Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

[Terrence W. DEACON]

Against "meaning"

I think that there is a danger of allowing our anthropocentrism to bias the
discussion. I worry that the term 'meaning' carries too much of a
linguistic bias.
By this I mean that it is too attractive to use language as our archtypical
model when we talk about information.
Language is rather the special case, the most unusual communicative
adaptation to ever have evolved, and one that grows out of and depends on
informationa/semiotic capacities shared with other species and with biology
in general.
So I am happy to see efforts to bring in topics like music or natural signs
like thunderstorms and would also want to cast the net well beyond humans
to include animal calls, scent trails, and molecular signaling by hormones.
And it is why I am more attracted to Peirce and worried about the use of
Saussurean concepts.
Words and sentences can indeed provide meanings (as in Frege's Sinn -
"sense" - "intension") and may also provide reference (Frege's Bedeutung -
"reference" - "extension"), but I think that it is important to recognize
that not all signs fit this model. Moreover,

A sneeze is often interpreted as evidence about someone's state of health,
and a clap of thunder may indicate an approaching storm.
These can also be interpreted differently by my dog, but it is still
information about something, even though I would not say that they mean
something to that interpreter. Both of these phenomena can be said to
provide reference to something other than that sound itself, but when we
use such phrases as "it means you have a cold" or "that means that a storm
is approaching" we are using the term "means" somewhat metaphorically (most
often in place of the more accurate term "indicates").

And it is even more of a stretch to use this term with respect to pictures
or diagrams.
So no one would say the a specific feature like the ears in a caricatured
face mean something.
Though if the drawing is employed in a political cartoon e.g. with
exaggerated ears and the whole cartoon is assigned a meaning then perhaps
the exaggeration of this feature may become meaningful. And yet we would
probably agree that every line of the drawing provides information
contributing to that meaning.

So basically, I am advocating an effort to broaden our discussions and
recognize that the term information applies in diverse ways to many
different contexts. And because of this it is important to indicate the
framing, whether physical, formal, biological, phenomenological,
linguistic, etc.
For this reason, as I have suggested before, I would love to have a
conversation in which we try to agree about which different uses of the
information concept are appropriate for which contexts. The classic
syntax-semantics-pragmatics distinction introduced by Charles Morris has
often been cited in this respect, though it too is in my opinion too
limited to the linguistic paradigm, and may be misleading when applied more
broadly. I have suggested a parallel, less linguistic (and nested in Stan's
subsumption sense) way of making the division: i.e. into intrinsic,
referential, and normative analyses/properties of information.

Thus you can analyze intrinsic properties of an informing medium [e.g.
Shannon etc etc] irrespective of these other properties, but can't make
sense of referential properties [e.g. what something is about, conveys]
without considering intrinsic sign vehicle properties, and can't deal with
normative properties [e.g. use value, contribution to function,
significance, accuracy, truth] without also considering referential
properties [e.g. what it is about].

In this respect, I am also in agreement with those who have pointed out
that whenever we consider referential and normative properties we must also
recognize that these are not intrinsic and are interpretation-relative.
Nevertheless, these are legitimate and not merely subjective or
nonscientific properties, just not physically intrinsic. I am sympathetic
with those among us who want to restrict analysis to intrinsic properties
alone, and who defend the unimpeachable value that we have derived from the
formal foundations that Shannon's original analysis initiated, but this
should not be used to deny the legitimacy of attempting to develop a more
general theory of information that also attempts to discover formal
principles underlying these higher level properties implicit in the
concept.

I take this to be the intent behind Pedro's list. And I think it would be
worth asking for each of his points: Which information paradigm within this
hoierarchy does it assume?

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

Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi FISers,


Recent discussions on information on this list reminds me of one of the main 
principles of signs advanced by Ferdinand de Saussure (1859-1913)  -- the 
arbitrariness of linguistic signs.  In contrast, Peirce (1839-1914), a 
chemist-turned-logician-philosopher,  seems to have succeeded in capturing the 
universal features of all signs, however fleeting, both linguistic and 
otherwise.


The power and utility of the Peircean definition of signs can be illustrated by 
applying his  triadic definition of signs to the term, 'information', veiwed as 
a sign (having an arbitrariy meaning, according to Saussure).  My impression is 
that all the varied defintions of information discussed on this list (which 
supports the Saussre's principle of the arbitrariness of signs) can be 
organized using the ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) diagram embodying the 
Peircean principle of semiotics.   This is done in Figure 1 below, using the 
definition of 'information' that Professor Zhong  recently provided as an 
example.  As you can see, the ITR template has 6 place-holders, 3 nodes and 3 
arrows, which can be populatedf by more than one set of concepts or terms, as 
long as the terms or concepts are consistent with one another and obeys 
well-established laws of physics and logic.


 f g
  Object -->   Sign -->
Interpretant
   (Object Information) (Data)   (Perceived 
Information)
   |
   ^
   |
|
   |
|
   |__|
h

 f = natural process (or information production)
g = mental process or computing (or information interpretation)
h = correspondence (or information flow)


Object = Something referred to by a sign

Sign = Something that stands to someone for something other than itself in
 some context.  Also called ‘representamen’
Interpretant = The effect a sign has  on the mind (or state) of the interpreter
   (human or non-human)

Figure 1.  A suggested definition of ‘information’ based on the triadic 
definition of the sign proposed by Peirce (1839-1914).  The symbol, A --- > B, 
reads as "A determines B', 'A leads to B', ' A is presupposed by B', 'B is 
supervened on A' (http://www.iep.utm.edu/superven), etc.



With all the best.


Sung



From: Fis  on behalf of 钟义信 
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2017 4:07:53 AM
To: KrassimirMarkov; foundationofinformationscience
Subject: Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

Dear Krassiir,

The formulars you proposed in your summary is good. May I mention that the 
following formulas will be more precise:

Object Info = External info = Syntactic info = Data
Perceived info = Internal info = Syntactic info + Semantic info + Pragmatic info

In other words, data is also a kind of information - called syntactic 
information, the information without meaning and utility associated. And 
therefore we have a uniform concept of information.

So, the discussions we have last week is very much helpful!

Thank you!

--

Prof. Y. X. Zhong （钟义信）

Center for Intelligence Science Research

University of Posts & Telecommunications

Beijing 100876, China




- 回复邮件 -
发信人:Krassimir Markov >
收信人:foundationofinformationscience 
时间:2017年10月08日 02时06分15秒
主题:[Fis] Data - Reflection - Information


Dear FIS Colleagues,

It is time for my second post this week.

Many thanks to Christophe Menant (for the profound question) and to all
colleagues (for the very nice and useful comments)!

**

Christophe Menant had written:
“However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate information
from data. A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data.
But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctly
demodulated.
I would say that:
1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent.
- A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (human
voice, ant pheromone).
- A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise).
- A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal
(interpretation/meaning generation).
2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received by
different agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings for
someone walking on the beach or for a person in a house).
3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account
(human beings, 

Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

[钟义信]

Dear Krassiir,The formulars you proposed in your summary is good. May I mention that the following formulas will be more precise:Object Info = External info = Syntactic info = DataPerceived info = Internal info = Syntactic info + Semantic info + Pragmatic infoIn other words, data is also a kind of information - called syntactic information, the information without meaning and utility associated. And therefore we have a uniform concept of information.So, the discussions we have last week is very much helpful!Thank you!--Prof. Y. X. Zhong （钟义信）Center for Intelligence Science ResearchUniversity of Posts & TelecommunicationsBeijing 100876, China

- 回复邮件 -发信人:Krassimir Markov 收信人:foundationofinformationscience 时间:2017年10月08日 02时06分15秒主题:[Fis] Data - Reflection - InformationDear FIS Colleagues,It is time for my second post this week.Many thanks to Christophe Menant (for the profound question) and to allcolleagues (for the very nice and useful comments)!**Christophe Menant had written: “However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate informationfrom data.  A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data.But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctlydemodulated.I would say that:1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent. - A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (humanvoice, ant pheromone). - A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise). - A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal(interpretation/meaning generation).2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received bydifferent agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings forsomeone walking on the beach or for a person in a house).3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account(human beings, ant-hill).Regarding your positioning of data, I'm not sure to understand your"reflections without meaning".Could you tell a bit more?“Before answering, I need to make a little analysis of posts this weekconnected to my question about data and information. For this goal, belowI shall remember shortly main ideas presented this week.Citations:Stanley N Salthe: “The simple answer to your question about data is to note the word'sderivation from Latin Datum, which can be compared with Factum.”Y. X. Zhong:“It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information,related and also different to each other. The first one is the informationpresented by the objects existed in environment before the subject'sperceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understoodby the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and thesecond one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by thesubject from the former.The object information is just the object's "state of the object and thepattern with which the state varies". No meaning and no utility at thestage.The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject fromthe object information. So, it should have the form component of theobject (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object(semantic information), and the utility component of the object withrespect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage,the "meaning" comes out.”Karl Javorszky:“Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what wedo not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it isthe background to that what we see by using the eyes.Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by theinformation, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhaltand Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ andcontext /relationships/)”.Dai Griffiths:“I'm curious about your use of the word 'dualistic'. Dualism usuallysuggests that there are two aspects to a single phenomenon. As I interpretyour post, you are saying that information and meaning are separateconcepts. Otherwise, we are led to inquire into the nature of the unity ofwhich they are both aspects, which gets us back where we started.So I interpret 'dualistic' here to mean 'two concepts that are intertwinedin the emergence of events'. Is this parallel to, for example, atomicstructure and fluid dynamics (perhaps there are better examples)? If so,does that imply a hierarchy (i.e. you can have information withoutmeaning, but not meaning without information)? This makes sense to me,though it is not what I usually associate with the word 'dualistic'.”Guy A Hoelzer:“If you start by explicitly stating that you are using the semantic notionof information at the start, I would agree whole heartedly with your post.I claim that physical information is general, while semantic informationis merely a subset of physical information.  Semantic information iscomposed of kinds of physical contrasts to which symbolic meaning has