Hi all, I would be very encouraged if we are trying to develop beyond mere lists of different uses of the term 'information' TO structured taxonomies of distinct types of information TO a generative logic of how these distinct modes of a complex information relationship are interrelated.

Dualistically distinguishing intrinsic properties of an informing medium from relational properties that determine its reference provides an important first step in growing the concept to encompas its full usefulness. But I hope that we will also eventually begin to attend to the functional value that the coveyed reference provides, since this too is often also implicitly part of the various uses of the term 'infomation' in colloquial and even scientific use. This requires more careful parsing of the term "meaning" that is often invoked. For instance, one can receive information that is unambiguously "about" something but where that which it is about is already known and therefore is "functionally redundant" (not to be confused with signal redundancy). Or this information can be about something that is irrelevant to a given function or end, while still being information about something. An example would be telling me the time when I already know what time it is. The statement about the time does indeed "mean" something—i.e. it is not meaningless as gibberish woiuld be. Similarly, if I ask to know the current temperature and I am instead told the time, the reference provided would be useless to me—i.e. it wouldn't "make a difference" in the colloquial English sense of that phrase. The concept of "meaning" tends to collapse or conflate these two distinctions—reference and significance—which I think we should endeavor to distinguish. In this respect I like the suggestion by Alex Hankey that we consider an example like the barely conscious "feeling" of being watched which both conveys information about an extrinsic state of affairs and additionally has a functional relevance which is implicit in the discomfort it typically elicits. Both the aboutness and the significance are relational, not intrinsic properties of information. They are are distinct relations because they are asymmetrically dependent on one another. Thus if I am entirely unaware of being watched I am nnot discomforted by it. Note also the difference in these relational attrributes: aboutness or reference is "in relation to" some state of affairs, whereas significance or value is "in relation to" some *telos* intrinsic to an interpreting agent or system. Exploring such nondiscursive examples can help us to escape the tendency to use language-like communication as the paradigm exemplar. The analysis of the information intrinsic to and conveyed by music might in this respect provide a useful platform for future discussion. Are there other critical distinctions that we additionally need to highlight? Happy New Year, Terry On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com> wrote: > And what about the Kinds of Information that you cannot put in a data set? > The information that makes you turn your head and meet the gaze of someone > staring at you. > No one could do that, which we humans and all animals do constantly, > unless we had received such information at a subliminal level in the > brain. > We all have that capacity, it is vital for survival in the wild. All > animals do it. > The 'Sense of Being Stared At' is a common experience for most animals, > how far down the tree of life no one yet knows. > > Whatever triggers it is definitely 'A Difference that Makes a Difference', > so fits in your definition of 'Meaningful Information' - it has to! > BUT IT CANNOT BE DIGITAL INFORMATION. > Please Face Up to This Fact. > > All best wishes, > > Alex > > > On 13 January 2018 at 07:30, Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> wrote: > >> Hi Emmanuel and FISers, >> >> >> Thank you, Emmanuel, for your generous remarks. It is heartening to know >> that our ideas converge, although we carried out our research independently >> of each other, a clear example of consilience. >> >> >> (*1*) I like and agree with the Kolomogorov quote you cited in [1]: >> >> >> "*Information is a linguistic description of structures in a given data >> set.*" >> >> >> It seems to me that there are 4 key concepts embedded in the above quote, >> which we may view as the definition of what may be called the "Komogorov >> information" or the "Kolmogorov-Bateson information" for the >> convenience of reference: >> >> *i*) data set (e.g., ACAGTCAACGGTCCAA) >> *ii*) linguistic description (e.g., Threonine, Valine, Asparagine, >> Glycine) >> *iii*) structure (e.g., 16 mononucdotide, 8 dinucldotides, 5 >> trinucleotides plus 1) >> *iv*) mathematical description (e.g., tensor product of two 2x2 matrices >> of 4 nucleotides) [2, 3]. >> >> The first three elements are obvious, but the 4th is not so obvious but >> justified in view of the recent work of Petoukhov [2, 3]. >> >> (*2*) Based on these ideas, I have constructed *Table 1* below of the >> various names applied to the two kinds of information which I described as >> I(-) and I(+) in my previous post. