[Fis] No, this is not the reason.

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Sung,

You wrote:
> I think the main reason that we express 'information'  as a logarithmic
function of the number of choices available, n, may be because the human
brain finds it easier to remember (and communicate and reason with)  10
than  100, or 100 than 10. . . . 0, etc.
>

No, this is not the reason.
The correct answer is that Shannon assume the n=0 as possible !!!
Because of this, to avoid dividing by zero he used log(s).
But this is impossible and many years the world works with log(s) not
understanding why !

log(s) is(are) no needed.

It is more clear and easy to work without log(s) :=)

Friendly greetings
Krassimir




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

[Fis] If always n>0 why we need log

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Sung,

A simple question:

If always n>0 why we need log in

I = -log_2(m/n) = - log_2 (m) + log_2(n)   (1)

Friendly greetings

Krassimir


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

Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Mark and FIS Colleagues,

First of all. I support the idea of Mark to write a paper and to publish it in 
IJ ITA.
It will be nice to continue our common work this way.

At the second place, I want to point that till now the discussion on 
Is information physical?
was more-less chaotic – we had no thesis and antithesis to discuss and to come 
to some conclusions.

I think now, the Mark’s letter may be used as the needed thesis.

What about the ant-thesis? Well, I will try to write something below.


For me, physical, structural and mental  are one and the same.

Mental means physical reflections and physical processes in the Infos 
consciousness. I.e. “physical” include “mental”.

Structure (as I understand this concept) is mental reflection of the 
relationships “between” and/or “in” real (physical) entities as well as 
“between” and/or “in” mental (physical) entities.

I.e. “physical” include “mental” include “structural”.

Finally, IF  “information is physical, structural and mental” THEN simply the  
“information is physical”!

Friendly greetings
Krassimir





From: Burgin, Mark 
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 5:20 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

   Dear FISers,
   It was an interesting discussion, in which many highly intelligent and 
creative individuals participated expressing different points of view. Many 
interesting ideas were suggested. As a conclusion to this discussion, I would 
like to suggest a logical analysis of the problem based on our intrinsic and 
often tacit assumptions.

   To great extent, our possibility to answer the question “Is information 
physical? “ depends on our model of the world. Note that here physical means 
the nature of information and not its substance, or more exactly, the substance 
of its carrier, which can be physical, chemical biological or quantum. By the 
way, expression “quantum information” is only the way of expressing that the 
carrier of information belongs to the quantum level of nature. This is similar 
to the expressions “mixed numbers” or “decimal numbers”, which are only forms 
or number representations and not numbers themselves.
 
  If we assume that there is only the physical world, we have, at first, to 
answer the question “Does information exist? “ All FISers assume that 
information exists. Otherwise, they would not participate in our discussions. 
However, some people think differently (cf., for example, Furner, J. (2004) 
Information studies without information).

   Now assuming that information exists, we have only one option, namely, to 
admit that information is physical because only physical things exist.
   If we assume that there are two worlds - information is physical, we have 
three options assuming that information exists:
- information is physical
- information is mental
- information is both physical and mental  

Finally, coming to the Existential Triad of the World, which comprises three 
worlds - the physical world, the mental world and the world of structures, we 
have seven options assuming that information exists:
- information is physical
- information is mental
- information is structural  
- information is both physical and mental  
- information is both physical and structural  
- information is both structural and mental  
- information is physical, structural and mental  
  
The solution suggested by the general theory of information tries to avoid 
unnecessary multiplication of essences suggesting that information (in a 
general sense) exists in all three worlds but … in the physical world, it is 
called energy, in the mental world, it is called mental energy, and in the 
world of structures, it is called information (in the strict sense). This 
conclusion well correlates with the suggestion of Mark Johnson that information 
is both physical and not physical only the general theory of information makes 
this idea more exact and testable.
   In addition, being in the world of structures, information in the strict 
sense is represented in two other worlds by its representations and carriers. 
Note that any representation of information is its carrier but not each carrier 
of information is its representation. For instance, an envelope with a letter 
is a carrier of information in this letter but it is not its representation.
   Besides, it is possible to call all three faces of information by the name 
energy - physical energy, mental energy and structural energy.
   
   Finally, as many interesting ideas were suggested in this discussion, may be 
Krassimir will continue his excellent initiative combining the most interesting 
contributions into a paper with the title
  Is 
information physical?
   and publish it in his esteemed Journal.
   
   Sincerely,
   Mark Burgin


On 5/11/2018 3:20 AM, Karl Javorszky wrote:

  Dear Arturo,  


  There were some reports in clinical psychology, abo

[Fis] INFORMATION IS PROCESSING the reflections

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Colleagues,



During activity of Infos’ consciousness, reflections are combined and as a 
result the new ones may be created and stored in the Infos memory.

Processing of some reflections may cause some activity, too.  



In other words, it doesn't matter what kind of Infos is active – the result is 
the same!



INFORMATION IS PROCESSING the reflections that has as final result an activity 
or new reflections.



Usually, the results of such processing are called “Information”.



Of course, to be active means to be real (material, physical) and to have 
energy for processing.

To store reflections, material objects are needed, i.e. “carriers”.



This is the main interconnection between mater, energy, and information.



No Information exist anywhere – only reflections – REAL, PHYSICAL REFLECTIONS!

Reflections in real, physical objects, including living creatures.

Including Brain!



Main difference between living and not living mater is possibility for 
processing of reflections.



Of course, many levels of such processing exist. 

Maybe, the most complex is the social one. 

Maybe, the simplest one is in the cells... 



Could the Machine process reflections? Still no answer ...

But the Computer can! 



"That's All Folks!" 



Friendly greetings

Krassimir








From: Karl Javorszky 
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 1:20 PM
To: Arturo Tozzi 
Cc: fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] [FIS] Is information physical?

Dear Arturo,  


There were some reports in clinical psychology, about 30 years ago, that relate 
to the question whether a machine can pretend to be a therapist. That was the 
time as computers could newly be used in an interactive fashion, and the Rogers 
techniques were a current discovery.
(Rogers developed a dialogue method where one does not address the contents of 
what the patient says, but rather the emotional aspects of the message, assumed 
to be at work in the patient.)

They then said, that in some cases it was indistinguishable, whether a human or 
a machine provides the answer to a patient's elucidations. 

Progress since then has surely made possible to create machines that are 
indistinguishable in interaction to humans. Indeed, what is called "expert 
systems ", are widely used in many fields. If the interaction is rational,  
that is: formally equivalent to a logical discussion modi Wittgenstein, the 
difference in: "who arrived at this answer, machinery or a human", becomes 
irrelevant. 

Artistry, intuition, creativity are presently seen as not possible to translate 
into Wittgenstein sentences. Maybe the inner instincts are not yet well 
understood. But!: there are some who are busily undermining the current 
fundamentals of rational thinking. So there is hope that we shall live to 
experience the ultimate disillusionment,  namely that humans are a 
combinatorial tautology. 

Accordingly, may I respectfully express opposing views to what you state: that 
machines and humans are of incompatible builds. There are hints that as far as 
rational capabilities go, the same principles apply. There is a rest, you say, 
which is not of this kind. The counter argument says that irrational processes 
do not take place in organisms, therefore what you refer to belongs to the main 
process, maybe like waste belongs to the organism's principle. This view draws 
a picture of a functional biotope, in which the waste of one kind of organism 
is raw material for a different kind. 

Karl 

 schrieb am Do., 10. Mai 2018 15:24:

  Dear Bruno, 
  You state: 
  "IF indexical digital mechanism is correct in the cognitive science,
  THEN “physical” has to be defined entirely in arithmetical term, i.e. 
“physical” becomes a mathematical notion.
  ...Indexical digital mechanism is the hypothesis that there is a level of 
description of the brain/body such that I would survive, or “not feel any 
change” if my brain/body is replaced by a digital machine emulating the 
brain/body at that level of description".

  The problem of your account is the following:
  You say "IF" and "indexical digital mechanism is the HYPOTHESIS".
  Therefore, you are talking of an HYPOTHESIS: it is not empirically tested and 
it is not empirically testable.  You are starting with a sort of postulate: I, 
and other people, do not agree with it.  The current neuroscience does not 
state that our brain/body is (or can be replaced by) a digital machine.
  In other words, your "IF" stands for something that possibly does not exist 
in our real world.  Here your entire building falls down.  


  --
  Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

  giovedì, 10 maggio 2018, 02:46PM +02:00 da Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:


(This mail has been sent previously , but without success. I resend it, 
with minor changes). Problems due to different accounts. It was my first 
comment to Mark Burgin new thread “Is information physical?”.


Dear Mark, Dear Colleagues, 


Apology for not answering the mails in the chronological orders, as 

[Fis] information and energy are separable

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Sung and Francesco,

Information and Energy are not only separable but quite different.

More, the Energy exists without Information.
To create and process Information, Energy is needed.

Please see the next publication with example just from the economics   

ENERGY VERSUS INFORMATION
Krassimir Markov
page 122-125 in:
http://foibg.com/ibs_isc/ibs-31/IBS_ISC-No31-KDS2014.pdf

Friendly greetings
Krassimir





From: Francesco Rizzo 
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2018 10:42 AM
To: Sungchul Ji 
Cc: FIS FIS ; sji.confor...@gmail.com 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Are there 3 kinds of motions in physics and biology?

Caro Sung e cari tutti, 

"I think information and energy are inseparable in reality": è vero anche in 
economia. 


La Parte Terza--Teoria del valore: energia e informazione--  di "Valore e 
valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia o l'economia della scienza" 
(FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1995-1999) è costituita dalle pagine 451-646  contenenti 
questa interessante e significativa problematica. 

Grazie e auguri.

Francesco

2018-05-07 4:08 GMT+02:00 Sungchul Ji :


  Hi FISers,

  I think information and energy are inseparable in reality.  Hence to 
understand what information is, it may be helpful to understand what energy 
(and the associated concept of motion) is.  In this spirit, I am forwarding the 
following email that I wrote motivated by the lecture given by Dr. Grossberg 
this afternoon at the 119th Statistical Mechanics Conference.  In Table 1 in 
the email, I divided particle motions studied in physics and biology into three 
classes -- (i) random, (ii) passive, and (iii) active, and identified the field 
of specialization wherein these motions are studied as (i) statistical 
mechanics, (ii) stochastic mechanics, and (iii) info-statistical mechanics.  
The last term was coined by me in 2012  in [1].  I will be presenting a short 
talk (5 minutes) on Info-statistical mechanics on Wednesday, May 9, at the 
above meeting.   The abstract of the short talk is given below:

  Short talk to be presented at the 119th Statistical Mechanics Conference, 
Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J., May 6-9, 2018).



  Planckian Information may be to Info-Statistical Mechanics what Boltzmann 
Entropy is to Statistical Mechanics. 

  Sungchul Ji, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Ernest Mario School 
of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J. 08854

  Traditionally, the dynamics of any N-particle systems in statistical 
mechanics is completely described in terms of the 6-dimensional phase space 
consisting of the 3N positional coordinates and 3N momenta, where N is the 
number of particles in the system [1]. Unlike the particles dealt with in 
statistical mechanics which are featureless and shapeless, the particles in 
biology have characteristic shapes and internal structures that determine their 
biological properties.  The particles in physics are completely described in 
terms of energy and matter in the phase space but the description of the 
particles in living systems require not only the energy and matter of the 
particle but also their genetic information, consistent with the 
information-energy complementarity (or gnergy) postulate discussed in [2, 
Section 2.3.2].  Thus, it seems necessary to expand the dimensionality of the 
traditional phase space to accommodate the information dimension, which 
includes the three coordinates encoding the amount (in bits), meaning (e.g., 
recognizability), and value (e.g., practical effects) of information [2, 
Section 4.3]. Similar views were expressed by Bellomo et al. [3] and Mamontov 
et al. [4].  The expanded “phase space” would comprise the 6N phase space of 
traditional statistical mechanics plus the 3N information space entailed by 
molecular biology.  The new space (to be called the “gnergy space”) composed of 
these two subspaces would have 9N dimensions as indicated in Eq. (1).  This 
equation also makes contact with the concepts of  synchronic and diachronic 
informations discussed in [2, Section 4.5].  It was suggested therein that the 
traditional 6N-dimensional phase space deals with  the synchronic information 
and hence was referred to as the Synchronic Space while the 3N-dimensional 
information space is concerned with the consequences of history and evolution 
encoded in each particle and thus was referred to as the Diachronic Space.  The 
resulting space was called the gnergy space (since it encodes not only energy 
but also information).  



 Gnergy Space =  6N-D Phase Space  +  3N-D  Information Space   
 (1)

  (Synchronic Space)   
(Diachronic Space) 



  The study of both energy and information was defined as “info-statistical 
mechanics” in 2012 [2, pp. 102-106, 297-301].  The Planckian information of the 
second kind, IPS, [5] was defined as the negative of the binary logarithm of 
the skewness of the long-tailed histogram that f

[Fis] The Information is “Real” but it exists only in the Infos consciousness!

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Jerry,



Your “and so forth” and my “and etc.” have equal meaning, i.e. I did not omit 
anything and have pointed that there are many others. 
For the same purpose I shall use three dots: “...” below. 



Well, of course, we may build many questions using, for instance, the 
construction like given below:



Is

{anti-, auto-,de-,dis-,down-,extra-,hyper-,il-, im-, in-, 
ir-,inter-,mega-,mid-,mis-,non-,over-,out-,post-,pre-,pro-,re-,semi-,sub-,super-,tele-,trans-,ultra-,un-,under-,up-,
 ...}

-form-ation 

{physical, chemical, mechanical, biological, psychological, social, ...} ?



The answer to all these questions is “YES!”



What is important is that the information is “Real” or “Mental” depending of 
Infos and its point of view. 

It is clear, that “Mental” is a kind of “Real”.



This means that:

The Information is “Real” but it exists only in the Infos consciousness!



Only what we have to do is to say explicitly what it is. 

Unfortunately, it could not be done in the frames of specialized information 
theories such as those of Shannon, Semiotics, Linguistics, Artificial 
Intelligence, and etc.



Friendly greetings

Krassimir




From: Jerry LR Chandler 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 3:21 AM
To: fis 
Cc: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] “The information is “Real” or “Mental” depending of point of 
view!”.

List,

  On Apr 28, 2018, at 6:22 AM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:

  The question “Is information physical?” is very important as well as so 
important are the questions “Is information chemical?”, “Is information 
mechanical?”, “Is information electronic?”, and etc. .

  All questions above may be summarized to “Is information real?” and, of 
course, the question “Is information mental?” immediately rises! 

  My answer to all these question is “YES!”.

I am sort of at lost as to the meanings of these assertions. In particular, I 
note that the semiotics of various disciplines is intermingled with the several 
different scientific syntaxes,  semantics and grammars (that is of physics, 
chemistry, mechanics and electronics as well as the omission of biology.) 
One way of examining meaning of these queries is to substitute “parallel  
terms” into the antecedent logical structure and compare the consequences for 
the meaning of the questions.

Consider the following parallel questions where other “form” terms are 
substituted for the term in-form-ation :

Is re-form-ation physical?
Is de-form-ation physical?
Is con-form-ation physical?
Is trans-form-ation physical?

Similarly,
Is re-form-ation chemical?
Is de-form-ation chemical?
Is con-form-ation chemical?
Is trans-form-ation chemical?

And, I add the discipline of biology to the list:
Is re-form-ation biological?
Is de-form-ation biological?
Is con-form-ation biological?
Is trans-form-ation biological?

and so forth.  
Are the answers to these questions also YES? Or, are some answers NO?

Are these questions related to Tarsi’s meta-languages?  (See, Malatesta, The 
Primary Logics)
Are these questions related to Lesniewski’s part-whole logic (merology)?

My answers to these two questions is YES.

Can this these questions lead to a mentation that generates a sharper inquiry 
into the meanings of “forms”?
In particular, how does in-formation differ from other changes of form?

One potential differentiation is the nature of communication according to 
Shannon who  designed an electronic system for communication? His system of 
meaning for information necessarily requires a sender and a receiver.

In contrast to the necessary change of form required by the logic of the terms 
reformation, deformation, conformation and transformation, 
Shannon / electronic information requires that no change of form occurs during 
transmission. 

Indeed, a change in form in a message during transmission is called an error 
(and this difference plays a huge role in Shannon’s theory of communication.)

The open question in my mind is:
Do these questions relate human communication?
Or, are these questions artifacts of the interpretations  of mathematical 
syntaxes?

Or viewed from a different semiotic perspective, can we have a scientific 
theory of the Foundations without incorporating the role of the encoding in 
creating the Shannon transmissible message?

How important is this question for the Foundation of Information Sciences 
(plural)?

Cheers
Jerry













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

[Fis] “The information is “Real” or “Mental” depending of point of view!”.

[Krassimir Markov]

mechanism, all we need to assume to get both mind and 
matter is *any* universal machine or machinery, and then the usual platonic 
epistemological definitions can be used (but they can also be motivated through 
some thought experience). 
For the universal machinery, I use (very) elementary arithmetic, 
because everyone is familiar with them, and can accept that “17 is prime” is 
true independently of them, which would not be the case with ((K K) K) = K in 
combinators theory (generally not known). But we can derive arithmetic, and the 
physical dreams from just very small theories, like

((K x) y) = x
(((S x) y) z) = ((x z) (y z))

(Axioms of the SK-combinators: that is Turing Universal!)

Or, very elementary arithmetic (Peano arithmetic without induction, + 
the predecessor axiom), i.e, classical logic +

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x


That is already a Turing Complete theory.

So information/numbers are independent of the carrier, and the carrier 
becomes only an appearance from some self-referential modes of the universal 
number or “machine”. Pythagorus was right, at least provably so in the frame of 
the Mechanist Hypothesis. Primary Matter is perhaps the last phlogiston of the 
human mind. With mechanism, weak materialism is false, and physics is not the 
fundamental science. The physical reality appearance has a 
*reason*/*explanation* relying on the notion of (Turing) universality.

All the best!

Bruno






  Lou Kauffman
  P.S. With this letter, I reach my quota for the week and will remain 
silent until next Monday.
  If anyone wants a private email conversation, I shall be happy to 
carry on in that fashion.


On Apr 25, 2018, at 2:20 AM, Krassimir Markov  
wrote:

Dear Mark and Colleagues,


 
Very nice “simple question”:  “Is information physical?”

I agree that “letters, electromagnetic waves and actually all 
physical objects are only carriers of information”.

The brain is carrier of information, too. 


 
Now, I think, what we need to clear is another “simple question” 
closely interrelated to yours:


 
Does the information exist without the carrier?


 
In other words, can the color, speed, weigh, temperature, time, 
etc., exist without objects which these characteristics belong to and may be 
measured by other objects. 

To understand more clearly, let see the case of “time”.

Does the time really exist?

Does the time exist without real regular processes which we may 
reflect and compare?

The time is falling drops of water, the movement of the pendulum, 
etc.

One may say, the time is information about all these processes.

OK! But, if these processes do not exist, will we have “time”?


 
I think, we have a question in two interrelated explanations: 

- Is information physical?

- Does the information exist without the carrier?


 
Friendly greetings

Krassimir


From: Burgin, Mark
the movement of the pendulum

falling drops of water

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 4:47 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical?

Dear Colleagues,
I would like to suggest the new topic for discussion
  Is information physical?

My opinion is presented below:


   Why some people erroneously think that information is physical
   
   The main reason to think that information is physical is the 
strong belief of many people, especially, scientists that there is only 
physical reality, which is studied by science. At the same time, people 
encounter something that they call information.
   When people receive a letter, they comprehend that it is 
information because with the letter they receive information. The letter is 
physical, i.e., a physical object. As a result, people start thinking that 
information is physical. When people receive an e-mail, they comprehend that it 
is information because with the e-mail they receive information. The e-mail 
comes to the computer in the form of electromagnetic waves, which are physical. 
As a result, people start thinking even more that information is physical.
   However, letters, electromagnetic waves and actually all 
physical objects are only carriers or containers of information.
   To understand this better, let us consider a textbook. Is 
possible to say that this book 

[Fis] Is information physical? OR Does the information exist without the carrier?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Mark and Colleagues,



Very nice “simple question”:  “Is information physical?”

I agree that “letters, electromagnetic waves and actually all physical objects 
are only carriers of information”.

The brain is carrier of information, too. 



Now, I think, what we need to clear is another “simple question” closely 
interrelated to yours:



Does the information exist without the carrier?



