Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

2017-10-08 Thread
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 <mar...@foibg.com>收信人:foundationofinformationscience <fis@listas.unizar.es>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 ph

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread
Dear friends,The debate on the definition of information is of significance because the definition of information is the real foundation of information science. It is noticed that many contravercies in information science either in the past or at present time are more or less related to the different understandings of the concept of information.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 information presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the subject from the former.The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the pattern with which the state varyies". No meaning and no utility at the stage.The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from the object information. So, it should have the form component of the object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object (semantic information), and the utility component of the object with respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage, the "meaning" comes out.What is new, we discovered that the meaning (semantic information) is the 'function' of the union of the syntactic information and the pragmatic information. This can be understood as the definition of the meaning/semantic information and the relation among them. In othr words, "meaning (semantic information)" cannot be understood arbitrarily.Comments are welcome.--Prof. Y. X. Zhong (钟义信)Center for Intelligence Science ResearchUniversity of Posts & TelecommunicationsBeijing 100876, China

- 回复邮件 -发信人:Lars-Göran Johansson<lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se>收信人:foundationsofinformationscienceinformationscience <fis@listas.unizar.es>时间:2017年10月05日 16时45分39秒主题:Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]:  HereticDear allIt seems to me that the heat in the debate about the definition of the concept of Information is fuelled by deep metaphysical feelings: different people have different views about what is REALLY Information. Metaphysical debates can never be resolved. May I suggest that we agree on this: there are several different concepts, such as Shannon Information, Semantic Information, etc.. Each Information concept has its own distinct definition and each one may use whichever he/she finds useful.Whether any of these concepts refers to any real thing, INFORMATION, cannot be determined by any empirical research. The reason is that empirical research can sometimes decide the truth of a sentence, but never whether the predicate in that sentence refers to anything.Suppose we have found, empirically, that a sentence of the form ’ X is information’ where ’information’ has a clear definition. (Chose anyone you like.) The truth of this sentence entails that the object referred to by ’X’ must exist; this is a truth condition for any declarative sentence. But it does not follow that the predicate ’Information' refers to something. It suffice that the object X belongs to the extension of the predicate. This is the nominalist position.Since 1000 years the core debate in metaphysics has been whether there are universals, i.e., properties and relations. The debate aboutInformation is a debate about the existence of a property.I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one should not assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that Information is a property, an entithy, is not necessary. We can proceed with scientific research, using any information concept we think useful, without assuming it refers to anything. Metaphysical issues can safely be put to rest.Lars-Göran Johansson4 okt. 2017 kl. 19:49 skrev tozziart...@libero.it: Messaggio inoltrato  Da:tozziart...@libero.itA: Alex Hankeyalexhan...@gmail.comData: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM +02:00 Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] HereticDear Prof. Hankey,I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.--Inviato da Libero Mail per Androidmercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankeyalexhan...@gmail.com:Dear Professor Tozzi,Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list,as you evidently do not wish to participate in whatthe rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion.As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of 'information',and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally differentmathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'.With all good wishes,Alex HankeyOn 4 October 2017 at 02:30,<tozziart...@libero.it>wrote:Dear FISers,After the provided long list of completely different definition

Re: [Fis] Season Greetings / Merry Christmas

2015-12-21 Thread
Dear Colleagues,On the yearly occasion, may I wish you all a Merry Chistmas and Happy New Year!--Prof. Y. X. Zhong (钟义信)Center for Intelligence Science ResearchUniversity of Posts & TelecommunicationsBeijing 100876, China

- 回复邮件 -发信人:Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>收信人:fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>时间:2015年12月21日 18时57分35秒主题:[Fis] Season Greetings / Merry ChristmasDear FIS Colleagues,Herewith the customary Nativity scene at El Pilar Basilica of Zaragoza.Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!--Pedro-- -Pedro C. MarijunGrupo de Bioinformacin / Bioinformation GroupInstituto Aragons de Ciencias de la SaludCentro de Investigacin Biomdica de Aragn (CIBA)Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X50009 Zaragoza, SpainTfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/-