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Table 1. *The *arbitrariness* of the signs referring to ‘information’. >> It doesn’t matter what you call it, as long as your chosen label refers to >> the right reality, thing, process, mechanisms, etc. >> >> 1 >> >> Type I Information >> >> Type II information >> >> 2 >> >> Physical Information >> >> Sematic information >> >> 3 >> >> Shannon information >> >> Kolmogorov information, or >> >> Kolmogorov-Bateson information >> >> 4 >> >> ‘Meaningless’ information >> >> ‘Meaningful’ information >> >> 5 >> >> I(-) information, or simply I(-) >> >> I(+) information, or simply I(+) >> >> 6 >> >> Quantitative information >> >> Qualitative information >> >> 7 >> >> Mathematical information >> >> Linguistic information (see Statement (1)) >> >> 8 >> >> Formal information >> >> Phenomenological information >> >> 9 >> >> Interpretant-less sign [4] >> >> Triadic sign [4] >> >> >> >> (*3*) One practical application of the *dual theory of information *under >> discussion is in deducing the structure of cell language, or the >> structure of the linguistics of DNA, in a much more rigorous manner than >> was possible in 1997 [5]. >> It is the common practice in biology to use the terms "letters", >> "words", "sentences", and "texts" without any rigorous definitions. The >> general rule is to follow the rules of concatenations used in linguistics >> literally and say that >> >> *i*) just as 26 letters in the English alphabet are combined to form >> words (the process being called the second articulation [5]), so the 4 >> letters of the genetic alphabets, A, C, G and T/U, combine in triplets to >> form genetic codons. Similarly, just as words form sentences and sentences >> form texts by the same concatenation procedure (or tensor multiplication, >> mathematically speaking , i.e, linearly arranging words and sentences, >> respectively (see the second column in Table 2), so the 64 >> nucleotide triplets combine to form proteins and proteins combine to form >> metabolic pathways by continuing the concatenation process, or the tensor >> multiplication of matrices of larger and larger sizes (see the >> fourth column, which is based on the physical theory of information, i.e., >> without any involvement of* semantics* or the first articulation). >> >> *ii*) In contrast to the fourth column just described, we can justify >> an alternative structural assignments based on the semantic theory of >> information as shown in the fifth column of *Table 2*. Here the letters >> of the cell language alphabet are not always mononucloetoides but thought >> to be n-nucleotides, such as dinucleotides (when n = 2), trinucleotides >> (when n =3), tetranucleotides (when n = 4), penta-nucelotides (when n = 5), >> etc. That is, unlike in human language where the letters of an alphabet >> usually consist of one symbol, e.g., A, B, C, D, E, . . . , *I am >> claiming that in cell language, the letters can be mononucloetides >> (i.e., A, G, C, T/U), dinucloeotides (i.e., AG, AC, . . . .) , >> trinucleotides (i.e., ACT, GTA, . . . ), tetranucleotides (i.e., ACTG, >> CCGT, . . . .), pentanucleotides (i.e., ACCTG, TCGAT, . . .) and, up to >> n-nucleotides (also called n-plets [2, 3]), where n is an unknown number >> whose upper limit is not yet known (at least to me). * If this >> conjecture turns out to be true, then the size of the cell language >> alphabet can be much larger (10^3 - 10^9 ?) than the size of a typical >> human linguistic alphabet which is usually less than 10^2, probably due to >> the limitation of the memory capacity of the human brain. >> >> (*iii*) From linguistics, we learn that there are at least 4 levels of >> organization, each level characterized by a unique function (see the second >> column). Without presenting any detailed argument, I just wish to suggest >> that the linguistic structures deduced based on the semantic information >> theory (i.e., the fifth column) agree with the human linguistic structures >> (i.e., the second column) better than does the linguistic structures based >> on the physical/mathematical/quantitative information theory (i.e., the >> fourth column), when the functional hierarchy given in the third column is >> taken into account. >> >> >> *Table 2. *Two versions of the linguistics of DNA based on (i) the >> physical information theory, and (ii) the semantic information theory [1]. >> M stands for a 2x2 matrix whose elements are the 4 genetic nucleotides, A, >> C, G and T/U, i.e., M = [C A; T G] (see Figure 16 in [2]). The symbol, (x), >> indicates tensor multiplication [2, 3]. The I to II transition is known in >> linguistics as the second articulation; the II to III transition as the first >> articulation [4]; the III to IV transition was referred to as the third >> articulation [5]. >> >> Organization level >> >> *Human Language* >> >> *Cell Language* >> >> >> >> *Structure* >> >> *Function/Semantics* >> >> *Structure based on the Physical Information Theory (PIT) *[1] >> >> *Structure based on the Semantic Information Theory (SIT) *[1] >> >> I >> >> Letters >> >> Basic building >> >> blocks or basic physical signals >> >> 4 Nucleotides (A, C, G, T/U); >> >> M = [C A;T G]* >> >> mono-, di-, trinucleotides, 4-plets, 5-plets, . . . , n-plets of >> nucleotides, . . . >> >> II >> >> Words >> >> To denote >> >> 16 dinucleotides; >> >> M(x)M or M^2 >> >> Any combinations of the