Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for bringing up 3 main points of the discussion: 1) “ … the most represented position among FISers, i.e., that information is an objective, quantitative, physical measure linked to informational entropy” 2) "Information = data + something in and by consciousness" 3) “ … my simple question is: What is the “mental model”? “ To answer these points, it is necessary to recall some results from research into learning. Learning is based on recurring, periodically repeated, experiences which get associated with other mental images. The key word here is “periodic”. It has already been suggested here that children should first learn “how frequently” before learning “how many”. The higher functions of the brain are dependent on the physiology of the brain as an organ. The rules of physiology are rules of changes. The whole system is based on periodicities, be they hunger, tiredness, any urges and needs. The fundament of our perception is made up of closed loops of cycles within periods, producing rhythms. Against this background have thinkers evolved the concept of a line and of equally spaced identical units along the line. The idea contrasts well against the experience of: always the same, returning in variations. So, this idea can well be abstracted, commonly experienced, therefore communicated. In actual fact, the first abstract concept a human child learns is that of the mammae of its mother. The distinction happens along the line of “not-me” within the cacophony of sensuous impressions coming from the boundary-less general “me” of the first hours and days reigning in the brain of the newborn. All pictures of all objects are descendants of the experience of delimitation of specific brain activities – which will be learnt as perceptions of outside – against the background of a wholly un-differentiated melange of proceedings within the central nervous system. The point to make here is, that the experience of being fed *reorders *important physiological parameters within the infant. The suckling’s cells will be flooded with nourishment, and thus its change into a different state of physiological order will have become attained. The predecessor state was “hungry”, the successor state is “well-fed”. The intermediate state is that which the organism is in actual fact continuously in, only purists would want to point out the exact end of being hungry. It is a periodic process that the infant learns to look forward to, and we indeed see babies to show great interest in preparations for being fed, if they are hungry. Pawlow’s dogs make the point crystal clear: it is a *periodic *process, of which there are *previous parts*, that is all that that has happened, and *parts that are yet to come*, that is, what the children and dogs look forward to. This is the answer to point 2: "Information = data + something in and by consciousness" is the same as “Reflex = remembered perception + prediction about future”. Information is in this sense the physiological changes caused by the expectation (salivation, agitation), usually called conditioned reflex, and has much to do with enthropy, as an allegory of the physiological state. Data is the input by the sensory organs. The something that connects data and prediction is the rule, and it is usually not distinguished between conscious or not. To keep the terminology in line with formal definitions, information are such elements of the data set that are not yet in existence and of which the future existence is predicted. Point 3: The simple question: What is the “mental model”? is an invitation to present a mental model. We know that we have to deal with periods, cycles within periods, and rhythms caused by the interference among cycles and periods. This because our brain is organised to work in such way. We have been so far quite good at describing that part of our mental contents that are children of the distinction me – not-me. The not-me we can already talk a lot about. Now the time has come to start talking about the me part of the brain. We know that learning is improving the predictive power. To predict something, that something must be in the future, as a successor to the present. To be able to predict, some signals must have been perceived, based on which the prediction is made. These are in the past, are predecessors to the present. The two different states are each well-ordered (in one state: hunger, in the other state: well-fed; both states with, theoretically or practically, measurable differences in physiology). The present state is an intermediate one (not yet fed, but already alerted to soon being fed) between two ordered states, and therefore subject to constraints implicated in the neighbouring states’ orders. A model that exemplifies a) order, b) transition, c) prediction would be helpful in this situation, if the task could be done in a neutral way, transparently, in an inherently logical fashion. Using such a model one could estimate the proportion between data and information (that part of the data which is not here) in a step-by-step fashion. A model is versatile, transportable and practical if it relies on resources that are available everywhere, in the same quality, agreeing to the same standards and norms. It can easily be set up, if the user closes their eyes and murmurs: a) so, it is the paths that connect the elements that are in the same cycle, aha!; b) the predecessor and the successor give linear coordinates on a plane: aha! there are polygons on a plane; c) making some origami and ikebana of this here long useless line allows folding up two rectangular spaces sort of included in one common space, transcended by two more planes: aha! this needs some serious drawing; c) Holy <*insert name of Deity here*>! There appear differently formed agglomerations as inevitable traffic jams: aha! these must be the chemical elements; d) there must be some very funny and tricky accounting behind this all: aha! I will figure out, how many distinguishable commutative arrangements of symbols are maximally there, if one uses *n *carriers of symbols, otherwise indistinguishable. Having murmured these sacred words, the model will appear before your eyes. 2018-02-21 19:50 GMT+01:00 Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com>: > > Dear FIS Colleagues, > > 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" > > 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). > Dear Arturo, I apologize in advance but I hope there is nothing bad in > this and it will be useful. > > 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. > > (A): Usually we say “we collect information” measuring different real > features – temperature, distance, weigh, etc. Scientists from physics do > this permanently. > > The methodical error here is that really we collect data. > > 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. > > Yes, I know that many people believe in the opposite, but still there are > no scientific basics this believing to become scientific theory. > > 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! > > The rest is data; sometimes called: "statistical data". > > > (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. > > > (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?". > > 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. > > Animals do not process statistical data and do not compute probabilities > but very well process data which they receive via their receptors. > > In the same time, humans may build statistical models of animals' > activities. > > 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. > > > (Q): "Animals do not process statistical data and do not compute > probabilities "... > > 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... > > > (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. > > 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! > > 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. > > So, we have the same: "Information = data + something in and by > consciousness" > > > (Q): Mmmm... the problem is exactly your "something"... it smells of > untestable, therefore useless and metaphysical. Gimme just one testable > prevision of your model! > > > (A): For the first step, please imagine that you enter in your room. > > What do you expect to see - table, chairs, maybe any friend, etc. > > Now, what if you passing the door will see the sea - dark blue water with > very big waves? > > Your "something in consciousness" will alarm "stop, this is not your way"! > > 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. > > > *** End of conversation *** > > > > The important keyword in this conversation is the concept “model”. Models > are created by or reflected in the consciousness. > > Because of this, my simple question is: > > > What is the “mental model”? > > > Friendly greetings > > Krassimir > > > > > > > From: tozziart...@libero.it > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 12:42 PM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es ; Krassimir Markov > Subject: Re: [Fis] The polite and high scientific style of the posts to be > published in an International Journal are OBLIGATED! > > > Dear Krassimir, > > There is a misundertanding. > > I'm not discussing the quality of the Journal, nor the absence of my name. > > 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. > > Il 18 febbraio 2018 alle 23.15 Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com> ha > scritto: > > > Dear Arturo, > > 1. You are not correct and not right! > > If it is written as you have seen, it is just as it is! > Three times we kindly asked for permission but no answer. > It is possible that my letters were rejected automatically as spam. > What to do? Only what we could to do was to cite posts and to give links. > > In addition, it is impossible to include long posts in a short paper. > Because of this, they have to be shortened by author (preferred) or by the > editor. > > 2. The main result from our work on the paper is clearly summarized in my > final words in the paper. > No problems, if you could not read them. > My next post next week will remember it. > > 3. Finally, the paper in not stenographic protocol. > Not every post is connected to the given theme and it is clear that it > could not be taken in a short paper. > The theme of discussion for the paper usually is pointed in my “simple > questions”. > > If your posts will concern the discussed theme, please clearly point this. > > 4. In the next discussion which will start soon, everybody is kindly > invited to take part and to be included in the future paper. > > The polite and high scientific style of the posts to be published in an > International Journal are OBLIGATED! > > Friendly greetings > Krassimir > > > > > > > From: tozziart...@libero.it > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 10:58 PM > To: Krassimir Markov ; fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: Re: [Fis] The FIS paper "Data versus Information " is published > > > Dear, prominent Authors, > > You write in this paper: " Several posts are not included in the text > below due to lack of permission from their authors". > > 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. > > Some contributions are very interesting, but others deserve the despising > label of pseudoscience. > > 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? > > > > > Forgive me to be honest, but FIS means also harsh discussion! > > > > > > Il 18 febbraio 2018 alle 20.49 Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com> ha > scritto: > > > Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues, > > I am glad to inform you that the paper which was created by a group of FIS > members is ready. > It is published with open access in the International Journal “Information > Theories and Applications”, Volume 24, Number 4, pages 303-321. > > The title of the paper is “Data versus Information“. > It contains a small part of FIS discussions but it is representative how > creative is the FIS society! > Many thanks to authors of the paper – more than three months we work on > the paper! > > Links: > IJ ITA Vol. 24: http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita-fv24.htm > Direct link to the paper: http://www.foibg.com/ijita/ > vol24/ijita24-04-p01.pdf > > Friendly greetings > Krassimir > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > > > Arturo Tozzi > > AA Professor Physics, University North Texas > > Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy > > Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba > > http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
