[Fis] What is the “mental model”?

2018-02-21 Thread Krassimir Markov

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 

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

2018-02-21 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari Tutti,
l'8 febbraio Vi ho inviato un messaggio il cui contenuto, senza alcuna
presunzione, può essere utile per dirimere le questioni
onto-epistemo-logiche che sono sorte.
Allora lo trasmetto nuovamente.
Caro Terry estensibile a tutti,
è sempre un piacere leggerTi e capirTi. La  general theory of information è
preceduta da un sistema (o semiotica) di significazione e seguita da un
sistema (o semiotica ) di comunicazione. Tranne che quando si ha un
processo comunicativo come il passaggio di un Segnale (che non significa
necessariamente 'un segno') da una Fonte, attraverso un  Trasmettitore,
lungo un Canale, a un Destinatario. In un processo tra macchina e macchina
il segnale non ha alcun potere 'significante'. In tal caso non si ha
significazione anche se si può dire che si ha passaggio di informazione.
Quando il destinatario è un essere umano (e non è necessario che la fonte
sia anch'essa un essere umano) si è in presenza di un processo di
significazione. Un sistema di significazione è una costruzione semiotica
autonoma, indipendente da ogni possibile atto di comunicazione che
l'attualizzi. Invece ogni processo di comunicazione tra esseri umani -- o
tra ogni tipo di apparato o struttura 'intelligente, sia meccanico che
biologico, -- presuppone un sistema di significazione come propria o
specifica condizione. In conclusione, è possibile avere una semiotica della
significazione indipendente da una semiotica della comunicazione; ma è
impossibile stabilire una semiotica della comunicazione indipendente da una
semiotica della significazione.
Ho appreso molto da Umberto Eco a cui ho dedicato il capitolo 10. Umberto
Eco e il processo di re-interpretazione e re-incantamento della scienza
economica (pp. 175-217) di "Valore e valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia
o l'economia della scienza" (FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1997). Nello mio stesso
libro si trovano:
- il capitolo 15. Semiotica economico-estimativa (pp. 327-361) che si
colloca nel quadro di una teoria globale di tutti i sistemi di
significazione e i processi di comunicazione;
- il sottoparagrafo 5.3.3 La psicologia genetica di Jean Piaget e la
neurobiologia di Humberto Maturana e Francesco Varela. una nuova
epistemologia sperimentale della qualità e dell'unicità (pp. 120-130).
Chiedo scusa a Tutti se Vi ho stancati o se ancora una volta il mio
scrivere in lingua italiana Vi crea qualche problema. Penso che il dono che
mi fate è, a proposito della QUALITA' e dell'UNICITA',  molto più grande
del (per)dono che Vi chiedo. Grazie.
Un saluto affettuoso.
Francesco


2018-02-21 11:03 GMT+01:00 Xueshan Yan :

> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> In the first half of this month, we have a heated discussion about the
> relationship among Information, Language, and Communication started by
> Sung. I am simply summing up part of the different opinions as follows:
>
>
>
> *Sung: Without a language, no communication would be possible. Encoding,
> decoding, information (flow) are essential for communication*.
>
> Part of the related different opinions:
>
> Terry: (In this way), one must use the term "language" in a highly
> metaphoric sense. Communications take place in the following situations,
> are there languages? Such as scent, music, sexual display of some animals,
> smile, frown, pattern of colors of a flower that attracts bees, dog's bark,
> walk of a depressed person, hiccup after eating. There is a serious problem
> with using language as the model for analyzing other species’ communication
> in hindsight.…… It is an understandable anthropocentric bias.
>
> Javier: *Not every* communication process involves coding/decoding and
> meaning. so they could not be simply paralleled to language. For instance,
> there is no coding/decoding process when I communicate to my dog. It does
> not understand my speaking, and I do not understand its barking. Yet still
> both of us interact. I would not define communication as information
> transfer. There is no information "traveling" from one place to another,
> from sender to receiver. The system itself becomes the medium of
> information production and processing.
>
> Xueshan and Stan: The hierarchy idea is not only suitable for different
> species which communication take places between them, from elementary
> particle(?), molecule(?) to cell, brain(human, other animals), plant(?),
> even other different planets(?). It is also suitable for different
> information carrier. Stan think the carriers can be layered as {language
> {signal {information}}}, Xueshan think they can be layered as {substrate
> {signal {information}}}, here we simply consider sign, signal, symbol,
> token, marker and so forth as the same.
>
> Gordana: It might be possible to develop a general theory of language ……
> with different levels of cognition which communicate and process
> information in order to survive. As in biology there are different kinds of
> organisms there are also different kinds of “languages”. There are small
> languages 

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

2018-02-21 Thread Xueshan Yan
Dear colleagues,

 

In the first half of this month, we have a heated discussion about the 
relationship among Information, Language, and Communication started by Sung. I 
am simply summing up part of the different opinions as follows:

 

Sung: Without a language, no communication would be possible. Encoding, 
decoding, information (flow) are essential for communication.

Part of the related different opinions:

Terry: (In this way), one must use the term "language" in a highly metaphoric 
sense. Communications take place in the following situations, are there 
languages? Such as scent, music, sexual display of some animals, smile, frown, 
pattern of colors of a flower that attracts bees, dog's bark, walk of a 
depressed person, hiccup after eating. There is a serious problem with using 
language as the model for analyzing other species’ communication in 
hindsight.…… It is an understandable anthropocentric bias.

Javier: Not every communication process involves coding/decoding and meaning. 
so they could not be simply paralleled to language. For instance, there is no 
coding/decoding process when I communicate to my dog. It does not understand my 
speaking, and I do not understand its barking. Yet still both of us interact. I 
would not define communication as information transfer. There is no information 
"traveling" from one place to another, from sender to receiver. The system 
itself becomes the medium of information production and processing.

Xueshan and Stan: The hierarchy idea is not only suitable for different species 
which communication take places between them, from elementary particle(?), 
molecule(?) to cell, brain(human, other animals), plant(?), even other 
different planets(?). It is also suitable for different information carrier. 
Stan think the carriers can be layered as {language {signal {information}}}, 
Xueshan think they can be layered as {substrate {signal {information}}}, here 
we simply consider sign, signal, symbol, token, marker and so forth as the same.

Gordana: It might be possible to develop a general theory of language …… with 
different levels of cognition which communicate and process information in 
order to survive. As in biology there are different kinds of organisms there 
are also different kinds of “languages”. There are small languages communicated 
in relatively simple ways between simple agents (like cells) and big languages 
used by complex agents like humans.

 

(In all the above discussions, we all omitted the Sung’s deep layer analysis of 
cell language and category theory).

 

Others:

Arturo: I suggest to fully REMOVE from the TRUE scientific adventures the 
terms: "symbol", "signal", "marker", "information".

Howard: Information is anything a receiver can interpret. Information is in the 
eye of the beholder.

Javier: Information and meaning are not the same.

Christophe: I take communications as related to meaning generation.

Mayank: Can we not make conceptual leap from networks, information, 
communication, and language to sound?

Koichiro: Focusing upon languaging comes to shed light on the communication in 
time between whatever parties.

 

Best wishes,

Xueshan

 

From: Stanley N Salthe [mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 11:44 PM
To: y...@pku.edu.cn
Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the 
cateogry theory

Xueshan -- My {language {signal {information}}} is meant apply only to a system 
that has language. That is, my assertion would be that no information can be 
gained in such a system that has not passed through a linguistic filter. The 
idea is that in such a system language dominates everything. Perhaps this has 
not been definitively demonstrated as yet. I suppose it would depend upon, for 
example, whether or not we consider our bodily reaction to, for example, having 
just burned our finger to have been ‘informationally mediated. If not (which 
seems possible to me) then my supposition might be OK. But if we think that 
neuron communications mediate information, then I am wrong. 

 

STAN

 

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Xueshan Yan  > wrote:

Dear Javier and Dear Stan,

 

Javier:

1. I very much agree with you as follows:

“I think that only signals can be transmitted, not information. Information can 
only be gained by an observer (a self-referential system) that draws a 
distinction.”

A Chinese scholar Dongsheng Miao’s argument is: There is no information can 
exists without carrier, i.e. No naked can exists.

I think both of you two are expressing a principle of information science.

 

2. According to Linguistics, the relationship between language and 
communication is:

Language is a tool of communication about information.

Of course, this is only limited to the human atmosphere. So I think that all 
(Human) Semiotics ((Human) Linguistics), (Human) Communication Study should be 
the subdisciplines of Human