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


Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

2015-03-12 Thread


Dear John, Thank you very much for the comments you made, which are very useful for me to think about.May I just say a few wordsas my simple responses to the two points you wrote in your mail.-- To my understanding, "context" and "goals" among others arenecessary elements for an intelligence science system.Otherwise it would be unable to know where to go,what to do and how to do. In the latter case, it cannot be regards as intelligence system.-- As an intelligent system, it would usually be self-organized under certain conditions. This means thar the system has clear goal(s), is able toacquire the information about the changes in environment, able to learn the strategy foradjusting the structures of the system so as to adapt the system to the exchanged environment. This is the capability of self-organizing. If the change of the environment is sufficiently complex and the system is able to adapt itself to the change, then the system can be said a compplex system.Do you think so? Or you have different understanding?Best regards,Yixin ZHONG- 回复邮件 -发信人:John Prpic pr...@sfu.ca收信人:钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cn抄送:fis fis@listas.unizar.es时间:2015年03月12日 11时43分09秒主题:Re: [Fis]	THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanDear Professor Zhong  Colleagues,Unsurprisingly, some very rich food for thought in the FIS group so far this year!Here's a few comments that I hope are useful in some respect:- As I think about the idea of intelligence science as put forward, would it be useful to say that "context" and "goals" (as constructs) would always be antecedents to intelligence science outcomes?Said another way, must intelligence science systems always include these two elements (among others) in a particular system configuration?- Also, when I look at the list of "elementary abilities" of intelligence science (ie A-M), it strikes me that more than a few of them can currently be considered to be core knowledge management techniques (storing, retrieving, transferring, transforming of information etc)... therefore, is there a difference between intelligence science in systems that are self-organized (ie complexity science), compared to intelligence science systems that are not self-organized? Must all intelligence science systems display complexity?Best,JohnFrom: "钟义信" z...@bupt.edu.cnTo: "joe brenner" joe.bren...@bluewin.chCc: "dai.griffiths.1" dai.griffith...@gmail.com, "fis" fis@listas.unizar.esSent: Wednesday, 11 March, 2015 19:07:36Subject: Re: [Fis]THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanDear Joe, Steven, and other friends,It is interesting, ans also benefitial,to have had opportunities to, via FIS forum,exchange ideas with you colleagues under the topic of intelihence science.Special thanks go to Joe, Steven, and other friends for their good comments! Intelligence science is, of course, asort of complex science and would not be easy to thoroughly understand in a short period of time. However,it is the right time to have it concerned seriously for now as, on one hand,it is extremely important for human kinds and, on the other hand, it is possible for researchers to make progress toward this direction based on the successes we have already achieved in the studies of information science and artificial intelligence so far.As for the conceptual distinktionsbetween intelligence scienceand information science, between intelligence scienceand artificial intelligence, and between intelligence and wisdom, we may, for the moment,mention the followings:-- The scope of intelligence science would be regarded as almost the same as that of information science, provided that the studies of information science willcontain not only information itself but also the products of information,in which knowledge andintelligent strategy for problem solving are major components.In other words, the studies of information science should adopt the view of ecological system. This is also the reason why the topic of intelligence science be brought to FIS forum. -- According to the current status of the research in artificial intelligence (AI),its scope ofstudiesis much narrower than that of intelligence science. As a matter of fact, AI for the time being is a category of technological research, using computer as platform to support some smart software for solving certain problems. AI should be a kind of multi-disciplinary research, but it has majnly been confined within the scope of computer science. Not long ago, some of theAI researchers started todealing withthe emotion problem, butit still in its infant stage. Moreover, the topic of consciousness is still ignored in AI. So , AI is indeed incomparable to intelligence science, not to say to human intelligence.-- The relationship between intelligence and wisdom is sometimes confused. If intelligence is referredto human intelligence, it would be the same as wisdom. However, if the concept o

Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

2015-03-06 Thread


Dear Pedro,Thank you very much for recommending Ms. ZHAO's good topic, intelligence science, for discussion at FIS platform. I think itvery much valuablethat Ms. ZHAO put forward to us the great challenge of methodology shift. The attached file expressed some of my understanding on this iuuse that I would like to share with FIS friends.Best regards,Yixin ZHONG- 回复邮件 -发信人:Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es收信人:fis fis@listas.unizar.es时间:2015年03月04日 19时58分15秒主题:Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanDear Chuan and FIS colleagues,The scientific study of intelligence is quite paradoxical. One is reminded about the problems of psychology and ethology to create adequate categories and frameworks about animal and human intelligence. The approaches started in Artificial Intelligence were quite glamorous three or four decades ago, but the limitations were crystal clear at the end of the 80's. It marked the beginning of Artificial Life and quite many other views at the different frontiers of the theme (complexity theory, biocybernetics, biocomputing, etc.)  Also an enlarged Information Science was vindicated as the best option to clear the air (Stonier, Scarrott... and FIS itself too). In that line, Advanced Artificial Intelligence, as proposed by Yixin Zhong and others, has represented in my view a bridge to connect with our own works in information science. That connection between information "processing" and intelligence is essential. But in our occasional discussions on the theme we have always been centered in, say, the scientific quasi-mechanistic perspectives. It was time to enter the humanistic dimensions and the connection with the arts. Then, this discussion revolves around the central pillar to fill in the gap between sciences and humanities, the "two cultures" of CP Snow. The global human intelligence, when projected to the world, creates different "disciplinary" realms that are more an historical result that a true, genuine necessity. We are caught, necessarily given our limitations, in a perspectivistic game, but we have the capacity to play and mix the perspectives... multidisciplinarity is today the buzzword, though perhaps not well addressed and explained yet. So, your reflections Chao are quite welcome. best--Pedro-- -Pedro C. MarijuánGrupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation GroupInstituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la SaludCentro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X50009 Zaragoza, SpainTfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/-___Fis mailing listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis



150305 My Understanding on Intelligence Science.doc
Description: Binary data
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis