Re: [Fis] FW: Denumerability of information (II)
Dear Friends,
In line especially the postings of Christophe and Stan, I was struck by what
seems to me another instance of a debate over internal and external aspects of
information. I thought that equally important was the information exchanged
between a cell and its environment. This certainly has content, but I do not
see where it fits in the proposed scheme. This information, however, since it
is vital (sic) for the cell's survivial, perhaps should be considered as a
prime example of Christophe's term (information for cells).
I also agree that it is important to distinguish between instances of
information flow where interpretation or internal representation is possible,
and those where it is not (antennae). The former are more difficult to measure,
and that may be the challenge.
Best wishes,
Joseph
Message d'origine
De: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr
Date: 31.03.2009 15:56
À:
Objet: [Fis] FW: Denumerability of information (II)
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
-->
Dear all,
Comments from Michel and Rafael bring up an aspect of the proposal that has
perhaps been underestimated. It is the interpretation of information which
generates its content, its meaning. From “Information in cells” to “information
for cells” we precisely have the interpretatingfunction where an agent creates
meaning for its own usage. Different agents generate different meanings. And
information in antennas is not for antennas as they contain no interpretating
function.
Can the paragraph “Semantics” cover this point? Perhaps, but I’m not sure that
"semantics for bioinformation" is currently used.
The concept of interpretation looks to me as key when talking about information
in agents. If the proposal takes it into account from a different perspective,
perhaps it would be worth expliciting it.
Best regards
Christophe
> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:57:53 +0200
> From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: [Fis] Denumerability of information (II)
>
>
> (message II, responses from Díaz Nafría and Rafael Capurro)
>
> --
>
> Dear Michel:
>
> Thank you for your good remarks. I agree about both. Of course, data
> banks may be considered in the list. In any case, that list should be
> too long if it were exhaustive. That is to say, “…” concern to a much
> larger list that the enunciated one (and considering length I may say
> that there were only 1 character left to fulfil the “text of
> proposal” and we use them all). Anyway, data banks are certainly a
> relevant case so they will be mentioned in next submissions.
>
> About (2), I remember the controversy which arose from a question you
> stated in December –I think-. I also keep in mind the interesting
> answer from Rafael. I wrote him some remarks about the controversy. I
> will try to find them to give you my point of view about that
> interesting question.
>
> Grateful and cordial greetings,
>
> José María Díaz Nafría
>
> -
>
> Dear Michel and all,
>
> yes, the formulation "there is information in cells..." could be
> misleading as it means, IMO, there is information "for" cells or
> messages that cells are able to process "as" information, i.e., through
> a process of selection and integration "in" them according to their
> specific way of life. What is stored in data banks is in fact not
> information but potential information for a system capable of
> understanding or "processing" it. The question of numerability is one
> possible framework of interpretation which means particularly since
> modern science, that "we" think we understand something as far as we are
> able to interpret it as countable using particularly digital media. In
> the 19th century this framework was mainly related to "matter" (what is
> not "material" is not understandable). Of course different frameworks or
> (metaphysical) "paradigms" compete with each other unless they are
> viewed as the only "true" ones... And: they have consequences for
> society, politics etc. as we can see everyday
>
> kind regards
>
> Rafael
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Votre correspondant a choisi Hotmail et profite d’un stockage quasiment
illimité. Créez un compte Hotmail gratuitement !
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Denumerability of information (I)
Addressing Michel's posting -- I would interpret 'denumerability' as used here as an externalist concept, compared with 'amount' of information (this amount left vague) as being closer to the internalist view that might be held within the cell itself. Scientists may try to assess how much information (defined in some way) a cell contains, but a cell would likely not be doing this. It is, curiously, supposed the telomere ends of chromosomes are 'counting' the number of cell divisions these chromosomes have experienced as the cell lineage ages. STAN >(message I, from Michel Petitjean about the contents of the COST Proposal) >-- > >Dear All, > >I would just add two points: > >(1) In the paragraph: << There is information in cells... >> >it would be useful to add that information is stored in >data banks as results of measures etc., and that data >mining techniques, which are primarily intended to retrieve >information in databanks, concerns us. >Data banks and data mining are thus relevant keywords. > >(2) There was recently a debate on the FIS forum about the >nature of information in respect to its denumerability: >- We can say that there are many informations, and so we can count >informations >- We can say that there is much information and information is not >denumerable >I would like to hear discussions about this deep aspect of the nature of >information. >Raphael Capurro and other contributors have given interesting thoughts >about it. >But behind that there is a crucial problem to solve. > >Best regards, > >Michel. > > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] FW: Denumerability of information (II)
Dear all, Comments from Michel and Rafael bring up an aspect of the proposal that has perhaps been underestimated. It is the interpretation of information which generates its content, its meaning. From “Information in cells” to “information for cells” we precisely have the interpretating function where an agent creates meaning for its own usage. Different agents generate different meanings. And information in antennas is not for antennas as they contain no interpretating function. Can the paragraph “Semantics” cover this point? Perhaps, but I’m not sure that "semantics for bioinformation" is currently used. The concept of interpretation looks to me as key when talking about information in agents. If the proposal takes it into account from a different perspective, perhaps it would be worth expliciting it. Best regards Christophe > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:57:53 +0200 > From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: [Fis] Denumerability of information (II) > > > (message II, responses from Díaz Nafría and Rafael Capurro) > > -- > > Dear Michel: > > Thank you for your good remarks. I agree about both. Of course, data > banks may be considered in the list. In any case, that list should be > too long if it were exhaustive. That is to say, “…” concern to a much > larger list that the enunciated one (and considering length I may say > that there were only 1 character left to fulfil the “text of > proposal” and we use them all). Anyway, data banks are certainly a > relevant case so they will be mentioned in next submissions. > > About (2), I remember the controversy which arose from a question you > stated in December –I think-. I also keep in mind the interesting > answer from Rafael. I wrote him some remarks about the controversy. I > will try to find them to give you my point of view about that > interesting question. > > Grateful and cordial greetings, > > José María Díaz Nafría > > - > > Dear Michel and all, > > yes, the formulation "there is information in cells..." could be > misleading as it means, IMO, there is information "for" cells or > messages that cells are able to process "as" information, i.e., through > a process of selection and integration "in" them according to their > specific way of life. What is stored in data banks is in fact not > information but potential information for a system capable of > understanding or "processing" it. The question of numerability is one > possible framework of interpretation which means particularly since > modern science, that "we" think we understand something as far as we are > able to interpret it as countable using particularly digital media. In > the 19th century this framework was mainly related to "matter" (what is > not "material" is not understandable). Of course different frameworks or > (metaphysical) "paradigms" compete with each other unless they are > viewed as the only "true" ones... And: they have consequences for > society, politics etc. as we can see everyday > > kind regards > > Rafael > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _ Téléphonez gratuitement à tous vos proches avec Windows Live Messenger ! Téléchargez-le maintenant ! http://www.windowslive.fr/messenger/1.asp___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Denumerability of information (II)
(message II, responses from Díaz Nafría and Rafael Capurro) -- Dear Michel: Thank you for your good remarks. I agree about both. Of course, data banks may be considered in the list. In any case, that list should be too long if it were exhaustive. That is to say, “…” concern to a much larger list that the enunciated one (and considering length I may say that there were only 1 character left to fulfil the “text of proposal” and we use them all). Anyway, data banks are certainly a relevant case so they will be mentioned in next submissions. About (2), I remember the controversy which arose from a question you stated in December –I think-. I also keep in mind the interesting answer from Rafael. I wrote him some remarks about the controversy. I will try to find them to give you my point of view about that interesting question. Grateful and cordial greetings, José María Díaz Nafría - Dear Michel and all, yes, the formulation "there is information in cells..." could be misleading as it means, IMO, there is information "for" cells or messages that cells are able to process "as" information, i.e., through a process of selection and integration "in" them according to their specific way of life. What is stored in data banks is in fact not information but potential information for a system capable of understanding or "processing" it. The question of numerability is one possible framework of interpretation which means particularly since modern science, that "we" think we understand something as far as we are able to interpret it as countable using particularly digital media. In the 19th century this framework was mainly related to "matter" (what is not "material" is not understandable). Of course different frameworks or (metaphysical) "paradigms" compete with each other unless they are viewed as the only "true" ones... And: they have consequences for society, politics etc. as we can see everyday kind regards Rafael ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Denumerability of information (I)
(message I, from Michel Petitjean about the contents of the COST Proposal) -- Dear All, I would just add two points: (1) In the paragraph: << There is information in cells... >> it would be useful to add that information is stored in data banks as results of measures etc., and that data mining techniques, which are primarily intended to retrieve information in databanks, concerns us. Data banks and data mining are thus relevant keywords. (2) There was recently a debate on the FIS forum about the nature of information in respect to its denumerability: - We can say that there are many informations, and so we can count informations - We can say that there is much information and information is not denumerable I would like to hear discussions about this deep aspect of the nature of information. Raphael Capurro and other contributors have given interesting thoughts about it. But behind that there is a crucial problem to solve. Best regards, Michel. Message d'origine De: joe.y.ento...@gmail.com de la part de José María Díaz Nafría Date: ven. 27/03/2009 15:10 À: Elisabeth Buchanan; Capurro, Rafael; Fleissner, Peter; Floridi, Luciano; Fuchs, Christian; Birger Hjørland; Hofkirchner, Wolfgang; Marijuán, Pedro; PETITJEAN Michel; Paco Salto; Pérez-Montoro Gutiérrez, Mario Objet : COST-preliminary proposal / apologies Dear friends: First of all -please- let me apologize for my long and unpardonable delay. But since Wednesday, we saw that in order to properly apply to the national funding we had to apply not only to COST but also to EUROCORES (of the European Science Foundation). Although the COST application is much shorter than the other this forced us to articulate them so that no friction is produced between the three proposals (national, Cost and Eurocores). That forced us to work through the loneliness and tiredness of nights. We bring you now the preliminary proposal for COST. If you disagree somehow, or find any improvement, please let us know, and consider -in any case- that a more consistent proposal will be elaborated in a further stage if this is approved. If your improvements arrive after the deadline, these will be incorporated afterwards if we are lucky enough. At this stage the names of the members will not be considered, but only that a minimal number of cost-countries are represented. Hereby, I append the plain text of the proposal. Let me now appreciate your patience and receive our most cordial gratitude and greetings, __ SCIENTIFIC CONTENT * Proposal title Interdisciplinary elucidation of the information concept. Theories, Metaphores and Applications * Abstract This interdisciplinary research focus on the very concept(s) of information, and aims at unifying perspectives and integrating techniques from different fields of knowledge and practice. This proposal is based on an already active interdisciplinar European community. We investigate which are, if any, the basic distinct notions of information to be applied in fields from telecommunication to philosophy, from biology to documentation, from logic to quantum physics. Which are, if any, the alternative ways of measuring information? Which concepts of content are primitive? Which values does practice of information technology presuppose? The project works within a broad theoretical perspective in which alternative specific presuppositions and interests are considered. No particular theoretical agenda is presupposed. The proposed COST action enhances communication and collaboration within our merging interdisciplinar community. We have already developed a number of meetings, webs and collaborative tools, including an international Glossary on Information concepts, theories and metaphors, conceptual maps and a repository on information concepts. This action may improve the actual collaborarion and facilitate the participation of further european researchers and institutions. Participants in the action are main researchers in relevant fields from distinct European institutions. Moreover, the project itself -even without the action- counts with an ellaborate working methodology, which includes disciplinar, collaborative and global levels of research. This methodology will improve and benefit from the proposed COST action. * Key Words (400 chr) Information, Informational content, Information Measure, Information Science, Philosophy of Information, Bioinformation, Information Technologies, Information Ethics * Cost Domain Trans Domain Proposal Domains covered: - Biomedicine and Molecular Biosciences - Individuals, societies, cultures and Health - Information and Communications Technologies __ * Text of proposal A) BACKGROUND, PROBLEMS In contrast with the population in the iron age, who had no chance to understand the concept of iron, we are able in the in
