Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data--Jamie Rose
(message from Jamie Rose)
--
The difference that makes a difference puts the situation into a
larger context
that includes the observing system / encountering system. This is
irrespective of
the sentience or cybernetic (secondary/tertiery/etc)
awareness/interpretive/reapplication
capability of the sensoring system.
Gyorgy's question therefore is very important and needs clinical
answering in _new ways_.
(beyond Bateson, Shannon, Weaver, et al.
Simplistic action/reaction responsive systems are also worthy
of 'information analysis'.
A key characteristic is - is a system so constructed and organized that
it will recognize
(let lone be responsive to) energy/temporal/situational variances in its
environment ?
We humans are awash in radio signals, but don't have the
organs/organelles sensitive
to acknowledge their presence around us. Information is there -- but
so what?
In contrast, atoms/molecules EM fields are exquisitely sensitive to
fields variances
('information changes') all around them. We harness and use this in
human electronic
civilization -- but we design threshholds in the machinery we build.
This prevents un-wanted
information (otherwise labelled as 'noise') from corrupting the data and
effects desired.
We require that data-bit states be protected, until modified
('informationed') by choice and
with utility concerns involved (cybernetic tiered information
coordination, as it were).
A major change in appreciation of 'information systems' is needed. What
are they in regard to human information processing? Whay is an
information organelle in the natural world?
What is an information system/component - more fundamentally - in the
natural world?
But, most importantly -- what is a theoretical essense of an information
'mechanism/function' ?
To be so bold, I will place something into the ether here for your
consideration.
I made a presentation at the 1998 Univ Arizona, Towards a Science of
Consciousness
conference. While attending and listening to presentations during the
week long conference,
I began to ponder in the variety of 'information' definitions floated
about. Wondering about
the possibility of general shared criteria and characteristics - I
focussed on Shannon, and,
on Taylor's discussion of the fundamentals of The Calculus,
and characteristics of physical
'tuned sensitivity radio equipment'.
Taylor, Leibnitz and Newton were particularly aware of measuement limits
in regard to
mathemathics. The notion of measured partitioning - heading toward the
infinitely small/short -
required an important statement/disclaimer about the full domain of math
and dimensional
and spatial measuring/sizing. It was stated as an a priori axiom
than no matter what size
partitions were under a curve or distance consideration, there would
always be a distance
measure 'e', smaller/shorter than any partition size at any moment of
consideration.
This is a critically important assertion. It is tantamount to saying
that no matter how small
a partition (otherwise definable in current vernacular) as an
'information bit', the mathematical
apparatus' would always be more sensitive than any partition-bit and
would always be able to
'recognize' the information values - individually and cummulatively.
An intangible always
sensitive mechanism cabale of encountering any and all information
varainces. (smaller than
any wave length; shorter than any limit (ala Planck).
They were designing an intangible/virtual 'information processing
mechanism', even if they didn't
express it in those terms; the Shannon-esque notion of 'defining
information'. What becomes humorous it the tautology this
presents. Shannon built his probability definition of 'information'
using the Calculus -- which was already an 'information processing
function/mechanism' -- built
on the Shannon-esque concept that there is such a thing as 'information'
(bit/variance/probability).
This extraordinary cognition of what information can be, what
mathematics and the Calculus
are as manulipators and processors of information datums -- already ;
opens new vistas
to appreciate plural simultaneous information processing.
Material/energy systems engage
and process 'information' -- sometimes in regard to human concerns, but
ongoing and self-pertinent and self functional according to the nature
and extent and capability of construction
themselves.
It is not incorrect to examine and evaluate any system as an
'information system', besides
whatever meaning, value or engagement (cybernetic translation or
accomodation) potential for
other systems or alternate tiers/orders of systems in the companion
environment(s).
Jamie Rose
-
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik
-Original Message- From: boris.sunik Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 PM To: 'Krassimir Markov' Subject: RE: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik Dear Krassimir, Below are my points regarding discussed issues. Regards, Boris Sunik 1. I never claimed that computer algorithms could provide all you know, and all you need to know about information. To the contrary, I consider this statement as wrong. My idea is that the relevant way of information representation and information explanation consists of viewing the real world in the same conceptual coordinates, which are used for representation of computer algorithms. IMHO, this approach exactly matches the computing experience of the modern world. Computer languages are not able to express any information except the rules of manipulation with the bits and bytes of the computer storage. BUT, these very limited abilities are nevertheless sufficient not only for the controlling very different machines but also for the manipulating human beings. Why a computer is that efficient? It is while computer languages adequately model the real world. Among other this means that data designated in computer languages coincide with the outside real objects as the names coincide with the designated objects. Hence follows the idea of creating the programming-language-like-notation, which allows words directly designating external objects. 2. Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and are taken as self-evident. In my opinion, no proofs for that are necessary. The solution is to build the knowledge system based on this premise and see whether it will practically work. Neither C++ no other practically used programming languages ever got any formal proofs of their functionality. The usability of a language depends not on any formal checks but on whether they could be effectively used in practice. I mean TMI could practically be used and hope it will. 3. definition of meaning In TMI semantics and meaning are synonyms. The characteristic for TMI understanding of semantics is firstly considered at the end of Problem Statement. Another place is 2.6 where I deliberately chose the simplest systems, because they are the best in showing the approach's basics. The approach itself could be applied on arbitrary complex systems. In a few words: ― meaning of the linguistic item is the branch(s) of algorithm(s) associated with this item. -Original Message- From: Krassimir Markov [mailto:mar...@foibg.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 22:32 PM To: boris.sunik Subject: Fw: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik -Original Message- From: Gavin Ritz Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 11:22 PM To: 'Steven Ericsson-Zenith' ; 'Joseph Brenner' Cc: 'Foundations of Information Science' Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik I agree with you both. The declarative statements (4 statements in 2.4.1 Digital Computer versus Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and are taken as self evident. This path is a dead end. Regards Gavin The document seems extremely confused to me. This is not least because the author does not appear to present a clear definition of the terms in the title or the expression of subject in the work. In particular, I can find no definition of meaning other than the one presented in a quote from Shannon and the subsequent use of the term is confused to say the least. Similarly, the term semantic is not clearly defined and abused. The same goes for other terms such as knowledge. So I take an even harsher view than Joseph since it is not even a good representative of the view that computer algorithms can provide all you know, and all you need to know. The definitive representative of that view is Stephen Wolfram's book A New Kind Of Science, and while I have my problems with the theory in the book, it is - at least - well defined. With respect, Steven On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Krassimir, Thank you for bringing this document to our attention, for completeness. I would have wished, however, that you had made some comment on it, putting it into relation with your own work and, for example, that of Mark Burgin, which are dismissed out of hand. From my point of view, Sunik's work is another one of those major steps backwards to an earlier, easier time when it was claimed that computer algorithms could provide all you know, and all you need to know about information. One example of a phrase the author presents as involving meaning is Peter's shirt size. . . From a methodological standpoint, I think it underlines, /a contrario/, the danger of focus on a single approach to information. My current idea, which I propose for discussion,
[Fis] Fw: Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik
-Original Message- From: boris.sunik Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 PM To: 'Krassimir Markov' Subject: RE: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik Dear Krassimir, Below are my points regarding discussed issues. Regards, Boris Sunik 1. I never claimed that computer algorithms could provide all you know, and all you need to know about information. To the contrary, I consider this statement as wrong. My idea is that the relevant way of information representation and information explanation consists of viewing the real world in the same conceptual coordinates, which are used for representation of computer algorithms. IMHO, this approach exactly matches the computing experience of the modern world. Computer languages are not able to express any information except the rules of manipulation with the bits and bytes of the computer storage. BUT, these very limited abilities are nevertheless sufficient not only for the controlling very different machines but also for the manipulating human beings. Why a computer is that efficient? It is while computer languages adequately model the real world. Among other this means that data designated in computer languages coincide with the outside real objects as the names coincide with the designated objects. Hence follows the idea of creating the programming-language-like-notation, which allows words directly designating external objects. 2. Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and are taken as self-evident. In my opinion, no proofs for that are necessary. The solution is to build the knowledge system based on this premise and see whether it will practically work. Neither C++ no other practically used programming languages ever got any formal proofs of their functionality. The usability of a language depends not on any formal checks but on whether they could be effectively used in practice. I mean TMI could practically be used and hope it will. 3. definition of meaning In TMI semantics and meaning are synonyms. The characteristic for TMI understanding of semantics is firstly considered at the end of Problem Statement. Another place is 2.6 where I deliberately chose the simplest systems, because they are the best in showing the approach's basics. The approach itself could be applied on arbitrary complex systems. In a few words: ― meaning of the linguistic item is the branch(s) of algorithm(s) associated with this item. -Original Message- From: Krassimir Markov [mailto:mar...@foibg.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 22:32 PM To: boris.sunik Subject: Fw: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik -Original Message- From: Gavin Ritz Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 11:22 PM To: 'Steven Ericsson-Zenith' ; 'Joseph Brenner' Cc: 'Foundations of Information Science' Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik I agree with you both. The declarative statements (4 statements in 2.4.1 Digital Computer versus Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and are taken as self evident. This path is a dead end. Regards Gavin The document seems extremely confused to me. This is not least because the author does not appear to present a clear definition of the terms in the title or the expression of subject in the work. In particular, I can find no definition of meaning other than the one presented in a quote from Shannon and the subsequent use of the term is confused to say the least. Similarly, the term semantic is not clearly defined and abused. The same goes for other terms such as knowledge. So I take an even harsher view than Joseph since it is not even a good representative of the view that computer algorithms can provide all you know, and all you need to know. The definitive representative of that view is Stephen Wolfram's book A New Kind Of Science, and while I have my problems with the theory in the book, it is - at least - well defined. With respect, Steven On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Krassimir, Thank you for bringing this document to our attention, for completeness. I would have wished, however, that you had made some comment on it, putting it into relation with your own work and, for example, that of Mark Burgin, which are dismissed out of hand. From my point of view, Sunik's work is another one of those major steps backwards to an earlier, easier time when it was claimed that computer algorithms could provide all you know, and all you need to know about information. One example of a phrase the author presents as involving meaning is Peter's shirt size. . . From a methodological standpoint, I think it underlines, /a contrario/, the danger of focus on a single approach to information. My current idea, which I propose for discussion,
[Fis] MDA 2012, second circular
Subj: MDA 2012, second circular /*** APOLOGIES FOR MULTIPLE OR UNWANTED RECEIPT ***/ Dear Colleague, We are glad to send you the second circular announcing the first International Conference on Mathematics of Distances and Applications, July 2-5, 2012, Varna (Bulgaria). Both pure math papers and science papers (in the broad sense) are welcome. A non exhaustive list of topics is available on the conference website: http://www.foibg.com/conf/ITA2012/2012mda.htm Papers and Proceedings: Papers may be associated or not to a talk request. No poster session is planned. The anonymous peer review process applies. Accepted manuscripts (surveys, regular papers, extended abstracts) will be published in an appropriate International Journal or Book. Accepted abstracts will be published on-line. More information about publications, deadlines, instructions for authors, etc.: http://www.foibg.com/conf/ITA2012/2012_fees.htm If you are willing to contribute, please register on the Conference website and communicate to us a provisional title of your paper or/and talk. The MDA 2012 Committee: Tetsuo Asano (Japan) Stefan Dodunekov (Bulgaria) Vladimir Gurvich (USA) Sandi Klavzar (Slovenia) Jacobus Koolen (South Korea) Svetlozar Rachev (USA) Egon Schulte (USA) Sergey Shpectorov (UK) Kokichi Sugihara (Japan) Koen Vanhoof (Belgium) Cedric Villani (France) (Fields Medal 2010) Michel Deza (France) (michel.d...@ens.fr) Krassimir Markov (Bulgaria) (mar...@foibg.com): contact for local organization questions Michel Petitjean (France) (petitjean.chi...@gmail.com): contact for other questions Do not hesitate to contact us if you need more information. Thanks for your attention. Best regards, Michel Petitjean MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7 35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France. Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372 E-mail: petitjean.chi...@gmail.com (preferred), michel.petitj...@univ-paris-diderot.fr http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html ___ ITHEA-ISS mailing list ithea-...@ithea.org http://www.ithea.org/mailman/listinfo/ithea-iss ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik
2. Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different? Yes, the difference is stunning. I suggest you read a few papers on the subject. Neither C++ no other practically used programming languages ever got any formal proofs of their functionality. This is simply not the case. Again, I suggest you search for a few papers on the subject and read them. There are many. With respect, Steven On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:09 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote: -Original Message- From: boris.sunik Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 PM To: 'Krassimir Markov' Subject: RE: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik Dear Krassimir, Below are my points regarding discussed issues. Regards, Boris Sunik 1. I never claimed that computer algorithms could provide all you know, and all you need to know about information. To the contrary, I consider this statement as wrong. My idea is that the relevant way of information representation and information explanation consists of viewing the real world in the same conceptual coordinates, which are used for representation of computer algorithms. IMHO, this approach exactly matches the computing experience of the modern world. Computer languages are not able to express any information except the rules of manipulation with the bits and bytes of the computer storage. BUT, these very limited abilities are nevertheless sufficient not only for the controlling very different machines but also for the manipulating human beings. Why a computer is that efficient? It is while computer languages adequately model the real world. Among other this means that data designated in computer languages coincide with the outside real objects as the names coincide with the designated objects. Hence follows the idea of creating the programming-language-like-notation, which allows words directly designating external objects. 2. Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and are taken as self-evident. In my opinion, no proofs for that are necessary. The solution is to build the knowledge system based on this premise and see whether it will practically work. Neither C++ no other practically used programming languages ever got any formal proofs of their functionality. The usability of a language depends not on any formal checks but on whether they could be effectively used in practice. I mean TMI could practically be used and hope it will. 3. definition of meaning In TMI semantics and meaning are synonyms. The characteristic for TMI understanding of semantics is firstly considered at the end of Problem Statement. Another place is 2.6 where I deliberately chose the simplest systems, because they are the best in showing the approach's basics. The approach itself could be applied on arbitrary complex systems. In a few words: ― meaning of the linguistic item is the branch(s) of algorithm(s) associated with this item. -Original Message- From: Krassimir Markov [mailto:mar...@foibg.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 22:32 PM To: boris.sunik Subject: Fw: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik -Original Message- From: Gavin Ritz Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 11:22 PM To: 'Steven Ericsson-Zenith' ; 'Joseph Brenner' Cc: 'Foundations of Information Science' Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik I agree with you both. The declarative statements (4 statements in 2.4.1 Digital Computer versus Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and are taken as self evident. This path is a dead end. Regards Gavin The document seems extremely confused to me. This is not least because the author does not appear to present a clear definition of the terms in the title or the expression of subject in the work. In particular, I can find no definition of meaning other than the one presented in a quote from Shannon and the subsequent use of the term is confused to say the least. Similarly, the term semantic is not clearly defined and abused. The same goes for other terms such as knowledge. So I take an even harsher view than Joseph since it is not even a good representative of the view that computer algorithms can provide all you know, and all you need to know. The definitive representative of that view is Stephen Wolfram's book A New Kind Of Science, and while I have my problems with the theory in the book, it is - at least - well defined. With respect, Steven On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Krassimir, Thank you for bringing this document to our attention, for completeness. I would have wished, however, that you had made some comment on it, putting it into relation with your own work and,