In other words, can the color, speed, weigh, temperature, time, etc., exist 
without objects which these characteristics belong to and may be measured by 
other objects. 

To understand more clearly, let see the case of “time”.

Does the time really exist?

Does the time exist without real regular processes which we may reflect and 
compare?

The time is falling drops of water, the movement of the pendulum, etc.

One may say, the time is information about all these processes.

OK! But, if these processes do not exist, will we have “time”?



I think, we have a question in two interrelated explanations: 

- Is information physical?

- Does the information exist without the carrier?



Friendly greetings

Krassimir

From: Burgin, Mark 
the movement of the pendulum

falling drops of water

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 4:47 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical?

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to suggest the new topic for discussion

  Is information physical?


My opinion is presented below:



   Why some people erroneously think that information is physical

   

   The main reason to think that information is physical is the strong belief 
of many people, especially, scientists that there is only physical reality, 
which is studied by science. At the same time, people encounter something that 
they call information.

   When people receive a letter, they comprehend that it is information because 
with the letter they receive information. The letter is physical, i.e., a 
physical object. As a result, people start thinking that information is 
physical. When people receive an e-mail, they comprehend that it is information 
because with the e-mail they receive information. The e-mail comes to the 
computer in the form of electromagnetic waves, which are physical. As a result, 
people start thinking even more that information is physical.

   However, letters, electromagnetic waves and actually all physical objects 
are only carriers or containers of information.

   To understand this better, let us consider a textbook. Is possible to say 
that this book is knowledge? Any reasonable person will tell that the textbook 
contains knowledge but is not knowledge itself. In the same way, the textbook 
contains information but is not information itself. The same is true for 
letters, e-mails, electromagnetic waves and other physical objects because all 
of them only contain information but are not information. For instance, as we 
know, different letters can contain the same information. Even if we make an 
identical copy of a letter or any other text, then the letter and its copy will 
be different physical objects (physical things) but they will contain the same 
information.

   Information belongs to a different (non-physical) world of knowledge, data 
and similar essences. In spite of this, information can act on physical objects 
(physical bodies) and this action also misleads people who think that 
information is physical.

   One more misleading property of information is that people can measure it. 
This brings an erroneous assumption that it is possible to measure only 
physical essences. Naturally, this brings people to the erroneous conclusion 
that information is physical. However, measuring information is essentially 
different than measuring physical quantities, i.e., weight. There are no 
“scales” that measure information. Only human intellect can do this.

   It is possible to find more explanations that information is not physical in 
the general theory of information. 

Sincerely,
Mark Burgin



On 4/24/2018 10:46 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

  Dear FIS Colleagues,

  A very interesting discussion theme has been proposed by Mark Burgin --he 
will post at his early convenience. 
  Thanks are due to Alberto for his "dataism" piece. Quite probably we will 
need to revisit that theme, as it is gaining increasing momentum in present 
"information societies", in science as well as in everyday life...
  Thanks also to Sung for his interesting viewpoint and references.

  Best wishes to all,
  --Pedro 


 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
- 
   Libre de virus. www.avast.com  


   

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

[Fis] Theory of named sets (TNS) and General Information Theory (GIT)

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Mark and Colleagues,

Thank you for the nice remarks!

The concept “INFOS” had been proposed in the end of 1989.
The second part of the General Information Theory (GIT) is just the “Theory of 
INFOS”.
The are many interesting ideas about INFOS, some of them you have pointed.
Step by step I shall present them in FIS.

The fundamental triad is the very basic concept of the mathematics – remember 
the formula “y=f(x)”. 
It is the very basic model concept, too. 

Especially about your Theory of named sets (TNS) and my Multi-domain 
information model (MDIM) I want to mention:
- both represent the same idea but from different points of view -  TNS is a 
mathematical theory, MDIM is an information theory (for modeling) of the brain 
activities;
- they were invented independently in the same time in the end of seventies of 
last century – the TNS first known (for me) publication is in 1982 in Dushanbe; 
the MDIM (and GIT) first publication was in 1984 in Plovdiv; In 1988, in 
Warsaw, prof. Viktor Policarpovich Gladun had pointed on the similarity and the 
correspondence between TNS and MDIM;
-TNS had been proved by the great number of the MDIM practical realizations;
- now the Resource Definition Framework (RDF) of W3C  is a world accepted 
paradigm for representing Big Data. RDF is based just on triples! MDIM covers 
all possibilities of RDF and respectively – of TNS.

During the years, the GIT had been developed on the fundament of MDIM and on 
the experiments with its practical realizations.  

Friendly greetings
Krassimir





From: Burgin, Mark 
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:42 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

Dear Krassimir and other FISers,

After reading the interesting contribution of Krassimir, I would like to share 
with you some of my impressions and ideas.

I like very much the term INFOS suggested by Krassimir. It’s possible to 
suggest that Krassimir assumed the following definition.
An INFOS is a system functioning (behavior) of which is regulated by 
information.
This definition implies that each INFOS has an information processor. 
Then it is possible to distinguish different categories and types of INFOS. For 
instance:
 INFOS only with acceptors/receptors
 INFOS only with effectors
 INFOS with both acceptors/receptors and effectors
Then it is possible to develop an interesting theory of INFOS. 

At the same time, the difference between reality and consciousness needs 
improvement because what many people mean using the word reality is actually 
only one of the variety of realities, namely, the physical or material reality, 
while consciousness is a part of the mental reality. It is possible to find 
more information about different realities and their interaction in the book 
(Burgin, Structural Reality, 2012). Please, don’t confuse Structural Reality 
with virtual reality.  

One more issue from the interesting contribution of Krassimir, which allows 
further development, is the structure of a model. Namely, the relation (s, e, 
r) between a model s of an entity r forms not simply a triple but a fundamental 
triad, which is also called a named set.

Why this is important? The reason to conceive the structure (s, e, r) as a 
fundamental triad or a named set is that there is an advanced mathematical 
theory of named sets, the most comprehensive exposition of which is in the book 
(Burgin, Theory of Named Sets, 2011), and it is possible to use this 
mathematical theory for studying and using models. For instance, the structure 
from Figure 1 in Krassimir’s letter is a morphism of named sets. Named set 
theory describes many properties of such morphism and categories built of named 
sets and their morphism. The structures from Figure 2 in Krassimir’s letter are 
chains of named sets, which are also studied in named set theory.

To conclude it is necessary to understand that if we want to apply mathematics 
in some area it is necessary to use adequate areas of mathematics. As Roger 
Bacon wrote, All science requires mathematics, but mathematics provides 
different devices that are suited to different input. In this respect, when you 
give good quality grains to a mathematical mill, it outputs good quality flour, 
while if you put the same grains into a mathematical petrol engine, it outputs 
trash.

The theory of named sets might be very useful for information studies because 
named sets and their chains allow adequate reflection of information and 
information processes.
 
Sincerely,
Mark


On 3/11/2018 3:34 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:

   

  Dear Colleagues,



  This letter contains more than one theme, so it is structured as follow:

  - next step in “mental model” explanation;

  - about “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.

   

  1. The next step in “mental model” explanation:

   

  Let remember shortly my letter from 05.03.2018.

   

  To avoid misunderstandings with concepts

[Fis] a short survey on the “mental models”

[Krassimir Markov]

ain. (1995) In Gazzaniga, M.S. (Ed.) The Cognitive 
Neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 999-1008.

[Markov et al, 2007] Kr. Markov, Kr. Ivanova, I. Mitov. Basic Structure of the 
General Information Theory. IJ ITA, Vol.14, No.: 1, 2007. pp. 5-19.

[MMRW, 2018]  Mental Models and Reasoning website (MMRW). 
http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/about/what-are-mental-models/  

[Peirce, 1896], Charles Sanders. Principles of Philosophy, 10. Kinds of 
reasoning, 66. Deduction. page 28 in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders 
Peirce, Volume 1. Harvard University Press, 1931. 1932, 1959, 1960, 1974 - 535 
pages. ISBN 0-674-13800-7. 
https://books.google.bg/books?id=HoRfcRUtpnEC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=%22forms+a+diagram+of+that+state+of+things%22&source=bl&ots=I0XHZ5xFGs&sig=B2TdRiv8dMsgG9ti9fcp79OEDDo&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxgKno0O7ZAhXkYJoKHbBVBa8Q6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=%22forms%20a%20diagram%20of%20that%20state%20of%20things%22&f=false
  ; see also: 
http://wittgensteinrepository.org/agora-ontos/article/viewFile/2200/2462

[Plato, 2002] Plato. The Republic. IDPH. 
http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/republic.pdf 

[Wittgenstein, 1922] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 
translated C. K. Ogden, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & CO., New York: 
Harcourt, Brace & Company,1922 (in English). 
https://monoskop.org/File:Wittgenstein_Ludwig_Tractatus_Logico_Philosophicus_1922.pdf
 ) 








From: Krassimir Markov 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:34 AM
... 
Infos has possibility to reflect the reality via receptors and to operate with 
received reflections in its memory. The opposite is possible - via effectors 
Infos has possibility to realize in reality some of its (self-) reflections 
from its consciousness.

 

The commutative diagram on Figure 1 represents modeling relations. In the frame 
of diagram:

- in reality: real models: s is a model of r, 

- in consciousness: mental models: si is a mental model of ri;

- between reality and consciousness: perceiving data and creating mental 
models:  triple (si, ei, ri) is a mental model of triple (s, e, r).

 

It is easy to imagine the case when the Infos realizes its reflections using 
its effectors, i.e. relation between consciousness and reality: realizing 
mental models and creating data. In this case the receptors’ arrows should be 
replaces by opposite effectors’ arrows. In this case triple (s, e, r) is a 
realization of the mental model (si, ei, ri).

 

 



Figure 1

 

 

After creating the mental model it may be reflected by other levels of 
consciousness. In literature several such levels are described. For instance, 
in [2], six levels are separated for humans (Figure 2). The complexity of Infos 
determines the levels. For instance, for societies the levels are much more, 
for animals with no neo-cortex the levels a less.

 





 
 

Figure 2.   [2]

 

This means that the mental models are on different consciousness levels and 
different types (for instance - touch, audition, vision).

 

In [2], Jeff Hawkins had remarked: “The transformation— from fast changing to 
slow changing and from spatially specific to spatially invariant— is well 
documented for vision. And although there is a smaller body of evidence to 
prove it, many neuroscientists believe you'd find the same thing happening in 
all the sensory areas of your cortex, not just in vision” [2].

 

As it is shown on Figure 2 mental models are in very large range from spatially 
specific to spatially invariant; from fast changing to slow changing; from 
“features” and “details” to objects”.

To be continued...

 

...



Friendly greetings

Krassimir

 

References

[1] Kr. Markov, Kr. Ivanova, I. Mitov. Basic Structure of the General 
Information Theory. IJ ITA, Vol.14, No.: 1, 2007. pp. 5-19.

[2] Hawkins, Jeff (2004). On Intelligence (1st ed.). Times Books. p. 272. ISBN 
0805074562.




_<>


image[1].png
Description: Binary data
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

[Krassimir Markov]

 

Dear Colleagues,



This letter contains more than one theme, so it is structured as follow:

- next step in “mental model” explanation;

- about “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.

 

1. The next step in “mental model” explanation:

 

Let remember shortly my letter from 05.03.2018.

 

To avoid misunderstandings with concepts Subject, agent, animal, human, 
society, humanity, living creatures, etc., in [1] we use the abstract concept 
“INFOS” to denote every of them as well as all of artificial creatures which 
has features similar to the former ones.

 

Infos has possibility to reflect the reality via receptors and to operate with 
received reflections in its memory. The opposite is possible - via effectors 
Infos has possibility to realize in reality some of its (self-) reflections 
from its consciousness.

 

The commutative diagram on Figure 1 represents modeling relations. In the frame 
of diagram:

- in reality: real models: s is a model of r, 

- in consciousness: mental models: si is a mental model of ri;

- between reality and consciousness: perceiving data and creating mental 
models:  triple (si, ei, ri) is a mental model of triple (s, e, r).

 

It is easy to imagine the case when the Infos realizes its reflections using 
its effectors, i.e. relation between consciousness and reality: realizing 
mental models and creating data. In this case the receptors’ arrows should be 
replaces by opposite effectors’ arrows. In this case triple (s, e, r) is a 
realization of the mental model (si, ei, ri).

 

 



Figure 1

 

 

After creating the mental model it may be reflected by other levels of 
consciousness. In literature several such levels are described. For instance, 
in [2], six levels are separated for humans (Figure 2). The complexity of Infos 
determines the levels. For instance, for societies the levels are much more, 
for animals with no neo-cortex the levels a less.

 








 

Figure 2.   [2]

 

This means that the mental models are on different consciousness levels and 
different types (for instance - touch, audition, vision).

 

In [2], Jeff Hawkins had remarked: “The transformation— from fast changing to 
slow changing and from spatially specific to spatially invariant— is well 
documented for vision. And although there is a smaller body of evidence to 
prove it, many neuroscientists believe you'd find the same thing happening in 
all the sensory areas of your cortex, not just in vision” [2].

 

As it is shown on Figure 2 mental models are in very large range from spatially 
specific to spatially invariant; from fast changing to slow changing; from 
“features” and “details” to objects”.

To be continued...

 

2.Aabout “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.

 

The block-chain idea is not new. All forums and mailing lists have the 
possibility to organize incoming messages in internally connected sequences. 
The new is the Bit-coin, i.e. the price for including a message in the sequence 
received after successful solving a difficult task.

 

What we have in FIS are letters’ sequences already created for many years. What 
is needed to start using them is to be strictly when we answer to any letter 
not to change the “Subject” of the letter. The list archive may help us to 
follow the sequences - only what is needed to ask sorting by [ Subject ]. We 
may sort by [ Thread ] [ Subject ] [ Author ] [ Date ]. 

This means that the letter corresponds to the block, and the sequence of 
letters corresponds to the chain. 

 

What about the currency? 

In [3] we had introduced the new concept “Knowledge marked”. It is remembered 
in [4] where the approach for measuring the scientific contributions was 
proposed. It was proposed to use the “paper” as basic measurement unit. Now I 
may say, the paper is our “Sci-coin”. This Sci-coin is convertible to real 
currencies - it is wide accepted the price of a paper to be downloaded as 
pdf-file is about 30-35 EURO or USD.

 

Finally, the paper “Data versus Information” [5] is an example of a FIS 
Sci-coin mined from the letters’ sequences. 

As we had seen, it is not so easy to “mine the Sci-coin”!

 

Friendly greetings

Krassimir

 

References

[1] Kr. Markov, Kr. Ivanova, I. Mitov. Basic Structure of the General 
Information Theory. IJ ITA, Vol.14, No.: 1, 2007. pp. 5-19.

[2] Hawkins, Jeff (2004). On Intelligence (1st ed.). Times Books. p. 272. ISBN 
0805074562.

[3] K. Markov, K. Ivanova, I. Mitov, N. Ivanova, A. Danilov, K. Boikatchev. 
Basic Structure of the Knowledge Market. IJ ITA, 2002, V.9, No.4, pp. 123-134.

[4] Kr. Markov, Kr. Ivanova, V. Velychko, “Usefulness of Scientific 
Contributions”, International Journal “Information Theories and Applications”, 
Vol.20, Number 1, 2013, ISSN 1310-0513 (printed), ISSN 1313-0463 (online), pp. 
4-38.

http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol20/ijita20-01-p01.pdf 

[5] Krassimir Markov, Christophe Menant, Stanley N Salthe, Yixin Zhong,

[Fis] Simple amswer: NOT!

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Alberto,

Let imagine that we are at the naturist beach, i.e. naked.
OK! 
You will see all what I am and I will se the same for you.

Well, will you know what I think or shall I know the same for you?

Simple answer: NOT!

No Data base may contain any data about my current thoughts and feelings.
Yes, the stupid part of humanity may be controlled by big data centers.
But all times it had been controlled. Nothing new.

The pseudo scientists may analyze data and may create tons of papers.
For such “production” there was and will exist corresponded more and more big 
cemeteries.
I had edited more than one thousand papers.
Only several was really very important and with great scientific value !!!

Collection of data is important problem and it will be such for ever.
But the greater problem for humanity is collection of money 

And the last cause the former!
And the last is many times more dangerous than former!

Do not worry of Data-ism!
Be worried of the Money-ism!

I will continue next week because this is my second post  ( Thanks to wisdom of 
Pedro who had limited Writing-letter-ism in our list! ).

Friendly greetings
Krassimir






From: Alberto J. Schuhmacher 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 10:23 PM
To: fis 
Subject: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and 
the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?

Dear FIS Colleagues,

I very much appreciate this opportunity to discuss with all of you.

My mentors and science teachers taught me that Science had a method, rules and 
procedures that should be followed and pursued rigorously and with 
perseverance. The scientific research needed to be preceded by one or several 
hypotheses that should be subjected to validation or refutation through 
experiments designed and carried out in a laboratory. The Oxford Dictionaries 
Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has 
characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic 
observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and 
modification of hypotheses". Experiments are a procedure designed to test 
hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method.

In our case, molecular, personalized and precision medicine aims to anticipate 
the future development of diseases in a specific individual through molecular 
markers registered in the genome, variome, metagenome, metabolome or in any of 
the multiple "omes" that make up the present "omics" language of current 
Biology.

The possibilities of applying these methodologies to the prevention and 
treatment of diseases have increased exponentially with the rise of a new 
religion, Dataism, whose foundations are inspired by scientific agnosticism, a 
way of thinking that seems classical but applied to research, it hides a 
profound revolution.

Dataism arises from the recent human desire to collect and analyze data, data 
and more data, data of everything and data for everything-from the most banal 
social issues to those that decide the rhythms of life and death. “Information 
flow” is one the “supreme values” of this religion. The next floods will be of 
data as we can see just looking at any electronic window.

The recent development of gigantic clinical and biological databases, and the 
concomitant progress of the computational capacity to handle and analyze these 
growing tides of information represent the best substrate for the progress of 
Dataism, which in turn has managed to provide a solid content material to an 
always-evanescent scientific agnosticism.

On many occasions the establishment of correlative observations seems to be 
sufficient to infer about the relevance of a certain factor in the development 
of some human pathologies. It seems that we are heading towards a path in which 
research, instead of being driven by hypotheses confirmed experimentally, in 
the near future experimental hypotheses themselves will arise from the 
observation of data of previously performed experiments. Are we facing the end 
of the wet lab? Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research (and 
the beginning of data-correlation-driven research)?

Deep learning is based on learning data representations, as opposed to 
task-specific algorithms. Learning can be supervised, semi-supervised or 
unsupervised. Deep learning models are loosely related to information 
processing and communication patterns in a biological nervous system, such as 
neural coding that attempts to define a relationship between various stimuli 
and associated neuronal responses in the brain. Deep learning architectures 
such as deep neural networks, deep belief networks and recurrent neural 
networks have been applied to fields including computer vision, audio 
recognition, speech recognition, machine translation, natural language 
processing, social network filtering, bioinformatics and drug design, where 
they have produced results comparable to and in some case

[Fis] “model” and “mental model”

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear FIS Colleagues,



I agree with Joseph and Pedro that: 

“There are no ideal meta-observers; we are all, to a certain extent, both 
meta-observers of the discussion and participants in it. This is not a simple 
vertical hierarchy. We move between these two roles, switching from actualizing 
one to the other.”



What I think is that from point of view of the observed system, object, event, 
etc., it is better to say “external observer” and “internal observer” in 
corresponded cases just because “this is not a simple vertical hierarchy”.



Now, let me continue with little explanation about “model” and “mental model”.



If one will visit the Wikipedia he/she will find series of examples of concept 
“model” [1].



As Marx Wartofsky remarks [2], the concept "model" has been used for denotation 
of the very large class of phenomena: mechanical, theoretical, linguistic, etc. 
constructions. He gave a good definition of the model relation and in [2] he 
made clear the main characteristics of the models. His definition is as follow: 



“

The model relation is triple M: 

M: (S, x, y) 

where "S" is subject for whom "x" represents "y". 

In other words only in this relation and only for the subject "S" the entity 
"x" is a model of the entity "y".

“



The easy but not serious definition of the “mental model” is to say: “it is a 
model in the subject’s consciousness”. 

Again, in Wikipedia, there are several examples [5]. 

This way is not good because it is very difficult to answer the question: who 
is “the subject” in this case? 



So, we need another definition.



In mathematics, a structure on a set, or more generally a type, consists of 
additional mathematical objects that, in some manner, attach (or relate) to the 
set, making it easier to visualize or work with, or endowing the collection 
with meaning or significance. A partial list of possible structures are 
measures, algebraic structures (groups, fields, etc.), topologies, metric 
structures (geometries), orders, events, equivalence relations, differential 
structures, and categories.



Sometimes, a set is endowed with more than one structure simultaneously; this 
enables mathematicians to study it more richly. For example, an order induces a 
topology. As another example, if a set both has a topology and is a group, and 
the two structures are related in a certain way, the set becomes a topological 
group.



Mappings between sets which preserve structures (so that structures in the 
domain are mapped to equivalent structures in the co-domain) are of special 
interest in many fields of mathematics. Examples are homomorphisms, which 
preserve algebraic structures; homeomorphisms, which preserve topological 
structures; diffeomorphisms, which preserve differential structures; [3], and 
the functors which preserve category structures.



To avoid misunderstandings with concepts Subject, agent, animal, human, 
society, humanity, living creatures, etc., in [4] we use the abstract concept 
“INFOS” to denote every of them as well as all of artificial creatures which 
has features similar to the former ones. 



Here we are interested only of three features of Infos: receptors, effectors, 
and memory. Infos has possibility to reflect the reality via receptors and to 
operate with received reflections in its memory. The opposite is possible - via 
effectors Infos has possibility to realize in reality some of its 
(self-)reflections from its consciousness.



If the following diagram exists and if it is commutative, then it represents 
all modeling relations:

- in reality: real models, 

- in consciousness: mental models;

- between reality and consciousness: perceiving data and creating mental models.

It is easy to imagine the case when the Infos realizes its reflections using 
its effectors, i.e. relation between consciousness and reality: realizing 
mental models and creating data. In this case the receptors’ arrows should be 
replaces by opposite effectors’ arrows.





In mathematical terms in diagram above:

― Source “s” and Recipient “r” are structured sets;

― Infos is an intelligent system;

― “e” is a mapping from s in r which preserves (all or partial) structures;

― mental source “si” and mental recipient “ri” are structured sets;

― “ei” is a mapping from si in ri which preserves (all or partial) structures.



Finally, the task of the external observer is to create the diagram above by 
using some experimental data and staying outside the system (consciousness) - 
above the dotted line. 

Respectively, the internal observer does the opposite. The task of the internal 
observer is to create the diagram above by using some (experimental) data and 
staying inside the system (consciousness) – below the dotted line.



Friendly greetings

Krassimir



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model

[2] M.W.Wartofsky. Models. Representation and the Scientific Understanding. 
D.Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht: Holland /Boston: USA, London: 

[Fis] The Giordano's answer !

[Krassimir Markov]

Yes, correct. The right concept is the “external observer” – answered Giordano!

From: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:36 AM
To: Loet Leydesdorff 
Cc: fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?

I know him: his name is God, the meta-observer + meta-actor at the same time. 
Correct, Bruno?
;-)

best,

Plamen






On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Loet Leydesdorff  wrote:

  Dear Pedro, Koichiro, and colleagues,

  At the level of observers, indeed, a hierarchy may be involved for the change 
of focus (although this is empirical  and not necessarily the case). The 
communication, however, as a system different from the communicators may 
contain mechanisms such as "translation" which make it possible to redirect. 

  Best,
  Loet


--

  Loet Leydesdorff 

  Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
  Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

  l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
  Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex; 

  Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing;

  Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck, University of London; 

  http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en



  -- Original Message --
  From: "Koichiro Matsuno" 
  To: fis@listas.unizar.es
  Sent: 3/2/2018 6:41:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?

On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote:

A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the 
focus...  helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command.

   Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of observers 
for our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the concrete 
participants such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing what would 
seem appropriate for them to do without minding what we are observing. At issue 
must be how something looking like a chain of command could happen to emerge 
without presuming such a chain in the beginning. Prerequisite to its emergence 
would be the well-being of each participant taken care of locally, as a 
replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of the origins of life. The 
impending agenda is on something general universal as an object, and yet 
concrete particular enough in process. The richness resides within the 
concreteness down to the bottom. 



   Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from 
computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter. Computation 
upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now points is not 
available to the local participants because of the lack of the physical means 
for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among themselves.



   Koichiro Matsuno








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






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

[Fis] "Mental model" ???

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear colleagues,

I understand that it is not so easy to answer to the simple question.

But the mental models are very important for understanding the information and 
communication phenomena.

So, again the same simple question: What is the “mental model”?

Friendly greetings
Krassimir


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

[Fis] The shadows are real !!!

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Sung,

I like your approach but I think it is only a part of the whole.

1. The shadows are real but only a part of the whole. What is needed is a 
systematic research from what they are part.

2. About the whole now I will use the category theory I have seen you like:

CATA => F => CATB => G => CATC

CATA => H => CATC

F ○ G = H

where

F, G, and H are functors;

CATII Î CAT is the category of information interaction categories;

CATA Î CATII and CATC Î CATII  are the categories of mental models’ categories;

CATB Î CATII  is the category of models’ categories.

Of course, I will explain this in natural language (English) in further posts. 


;

Dear  Karl,
Thank you for your post – it is very useful and I will discus it in further 
posts.
;

Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your nice words. 
Mathematics is very good to be used when all know the mathematical languages.
Unfortunately, only a few scientists are involved in the mathematical 
reasoning, in one hand, and, as the Bourbaki experiment had shown, not 
everything is ready to be formalized. 
How much of FIS members understood what I had written above?
The way starts from philosophical reasoning  and only some times ends in 
mathematical formal explanations.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir








wlEmoticon-smile[1].png
Description: Binary data
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] What is the “mental model”?

[Krassimir Markov]

ll alarm "stop, this is not your way"!

Your brain will compare the "something in consciousness" with incoming 
reflection (data) and as far is the new data to it so unexpected it is.


*** End of conversation ***



The important keyword in this conversation is the concept “model”. Models are 
created by or reflected in the consciousness. 

Because of this, my simple question is:


What is the “mental model”? 


Friendly greetings

Krassimir






From: tozziart...@libero.it 
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 12:42 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es ; Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] The polite and high scientific style of the posts to be 
published in an International Journal are OBLIGATED!


Dear Krassimir, 

There is a misundertanding.

I'm not discussing the quality of the Journal, nor the absence of my name.

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 mantain our firm position, we have been censored.

Il 18 febbraio 2018 alle 23.15 Krassimir Markov  ha scritto:


Dear Arturo,

1. You are not correct and not right!

If it is written as you have seen, it is just as it is!
Three times we kindly asked for permission but no answer.
It is possible that my letters were rejected automatically as spam.
What to do? Only what we could to do was to cite posts and to give links.

In addition, it is impossible to include long posts in a short paper. 
Because of this, they have to be shortened by author (preferred) or by the 
editor.

2. The main result from our work on the paper is clearly summarized in my  
final words in the paper.
No problems, if you could not read them.
My next post next week will remember it.

3. Finally, the paper in not stenographic protocol. 
Not every post is connected to the given theme and it is clear that it could 
not be taken in a short paper.
The theme of discussion for the paper usually is pointed in my “simple 
questions”.

If your posts will concern the discussed theme, please clearly point this.

4. In the next discussion which will start soon, everybody is kindly invited to 
take part and to be included in the future paper.

The polite and high scientific style of the posts to be published in an 
International Journal are OBLIGATED!

Friendly greetings
Krassimir






From: tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 10:58 PM
To: Krassimir Markov ; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] The FIS paper "Data versus Information " is published


Dear, prominent Authors,

You write in this paper: " Several posts are not included in the text below due 
to lack of permission from their authors".

I think that several post were not included in the text just because they were 
too critical against the loose, flabby concepts of information provided in this 
paper.  

Some contributions are very interesting, but others deserve the despising label 
of pseudoscience. 

On the other side, If you provide ELEVEN (more or less, I cannot be sure, I 
counted it, but I lost my attention after the Greeek Gods...) different 
definitions of information, how do you hope to be trusted? 




Forgive me to be honest, but FIS means also harsh discussion!  





Il 18 febbraio 2018 alle 20.49 Krassimir Markov  ha scritto:


Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

I am glad to inform you that the paper which was created by a group of FIS 
members is ready.
It is published with open access in the International Journal “Information 
Theories and Applications”, Volume 24, Number 4, pages 303-321.

The title of the paper is “Data versus Information“.
It contains a small part of FIS discussions but it is representative how 
creative is the FIS society!
Many thanks to authors of the paper – more than three months we work on the 
paper!

Links:
IJ ITA Vol. 24:  http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita-fv24.htm
Direct link to the paper: http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita24-04-p01.pdf

Friendly greetings
Krassimir










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






Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 







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

[Fis] The polite and high scientific style of the posts to be published in an International Journal are OBLIGATED!

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Arturo,

1. You are not correct and not right!

If it is written as you have seen, it is just as it is!
Three times we kindly asked for permission but no answer.
It is possible that my letters were rejected automatically as spam.
What to do? Only what we could to do was to cite posts and to give links.

In addition, it is impossible to include long posts in a short paper. 
Because of this, they have to be shortened by author (preferred) or by the 
editor.

2. The main result from our work on the paper is clearly summarized in my  
final words in the paper.
No problems, if you could not read them.
My next post next week will remember it.

3. Finally, the paper in not stenographic protocol. 
Not every post is connected to the given theme and it is clear that it could 
not be taken in a short paper.
The theme of discussion for the paper usually is pointed in my “simple 
questions”.

If your posts will concern the discussed theme, please clearly point this.

4. In the next discussion which will start soon, everybody is kindly invited to 
take part and to be included in the future paper.

The polite and high scientific style of the posts to be published in an 
International Journal are OBLIGATED!

Friendly greetings
Krassimir






From: tozziart...@libero.it 
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 10:58 PM
To: Krassimir Markov ; fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] The FIS paper "Data versus Information " is published

Dear, prominent Authors,

You write in this paper: " Several posts are not included in the text below due 
to lack of permission from their authors".

I think that several post were not included in the text just because they were 
too critical against the loose, flabby concepts of information provided in this 
paper.  

Some contributions are very interesting, but others deserve the despising label 
of pseudoscience. 

On the other side, If you provide ELEVEN (more or less, I cannot be sure, I 
counted it, but I lost my attention after the Greeek Gods...) different 
definitions of information, how do you hope to be trusted? 


Forgive me to be honest, but FIS means also harsh discussion!  





  Il 18 febbraio 2018 alle 20.49 Krassimir Markov  ha scritto:


  Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

  I am glad to inform you that the paper which was created by a group of FIS 
members is ready.
  It is published with open access in the International Journal “Information 
Theories and Applications”, Volume 24, Number 4, pages 303-321.

  The title of the paper is “Data versus Information“.
  It contains a small part of FIS discussions but it is representative how 
creative is the FIS society!
  Many thanks to authors of the paper – more than three months we work on the 
paper!

  Links:
  IJ ITA Vol. 24:  http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita-fv24.htm
  Direct link to the paper: http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita24-04-p01.pdf

  Friendly greetings
  Krassimir






 

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



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 

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

[Fis] The FIS paper "Data versus Information " is published

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

I am glad to inform you that the paper which was created by a group of FIS 
members is ready.
It is published with open access in the International Journal “Information 
Theories and Applications”, Volume 24, Number 4, pages 303-321.

The title of the paper is “Data versus Information“.
It contains a small part of FIS discussions but it is representative how 
creative is the FIS society!
Many thanks to authors of the paper – more than three months we work on the 
paper!

Links:
IJ ITA Vol. 24:  http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita-fv24.htm
Direct link to the paper: http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita24-04-p01.pdf

Friendly greetings
Krassimir




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

[Fis] there is no need to number every word

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Karl and FIS colleagues,
Yes, the Number Theory is very important basis!
But, I think, there is no need to number every word.
Because ... All words are already numbered  
We have published large monograph named
“Natural Language Addressing” 
where we outlined this idea and presented the mathematical model and computer 
implementation for very large volumes of data (BigData).
One can read it at http://foibg.com/ibs_isc/ibs-33/ibs-33.htm.
The idea is very simple – every letter has its own code and in the computer we 
enter not letters but their codes.
This way every word is a number in any positional numbering system.
It really works!!!
Friendly greetings
Krassimir







From: Karl Javorszky 
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 8:36 PM
To: Stanley N Salthe 
Cc: fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the 
cateogry theory

Using the logical language to understand Nature



The discussion in this group refocuses on the meaning of the terms “symbol”, 
“signal”, “marker” and so forth. This is a very welcome development, because 
understanding the tools one uses is usually helpful when creating great works. 

There is sufficient professional literature on epistemology, logical languages 
and the development of philosophy into specific sub-philosophies. The following 
is just an unofficial opinion, maybe it helps. 



Wittgenstein has created a separate branch within philosophy by investigating 
the structure and the realm of true sentences. For this, he has been mocked and 
ridiculed by his colleagues. Adorno, e.g. said that Wittgenstein had 
misunderstood the job of a philosopher: to chisel away on the border that 
separates that what can be explained and that what is opaque; not to elaborate 
about how one can express truths that are anyway self-evident and cannot be 
otherwise. 

The Wittgenstein set of logical sentences are the rational explanation of the 
world. That, which we can communicate about, we only can communicate about, 
because both the words and what they mean are self-referencing. It is true that 
nothing ever new, hair-raising or surprising can come out of a logical 
discussion modi Wittgenstein, because every participant can only point out 
truths that are factually true, and these have always been true. There is no 
opportunity for discovery in rational thinking, only for an unveiling of that 
what could have been previously known: like an archaeologist can not be 
surprised about a finding, he can only be surprised about himself, how he had 
been able to ignore the possibility of the finding so long.

As the Wittgenstein collection uses only such concepts that are well-defined, 
these concepts can be easily enumerated. In effect, his results show, that if 
one uses well-formulated, clearly defined logical words, the collection of all 
explanations is the solution of a combinatorial problem. This is also the 
reason why he says that his philosophy is just a tool of sharpening the brain, 
and contains nothing whatsoever noteworthy in a semantic fashion.

One may summarise that the pariah state among philosophers that Wittgenstein 
suffered on this his insight, is owed to the conclusion that real philosophy 
has either nothing to do with the grammar of true logical sentences or 
otherwise it is degenerating into a technique outside philosophy, namely number 
theory. If every concept can be represented by a number, and valid sentence are 
those for which the rules that govern numbers are satisfied, then one can work 
with the numbers as such and figure out later for what they stand. 

This is the situation as per today. There is no change whatsoever. The only 
noteworthy development is, that one can indeed teach new tricks to that old 
dog, number theory. The sand that has to be swiped away is the covering layer 
of attitudes that are too clever by half. By keeping the nose not too high, one 
may look before one’s feet and reconsider simple operations that one executes 
by routine.

We know how to sort and how to order, and we are intelligent and flexible 
enough to change priorities if circumstances dictate such. We know how to order 
and how to reorder. If we only had a brain like a computer, we could memorise 
all the patterns that appear as we transform from priority readiness One into 
priority readiness Two. 

There are many opportunities for number theory to jump into action in the field 
of organising and reorganising. As one intensifies one’s hobby of reordering 
the contents of one’s office, one will now have arrived at the concept of 
sequenced groups of elements that change place together during a reorder. 
Cycles that constitute a reorder connect elements with each other. Learning is 
based on the concept of associations. Being an element in the corpus of a cycle 
may well be the formal explanation for a property of being associated with. 

Whether one calls the elements’ {position, amount, sequential place, relation 
to potential successo

[Fis] Idealism and Materialism

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Bruno and FIS Colleagues,

Thank you very much for your useful remarks!

This week I was ill and couldn’t work.
Hope, the next week will be better for work.

Now I want only to paraphrase my post about Idealism and Materialism:

The first is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation exists.

The second is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation does not
exist.

Both are kinds of religions because they could not prove their foundations
by experiments and real examples.

The scientific approach does not believe in anything in advance. The
primary concepts have to be illustrated by series of real examples. After
that the secondary concepts have to be defined and all propositions have
to be proved.

Are the mathematicians materialists or idealists?
Of course neither the first nor the second!

Mathematics is an example of the scientific approach.

Informatics lacks of well established primary concepts.
The concept of information couldn’t be primary because it couldn’t be
illustrated directly by real examples.

We need other primary concepts which will permit us to define information
and to prove all consequences.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir








-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 12:30 PM
To: Foundation of Information Science
Subject: Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles



Dear Krassimir,


On 31 Oct 2017, at 15:07, Krassimir Markov wrote:

> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> Many years ago, in 2011, I had written a special remark about
> scientific
> and non-scientific approaches to try to understand the world around.
> The
> letter of Logan Streondj returns this theme as actual today.
>
> The interrelations between scientific and non-scientific creating and
> perceiving the data and models as well the proper attitude to the
> world
> cultural heritage is one of the main problems to be investigated. The
> world common data bases make possible to exchange data of any kind.
> Some
> data could not be proved easy, some are assumed as "clear". What is
> the
> proper attitude to the ocean of the data we create and perceive? In
> addition, now we have a new phenomenon – artificially created data.
>
>
> The Modern Societies
> 
> Every group of Infoses, people in particular, forms a society if
> there is
> an agreement for communication interactions. An important element of
> this
> agreement is the availability of a common data base.
> We should not picture the data base like a number of drives with a
> certain
> data recorded, although it is the way it has been since the
> beginning – it
> was recorded on clay plates, papyrus, paper, etc. The ability for
> digital
> storage of the data lays the beginnings of the genesis of the “modern
> societies”. It is obvious that, there are as many societies as many
> different data bases exist, and a single Infos could belong to more
> than
> one society.

OK.


>
> The difference between the beliefs and the science
> ---
> Every belief is a totality of models, which are assumed and followed.
> Where is the difference between the belief and the science, which is
> also
> a combination of models to be followed?
> The answer is in the way we perceive these models and the attitude
> to them.
> There are two approaches – a hard and an easy one.
> The easy one is wonderfully described by the motto of the medieval
> theologian Anselm of Canterbury, lately canonized as St. Anselm
> (1033-1109): "Credo, ut intelligam!" (I believe in order to understand
> [St.Anselm]). One has to believe in the model, to understand and
> follow
> it. This is the religious approach – every subjective notion can
> turn into
> a commonly accepted model or dogma, as long as there is someone to
> believe
> in it and follow it implicitly.
> The “difficult” approach is described with the phrase "Intelligo, ut
> credam !" (I understand in order to believe), used by the German
> reformer
> Thomas Muentzer (~1490-1525) [Muentzer]. You have to understand the
> model
> and only after then to trust it if possible. This is the scientific
> approach – every science builds models – hypothesizes, which are
> repeatedly tested before assumed to be true. The scientific approach
> includes a permanent revaluation and improvement of the existing
> models
> according to the permanently changing environment.
> In every society, building and exchanging of models are basic
> activities.
> Whether they are perceived with the “easy” or the “difficult”
> approach is
> a question only of the circumstances, executors and users.
> Keeping in mind the limited abilities of the human brain, we can
> presume
> that the “easy” approach would probably domina

[Fis] mind-mind

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Alex and FIS Colleagues,

Thank you for the nice remark.

I had listen about such hypothesis but till now I had no participate in
any experiment of transferring ideas mind-mind. Maybe you had taken place
in such experiments. Please, give link to publications in scientific
issues about this very interesting phenomenon.

Simple question: If it is possible to transfer ideas mind-mind, why you
use FIS List to send your ideas to us?

Friendly greetings
Krassimir

PS: Unfortunately, this is my second post for this week and I please to
excuse me for answering the next posts after week.



From: Alex Hankey
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:21 PM
To: Krassimir Markov
Cc: FIS Webinar
Subject: Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles

RE: P1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.

M1. Information is a class of reflections in material entities. Not every
reflection is information. Only subjectively comprehended reflections are
information.


ME: Ideas can be transmitted directly from Mind to Mind - as in Rupert
Sheldrake's 7th Sense Communication.
Lots of Quantitative Evidence that Materialists Prefer to Ignore.


The Experience Information model of the Cognitive States shows that such
Information States Are Not Material Entities.
They are based round instabilities in Networks of Neurons.


The ability to model Seventh Sense Communication means that this
phenomenon becomes one of
Four Separate Ways to Generate Empirical Evidence in support of them.


Hence Information is Not Matter or Energy.


This is but one example of how Principles 1 to 5 can be supported.



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

[Fis] About 10 Principles

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Many years ago, in 2011, I had written a special remark about scientific
and non-scientific approaches to try to understand the world around. The
letter of Logan Streondj returns this theme as actual today.

The interrelations between scientific and non-scientific creating and
perceiving the data and models as well the proper attitude to the world
cultural heritage is one of the main problems to be investigated. The
world common data bases make possible to exchange data of any kind. Some
data could not be proved easy, some are assumed as "clear". What is the
proper attitude to the ocean of the data we create and perceive? In
addition, now we have a new phenomenon – artificially created data.


The Modern Societies

Every group of Infoses, people in particular, forms a society if there is
an agreement for communication interactions. An important element of this
agreement is the availability of a common data base.
We should not picture the data base like a number of drives with a certain
data recorded, although it is the way it has been since the beginning – it
was recorded on clay plates, papyrus, paper, etc. The ability for digital
storage of the data lays the beginnings of the genesis of the “modern
societies”. It is obvious that, there are as many societies as many
different data bases exist, and a single Infos could belong to more than
one society.

The difference between the beliefs and the science
---
Every belief is a totality of models, which are assumed and followed.
Where is the difference between the belief and the science, which is also
a combination of models to be followed?
The answer is in the way we perceive these models and the attitude to them.
There are two approaches – a hard and an easy one.
The easy one is wonderfully described by the motto of the medieval
theologian Anselm of Canterbury, lately canonized as St. Anselm
(1033-1109): "Credo, ut intelligam!" (I believe in order to understand
[St.Anselm]). One has to believe in the model, to understand and follow
it. This is the religious approach – every subjective notion can turn into
a commonly accepted model or dogma, as long as there is someone to believe
in it and follow it implicitly.
The “difficult” approach is described with the phrase "Intelligo, ut
credam !" (I understand in order to believe), used by the German reformer
Thomas Muentzer (~1490-1525) [Muentzer]. You have to understand the model
and only after then to trust it if possible. This is the scientific
approach – every science builds models – hypothesizes, which are
repeatedly tested before assumed to be true. The scientific approach
includes a permanent revaluation and improvement of the existing models
according to the permanently changing environment.
In every society, building and exchanging of models are basic activities.
Whether they are perceived with the “easy” or the “difficult” approach is
a question only of the circumstances, executors and users.
Keeping in mind the limited abilities of the human brain, we can presume
that the “easy” approach would probably dominate. Just a small part of the
humanity would be able to build and understand the “difficult” scientific
models. The users will not have the strength to test the models for
themselves so the only option left would be to “believe in order to
understand”.
The role and the importance of particular beliefs in a certain society are
determined by the influence of the people ready to doubt the religious
models, on the others who easily and “blindly” follow the dogmas. Let
remark that in the scientific world the “easy approach” is everyday
practice. We all believe that the scientific works represent proved facts
(maybe by authors). However, who knows? We trust in authorities.

Sometimes we have to doubt!

That is why the background to modern science is in the wisdom of St.
Augustin (354-430):  "Intelligo ut credam, credo ut intelligam!" [St.
Agustin], i.e. it is in the harmony and dialectical unity of the
scientific and beliefs’ approaches [K.Markov, 2008].

Materialism or Idealism
---
Very important theme, raised from letter of Logan Streondj, is about
Idealism and Materialism.
Let note that both are religious approaches but not scientific. The first,
Idealism, is based on belief about existence of God, Free Information
without material base, Intelligent Creation of the World, Information Cube
which is transferred from one body to another, and etc. The second,
Materialism, is based on the opposite belief - all phenomena pointed above
do not exist. But both interconnect their reasoning to these phenomena.

The scientific approach is absolutely different. Scientists do not assume
anything in advance and try to make reasoning based only on repeatable and
controlled experiments.

I hope, the FIS List is a scientific forum and all posts nave to be based
on repeatable and controlled experiments!

About 10 pr

[Fis] The two very important operations of Infos

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Lou, Bruno, and FIS Colleagues,

Thank you for nice and polite comments to my post about “Barber paradox”.

First of all, the main idea of the post was not to solve any paradox but
to point two very important operations of Infos:
- Direct reflection;
- Transitive (indirect) reflection.
There are no other ways for Infos to collect data from environment.

Second, the example with paradox had shown the well known creative
approach in the modeling - adding new dimensions in the model could help
to better understand the modeling object or process. For instance:

If our linear model contains a “paradox” point  “X”:

//X//

by adding a new second dimension it may be explained and the paradox would
be solved:

  \
/
-
//X//


Friendly greetings
Krassimir


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

[Fis] Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

It is time for my second post this week.

First of all I am glad to participate in such very interesting discussion!

Thank you for the nice posts.

More than 25 years ago, working on the new theory, I had to solve the
problem with concept of entity which has information activity. There were
many candidates for such concept: “robot”, “agent”, “intelligent agent”,
“interpreter”, “subject”, “information subject”, “intelligent subject”,
etc. Every such concept had its own history and many domains of meanings
which caused many misunderstandings.
In the same time, if one had a single meaning then it couldn’t be applied
to all entities with information activity. For instance, concept “robot”
is not good to be used for a human.

Because of this, we had proposed a new word: “INFOS”, which had no meaning
in advance and may be defined freely without misunderstandings. I shall
use it in my further posts.

I do not want to define it now. Step by step its meaning will arise from
what I shall write. In many discussions till now, I had seen that this
approach is the best way to introduce a new concept.

***

I want specially to thank Bruno for his post from 18.10.2017 about
“Self-reference”!

For me, it is very important it to be analyzed. I shall do this on the
basis of an example.

Not all kinds of self-reference concern information activity and Infos.
But, if at least one case exists, then we have to analyze it.

Such case, for instance, is the Barber paradox: A barber (who is a man)
shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave
himself?

This paradox exists only in “3D” mathematical world based on triad
 (x, y, f)
or, in other writings: (x, f, y), y=f(x), etc.
(there are several nice publications of Mark Burgin about triads !).

I.e. paradox exists only if we ignore the fact that the Barber is a human.

The paradox could not exist in the “4D” world of informatics where we have
quadruple (x, y, f, I) or, in other words, for Infos “I”, “y” is
information about “x” because of evidence “f”.

What is happen when the Barber shaves someone?

At the first place, it is a direct collecting, by eyes, the data about the
place where the razor has to be put to shave.

Have you ever seen a Blind barber?

NO! OK, this is a fundamental condition.

Not only Barber, but every human COULD NOT DIRECTLY COLLECT DATA about
his/her face, head, or back.

In another case, for instance, we have to have eye on the end of the nose
which has to be as long as the elephant trunk!

This means: the barber cannot shave himself because he could not see where
to put the razor!

But every man can shave his beard! How he can do it?
Of course, everyone will say, by using a mirror!

But this is NOT DIRECT REFLECTION (data collecting).
It is TRANSITIVE SELF-REFLECTION via mirror!

Who does the barber shave: himself or the man in the mirror?

Of course, the second!!! Barber puts the razor on his own beard and this
way he shaves the man in the mirror.

The Barber paradox does not exist if we take in account that the barber is
a human (a kind of Infos) and needs data.

So, the answer of the question “Does he shave himself?“ is NO!, he
doesn’t, he shaves the man in the mirror who do not shave himself because
the razor is in the hand of barber and no paradox exists.

Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?

Friendly greetings
Krassimir




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

[Fis] Two simple questions with simple answers

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

We have two simple questions with simple answers.

The first was mine: What is “Agent”?

The second is from Jeremy Sherman:
"Can members remember a time when they experienced a fundamental shift in
their assumptions, methodology or questions through interactions on this
list?"

The answer to Jeremy is simple - I think, nobody can!

It is practically impossible to fix such moments. Such shift is result
from complex and longtime work. But in the same time, especially for me,
many small remarks I have done in the list helped me to improve my theory.
I am very thankful to all colleagues for this support!

To have friendly auditory where one may approbate his/her ideas is GREAT
CHANCE!!! I am happy to be part of FIS!

The question about concept “agent” was aimed to point that it is not good
for using in concrete information theory without special shortening of its
meaning. Let see, for instance, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agent,
(© 2017 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated):

Definition of AGENT (First Known Use: 15th century):
1: one that acts or exerts power
2
a): something that produces or is capable of producing an effect :an
active or efficient cause
•   Education proved to be an agent of change in the community.
b): a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle
•   an oxidizing agent
3: a means or instrument by which a guiding intelligence achieves a result
4: one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another: such as
a): a representative, emissary, or official of a government
•   crown agent
•   federal agent
b): one engaged in undercover activities (such as espionage) :SPY
•   a secret agent
c): a business representative (as of an athlete or entertainer)
•   a theatrical agent
5: a computer application designed to automate certain tasks (such as
gathering information online)

I prefer to use more abstract concepts “Entity”, “Object”, and “Subject”.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir







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

[Fis] What is “Agent”?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

After nice collaboration last weeks, a paper Called “Data versus
Information” is prepared in very beginning draft variant and already is
sent to authors for refining.
Many thanks for fruitful work!

What we have till now is the understanding that the information is some
more than data.
In other words:
 d = r
 i = r + e
where:
 d => data;
 i => information;
 r => reflection;
 e => something Else, internal for the Agent (subject, interpreter,
etc.).

Simple question: What is “Agent”?

When an entity became an Agent? What is important to qualify the entity as
Agent or as an Intelligent Agent? What kind of agent is the cell? At the
end - does information exist for Agents or only for Intelligent Agents?

Thesis: Information exists only for the Intelligent Agents.

Antithesis: Information exists at all levels of Agents.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir





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

[Fis] I agree with your considerations.

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Yixin, Sung, Terry, Mark, and FIS Colleagues,

I agree with your considerations!

Let me remark that the General Information Theory is much more than a
single concept. You have seen that I have some answers in advance due to
already developed theory.

What is important now is to finish this step and after that to continue
with the next. It may be just the idea about meaning.

What we have till now is the understanding that the information is some
more than data. In other words:

d = r
i = r + e

where:

d => data;
i => information;
r = > reflection;
e => something Else, internal for the subject (interpreter, etc.).

I need a week to finish our common with you current publication and to
send it to co-authors for final editing and after that for reviewing.

Dear Sung, Terry, and Mark, if you agree and give me the permissions, I
shall include your considerations in the end of the paper in the point
"Future work" and shall include you in the co-authors of the paper.

My next (second) post will be at the end of week.

Thank you very much for your great effort!

Friendly greetings
Krassimir



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

[Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

[Krassimir Markov]

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, 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 week
connected to my question about data and information. For this goal, below
I 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's
derivation 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 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 varies". 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.”

Karl Javorszky:
“Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what we
do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it is
the background to that what we see by using the eyes.
Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by the
information, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhalt
and Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ and
context /relationships/)”.


Dai Griffiths:
“I'm curious about your use of the word 'dualistic'. Dualism usually
suggests that there are two aspects to a single phenomenon. As I interpret
your post, you are saying that information and meaning are separate
concepts. Otherwise, we are led to inquire into the nature of the unity of
which they are both aspects, which gets us back where we started.
So I interpret 'dualistic' here to mean 'two concepts that are intertwined
in the emergence of events'. Is this parallel to, for example, atomic
structure and fluid dynamics (perhaps there are better examples)? If so,
does that imply a hierarchy (i.e. you can have information without
meaning, 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 notion
of information at the start, I would agree whole heartedly with your post.
I claim that physical information is general, while semantic information
is merely a subset of physical information.  Semantic information is
composed of kinds of physical contrasts to which symbolic meaning has been
attached.  Meaningfulness cannot exist in the absence of physical
contrast, but physical information can exist independently of sensation,
perception, cognition, and contextual theory.”

Jose Javier Blanco Rivero:
“What is information at some stage of the process becomes data on other.”

Loet Leydesdorff:
"Data" is "given" or "revealed" by God.
The search for an intuitive definition of information has led to unclear
definitions. In a recent book, Hidalgo (2015, at p. 165), for example, has
defined “information” with reference “to the order embodied in codified
sequences, such as those found in music or DNA, while knowledge and
knowhow refer to the ability of a system to process information.” However,
codified knowledge can be abstract

[Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear John and FIS Colleagues,

I am Computer Science specialist and I never take data to be information.

For not specialists maybe it is normal "data to be often taken to be
information" but this is not scientific reasoning.

Simple question: if "data = information", why we need both concepts?


Friendly greetings

Krassimir


Dear list,


As Floridi points out in his Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010. A volume for the Very Short Introduction series. data is often taken
to be information. If so, then the below distinction is somewhat
arbitrary. It may be useful or not. I think that for some circumstances it
is useful, but for others it is misleading, especially if we are trying to
come to grips with what meaning is. I am not sure there is ever data
without interpretation (it seems to me that it is always assumed to be
about something). There are, however, various degrees and depths of
interpretation, and we may have data at a more abstract level that is
interpreted as meaning something less abstract, such as pointer readings
of a barometer and air pressure. The pointer readings are signs of air
pressure. Following C.S. Peirce, all signs have an interpretant. We can
ignore this (abstraction) and deal with just pointer readings of a
particular design of gauge, and take this to be the data, but even the
pointer readings have an important contextual element, being of a
particular kind of gauge, and that also determines an interpretant. Just
pointer readings alone are not data, they are merely numbers (which also,
of course, have an interpretant that is even more abstract.

So I think the data/information distinction needs to be made clear in each
case, if it is to be used.

Note that I believe that there is information that is independent of mind,
but the above points still hold once we start into issues of observation.
My belief is based on an explanatory inference that must be tested (and
also be useful in this context). I believe that the idea of mind
independent information has been tested, and is useful, but I am not going
to go into that further here.


Regards,

John

PS, please note that my university email was inadvertently wiped out, so I
am currently using the above email, also the alias coll...@ncf.ca If
anyone has wondered why their mail to me has been returned, this is why.




On 2017/09/30 11:20 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear Christophe and FIS Colleagues,

I agree with idea of meaning.

The only what I would to add is the next:

There are two types of reflections:

1. Reflections without meaning called DATA;

2. Reflections with meaning called INFORMATION.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir


----------
Krassimir Markov
Director
ITHEA Institute of Information Theories and Applications
Sofia, Bulgaria
presid...@ithea.org
www.ithea.org





Dear FISers,


A hot discussion indeed...
We can all agree that perspectives on information depend on the context.
Physics, mathematics, thermodynamics, biology, psychology, philosophy, AI,
...

But these many contexts have a common backbone: They are part of the
evolution of our universe and of its understanding, part of its increasing
complexity from the Big Bang to us humans.
And taking evolution as a reading grid allows to begin with the simple.
As proposed in a previous post, we care about information ONLY because it
can be meaningful.  Take away the concept of meaning, the one of
information has no reason of existing.
And our great discussions would just not exist. 
Now, Evolution + Meaning => Evolution of meaning. As already highlighted
this looks to me as important in principles of IS.
As you may remember that there is a presentation on that subject
(http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/211,
https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2)
The evolution of the universe is a great subject where the big questions
are with the transitions: energy=> matter => life => self-consciousness =>
...
And I feel that one way to address these transitions is with local
constraints as sources of meaning generation.
Best

Christophe



De : Fis  de la part de
tozziart...@libero.it 
Envoyé : vendredi 29 septembre 2017 14:01
À : fis
Objet : Re: [Fis] Principles of IS

Dear FISers,
Hi!
...a very hot discussion...
I think that it is not useful to talk about Aristotle, Plato and Ortega y
Gasset, it the modern context of information... their phylosophical, not
scientific approach, although marvelous, does not provide insights in a
purely scientific issue such the information we are talking about...

Once and forever, it must be clear that information is a physical quantity.
Please read (it is not a paper of mine!):
Street S.  2016.  Neurobiology as information physics.  Frontiers in
Systems neuroscience.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108784/

In short, Street shows how information can be clearly defined in terms of

Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Christophe and FIS Colleagues,

I agree with idea of meaning.

The only what I would to add is the next:

There are two types of reflections:

1. Reflections without meaning called DATA;

2. Reflections with meaning called INFORMATION.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir


--
Krassimir Markov
Director
ITHEA Institute of Information Theories and Applications
Sofia, Bulgaria
presid...@ithea.org
www.ithea.org





Dear FISers,


A hot discussion indeed...
We can all agree that perspectives on information depend on the context.
Physics, mathematics, thermodynamics, biology, psychology, philosophy, AI,
...

But these many contexts have a common backbone: They are part of the
evolution of our universe and of its understanding, part of its increasing
complexity from the Big Bang to us humans.
And taking evolution as a reading grid allows to begin with the simple.
As proposed in a previous post, we care about information ONLY because it
can be meaningful.  Take away the concept of meaning, the one of
information has no reason of existing.
And our great discussions would just not exist. 
Now, Evolution + Meaning => Evolution of meaning. As already highlighted
this looks to me as important in principles of IS.
As you may remember that there is a presentation on that subject
(http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/211, 
https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2)
The evolution of the universe is a great subject where the big questions
are with the transitions: energy=> matter => life => self-consciousness =>
...
And I feel that one way to address these transitions is with local
constraints as sources of meaning generation.
Best

Christophe



De : Fis  de la part de
tozziart...@libero.it 
Envoyé : vendredi 29 septembre 2017 14:01
À : fis
Objet : Re: [Fis] Principles of IS

Dear FISers,
Hi!
...a very hot discussion...
I think that it is not useful to talk about Aristotle, Plato and Ortega y
Gasset, it the modern context of information... their phylosophical, not
scientific approach, although marvelous, does not provide insights in a
purely scientific issue such the information we are talking about...

Once and forever, it must be clear that information is a physical quantity.
Please read (it is not a paper of mine!):
Street S.  2016.  Neurobiology as information physics.  Frontiers in
Systems neuroscience.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108784/

In short, Street shows how information can be clearly defined in terms of
Bekenstein entropy!

Sorry,
and BW...


Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2­Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.w­ebnode.it/


--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

venerdì, 29 settembre 2017, 01:31PM +02:00 da Rafael Capurro
raf...@capurro.de:


Dear Pedro,

thanks for food for thought. When talking about communication we should
not forget that Wiener defines cybernetics as "the theory of messages"
(not: as the theory of information) (Human use of human beings, London
1989, p. 15, p. 77 "cybernetics, or the theory of messages" et passim)
Even for Shannon uses the (undefined) concept of message 'as' what is
transmitted (which is not information) is of paramount importance. And so
also at the level of cell-cell communication.

The code or the difference message/messenger is, I think, a key for
interpreting biological processes. In this sense, message/messanger are
'archai' (in the Aristotelian) sense for different sciences (no
reductionism if we want to focus on the differences between the
phenomena). 'Archai' are NOT 'general concepts' (as you suggest) but
originating forces that underline the phenomena in their manifestations
'as' this or that.

From this perspective, information (following Luhmann) is the process of
interpretation taking place at the receiver. When a cell, excuse me these
thoughts from a non-biologist, receives a message transmitted by a
messenger, then the main issue is from the perspective of the cell, to
interpret this message (with a special address or 'form' supposed to
'in-form' the cell) 'as' being relevant for it. Suppose this
interpretation is wrong in the sense that the message causes death (to the
cell or the whole organism), then the re-cognition system (its immune
system also) of the cell fails. Biological fake news, so to speak, with
mortal consequences due to failures in the communication.

best

Rafael

Dear FISers,

I also agree with Ji and John Torday about the tight relationship between
information and communication. Actually Principle 5 was stating :
"Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie
the complexity of biological organizations at all scales." However, let me
suggest that we do not enter immediately in the discus

Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

I agree with you that:

“Nevertheless,  the three blocks (info per se, bioinfo, ecology of
knowledge) seem to allow some fertile conjugation inside/outside... but
the problem remains...”

I think, these blocks are the three main categories of IS – “Information”,
“Information Subject”, and “Information Interaction”.

Further we may discuss the details, but, I hope, we may try to accept
these categories as very beginning foundation.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir




Krassimir Markov
Director
ITHEA Institute of Information Theories and Applications
PO Box 775, Sofia 1000, Bulgaria
presid...@ithea.org
www.ithea.org




From: Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 3:20 PM
To: 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fwd: PRINCIPLES OF IS

Dear FISers,

Taking seriously the idea of information principles, quite probably
demands a specific discussion on principles. Why do we need "principles"
at all? Because of our cognitive limitations. An infinite intellect would
traverse all spans of knowledge without any discontinuity--presumably. In
our collective scientific enterprise, however, we create special
disciplines in order to share understandable discourses between the
limited individuals of each thought-collective. As knowledge accumulates
and gets more and more complex, particularly in the encounter with other
discourses, the growing epistemic distances fragment the original
discipline, and a new subdiscipline becomes necessary. It starts then a
fresh new discourse, with its own principles. In my brief mention of
Ortega, what he accuses Leibnitz is that being the champion of principles
in science, he becomes fragmentary and asystematic in his
meta-scientific/philosophical "mode of thinking": the hypersystematic
expresses himself fragmentarily (Ortega dixit). It is curious that along
the survey of principles in Ortega's book, the most frequent interlocutor
is not Leibnitz, but Aristotle! Although Husserl, Heidegger, Descartes,
Pappus, Plato, Suarez, Spinoza... and some others big names also appear,
his main concern (to my taste) is discussing Aristotle's view of
specialized disciplines starting from their respective principles,
empirically-sensuously obtained and "uncommunicated" in between the
different fields. It is very intriguing.

If the principles of different disciplines are factually uncommunicated, 
the info science view of a new body of knowledge running across all scales
is caught into a difficult "principled" position. Nevertheless,  the three
blocks I distinguished (info per se, bioinfo, ecology of knowledge) seem
to allow some fertile conjugation inside/outside... but the problem
remains. I think it is solvable, as in our times there is a central
element that allows a whole new scientific discourse on information. The
dense relationship between life and information has nowadays acquired a
formidable empirical  background, leveraged by the most basic
disciplines--physics, chemistry, computer science, and biology itself.


More concretely, the notion of the "information flow" can almost be
sketched properly, both in its signaling textures and in the fundamental
relationship with the life cycle--and not very differently along the
evolutionary process. Thereafter, recombination appears as one of the
fundamental emergences in the growing complexity of the evolving
information dynamics around life cycles and information/energy flows. The
recombination phenomenon happens for the knowledge-stocks of cells,
nervous systems, enterprises, sciences-technologies-cultures... It
accumulates amazing combinatoric, topological, dynamic, and closure
properties in the different realms, flowing up and down among scales,
multidimensionally, and maintaining afloa the whole game of adaptive
existences.

Our disciplines may apparently work by themselves, autonomously, but
actually they do not. Rather than "on top", they work "on tap". They
endlessly recombine in the ecology of knowledge, differently for each
problem and for each occasion, creating new theoretical and applied
subdisciplines in the thousands. Information science has to shed light on
that fundamental factor of contemporary societies. And more
"psychologically" this discipline has to put LIFE, both individual life
and social life, at the very center of the sharing of meaning. A new way
of thinking starting from specific information principles will liberate
our limited intellects to more creative endeavors. It is time to quote
Whitehead: "Civilization advances by extending the number of important
operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of
thought are like cavalry charges in a battle —they are strictly limited in
number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive
moments."


Best wishes--Pedro


El 20/09/2017 a las 17:46, Michel G

[Fis] INFORMATION: A RECOGNIZED STATE OF MATTER

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro, Arturo, Michel, and FIS Colleagues,

First of all, friendly greetings to everybody for the new FIS Season!
It is nice to meet all of you again in the FIS List  – alive and, I hope,
healthy as it is possible!

Energy and the Matter ARE ONE AND THE SAME!
Let remember the Great Albert's formula:

E=m*C*C

which means that the Energy and the Matter are two sides of one coin.

What about the information?
Why Einstein did not mentioned it in his theories?

The answer is simple – the information is a kind of material reflection
and could not be separated from the matter.

Of course, if one believes in God, it could, but we already have discussed
this ...

Because of this, the First principle is not good!
I do not agree, that: 1. Information is information, neither matter nor
energy.

Information is a state of matter which may be recognized by the (live)
subject.

Let see two examples:

CASE 1: About the relativity of concepts and importance to have common
understanding at least of the main concepts

Once upon the time, a man entered in a restaurant and asked the waiter:
- Please, give me a portion of fried information, processed following the
algorithm of John Montagu.
- OK, Sir! What kind of information you prefer – primary or secondary? –
answered the waiter.
- Secondary, please!
- Sir, can you make more clear what you mean when say “secondary”? The
problem is that nobody knows what information is primary and what –
secondary, and we always have difficulties.
-  I don’t know!  Give me both...
What the man received ?

CASE 2: The information is NOT mathematical concept

2x+2x=5x
Is it true?

ANSWERS:

CASE 1:

John Montagu had been the 4th Earl of Sandwich.
The man received a sandwich with fried egg and one with fried chicken.


CASE 2:

YES!

Please see the scheme below – two rectangles + two rectangles = five
recognized rectangles!


  -
- -   |   |   |
|   |   |+|   |   |   =   +
- -   |   |   |
  -




At the end, let me inform you about one our paper published in the
International Journal INFORMATION THEORIES & APPLICATIONS, VOLUME 24,
NUMBER 2, 2017; pages 103-114:

Comparison Software Systems Based on Information Quality Measuring
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita24-02-p01.pdf

In this paper we outlined how GIT can be used for solving practical problems.
And, maybe, in it, one may find the basis of my words above...

Respectfully yours
Krassimir






From: tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:16 PM
To: Pedro C. Marijuan ; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

Dear FISers,
I'm sorry for bothering you,
but I start not to agree from the very first principles.

The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is
mathematics.
Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through
entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).

And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is
subjective and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been
already tackled by the math of physics: science already predicts that
information can be "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both
relativity and quantum dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY
physical context of matter and energy.

Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on
the basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information
becomes metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with
doubtful possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of
math).




Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/





Messaggio originale
Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
A: "fis"
Ogg: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS

Dear FIS Colleagues,

As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple
of previous comments may be in order.
First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was
motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea
of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory"
(posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information science seems
to be very different from other sciences, rather multifarious in
appearance and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What
could be the specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening
homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these information
principles would appear as a sort of "portals" that connect with essential
topics of other disciplines in the different organization layers, but at
the same time they

Re: [Fis] Informatist Information Science

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Xueshan,

Thank you for your very great work I have chance to see now.
Maybe it will be possible to read all your book “Information Science: Concept, 
System and Perspective” in the near future.

Unfortunately, now I have no possibilities to answer with the same coin – but 
in the future I will try to do this.

Now we are preparing the Jubilee 
GIT 2017, the XV-th International Conference on General Information Theory 
(GIT) ( http://www.ithea.org/conferences/ITA2017/2017git.htm ) .

It will be part of no less Jubilee
I T A   2 0 1 7,  XX-th Joint International Scientific Events on I N F O R M A 
T I C S ( http://www.ithea.org/conferences/itaf2017.htm ). 

In addition, I am working on the Workshop on General Information Theory, which 
will be organized in the frame of
ISSI 2017, XI-th International Summer School on Informatics 
(http://www.ithea.org/conferences/ITA2017/2017issi.htm).

Because of this, I shall point only one very important aspect:

Our understanding is just the opposite of those of Wheeler's“It from Bit”!
The GIT is based on proposition that “Information is from everything”or “Bit 
from It”!!!

What is important, too, is that all information theories have its place in the 
science and may be explained and understood on the basis of GIT.

This position we had fixed in the name or our International Journal 
“Information Theories and Applications”established in 1993 !  
(http://www.foibg.com/ijita/)
The name ITHEA is abbreviation from “Information Theories and 
Applications”(http://www.ithea.org/index.html).
In 2002 we had established the Institute of Information Theories and 
Applications “ITHEA”  (http://www.ithea.org/institute/institute.html).
One more jubilee! 


Friendly greetings
Krassimir





From: Xueshan Yan 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:55 AM
To: Joseph Brenner ; Rafael Capurro ; Pedro C. Marijuán ; Wolfgang Hofkirchner 
; Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic ; Terrence Deacon ; Søren Brier ; Bob Logan ; Moisés 
A. Nisenbaum ; John Collier ; Karl Javorszky ; Krassimir Markov ; Loet 
Leydesdorff ; Alex Hankey ; Nikhil Joshi ; Osamu Sakura ; David Chapman ; 
Konstantin Kolin ; Yurii Volkov ; Vasja Vehovar ; Wojciech Szpankowski ; Tom 
Siegfried ; Julie Ruth ; Qing Gao ; Yan Jiyi ; Zhong Yixin 
Subject: Informatist Information Science

Dear Joseph & Rafael, Dear All,

 

Artificial Intelligence age. I have the Google Translation translate a chapter 
(Chapter 13 - Does Everything Come from Information?) excerpted from my book, I 
hope this effort could play a little reference to Joseph and Rafael for your 
lasting interests in Chinese classics and the consideration of their 
relationship with Information Science, please enjoy it.

 

A machine translation version plus my minor corrections, full of mistakes, of 
course. References omitted.

 

 

Best wishes, 

 

Xueshan

30 March, 2017

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

Re: [Fis] planckian information

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Sung, Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

I think we all time discuss the same very important topic, but from different 
points of view.

Planckian distribution equation (PDE) is a very important step. 

In the paper of SUNGCHUL JI :
“PLANCKIAN INFORMATION (IP): A NEW MEASURE OF ORDER IN ATOMS, ENZYMES, CELLS, 
BRAINS, HUMAN SOCIETIES, AND THE COSMOS”
http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vigier9.pdf  

is pointed that:

“
The Planckian information, IP, which (i) may be a new measure of order that can 
be applied widely to both natural and human sciences and (ii) can serve as the 
opposite of the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy, S, which is a measure of disorder.
...
More generally "information" can be defined as the correlation between the 
source (or the 'object' in the language of Peircean semiotics) and the receiver 
('interpreter') of a communication system. The message carried by the messenger 
('sign' or 'representation') in the communication system can be identified with 
"information". The net result of such a mediated process can be described as 
the 'information flow' from the source to the receiver.
Just as the Peircean sign is an irreducible triad (i.e., it cannot be defined 
without all of the 3 nodes, i.e., object, representation, and interpreter [2, 
see Row 6 in Table V] , connected by the three edges representing 'natural 
process', 'mental process', and 'information flow', so I maintain that 
'information' is another "irreducible triad" (of source, messenger, and 
receiver).
“

This means that again we cannot take in account differed 'interpreters' – what 
is an information for one may be not information for the another.

Because of this, in General information Theory, the information is defined as 
quadruple:
I = (source, messenger, evidence, receiver).

In all cases, the interpreter is an intelligent agent who may evaluate incoming 
messages and corresponded evidences!  

I like idea of the Unified Theory of the Amount of Information (UTAI) but, as 
it is pointed in the paper above, we need more:

“
Many investigators have suggested that information has three distinct aspects 
–(i) quantity, (ii) meaning, and (iii) value. It is important to keep in mind 
that UTAI can only deal with the AMOUNT of information, not its meaning nor its 
value.
...
The UTAI may be considered as the 'quantitative functor' connecting the 
mathematical aspects of communication, and I predict that there is the 
'qualitative functor' (in agreement with the assumed principle of 
quantity-quality complementarity [30]) that connects the qualitative aspects of 
communication and semiotics. This predicted qualitative functor may be 
identified with natural and formal languages, both of which belonging to the 
class of the irreducible triad (see Fig. 27).
“

The “evidence” or, in other words, “information expectation”, maybe corresponds 
to the qualitative functor but I have no idea how we can extend UTAI in such 
direction. 

Friendly regards
Krassimir






From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:26 PM
To: 'fis' 
Subject: [Fis] planckian information

Dear FISers,

quite many things have been said these days about our "family ghosts". Everyone 
has a different opinion on the under-information matter, and maybe that's 
healthy. Personally I have not changed very much the vision with which FIS was 
started many years ago. See in the descriptive text 
(http://fis.sciforum.net/about-fis/):  "...At FIS, rather than the discussion 
of a single particularized concept, information becomes the intellectual 
adventure of developing a ‘vertical’ or ‘transdisciplinary’ science connecting 
the different threads and scales of informational processes, which demands both 
a unifying and a multi-perspective approach..."

With time my impression, already expressed in this list, is that there is a 
fundamental hiatus in our conceptions around biological information so that a 
meaningful connection with the several infos of the physical realm, and the 
miscellany of humanities can not be worked out. In a couple of recent 
discussions I was close to see with more clarity the problem, but again I feel 
blurred. It does not mean at all that I have an abandonment attitude. 
Conversely I think we are getting closer and closer. The fundamental fact of 
our generation is the stupendous new panorama that computers and the new 
technologies have opened on life, from the bioinformatics to the neurodynamics 
and the "topodynamics". To say something more concrete the big problem I see is 
how to enter the LIFE CYCLE as the generalized source and sink of the 
information flows.

And then the Planckian Information theme presented by our new colleague Sung 
looks quite intriguing. Why most of these information flows and energy flows 
exchanges are caught under that covering law? Anecdotally we (my research 
minigroup) are working in the sociotype, understood as the social communication 
structures surrounding the person. What i

[Fis] Can the can drink beer ?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Brian, Arturo, Karl, Alex, Lars-Goran, Gyuri, and FIS colleagues,

Thank you for your remarks!

What is important is that every theory has its own understanding of the 
concepts it uses.
For “foreigners”, theirs meaning may be strange or unknown.
Some times, concepts of one theory contradict to corresponded concepts from 
other theory.

For years, I have met many different definitions of concept “information” and 
many more kinds of its use.
>From materialistic up to weird point of view...

To clear my own understanding, I shall give you a simple example:

CAN THE CAN DRINK BEER ?

CAN THE CAN EXCHANGE BEER WITH THE GLASS ?

The can is used by humans for some goals, for instance to store some beer for a 
given period.
But the can itself “could not understand” its own functions and what the can 
can do with beer it contains.
All its functionality is a human’s  consciousness model.
Can cannot exchange beer with the glass if there are no human activity or 
activity of additional devices invented by humans to support this.

Further:

CAN THE ARTIFICIAL LEG WALK  ?
You know the answer ... Human with an artificial leg can walk ...
All functionality of artificial leg is a result from human’s  consciousness 
modeling and invention. 

In addition:

IS THE “PHYSICAL INFORMATION” INFORMATION ?
If it is, the first question is how to measure the quantity and quality of such 
“information” and who can do this?  
I prefer the answer “NO” – “physical information” is a concept which means 
something else but not “information” as it is in my understanding.
>From my point of view, “physical information” is a kind of reflection (see 
>“Theory of reflections” of T.Pavlov). 
Every reflection may be assumed as information iff (if and only if) there exist 
a subjective information expectation to be resolved by given reflection.
For physical information this low is not satisfied. Because of this, I prefer 
to call this phenomenon simply “a reflection”. 

And so on ...


Finally:

Human been invented too much kinds of prostheses including ones for our 
intellectual functionalities, i.e. many different kinds of electronic devices 
which, in particular, can generate some electrical, light, etc. impulses, which 
we assume as “information”; usually a combination of impulses we assume as s 
structure to be recognized by us as “information”.  

A special kind of prostheses are Robots. They have some autonomous 
functionalities but are still very far from living consciousness. The level of 
complexity of robot’s consciousness is far of human’s one. Someone may say that 
robots understand and exchange “information”, but still they only react on 
incoming signals following the instructions given by humans. Theirs functioning 
is similar to human ones but only similar. They may recognize some structures 
of signals and exchange such ones with other robots or living creatures. Maybe 
someone wants to call this “information exchange”, but, after Shannon, I call 
this “sending and/or receiving signals”. And automatic reaction to signals. 

One may say, the Robot (Computer) memory  contains information but really it 
does not contain anything – it has its own structure which can be changed 
temporally of permanently by external electrical impulses.
Is the human memory the same – a structure which can be changed temporally of 
permanently by external or internal signals? I think – yes, It is!
What is the difference? Why we may say that the living creatures process 
information but not living couldn’t? 
The answer is: because the living creatures may create and resolve the 
“information expectation” with very high level of complexity. 
Maybe in the future robots will can do it ...
Such robot I call “INFOS”. It will be artificial living creature. Possibly with 
some biological elements.   

It will be very interesting and amazing to see how the can can drink beer :-) 
And very dangerous – where the beer will be kept if the can can drink it?

I hope, now it is clear why I assert that (now!) non-living objects COULD NOT 
“exchange information”.

Friendly regards
Krassimir



  


From: Karl Javorszky 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 8:24 PM
To: Alex Hankey 
Cc: Krassimir Markov ; Arturo Tozzi ; FIS Webinar 
Subject: Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

1) Let me second to the point Alex raises:

machines, computers, do exchange information. It would be against cultural 
conventions to say that the notification that the refrigerator sends to your 
phone's app "to-do-list" of the content "milk only 0.5 liter available" is not 
an information.


The signals my car's pressure sensor sends to my dashboard, saying "tire 
pressure front right wheel is critically low" is a clear case of information, 
whether I read it or not.


2) Let me add to the point Alex states, namely that the "form of information 
that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only scientifically 
based,

[Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues,
Let me remember that:
The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could “exchange  
information” leads to many principal theoretical as well as psychological 
faults.   
For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections !
Sorry for this n-th my remark ... 
Friendly greetings
Krassimir




From: tozziart...@libero.it 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important?




  Dear  Lars-Göran, 
  I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last FIS 
mail for the next days. 


  First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a 
material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other objects.  

  In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a set 
of objects or events are being measured.  Speaking of an observer is not 
specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing events, but 
rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects and events are to 
be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity occur whether or not there 
is a "material object that can recieve and store incoming energy from other 
objects" within the inertial reference frame to witness them.

  Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a cosmic 
zone close to the sun.  The photon "detects" (and therefore can interact with) 
a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we humans on the Earth 
"detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun surface. 
  Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the 
humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same sun, 
but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange with the 
sun a different information content.  
  If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite, 
fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange much more information 
with the sun than we humans can.
   

  In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, 
rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the time 
of the "observer".   

   

  Arturo Tozzi

  AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

  Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

  Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

  http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale
Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" 
Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
A: "tozziart...@libero.it"
Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?



  24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev tozziart...@libero.it:

  Dear Fisers, 
  a big doubt...

  We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional to its 2D 
horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations.

  However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light speed (who watches a 
black hole at rest) detects a very large black hole horizon, due to Einstein's 
equations.
  Therefore, he detects more information from the black hole than an 
observer at rest, who sees a smaller horizon…
An observer is by definition a material object that can recieve and store 
incoming energy from other objects. Since it requires infinite energy  to 
accelerate even a slighest object to the velocity of light, no observer can 
travel at the speed of light. That means that your thought experiment is based 
in inconsistent assumptions and no vaild conclusions from them can be drawn. 
Lars-Göran Johansson



  In sum, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather just 
a very subjective measure...


  Arturo Tozzi

  AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

  Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

  Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

  http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 



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


Lars-Göran Johansson
lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se
0701-679178















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

[Fis] Information Black Holes !!!

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

First of all I wish you Happy and Very Successful New Year !

Let it will be peaceful and healthy for us and our families, for all our
friends all over the world !

Second - I am not specialist in physics - because of this I trust that in
CERN there exist such specialists and they really understand what they are
doing and the Chernobyl tragedy will not be repeated.
But who knows – political and military interests already many times
overbear the scientific wisdom ...

Third –  figuratively we may think about “information black holes” which
already have worked in our world.
Who may control theirs explosions ?
And who may stop concentrating the information in such “information black
holes”?

Everybody can imagine at least one.

But a few of us can imagine the destructive effect of theirs existence
especially for the young people.

Do we need such “information black holes” when we may access every
information object directly at the original web site all over the world ?


Friendly greetings
Krassimir



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

Re: [Fis] What is life?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Arturo,
Your mobile is NOT able to transmit and utilize INFORMATION but some
signals!!!
As well as the artificial limb walk with its owner but it is not a living
mater.
Firstly, we have to understand what is information!
After that ...
Friendly regards
Krassimir




From: tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 8:11 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] What is life?


Dear


You write: "For living beings, we know that "Life is a tramission and
utilistion of information (not only by ADN, but by all the information
which is used by them, at all scales for survival)".
However, to make an example, also my mobile is able to transmit and
utilize information.

I found (and I did not look very well, to be honest) at least EIGHT
different definitions of life in literature.

Therefore, if I ask: "What is life?" I have, apart from yours, other SEVEN
different definitions of life.

What does it mean? This means that we have no idea at all about what is life.

It is the same as if I asked: "What is love?": who knows?



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/







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


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

[Fis] further analysing: A TOPOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO PERCEPTION

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear  Arturo,

1. In your letter you wrote: BUT does not describe just POINTS with matching 
description, but COUNTLESS other types of matching descriptions! 
I have read your paper again. 
I looked for proofs of the NOVEL VARIANTS of BUT you have pointed. 
Sorry, but I could not find any.
Please, be so kind to give me links to publications which contain (preferably - 
mathematical) proofs of these Novel variants of BUT. 


2.  In your letter you pointed the class “Single descriptions”.  
>From the examples you have given, I conclude that this class contains many 
>quite different sub-classes – from “points” up to “signals” and “strings”.
I could not find any common features which define this class. 
Only what I can imagine is that all subclasses maybe are “mental structures”, 
it it true?
If yes, than is this class is the same as “gestalt” (see 
http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~kbroom/Lectures/gestalt.htm) or as 
“reflection” (see http://marxistphilosophy.org/pavlov.htm)?


Friendly regards
Krassimir












From: tozziart...@libero.it 
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 12:49 AM
To: fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Let analyse: A TOPOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO PERCEPTION

Dear Krassimir,
first of all, thanks for reading all the paragraphs of our most difficult paper!
We are grateful to you!

Concerning the BUT (AND ITS NOVEL VARIANTS!) let's recapitulate:

Every feature is embedded in a structure. 
The structure displays n-dimensions. 
We call this feature: single description. 
Single descriptions are points, or lines. 
Single descriptions are perimeters, or areas. 
Single descriptions are single points. 
Single descriptions are functions, or vectors, or tensors. 
Single descriptions are algorithms, or parameters. 
Single descriptions are spatial patterns, or images. 
An illumined surface is a single description. 
Single descriptions are groups, or range of data. 
Single descriptions are symbols, or signs. 
Single descriptions are temporal patterns, or movements. 
Single descriptions are particle trajectories, or paths. 
Single descriptions are syntactic, or semantic, constructions. 
Single descriptions are thermodynamic parameters, or signals. 
A region is single description. 
Single descriptions are strings.
Single descriptions project onto a n+1 structure. 
Single descriptions stand for two descriptions with matching features on the 
n+1 
structure.
I call the two above matching features: matching description.



What does it mean? This means that the BUT does not describe just POINTS with 
matching description, but COUNTLESS other types of matching descriptions! 
Therefore, it also describes a visual and an auditory inputs, if they come from 
the same environmental source (e.g., in the case of multisensory integration): 
this occurs for a MATHEMATICAL concept (not a qualitative, nor inaccurate, nor 
a metaphysical concept) coming from computational proximity, which is a branch 
of algebraic topology.  

--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

sabato, 26 novembre 2016, 10:12PM +01:00 da Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com: 


  Dear Arturo,  Gordana, Joseph,  and FIS Colleagues,

  The key to our current discussion I found in the newest work of Arturo (I 
have read it before last letter of Arturo :-) ):



  A TOPOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO PERCEPTION

  http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/11/11/086827.full.pdf 

  or

  
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arturo_Tozzi/publication/310006296_A_TOPOLOGICALECOLOGICAL_APPROACH_TO_PERCEPTION/links/5827617808ae254c50832922.pdf?origin=publication_list

  What is important is that there exist a non correct using of the topological 
theory (concretely the BUT). 
  It is taken as an idea to explain the perception when different stimulus 
create the same meaning in the consciousness. 
  See the example with ambulance  of Figure 5a (visual and sound stimulus) 
which is connected to the same meaning on Figure 5b (single point). 
  But !!! 
  BUT explicitly proof that  (citation from the Arturo’s paper): 
  BUT states that, if a single point on a circumference projects to a higher 
spatial dimension, it gives rise to two antipodal points with matching 
description on a sphere, and vice versa (Figure 1A) (Borsuk, 1933; Marsaglia, 
1972; Matoušek, 2003; Beyer, 2004). This means that the two antipodal points 
are assessed at one level of observation in terms of description, while a 
single point is assessed at a lower level (Tozzi 2016b), i.e., point location 
vs. point description. Points on a sphere are “antipodal”, provided they are 
diametrically opposite (Henderson, 1996). 
  Examples of antipodal points are the poles of a sphere. This means, e.g., 
that there exist on the earth surface at least two antipodal points with the 
same temperature and pressure. BUT looks like a translucent glass sphere 
between a light source and our eyes: we watch two lights on the sphere surface 
instead of one. But the two lights are not just images, they ar

[Fis] Let analyse: A TOPOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO PERCEPTION

[Krassimir Markov]

even if you think that brain and biological functions are 
trajectories moving on concave structures towards lesser energetic levels, as 
suggested by, e.g., Fokker-Planck equations, it does not matter: you may always 
find the antipodal points with matching description predicted by BUT.  

  Ciao!

  --
  Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

  sabato, 26 novembre 2016, 06:23PM +01:00 da Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com:


Dear FIS colleagues,

I think, it is needed to put discussion on mathematical foundation. Let me 
remember that:



The Borsuk–Ulam theorem (BUT), states that every continuous function from 
an n-sphere into Euclidean n-space maps some pair of antipodal points to the 
same point. 

Here, two points on a sphere are called antipodal if they are in exactly 
opposite directions from the sphere's center.

Formally: if f : S n → R n  is continuous then there exists an x ∈ S n such 
that: f ( − x ) = f ( x ).

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borsuk%E2%80%93Ulam_theorem ] 



Who may proof that consciousness is a  continuous function from reflected 
reality ???

Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???

After proving these statements we may think further.



Yes, discussion is interesting but, I am afraid, it is not so scientific.



Friendly regards

Krassimir








___
Fis mailing list
wlmailhtml:/compose?To=Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis



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




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


wlEmoticon-smile[1].png
Description: Binary data
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear FIS colleagues,

I think, it is needed to put discussion on mathematical foundation. Let me 
remember that:



The Borsuk–Ulam theorem (BUT), states that every continuous function from an 
n-sphere into Euclidean n-space maps some pair of antipodal points to the same 
point. 

Here, two points on a sphere are called antipodal if they are in exactly 
opposite directions from the sphere's center.

Formally: if f : S n → R n  is continuous then there exists an x ∈ S n  such 
that: f ( − x ) = f ( x ).

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borsuk%E2%80%93Ulam_theorem ] 



Who may proof that consciousness is a  continuous function from reflected 
reality ???

Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???

After proving these statements we may think further.



Yes, discussion is interesting but, I am afraid, it is not so scientific.



Friendly regards

Krassimir







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

[Fis] Decision of FIS Steering Committee

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Marcus and FIS Colleagues,

I am writing this letter on behalf of FIS Steering Committee .

During the past weeks we had an extraordinary situation in our mailing list 
caused by some not so polite expressions.

As we have seen, Marcus was  hurt by a disparaging remarks in the review of his 
paper. 
It is understandable and we want to express our apologies to Marcus.
In the same time, we expect the same about very strong words in the Marcus' 
letter.

The decision of FIS Steering Committee is to permit Marcus to continue 
participation in our common work.

We want to express a strong requirement, letters and other kinds of FIS 
communications to be in thoughtful scientific manner without personal insults.
If a rude letter will be send, its author has to be removed from FIS list.

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

[Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Francesco,
Thank you for the polite words!
In addition to your explanation, I have to point that, from mine point of view, 
we have principally and opposite understandings of the concept information.
Your position is that the information is primary and matter and energy are 
secondary, i.e. information created both of them.
My understanding is that the information is a kind of reflection in the 
material entities but not every reflection is information.
The “reflection” is internal structural of functional difference which has been 
created after an interaction between entities.
Only living creatures may operate with reflections in their consciousness.
In other words, the “information” is a reflection in the consciousness for 
which in the same consciousness there exist evidence what the refection 
reflects. 
Friendly regards
Krassimir

PS: This is my second post for this week. 
Next half month I will spend on Summer Session of ITHEA International 
Conferences (http://www.ithea.org/conferences/itaf2016.htm).
Because of this I shall be silent till middle of July.
Have nice and happy summer!

From: Francesco Rizzo 
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:29 PM
To: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

Cari John, Krassimir e Tutti, 
informazione è un infinito o molteplice modo di prendere forma (neg-entropia), 
dis-informazione è un infinito o molteplice modo di perdere forma (entropia). 
Con il mio processo di tras-in-formazione, cuore della "Nuova economia", 
consistente nell'immissione (input) di materia, energia e informazione e 
nell'emissione (output) di materia, energia e informazione in stati diversi, ho 
capito 20 anni prima di S. Hawking, pur essendo un economista, che la sua 
teoria non funzionava. Lui è arrivato alle mie, modeste, stesse conclusioni nel 
2004-2005. Inoltre energia e materia non sono altro che due tipi di 
informazione, quindi l'unica o fondamentale legge dell vita e della scienza è 
l'INFORMAZIONE. Questo ora stanno incominciando a conoscerlo od ammetterlo 
tanti, ma io l'ho sempre pensato, scritto e proposto agli economisti che sono 
spesso duri di cervice come l'apostolo Pietro. Non mi dilungo ad esporre i 
dettagli o particolari di questa problematica contenuti almeno in una dozzina 
di miei libri, a proposito soprattutto dell'indeterminazione quantistica e 
dell'indeterminazione gravitazionale.
Ad onor del vero sono stato stimolato a trasmettere questa e-mail molto, 
troppo, sintetica dal problema the black-hole-infromation-paradox presentato e 
suggerito in modo magnifico da John Collier e dalla domanda di Krassimir 
Markov, altrettanto notevole, "qualcuno, lui/lei non  immagina cosa sia 
informazione". Mille grazie a tutti e due e a a tutti Voi che sopportate il mio 
(essere) italiano.
Un abbraccio veramente affettuoso e riconoscente.
Francesco

2016-06-28 19:00 GMT+02:00 Krassimir Markov :

  Dear John and FIS Colleagues,
  The main paradox of the “black hole information paradox” is that maybe 
someone knows what is the “black hole” but in the same time he/she has no 
imagination what is “information”.
  Friendly regards
  Krassimir 






  From: John Collier 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:01 PM
  To: fis 
  Subject: [Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

  Not solved yet, as method applies only EM radiation, and not to gravity 
(where the real problem lies in any case). 



  I note that the problem can be stated properly only by using information 
theory (or something that is equivalent – same models).



  
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jun/08/soft-hairs-help-resolve-the-black-hole-information-paradox



  John Collier

  Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

  University of KwaZulu-Natal

  http://web.ncf.ca/collier




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


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


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

Re: [Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear John and FIS Colleagues,
The main paradox of the “black hole information paradox” is that maybe someone 
knows what is the “black hole” but in the same time he/she has no imagination 
what is “information”.
Friendly regards
Krassimir 






From: John Collier 
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:01 PM
To: fis 
Subject: [Fis] Progress on black hole information paradox

Not solved yet, as method applies only EM radiation, and not to gravity (where 
the real problem lies in any case). 

 

I note that the problem can be stated properly only by using information theory 
(or something that is equivalent – same models).

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jun/08/soft-hairs-help-resolve-the-black-hole-information-paradox

 

John Collier

Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier

 




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

Re: [Fis] "A Priori" Modeling of Information

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Marcus and FIS Colleagues,
Thank you very much for your great effort to develop useful knowledge about 
information phenomena.
For me, the FIS discussions are very interesting.
Unfortunately, I have no time to participate actively due to preparing ITHEA 
Int. Conferences, and especially, the GIT Int. Conference this year in July in 
Varna, Bulgaria..
After July 15, I shall be able to take part in this discussion if it still will 
be available.
I have many remarks and considerations which I want to share with you.
Friendly regards
Krassimir



From: Marcus Abundis 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:53 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: [Fis] "A Priori" Modeling of Information

Thank you Pedro, and of course, thank you very much for your enduring efforts 
in moderating this site . . . 

Greetings to all,

This session covers the a priori modeling of information. It targets a 
“meaningful void” named by Shannon and Weaver (1949). As such, it seeks to 
frame a “theory of meaning” and a “unified theory of information” (UTI), two 
thorny issues. A priori models can help as they often focus on organizing 
principles. Also, a winning view should offer benefits that equal or surpass 
gains seen from Shannon’s (1948) earlier work. For example, firm notions of 
meaning and universality are key to founding a meaningful AI, and to addressing 
hurdles in quantum mechanics/computing and in material science (Aspuru-Guzik, 
2015). 

An a priori effort starts with “what comes before information,” using analytic 
philosophy to frame core concepts, but it ends in a phenomenology of useful 
information – two often opposed views. The session thus entails divergent 
levels of analysis that may stir confusion. For example, disorder at one level 
implies a type of order at a different level (type theory, Bateson’s 
“differences themselves must be differentiated”), but framed by one system of 
thought. Thus, to help guide this session and to initiate group dialogue, a 
cursory model is offered. With the foregoing cautionary notes in mind, I invite 
you to join this FIS session: together we will see what unfolds. . . . .

The full version of this introductory text (1,600 words) is attached as a PDF, 
or can be downloaded at:
https://issuu.com/mabundis/docs/fis


The central goal of this session is – from an "a priori" perspective – to name 
specific structural fundaments, and attempt some progress on modeling:
1. An UTI that reconciles/synthesizes the works of Shannon (entropy), Bateson 
(differences/distinctions), and Darwinian selection (e.g., Are these the 
correct starting points and how do we proceed?)
2. How "meaning" can be framed in a *fundamental* manner that makes sense 
within the diverse informational roles we now confront (minimizing 
"higher-order" debate, re Deacon's [from IS4IS] "keeping our levels straight")


I look forward to hearing your thoughts . . . 

Marcus



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

Re: [Fis] _ Pirate Bay of Science

[Krassimir Markov]

Thank you, Bob!
Yes, this is a great problem!
But in the same time, where is the recycle bin for billions of not needed but 
written papers?
The answer is clear!
So, I wish long live to paid repositories!
This is the chance for Open access publishing!
Kind regards
Krassimir

PS: Welcome to open access www.ithea.org ! 


From: Bob Logan 
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 6:12 PM
To: fis 
Subject: [Fis] _ Pirate Bay of Science

Dear FISers fyi - Bob 





  Begin forwarded message:




http://www.sciencealert.com/this-woman-has-illegally-uploaded-millions-of-journal-articles-in-an-attempt-to-open-up-science

Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to 
spread knowledge
Welcome to the Pirate Bay of science.

FIONA MACDONALD12 FEB 2016A researcher in Russia has made more than 48 
million journal articles - almost every single peer-reviewed paper every 
published - freely available online. And she's now refusing to shut the site 
down, despite a court injunction and a lawsuit from Elsevier, one of the 
world's biggest publishers.

For those of you who aren't already using it, the site in question is 
Sci-Hub, and it's sort of like a Pirate Bay of the science world. It was 
established in 2011 by neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan, who was frustrated 
that she couldn't afford to access the articles needed for her research, and 
it's since gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of papers being downloaded 
daily. But at the end of last year, the site was ordered to be taken down by a 
New York district court - a ruling that Elbakyan has decided to fight, 
triggering a debate over who really owns science. 


"Payment of $32 is just insane when you need to skim or read tens or 
hundreds of these papers to do research. I obtained these papers by pirating 
them,"Elbakyan told Torrent Freak last year. "Everyone should have access to 
knowledge regardless of their income or affiliation. And that’s absolutely 
legal."

If it sounds like a modern day Robin Hood struggle, that's because it kinda 
is. But in this story, it's not just the poor who don't have access to 
scientific papers - journal subscriptions have become so expensive that leading 
universities such as Harvard and Cornell have admitted they can no longer 
afford them. Researchers have also taken a stand - with 15,000 scientists 
vowing to boycott publisher Elsevier in part for its excessive paywall fees.

Don't get us wrong, journal publishers have also done a whole lot of good - 
they've encouraged better research thanks to peer review, and before the 
Internet, they were crucial to the dissemination of knowledge.

But in recent years, more and more people are beginning to question whether 
they're still helping the progress of science. In fact, in some cases, the 
'publish or perish' mentality is creating more problems than solutions, with a 
growing number of predatory publishers now charging researchers to have their 
work published - often without any proper peer review process or even editing.

"They feel pressured to do this," Elbakyan wrote in an open letter to the 
New York judge last year. "If a researcher wants to be recognised, make a 
career - he or she needs to have publications in such journals."

That's where Sci-Hub comes into the picture. The site works in two stages. 
First of all when you search for a paper, Sci-Hub tries to immediately download 
it from fellow pirate database LibGen. If that doesn't work, Sci-Hub is able to 
bypass journal paywalls thanks to a range of access keys that have been donated 
by anonymous academics (thank you, science spies).

This means that Sci-Hub can instantly access any paper published by the big 
guys, including JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier, and deliver it to you for 
free within seconds. The site then automatically sends a copy of that paper to 
LibGen, to help share the love.  

It's an ingenious system, as Simon Oxenham explains for Big Think:

  "In one fell swoop, a network has been created that likely has a greater 
level of access to science than any individual university, or even government 
for that matter, anywhere   in the world. Sci-Hub represents the 
sum of countless different universities' institutional access - literally a 
world of knowledge."

That's all well and good for us users, but understandably, the big 
publishers are pissed off. Last year, a New York court delivered an injunction 
against Sci-Hub, making its domain unavailable (something Elbakyan dodged by 
switching to a new location), and the site is also being sued by Elsevier for 
"irreparable harm" - a case that experts are predicting will win Elsevier 
around $750 to $150,000 for each pirated article. Even at the lowest 
estimations, that would quickly add up to millions in damages.

But Elbakyan is not only standing her ground, she's come out swinging, 
claiming that it's Elsevier that have the illegal business mod

Re: [Fis] To FIS, Francesco and Bob - the concept of "reflection".

[Krassimir Markov]

Caro Francesco,

Ho letto la tua lettera con grande attenzione e comprensione. Io accettare 
completamente la sorveglianza, che l'informazione è diversa in sistemi diversi. 

Questo è esattamente l'essenza della teoria di riflessione, che descrive i 
molti livelli di riflessione - fisici, chimici, meccanici, biologici, 
psicologici, sociali ... 

Quindi a volte c'è fraintendimento del concetto di "riflessione". 

Tutto apposto. Pensiamo allo stesso modo.

Distinti saluti

Krassimir



Dear Francesco,

I read your letter with great care and understanding. I accept fully the 
surveillance, that the information is different in different systems. 

This is exactly the essence of the theory of reflection, which describes many 
levels of reflection - physical, chemical, mechanical, biological, 
psychological, social ... 

So, sometimes there is misunderstanding of the concept of "reflection".  

Alright. We think the same way!

With best regards
Krassimir



Dear Bob,

Thank you for your remark and especially – for the book!

It is very interesting. 

The answer of you remark is just in my answer to Francesco – in reality there 
are many different kinds of reflection. 

Because of this we have many different kinds (types) of information.

But the common is that the reflection became information only in the 
consciousness of recipient and only in the context which is already stored in 
his/her memory. 

In other words, the Information is a reflection for which the recipient can 
recognize what the reflection reflects.

Kind regards

Крассимир














From: Francesco Rizzo 
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:20 PM
To: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ Closing lecture

Caro Krassimir, 
come ho scritto altre volte l'informazione ha un solo contenuto-dare o prendere 
forma- che può essere oggetto di definizioni diverse:
- in termodinamica questa forma consiste del gradiente termico o differenza tra 
molecole calde e veloci da un lato e fredde e lente dall'altro lato;
- in matematica o cibernetica corrisponde al numero delle alternative 
possibili, misurabili in bit di entropia: quello che in termodinamica è 
dis-informazione (entropia), in matematica è informazione;
- nella teoria della comunicazione è improbabilità o incertezza: la ricchezza 
dell'informazione matematica si riduce quando si sovrappone su di essa un 
s-codice per avere una significato semantico;
- in biologia è la sequela DNA-RNA-proteine che consente la comunicazione 
dell'informazione genetica;
-in economia il contenuto-informazione conferisce il valore ai beni o servizi: 
da qui la forma del valore o il valore della forma; etc.
Il discorso potrebbe continuare chiamando in causa la logica "fuzzy", ma non 
credo che sia il caso.
Una cosa è certa: l'informazione, comunque definita, è preceduta dalla 
significazione e seguita dalla comunicazione. La comunicazione, non è una 
trasmissione di segnali, ma un dialogo di segni che implica il codice di chi 
trasmette e il codice di chi riceve.
Sempre, con molta umiltà, un abbraccio.
Francesco.

2016-02-02 12:44 GMT+01:00 Krassimir Markov :

  Dear Howard,

  Thank you very much for your great effort and nice explanation!
  I like it!

  Only what I needed to see is a concrete answer to the question “what it the 
Information?”
  You absolutely clearly described it and I totally agree with your 
considerations.
  Only what is needed is to conclude with a short definition.
  I think it may be the next:

  The Information is a reflection which may be interpreted by its receiver in 
the context the receiver has in his/her memory.

  From this definition many consequences follow. In future we may discuss them.

  Friendly regards
  Krassimir

  PS:
  Dear FIS Colleagues,

  1. At the ITHEA web side, the conferences for year 2016 have been announced.
  One of them is the XIV-th International Conference on “General Information 
Theory”.
  Please visit link:
  http://www.ithea.org/conferences/conferences.html
  Welcome in Varna, Bulgaria !

  2. May be it will be interesting to read the paper, published in our 
  International Journal “Information Theories and Applications” ( 
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/ ) :
  Formal Theory of Semantic and Pragmatic Information - a Technocratic Approach
  by Venco Bojilov
  http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol22/ijita22-04-p05.pdf
  Please send your remarks to the author to e-mail: off...@ithea.org 

  Krassimir







  From: howlbl...@aol.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:46 AM
  To: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es 
  Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es 
  Subject: [Fis] _ Closing lecture


  First, a few responses.  I agree with Hans von Baeyer.  Pedro’s kindness is 
magic.  

  I agree with Gyorgy Darvas that quarks communicate.

  I also agree with Jerry Chandler.  Brute force is not the major mover of 
history.  Values and virtues count.  A lot.  In fact, a culture organizes 
itself by calling one way of 

[Fis] _ Re: _ Closing lecture

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Howard,

Thank you very much for your great effort and nice explanation!
I like it!

Only what I needed to see is a concrete answer to the question “what it the 
Information?”
You absolutely clearly described it and I totally agree with your 
considerations.
Only what is needed is to conclude with a short definition.
I think it may be the next:

The Information is a reflection which may be interpreted by its receiver in the 
context the receiver has in his/her memory.

>From this definition many consequences follow. In future we may discuss them.

Friendly regards
Krassimir

PS:
Dear FIS Colleagues,

1. At the ITHEA web side, the conferences for year 2016 have been announced.
One of them is the XIV-th International Conference on “General Information 
Theory”.
Please visit link:
http://www.ithea.org/conferences/conferences.html
Welcome in Varna, Bulgaria !

2. May be it will be interesting to read the paper, published in our 
International Journal “Information Theories and Applications” ( 
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/ ) :
Formal Theory of Semantic and Pragmatic Information - a Technocratic Approach
by Venco Bojilov
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol22/ijita22-04-p05.pdf
Please send your remarks to the author to e-mail: off...@ithea.org 

Krassimir







From: howlbl...@aol.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:46 AM
To: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es 
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: [Fis] _ Closing lecture


First, a few responses.  I agree with Hans von Baeyer.  Pedro’s kindness is 
magic.  

I agree with Gyorgy Darvas that quarks communicate.

I also agree with Jerry Chandler.  Brute force is not the major mover of 
history.  Values and virtues count.  A lot.  In fact, a culture organizes 
itself by calling one way of doing things evil—brute force—and another way of 
doing things a value  and a virtue.  Our way is the value and the virtue.  The 
ways of others are brute force and evil.  We see cooperation  and warmth among 
us.  But only enmity  and destruction among them.  

The  brute force is not within groups, where values, virtues, and compassion 
prevail.  It’s between groups.  It’s in the pecking order battles between 
groups.  

Which means, in answer to Marcus Abundis, yes, groups struggle for position in 
inter-group hierarchies like chickens in a barnyard.  For example, America and 
China are vying right now for top position in the barnyard of nations.  
Russia’s in that battle, too.  On a lower level, so are Saudi Arabia and Iran, 
whose proxy war in Syria for pecking order dominance has cost a quarter of a 
million lives.  That’s brute force.  Between groups whose citizens are often 
lovely and loving to each other.  Whose citizens are proud of their values and 
virtues.

Now for a final statement.

Information exists in a context.  That’s not at all surprising.  Information is 
all about context.  As the writings of Guenther Witzany hint.  And as Ludwig 
Wittgenstein also suggested.  Information is relational.  Information does not 
exist in a vacuum.  It connects participants.  And it makes things happen.  
When it’s not connecting participants, it’s not information

FIS gets fired up to a high energy level when discussing the definition of 
information and its relationship to Shannon’s entropic information equation.  
Alas, these discussions tend  to remove the context.  And context is what gives 
information its indispensable ingredient, meaning.

There are two basic approaches in science:  

·the abstract mathematical; 

·and the observational empirical.  

Mathematical abstractionists dwell on definitions and equations.  Empirical 
observers gather facts.  Darwin was an observational empiricist. I’d like to 
see more of Darwin’s kind of science in the world of information theory.

One of Darwin’s most important contributions was not the concept of natural 
selection.  It was an approach that Darwin got from Kant and from his 
grandfather Erasmus.  That approach?  Lay out the history of the cosmos on a 
timeline and piece together its story.  In chronological order.  Piece together 
the saga of how this cosmos has created itself.  Including the self-motivated, 
self-creation of life.

Communication plays a vital role in this story.  It appears in the first 
10(-32) of a second of the cosmos’ existence, when quarks communicated using 
attraction and repulsion cues.  OK, it’s not quite right to call the cues 
attraction and repulsion cues.  When two quarks sized each other up, they 
interpreted the signals of the strong force differently.  If you were a quark, 
another quark might size you up and promptly speed away.  But a quark of a 
different variety might detect the same signals, find them wildly attractive, 
and speed in your direction.  One quark’s meat was another’s poison, even in 
that first form of communication in the cosmos.  

Information is not a stand-alone.  Again, it’s contextual.  It’s ruled by what 
Guenther Witzany calls syntax, semantics, and, most imp

[Fis] to my mind !

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Emanuel, Michel, and FIS Colleagues,

The question risen in your letters (see below) is very important!

Many conferences announce that the paper accepted in the conference will be 
“recommended” or “invited” to any Journal.
Usually the result is like one commented by you. 
No guaranties that paper will be published.
Nevertheless, many authors believe in such announcements.
And, of course, pay serious registration fees, not taking in account that they 
may submit papers without participating in the conference.
And to receive the same (positive or negative) result.
I think the correlation between conferences and journals has to be clearly 
described – does the journal accept evaluation of the Conference PC or not.
If not, it is not ethically correct to announce “recommendation” or 
“invitation”as feature of the conference.

Dear Emanuel,
I have read your paper with great interest. So you have at least one reader!

As editor, I have some remarks – really paper is not ready to be published due 
to some principal and formatting disadvantages.

For instance, papers pointed in Bibliography with numbers 7,8,17, and 23, are 
not cited in the text. I am afraid, that paper 17 is pointed as 18. But who 
knows!
In addition, the paper is written as an essay, which is not acceptable for many 
journals.

My principal remark is that only for humans information may be assumed as text. 
It is too limited definition.
What is “information” for bees, bears, cats, dogs, etc. 
In addition, Kolmogorov define information quite differently than you, 
practically with the same shortcomings as Shannon’s theory.

In conclusion, I want to point that I like your paper because it concern very 
important issue. 
I recommend to improve it and to submit again to any journal.
No need to wait (and to pay) for another conference.

Friendly regards
Krassimir








From: Michel Petitjean 
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 10:36 AM
To: Emanuel Diamant ; fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Never mind

Dear Emanuel,

An invitation to submit does not mean that the paper will be published.
Open access (OA) journals publishers send numerous emails to convince authors 
to submit.
Sometimes it is done at the occasion of a conference, and it can be even 
mentioned on the conference website.
If all the submitted manuscripts would be published, the quality of the OA 
journals would be very poor.
This indeed happens for predatory journals and publishers, for which almost all 
manuscripts are published provided that the authors pay the page charge.
Fortunately, a serious journal have an editor, and the job of this latter is to 
decide if submitted manuscripts should be published or not.
The word "invitation" is also used for conferences.
As for journals, it just means that you are welcome to submit a contribution, 
but without any guarantee that it will be accepted (a true invited contribution 
is ususally associated to a funding, at least partial).
When a journal paper is invited, in the sense that anyway it will be published 
(possibly after corrections), it is explicitely mentioned by the editor in his 
invitation letter.
In the case of your paper, I do not see any contradiction between the 
invitation and the rejection.

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




2016-01-26 8:12 GMT+01:00 Emanuel Diamant :



  Dear Pedro,



  Shortly after the Vienna Summit, I was invited to submit an extended version 
of my conference paper for a publication in the Special Issue of the 
Information journal "Selected Papers from the ISIS Summit Vienna 2015". 

  It took me a lot of time to prepare the manuscript, but in the end, it was 
submitted to the journal. 

  Soon afterwards, I was informed that “your manuscript has been declined for 
publication in Information”. 

  No comments, no further explanations – I have some previous experience with 
publishing selected conference papers in revered journals but that is my first 
encounter with such invited paper treatment style.

  Never mind, I have published the article in the Research Gate. Because its 
subject is closely related to the discussion we held on the FIS forum in 
October 2015, I dare to provide a link to this RG publication (may be the issue 
is still interested for some FIS partakers).



  
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291352419_The_brain_is_processing_information_not_data_Does_anybody_knows_about_that
 



  Best regards,

  Emanuel Diamant.




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






___
Fi

Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

First of all, because this is first my post in this year, please receive my 
best wishes for health and prosperity in the new 2016 year!

Let it be peaceful and constructive!

About quarks and all other entities I would to remember (in accordance with 
Pedro) that :


All entities in the world INTERACT, but only LIVE ONES COMMUNICATE.

Computers do not communicate, they interact via corresponded networks.
But the (result from this) interaction may be assumed (by humans) as 
communication between live creatures (i.e. humans).


Happy New 2016 Year!

Friendly regards
Krassimir





-Original Message- 
From: Pedro C. Marijuan

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:06 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Thanks to Jerry and Koichiro for their insightful and deep comments.
Nevertheless the question from Howard was very clear and direct and I
wonder whether we have responded that way --as usual, the simplest
becomes the most difficult. I will try here.

There is no "real" communication between quarks as they merely follow
physical law--the state of the system is altered by some input according
to boundary conditions and to the state own variables and parameters
that dictate the way Law(s) have to intervene. The outcome may be
probabilistic, but it is inexorably determined.

There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as
the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary
conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of
the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the
self-production/self-propagation of the entity.

In sum, the former is blind, while the second is oriented and made
meaning-ful by the life cycle of the entity.

Well, if we separate communication from the phenomenon of life, from its
intertwining with the life cycle of the entity, then everything goes...
and yes, quarks communicate, as well as billiard balls, stones, cells,
etc. Directly we provide further anchor to the mechanistic way of thinking.

best regards--Pedro



Koichiro Matsuno escribió:


At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:

In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language must 
go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction among 
forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.


The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks, including 
possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with use of a virtual 
exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is methodologically 
tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the things to be exchanged 
exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast, the real exchange of matter 
underlying the actual instantiation of cohesion, which concerns the 
information phenomenologist facing chemistry and biology in a serious 
manner, is about something referring to something else in the actual and 
is thus open-ended. Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual 
cohesion acting in the empirical world which the physicist has failed in 
coping with, so far.


   Koichiro

*From:*Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Jerry LR 
Chandler

*Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
*To:* fis 
*Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:

Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of 
human communication.  Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the immediate 
issue.


 But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.

The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just 
scientific meaning vs. historical meaning.  Nor, communication between the 
general community and, say, the music (operatic and ballad) communities.


Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining terms as 
“metaphor”in another discipline.


Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly known 
and understood in the symbolic  logic and chemical communities. In the 
chemical community, the understanding is at the level of intuition because 
ordinary usage within the discipline requires an intuitive understanding 
of the way symbolic usage manifests itself in different disciplines.


(For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic, 
Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta, 
Gracewings, Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)


The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings and 
definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES.  For example, ordinary 
public language is necessary for expression of meaning of mathematical 
symbolic logic.  But, from the basic mathematical language, once it 
grounded in ordinary grammar, develops new set of symbols and new meanings 
for relations among mathematical symbols. Consequently, mathematicians 
re-define a long index of terms that are have different meanings in its 
techni

[Fis] We have different “fen clubs” depending of sympathy to one or other definition of information

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

This discussion was not planed. It started without any a priory explanation and 
because of this become more emotional.

I see, we have different “fen clubs” depending of  sympathy to one or other 
definition of information.
This is nice. Variety is important for development of science.

What is not good is that we stay only on the stage of definition of 
information. It is not needed if no theory is built on it.
The theory has to be experimented and proved.
Finally, such theory has to explain all information appearances and processes 
around us – I say around us but not all imaginable ones!

How much theories we have till now?
FIS is just place to present Theories!
Unfortunately, Masters stay silent and not teach us to use their theories.

Below I attach my answers to Stan and Bruno which was sent last week.

Friendly regards
Krassimir




Dear Stan,
I have no more attempts for FIS List for this week and will send this my answer 
to FIS tomorrow.
But it is pleasure for me to answer to you now.

Yes, I do not agree with the Wheeler concept that information was the basis 
upon which everything else was founded – this is the concept of God and it 
could not be proved, only to believe.
Yes, information doesn't appear in the universe until life makes it appearance. 
More, the information does not appear independently from live creatures, it is 
their internal state(s).
No, information does not appear in the universe until it is manipulated by 
modern human society as a commodity, it appeared together with live. 
Without reflections of external and internal structures and processes, as well 
as without memory, processing of reflection, and, at the end, reacting – 
without all of this the live is impossible.
What is done by modern society is to start understanding (but still not 
finished) what is the information.

Friendly regards
Krassimir


Dear Bruno,
Thank you for the remarks. Now I will answer only to you due to limit of posts 
in FIS List – tomorrow I’ll resend it for the list.

I agree with you partially.
Deep analysis and explanation of this problem is published in:
http://www.foibg.com/ijitk/ijitk-vol02/ijitk02-4-p06.pdf 
I hope, in this publication you will find answer of your remarks as well as 
basis for further discussion.

I think that it is crucial to keep the harmony and dialectical unity of the 
scientific and non-scientific approaches,
following the wisdom of St. Augustine: "Intelligo ut credam, credo ut 
intelligam!".

Finally, please answer: Is the Theology a science or not? What kind of 
experiments one may provide to proof the Theology statements? 

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

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear John and Stan,
What is cause, and what is result? This is the question.
If we not assume information and informational processes as secondary effect 
from activity of living mater,  it is not possible to proof anything and we 
have to believe that proposed models maybe are truth. We have to trust to 
Author but not to experiments. 
Information has to be included not in the beginning of the hierarchy – at least 
in the middle where living mater appear.
Sorry that my post was apprehended as careless!
Friendly regards
Krassimir





From: Stanley N Salthe 
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 3:30 PM
To: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Krassimir -- ???  I fail to understand your assertion.  This (and any 
hierarchy) is a logical formulation, allowing us to allocate influences from 
various aspects of nature in an orderly manner. 

So, please explain further your careless assertion!

STAN 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:

  Dear John and Stan,
  Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
  But this is believe, not science.
  Sorry, nothing personal!
  Friendly regards
  Krassimir




  From: John Collier 
  Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
  To: Stanley N Salthe ; fis 
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

  Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:







  It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s 
computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree with 
this.

  Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most physiological 
systems.



  John



  From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
  Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
  To: fis
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!



  Pedro -- Your list:



  physical, biological, social, and Informational



  is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the 
physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.  But 
where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:



  {informational {physicochemical {biological {social



  STAN



  On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
 wrote:

  Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort of 
the border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on the 
interrelationship between computation and information is an essential matter. 
In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life cycles are 
involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the mere info 
circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any life-cycle 
relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction between both may 
help to consider more clearly the relationship between the four great domains 
of sceince: physical, biological, social, and Informational. If we adopt a 
pan-computationalist stance, the information turn of societies, of 
bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces to applying computer 
technologies. I think this would be a painful error, repeating the big mistake 
of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed the sciences of the artificial 
and reduced the nascent info science to library science. People like Alex 
Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, 
it was nicer talking face to face as we did in the past conference!

  best ---Pedro

  Ken Herold wrote:

  FIS:

  Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did not 
intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative way of 
philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of some bad 
thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is information and I 
would like to hear how you might believe the formal relational scheme of 
Rosenbloom could be helpful?

  Ken

  -- 
  Ken Herold
  Director, Library Information Systems
  Hamilton College
  198 College Hill Road
  Clinton, NY 13323
  315-859-4487
  kher...@hamilton.edu <mailto:kher...@hamilton.edu>



  -- 
  -
  Pedro C. Marijuán
  Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
  Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
  Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
  Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
  50009 Zaragoza, Spain
  Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
  pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
  http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
  -

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




--
  ___
  Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear John and Stan,
Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
But this is believe, not science.
Sorry, nothing personal!
Friendly regards
Krassimir




From: John Collier 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Stanley N Salthe ; fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:

 



 

It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s 
computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree with 
this.

Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most physiological 
systems.

 

John

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

 

Pedro -- Your list:

 

physical, biological, social, and Informational

 

is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the 
physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.  But 
where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:

 

{informational {physicochemical {biological {social

 

STAN

 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan  
wrote:

Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort of the 
border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on the 
interrelationship between computation and information is an essential matter. 
In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life cycles are 
involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the mere info 
circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any life-cycle 
relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction between both may 
help to consider more clearly the relationship between the four great domains 
of sceince: physical, biological, social, and Informational. If we adopt a 
pan-computationalist stance, the information turn of societies, of 
bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces to applying computer 
technologies. I think this would be a painful error, repeating the big mistake 
of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed the sciences of the artificial 
and reduced the nascent info science to library science. People like Alex 
Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, 
it was nicer talking face to face as we did in the past conference!

best ---Pedro

Ken Herold wrote:

FIS:

Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did not 
intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative way of 
philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of some bad 
thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is information and I 
would like to hear how you might believe the formal relational scheme of 
Rosenbloom could be helpful?

Ken

-- 
Ken Herold
Director, Library Information Systems
Hamilton College
198 College Hill Road
Clinton, NY 13323
315-859-4487
kher...@hamilton.edu 



-- 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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

 




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

Re: [Fis] THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Moisés André, Ken, Pedro, and FIS-colleagues,
I think the proper position is not to extend the existing domains of science 
because the information is a phenomenon which exists in all already established 
domains of science.
To illustrate this idea, let’s imagine the attempt to classify the sciences for 
real objects which we can see in daylight form light point of view. 
We will receive many different results but not the proper one which is that we 
have two absolutely different science domains : light and darkness.
This cause very serious methodological problem: what is information and how it 
exists in the nature.
Friendly regards
Krassimir





From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:33 PM
To: 'fis' 
Subject: [Fis] THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL?




A Dialog on the Informational as the 4th Great Domain of Science
Moisés André Nisenbaum & Ken Herold


PART 1:  Informational as the 4th Great Domain of Science
(Moisés André Nisenbaum)


To classify is human (BOWKER & STAR 2000). The organization of scientific 
knowledge is concern of scientists long ago. It started as a matter of 
librarianship and has evolved over time using various tools like enumerative 
classification, faceted classification, universal classification, controlled 
vocabulary, thesaurus, ontologies, Semantic Web. But how Information Science 
should organize scientific knowledge taking into account the dynamic behavior 
of disciplines and multi, inter and trans-disciplinary science of the 
twenty-first century (Information Society)?

Rosenbloom (2012) proposed a model in which four great Scientific Domains - 
Physical (P) Life (L), social (S) and Computing (C) - can be combined to form 
any discipline.  The first three (P, L and S) are "well known" domains and he 
proposes that the 4th is Computing. The small number of domains (compared with 
10 of DDC and UDC) is offset by dynamic relationships between domains that can 
be written by Metascience Expression Language. Although the prerequisites of a 
Great Scientific Domain has been well developed, Rosenbloom does not explain 
why they are in number of four or why these specific four domains.

NAVARRO, MORAL and Marijuan (2013) propose that the 4th Great Scientific Domain 
is the Informational (I) instead of Computing. However, the biggest proposal is 
that the Information Science needs to be rethought to support theoretically and 
methodologically this 4th Great Scientific Domain. At the end of the article, 
the authors propose the insertion of the four Great Scientific Domains in 
High-Resolution Map of Sciences (Bollen at all, 2009)

The problem is that all this is still in its "philosophical field" and miss a 
more pragmatic approach. When I observed this map, I just thought about how to 
measure these four domains and, even without even knowing exactly how to do 
this, I asked Bollen the raw data of his research. My initial idea was to 
identify every scientific discipline by a mathematical entity, for example a 
digital 4x4 matrix representing quantitatively the four Great Scientific Domain 
components and their relationships. The problem how to establish the criteria 
(bibliometric) that would define the matrix elements. Once created, we can 
check if the matrices really come together as expected.


Best,
Moisés


References:

BOWKER, Geoffrey C.; STAR, Susan Leigh. Sorting things out: Classification and 
its consequences. MIT press, 2000.

ROSENBLOOM, Paul S. On computing: the fourth great scientific domain. MIT 
Press, 2012.

NAVARRO, Jorge; MORAL, Raquel del; MARIJUÁN, Pedro C.. The uprising of 
informational: towards a new way of thinking Information Science. Presented at 
1st International Conference in China on the Philosophy of Information, Xi’an, 
China, 18 October 2013.

BOLLEN, Johan et al. Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. 
PLoS One, v. 4, n. 3, p. e4803, 2009.


PART 2: Comments from Ken Herold


I appear to be a fringe observer of the history of information science from 
within my professional (since 1984) domain of librarianship and information 
studies. [1] For a broader example, Chaim Zins conducted a multi-year study of 
information science internationally from 2003-2005. [2]  My own edited works 
[3] in 2004 and 2015 reprise various works going back to Machlup from 1962  [4].

I am somewhat skeptical of the suggestion that recombining knowledge is new or 
previously critically not examined.  The international documentation movement, 
predecessor to information science, has been shown by Buckland and Rayward [5] 
among others to be exactly the rich response to the global growth of knowledge 
100 years ago.  Bioinformatics should and does clarify and extend our 
perspectives, but I hesitate to accept its equivalence with von Neumann 
architecture or cultural heritage.  Nevertheless, all the right questions are 
being asked in my opinion.

Rosenbloom's interminable references to Wikipedia are off-putting, 

Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply15 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE:summary2

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Chuan, Pedro and FIS colleagues,
I agree with your arguments and conclusions.
Unfortunately, these weeks I was seriously ill and could not take active 
part in the discussion.
But, fortunately, I had published a paper where my reasoning and conclusions 
were explained.
Please see the paper "CULTURE ASPECTS OF INFORACTION" : 
http://www.foibg.com/ijitk/ijitk-vol02/ijitk02-4-p06.pdf (open access).

I wish you successful work in this very important branch of Informatics.
Friendly regards
Krassimir




-Original Message- 
From: 赵川

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:09 AM
To: FIS论坛
Subject: [Fis] Chuan's reply15 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE 
SCIENCE:summary2


Dear Joseph, Pedro, Prof. Zhong, and dear All FISer Leaguers,

Just as in the summer of 1956, in Dartmouth College, many interdisciplinary 
scholars met and has a tow-months long discussion and contributed the 
concept/direction as Artificial Intelligence. This spring of 2015, in 
Internet world wide, we FIS leaguers’ minds met/worked in Internet, we 
focused the concept /term of Intelligence Science. And tried preliminarily 
to made sure Intelligence science’s mission，range, the relation of IS and 
IS, FIS and FIS, relation with AI and other fields. Such mails with deep 
thought and wide horizon are “Foundational” and ”Frontier” both.
1. In the finish of our discussion allow me put the “kickoff file” (dear 
Pedro’s analogy. I enjoy it.) in the attachment prepared with Pedro and 
Joseph before the beginning of our session. Forgive me that I have not 
enough strength to sort the questions this time yet. Perhaps very soon after 
out discussion finish I should integrate them with the new questions emerged 
in our session.
2. Allow me announce again here to form a “National Scientist’s Poetry 
group”. It is the time try to initiate it with now more academic leagues in 
our discussion session. Let me put the mail of July 12, 2014 that can make 
sure my wish:


Dear scientist-poets and poet-scientists,
After I wrote a mail to Joseph to report the news Prof. Mihir Chacraborty 
visited my university. Then I forwarded it to Denis Mire, I want to call him 
“where are you?”, I think of perhaps this can forward to 
Gerhard,Besiau,…etc. So now touch many fiends and leagues!
I think of perhaps we should form an “πpoem association”. Because we are 
in different countries though we all in one poetical field, it should be an 
“InternationalπPoem Association”.

Do you think this is a good idea? I wish hear your echoes.
Our Intelligence Science Laboratory (I work in Chengdu University of 
Technology) should be 3 years. I think of to edit something to congratulate. 
One is a small poem collection of scientist. Science is research and 
research is poetical. Could you allowed and perhaps can share me more new 
poems?
Not serious publish kind. Just collect to please to encourage and accompany 
ourselves. We are too heavy to enjoy poetical feeling. It is a bunch of 
flowers instead of a cold book.
Making a good cup of tea, water is needed and should be enough. Now our 
science study condition is too much tea and too few water. So that the tea 
soup is bitter, not faint scent.
Yes, Prof. Mihir invited me and another poet to join the International 
Poetical Conference January 2015 in Calcutta, India. If I join it, I should 
take our information of poem from Science to the conference.

It is still an inspiration. Something is possible.
Best wishes and good summer,
Zhao chuan
   July 12, 2014
I sent it to many friends as scientist-poets and poet-scientists. That day 
and till now, there was only an echo from Joseph. He welcomed it and 
suggested then that we can have such a poetry group first. Near a year 
pasted, nether a ”πpoem association” nor a Scientist’ Poetry 
Group/society, no matter what style or name, the wish is the same. I love 
science and poem both, and I have seen so many excellent poems from 
scientists, they are so important poets and poems to our civilization. Yes, 
important, for normal poets as humanist can’t understand science 
straightly, can’t bear the press of scientist. Such scientist and their 
poems form new literature and new science the same. We should not ignore 
such precious resource of hearts, of intelligence, of their meaning they 
bringing as information. They are powerful and efficient.
3. Here a star, there a star, By the way let me point another stars for you 
and please add/invite them to our FIS liker. They are: Mihir Chacraborty 
, Denis Mire , Liu Yu 
, and "Beziau" j...@ufc.br. I think with their join 
our IFS Forum should have more energy and enough dimensions. About them more 
details later.


Then we should finish our FIS discussion session (Frontiers of Intelligence 
Science) in FIS (Foudation of Information Science). Dear Pedro, Let this 
discussion finish naturally perhaps it should last one or two weeks. Then we 
can begin new session, above most FISers should w

Re: [Fis] About Italian and other languages

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Francesco, FIS,
It is no need to be mathematician to understand that composition of a function 
f and f-1 gives identity.
In other words, if you use Google translator to translate from Italian to 
English and after that received text you will translate back to Italian you may 
control what was received in English.
After small number of corrections you will receive correct text in English.
I see you may read English and I wish you success!
Friendly regards
Krassimir

To see that this is quite possible please see the translation of the text above 
from English to Italian.
I do not know Italian and this is my first translation, but I am sure that it 
is correct  !

Caro Francesco, FIS,
Non è necessario essere matematico per capire che la composizione di una 
funzione f e f-1 dà identità.
In altre parole, se si utilizza Google traduttore per tradurre da italiano a 
inglese e, dopo che il testo ricevuto tradurrà Torna a Italiano è possibile 
controllare ciò che si riceve in inglese.
Dopo un piccolo numero di correzioni riceverete testo corretto in inglese.
Vedo si può leggere l'inglese, e vi auguro successo!
Amichevoli saluti
Krassimir 







From: John Collier 
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 12:58 PM
To: 钟义信 
Cc: fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

List,

 

I find that it works well to use Google Translate. It is hardly perfect, but 
much better than Bing, which gives laughable translations. I have used it here 
in Brazil on both my computer and cell phone, as well as having my bank use it 
when there were communications problems. Here is the translation I got this 
time:

 

Dear Yixin Zhong and Dear All,

I'm sorry that my words are not understood. On the other hand I do not want to 
miss out on anyone. Who can understand it is free to do or not to use as I 
want. The world turns the same, including the field of intelligence, regardless 
of my words. Anyway, thank you and best wishes for a well-deserved success.

Francesco Rizzo.

 

Best,

John

 

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Francesco Rizzo
Sent: March 18, 2015 7:21 AM
To: 钟义信
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

 

Caro Yixin Zhong e Cari Tutti,

mi dispiace che le mie parole non siano capite. D'altra parte non voglio 
mancare di riguardo a nessuno. Chi le può comprendere è libero di farne o non 
farne l'uso che vuole. Il mondo gira lo stesso, compreso il campo 
dell'intelligenza, a prescindere dalle mie parole. Comunque, grazie e auguri di 
un meritato successo.

Francesco Rizzo.

 

2015-03-15 12:12 GMT+01:00 钟义信 :

Dear 

Caro Yixin Zhong e Cari Tutti, 
mi dispiace che le mie parole non siano capite. D'altra parte non voglio 
mancare di riguardo a nessuno. Chi le può comprendere è libero di farne o non 
farne l'uso che vuole. Il mondo gira lo stesso, compreso il campo 
dell'intelligenza, a prescindere dalle mie parole. Comunque, grazie e auguri di 
un meritato successo.
Francesco Rizzo.
,

 

Thank you for your e-mail.

I am sorry not to give you a reply because I am unable to understand your 
language.

 

Best regards,

 

Yixin ZHONG

 

 

- 回复邮件 -

发信人:Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>

收信人:钟义信 

抄送:JohnPrpic ,fis 

时间:2015年03月15日 18时01分07秒

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





 

Cari Tutti,

seguendo, per quel che posso capire, la discussione che si è accesa a proposito 
dell'intelligenza della scienza o della scienza dell'intelligenza, mi piace 
ricordare che il concetto di "caos" dimostra la sua importanza quando guida i 
ricercatori a creare nuove idee. I sistemi caotici sono creativi. Senza questa 
creatività la legislazione del nostro intelletto  non potrebbe conferire forma 
(tras-informare) e significare i dati altrimenti sconnessi dell'esperienza. Le 
trascendenze intellettuali  e le intuizioni empiriche servono a costruire la 
concordanza o la connessione tra le leggi del cervello e le leggi della natura 
o della società che si com-penetrano, esaltano e nobilitano reciprocamente.

Saluti augurali e grati.

Francesco Rizzo.

 

2015-03-12 10:57 GMT+01:00 钟义信 :

 

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 words as my simple responses to the two points you wrote 
in your mail.

 

-- To my understanding, "context" and "goals" among others are necessary 
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 to acquire 
the information about the changes in environment, able to learn the strategy 
for adjusting the structures of the system so as to adapt the system to the 
exchanged environment. This

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

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Chuan, Pedro, and FIS colleagues,

We need more concrete point of view to provide discussion.

Maybe it will be good to take in account the paper: 

Zhongzhi Shi. On Intelligence Science // International Journal of Advanced 
Intelligence
Volume 1, Number 1, pp.39-57, November, 2009.
http://aia-i.com/ijai/sample/vol1/no1/39-57.pdf  

Abstract:
Intelligence Science is an interdisciplinary subject which dedicates to joint 
research on
basic theory and technology of intelligence by brain science, cognitive 
science, artificial
intelligence and others. Brain science explores the essence of brain, research 
on the principle
and model of natural intelligence in molecular, cell and behavior level. 
Cognitive science
studies human mental activity, such as perception, learning, memory, thinking, 
consciousness
etc. In order to implement machine intelligence, artificial intelligence 
attempts
simulation, extension and expansion of human intelligence using artificial 
methodology
and technology. Research scientists coming from above three disciplines work 
together
to explore new concept, new theory, new methodology. It will be successful and 
create a
brilliant future in 21 century.
The paper will outline the framework of intelligence science and present the 
ten big
issues. Research approaches will be pointed out. Finally the paper gives 
perspective for
the future.

Friendly regards
Krassimir


PS: Dear Pedro, please forward to FIS this message if it is stopped by spam 
filter.










-Original Message- 
From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:00 PM 
To: 'fis' 
Subject: Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan 

Dear 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. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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

Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Terrence, Bob, Pedro, and colleagues,
Thank you for interesting posts and discussion.
For me it was creative stimulus to continue thinking about information 
phenomena.
I tried to send some comments but the anti-spam filter of FIS-list stopped 
them.

No, problems. Next time I shall send them.

Now I want to point that "the lamp"  is not only one and the searchers are 
more than one, and, at the end, all of them search for different "lost 
keys".
We have serious civilization problem which is not only in our area - it is 
general for the science at all.
But I have a belief that the door we want to open has more than one keyholes 
and it may be unlocked by the common action of all of us.


Friendly regards
Krassimir

P.S. Dear Pedro, please resend this letter if it stopped again by FIS spam 
filter.



-Original Message- 
From: Terrence W. DEACON

Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 7:31 PM
To: Bob Logan
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Concluding the Lecture?

Thanks to Pedro and Bob for these last few comments. Indeed, like
Darwin in 1859 we are still just beginning to formulate "one long
argument" that will need to be progressively refined in the decades to
come. The question is where best to begin the task of synthesizing. I
too find the metaphor of searching for lost keys quite apropos, but I
would beg your indulgence while I add an elaboration to this metaphor
that sheds light on the perspective I have offered.

Yes, we must at first search close to the light, even though there we
will only find vague hints. But, importantly, as we cover more and
more territory we will discover that the light progressively
brightens. So long as we keep searching and don't walk out into the
dark too quickly, skipping over important territory in between, the
entire territory will become more and more thoroughly illuminated,
searchable, and familiar to us.

I believe that the light is brightest in the domain where we can see a
clear relation between the two quite different concepts of entropy and
the relationship of both to the concept of work. Admittedly, starting
so minimally as I have in this essay seems remote from the interests
of psychologists, anthropologists, economists and their kin, who
demand an account of human-scale information processes, while at the
same time appearing to introduce the messiness of semiotic concerns
into the seemingly pristine world of information as a simple physical
parameter. But of course the problem is to find the best illuminated
middle ground between these two extremes, both still bathed in the
darkness of simplifying assumptions that make them seem mutually
exclusive— separated by darkness.

This is what I am trying to accomplish. Though deceptively simple, I
believe that the autogenic model system is just sufficiently complex
to provide complete illumination of each of the critical defining
features of the information concept—sign medium properties (entropies,
uncertainty, constraint), reference (aboutness), significance
(function, value, normativity), and interpretation (adaptation,
intelligence)—while not artificially simplifying the issue by ignoring
one or the other of these facets.

Because of its simplicity none of these basic concepts are left in the
dark as black boxes or excluded as taboo concepts. But of course,
working at such a basic level means that the nature of more complex
phenomena as thinking, subjectivity, language, and culture (to mention
only a few) are not yet well illuminated by this light. This isn't to
suggest that other pursuits in these other domains should be
abandoned—for they at least clear away some of the underbrush creating
paths that will help to ease the linkage between the different
subterritories when finally the light brightens (to continue the
metaphor). I just believe that this middle level is where the light
best illuminates all the critical foundational issues.

I don't expect agreement, but so far I haven't felt that the specific
components of this proposal have been addressed in this thread. And in
these closing days of discussion (as well as in future privately
shared emails after this window closes) I hope to receive some
suggestions and constructive criticisms pointing to where I might go
next with this approach.

Thanks for all your inputs.  Terry

On 1/30/15, Bob Logan  wrote:

Thanks Pedro for your remarks. We have not reached our destination as you
point out but the important thing is to enjoy the journey which I 
certainly
have. It is inevitable that with such a slippery concept as information 
that
there will be different destinations depending on the travellers but what 
I
like about FIS in general and the dialogue that Terry prompted in 
particular

is the interesting ideas and good company I encountered along the way. As
for your remark about searching where there is light I suggest that we 
pack

a flashlight for the next journey to be led by our tour guide Zhao Chuan.
One common theme for understanding the importance of b

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Bob,
I think, there is no conflict between two points of view – information may be a 
process and it may be a static depending of what kind of reflection it is.
For instance, we reflect the world around:
- as static - by photos, art images, sculptures, etc.; 
- as dynamic - by movies, theater plays, ballet, etc.; 
- and, at the end, by both types – by static text which creates dynamical 
imaginations in our consciousness.
Friendly regards
Krassimir

PS: This is my second post for this week. So, I say: Goodbye to the next one!



From: Bob Logan 
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:54 PM
To: Joseph Brenner 
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

Dear all - I support Joseph's remarks and would suggest that information in 
general is a process that unfortunately is formulated as a noun. Inspired by 
Bucky Fuller's I think I am a verb I suggest that "Information is a verb" It is 
a verb because it describes a process. Although that solves one problem we need 
to be able to describe a set of signs that have the potential to initiate the 
process of informing through interpretation. I would not suggest we create 
another word but recognize that the word information has many meanings and that 
when it is describing a process it has a verb-like quality to it and when it 
describes a set of sign that have the potential to be interpreted and hence 
become information it is acting as a noun. I would also suggest that a simple 
definition of the term information is not possible because its meaning is so 
context dependent. This is true of all words but even more so for information. 
For those that agree with my sentiments the above is information and for those 
that do not it is nonsense. My best wishes to both groups,  Bob Logan

__ 

Robert K. Logan
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD 
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan 
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications













On 2014-12-04, at 6:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:


  Dear Dr. Isiegas,

  I will add my support to the extended concept of information that inheres in 
the work of Robert Ulanowicz and John Collier. I would just add that I like to 
call it information-as-process, to call attention to its 'structure' being 
dynamic, with individual neurones involved in a cyclic (better spiral or 
sinusoidal) movement between states of activation and inhibition. I have 
ascribed an extension of logic to this form of alternating actual and potential 
states in complex processes at all levels of reality.

  Best wishes,

  Joseph B.

  - Original Message - From: "Robert E. Ulanowicz" 
  To: "Carolina Isiegas" 
  Cc: 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 6:30 PM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?


  Dear Dr. Isiegas:

  I envision neuroinformation as the mutual information of the neuronal
  network where synaptic connections are weighted by the frequencies of
  discharge between all pairs of neurons. This is directly analogous to a
  network of trophic exchanges among an ecosystem, as illustrated in
  .

  Please note that this measure is different from the conventional
  sender-channel-receiver format of communications theory. It resembles more
  the "structural information" inhering in the neuronal network. John
  Collier (also a FISer) calls such information "enformation" to draw
  attention to its different nature.

  With best wishes for success,

  Bob Ulanowicz


Dear list,



   I have been reading during the last year all these interesting

exchanges. Some of them terrific discussions! Given my scientific

backgound

(Molecular Neuroscience), I would like to hear your point of view on the

topic of neuroinformation, how information "exists" within the Central

Nervous Systems. My task was experimental; I was interested in

investigating the molecular mechanisms underlying learning and memory,

specifically, the role of the cAMP-PKA-CREB signaling pathway in such

brain

functions (In Ted Abel´s Lab at the University of Pennsylvania, where I

spent 7 years). I generated several genetically modified mice in which I

could regulate the expression of this pathway in specific brain regions

and

in which I studied the effects of upregulation or downregulation at the

synaptic and behavioral levels. However, I am conscious that the

"information flow" within the mouse Nervous System is far more complex

that

in the "simple" pathway that I was studying...so, my concrete question for

you "Fishers" or "Fisers", how should we contemplate the micro and macro

structures of information within the neural realm? what is

Neuroinformation?



Best wishes,





--

Carolina Isiegas

___

Fis mailing list

Fis

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro, Carolina and FIS Colleagues,

Firstly I want to congratulate Pedro and team for new FIS web site!
It looks nice and I am sure it will be useful tool for all of us.

Secondly – what is Neuroinformation?  
>From point of view of General Information Theory, it is needed a Subject for 
>which the reflection became information after receiving the evidence what the 
>reflection reflects.
But what we have into the Subject?
Does he operate with information or only with signals and reflections? 
Who is/are internal Sub-Subject(s) and evidence(s)? 
After receiving answers to these questions we may create hypothesizes what is 
Neuroinformation.

I have my own understanding but it will be more good to listen other opinions.

What has been investigated by Neuroscience till now?

Friendly regards
Krassimir








From: Carolina Isiegas 
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 2:46 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

Dear list,


I have been reading during the last year all these interesting exchanges. 
Some of them terrific discussions! