Re: [Fis] Information, signals and data.
Dear all, Happy the New Year of 2014 and the coming Chinese New Year of the horse (to be successful when the horse comes!) I would like to say that John's work on the collection of literature of PI and the very idea of Information is really helpful, thanks! Cheers, Xiaohong XJTU-ICPI - Original Message - From: John Collier To: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Information, signals and data. Date: 2014-01-14 13:58 Dear FIS members, Information has various scientific usages, and it is important for people to be clear which one they mean. None of the meanings is canonical, but they can be put in relation to each other, as I do in Kinds of Information in Scientific Use. 2011. cognition, communication, co-operation. Vol 9, No 2. Another good source dealing with relations of different concepts of information is Luciano Floridi's elementary book, Information A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2010). Also The Philosophy of Information (Oxford University Press, 2011). I recommend these to people on the FIS list to those who cannot get their minds around the idea that the information concept has a wide range of diverse uses that are nonetheless related to each other. Floridi is especially good on the issues of signals versus data versus interpreted information. All are information in the most general sense on his account. On the issue of the first use of information theory, I note that Shannon, C.E. (1948), "A Mathematical Theory of Communication", Bell System Technical Journal, 27, pp. 379423 & 623656, July & October, 1948. uses 'information' extensively as what is communicated, so the title could have easily been A mathematical theory of communication of information. The article is widely regarded as the foundation of information theory. However Hartely's 1928 paper, "Transmission of Information", Bell System Technical Journal, July 1928 is much earlier. Szillard made the connection between information and physics in his L. Szilárd (1929) "Über die Entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamischen System bei Eingriffen intelligenter Wesen" (On the reduction of entropy in a thermodynamic system by the intervention of intelligent beings), Zeitschrift für Physik, 53 : 840-856. Available on-line in English at: Aurellen.org (see also Leon Brillouin, Science and Information Theory, Mineola, N.Y.: Dover, [1956, 1962] 2004. ISBN 0-486-43918-6). It is unclear to me who introduced the actual term 'information theory', but it was in common use after 1948. The following might be instructive: http://web.mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall2001/Shannon2.pdf Cheers, John At 05:42 AM 2014-01-13, Xueshan wrote: Dear Rafael, I am sure you were right in "what is communicated between a sender and a receiver is NOT information but a MESSAGE", I can provide you more supports from Biology. Between two nerve cells, between gland cell and target cell, it is MESSENGERS but not others which carry MESSAGE from sender to receiver, this is the situation in first messenger theory. In second messenger theory, not message or information, they call it SIGNAL. In computer science, DATA some time was adopted, such as Data Structure, Data Bank, Data Mining. No matter what happens, all message, signal etc. should recognize as a special usage of information. This is an interesting history in past related information explorations. But in modern science, such in semiochemistry, when talk about the effects of pheromones, allomones, kairomones, attractants, repellents, most Chemists like to use information rather then signal (or message). First and last, shall we consider INFORMATION as genus and MESSAGE, news, knowledge, etc. as its differentia? By the way, who knows who are the first people who called Shannon's "Mathematical Theory of Communication" as "Information Theory"? What time? Where? Best wishes, Xueshan 20:45, January 13, 2014 Peking University > -Original Message- > From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es > [ mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of > fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 6:45 PM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: fis Digest, Vol 579, Issue 18 > > Send fis mailing list submissions to >fis@listas.unizar.es > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es > > You can reach the person managing the list at >fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific than "Re: Contents of fis digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: Fw: Responses (Rafael Capurro) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 11:30:20 +0100 > From: Rafael Capurro > Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Responses > To
Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
Dear John, Your response to Krassimir is interesting, but I think the question is what is the definition of "communication" on earth, it seems the definitons of both of you are not the same. And one more question is, is "information" itself meaningful? I completely agree with your approach to really understand Shannon. Best, Xiaohong - Original Message - From: John Collier To: Krassimir Markov , "Pedro C. Marijuan" , "fis@listas.unizar.es" Subject: Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man Date: 2013-12-08 20:41 At 12:38 AM 2013/12/05, Krassimir Markov wrote: >Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues, >This discussion is full with interesting ideas. >What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts "communication" and >"information interaction" which reflect similar phenomena but at different >levels of live hierarchy. >Communication is a process of exchanging of "signals, messages" with >different degree of complexity (Shannon). >Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific >only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio >molecules, cells, organs). >Main feature of intelligent agents is decision making based on information >models. >Information interaction is impossible without communication. >Friendly regards >Krassimir I would agree with distinguishing between communication and information interaction, but I infer exactly the opposite conclusion. Communication, it seems to me (and also according to the setup that is the basis for Shannon's approach) requires coding and decoding modules, but information transmission does not; it requires only a channel. Information needs to be decoded (given meaning) to be communication. At least that is what I read off of Shannon's model of communication theory. Maybe Krassimir is not talking about Shannon type information, and has a different model in mind. If this is the case, it would be nice if he were to make it explicit, since most people today at least start with Shannon's approach (or one of the two rough equivalents discussed by Kolmogorov) as basis that at least gives the syntax of information, with channel, coding and decoding required for a full communications channel, but left undefined by Shannon (though recent work has tried to fill these gaps). Cheers, John -- Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 Http://web.ncf.ca/collier ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
Dear Pedro, Krassimir and all FIS members, Recently, the ideas you are talking are increasingly interesting. Here I like to response to Krassimir as follows: What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts "communication" and "information interaction" which reflect similar phenomena but at different levels of live hierarchy. Communication is a process of exchanging of "signals, messages" with different degree of complexity (Shannon). Yes, I agree. Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio molecules, cells, organs).Main feature of intelligent agents is decision making based on information models. Information interaction is impossible without communication. Why decision making is the main feature of intelligent agents, could you give more explanation about what is the main feature of decision making based on information models as well as? Thanks for all of very interesting ideas from all of you. Xiaohong - Original Message - From: "Krassimir Markov" To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" , Subject: [Fis] The Interaction Man Date: 2013-12-05 06:38 Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues, This discussion is full with interesting ideas. What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts "communication" and "information interaction" which reflect similar phenomena but at different levels of live hierarchy. Communication is a process of exchanging of "signals, messages" with different degree of complexity (Shannon). Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio molecules, cells, organs). Main feature of intelligent agents is decision making based on information models. Information interaction is impossible without communication. Friendly regards Krassimir PS: Dear Pedro, Please resend this letter to FIS list if it is stopped by spam filter. -Original Message- From: Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:30 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] The Communication Man Dear Loet, Bob, Joseph, and FIS colleagues, There is a classical problem in the dialog between natural science and the humanities, also occurring in the present exchanges (maybe in a different way). I may agree or disagree respect the constructs presented by Bob, or my own points, but most of that stuff is closer to well-accepted conceptualizations of different disciplines and the discursive element is framed within the bounds of self-discipline. In my case, when I presented the 11 points, most of them could have a concrete label: "signaling science", "motor-centered approach", "ecological psychology", "social brain hypothesis", etc. I think the result was not a potpourri, but a conceptual body from which a careful reading might obtain a cogent meaning, hopefully. However, most of Loet's text is discursive, with ample freedom of construction, and the parts associated to scientific conceptualizations do not become very relevant --in my opinion they provide a loan of apparent rigor. Besides the topic of discussion in his message is slightly twisted: the initial "communication" and "life" becomes "scientific communication" and "biology"... I do not want to be negative, rather pointing that there is a different communication strategy at work. Well, finally the respective rigor is in the eye of the beholder. Also, there was an idea by Joseph that I want to continue, when he says: "...the purport of metabolism is change, not only burning carbon-hydrogen bonds. But perhaps we might all prefer "communicating is life; life is communicating"..." The "semantic metabolism" theme was in the background (just in case I reproduce his message below). Then, my suggestion: if most of our daily exchanges in social life occur for their own sake, just to continue with or to maintain our social bonds ahead (see Raquel's opening text), the parallelism takes an interesting turn. Most of semantic metabolism becomes the processing of our social bonds: degrading them, ascending them, interlinking them, slightly or deeply changing our inner mental structure of bonds. Dealing with chemical bonds is the playground for energetic metabolism; dealing with social bonds is the playground for semantic metabolism. In one case we use free energy when changing (filling in, depleting) the chemical bonds; in the other case we use communicative social information when similarly changing the social bonds. Every chemical reaction refers to the making and braking of bonds: could we similarly state (tongue in cheek) that every meaningful social interaction finally refers to the making and breaking of social bonds? This is my second, and final, message of the week. best ---Pedro On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>> wrote: Dear FISers, There is here an important idea