n-plets/ genes/proteins >> >> III >> >> Sentences >> >> To decide >> >> 64 trinucleotides /amino acids; >> M(x)M(x)M or M^3 >> >> >> >> Assembly of genes/proteins; or metabolic pathways (MP) >> >> IV >> >> Texts >> >> To argue/compute/ >> >> reason (e.g., syllogism) >> >> 254 tetranucleotides; >> >> Metabolic pathways (?); M(x)M(x)M(x)M or M^4 >> >> Networks of MP’s >> >> characterized by a unique function (see the second column). Without >> presenting any detailed argument, I would like to suggest that the >> linguistic structures deduced based on the semantic information theory >> (i.e., the fifth column) agree with the human linguistic structures >> (i.e., the second column) better than does the linguistic structures >> based on the physical/mathematical/quantitative information theory >> (i.e., the fourth column). >> In other words, the structure of cell language deduced based on the >> semantic information theory agrees better, functionally, with that of the >> human language than the structure of cell language deduced based on the >> physical information theory, thus further supporting the 1997 postulate >> that cell and human languages are isomorphic [5, 6]. >> >> If you have any questions or suggestions for improvements on the above >> tables, I would appreciate hearing from you. >> >> All the best. >> >> Sung >> >> References: >> [1] Emanuel Diamant, *The brain is processing information, not data. >> Does anybody care?, *ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract. >> http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842 >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciforum.net%2Fconference%2Fisis-summit-vienna-2015%2Fpaper%2F2842&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C89f81861ee684f05e46b08d559d86fe1%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636513708497810284&sdata=bMlZ324OoEHA5XMQibKiEFsm75NhcpkfIcSRUJbQZNg%3D&reserved=0> >> [2] Petoukhov, S. (2017). Genetic coding and united-hypercomplex >> systems in the models of algebraic biology. *BioSystems* *158*: 31-46. >> >> >> [3] Petoukhov, S. (2016). The system-resonance approach in modeling >> genetic >> structures. *BiosySystems* *139*:1-11. >> >> [4] Ji, S. (2017).*Neo-Semiotics*: Introducing Zeroness into Peircean >> Semiotics May Bridge the Knowable and the Unknowable. *Prog. Biophys. >> Mol. Biol*. *131*:387-401. PDF at http://www.sciencedirect.co >> m/science/article/pii/S0079610717300858?via%3Dihub >> [5] Ji, S. (1997). Isomorphism between cell and human languages: >> molecualr biological, bioinformatic and linguistic implications. >> <http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Isomorphism1.pdf> >> *BioSystems* 44:17-39. PDF at http://www.conformon.net/wp >> -content/uploads/2012/05/Isomorphism1.pdf >> >> [6] Ji, S. (2017). The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and >> Matter. World Scientific, New Jersey. Chapter 5*. * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Emanuel Diamant < >> emanl....@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 11:20 AM >> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es >> *Subject:* [Fis] I salute to Sungchul >> >> >> Dear FISers, >> >> >> >> I would like to express my pleasure with the current state of our >> discourse – an evident attempt to reach a more common understanding about >> information issues and to enrich preliminary given assessments. >> >> In this regard, I would like to add my comment to Sungchul’s post of >> January 12, 2018. >> >> >> >> Sungchul proposes “to recognize two distinct types of information which, >> for the lack of better terms, may be referred to as the "meaningless >> information" or I(-) and "meaningful information" or I(+)”. >> >> That is exactly what I am trying to put forward for years, albeit under >> more historically rooted names: Physical and Semantic information [1]. >> Never mind, what is crucially important here is that the duality of >> information becomes publicly recognized and accepted by FIS community. >> >> >> >> I salute to Sungchul’s suggestion! >> >> >> >> Best regards, Emanuel. >> >> >> >> [1] Emanuel Diamant, *The brain is processing information, not data. >> Does anybody care?, *ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract. >> http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842 >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciforum.net%2Fconference%2Fisis-summit-vienna-2015%2Fpaper%2F2842&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7C89f81861ee684f05e46b08d559d86fe1%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C1%7C636513708497810284&sdata=bMlZ324OoEHA5XMQibKiEFsm75NhcpkfIcSRUJbQZNg%3D&reserved=0> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> > > > -- > Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) > Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, > SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle > Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India > Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 <+44%207710%20534195> > Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 <+91%2090080%2008789> > ____________________________________________________________ > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley

_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis