
environment. The testable prevision is, for example, the potential area 
of a species.


The book where that method is explained is written in french, but I 
could translate this example in english if you think that it could be 
published.


Cordialement. M. Godron


___
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 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;

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


-- Original Message --
From: "Alex Hankey" <alexhan...@gmail.com>
To: "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com>; "FIS Webinar" 
<fis@listas.unizar.es>

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 <mar...@foibg.com> 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 s

[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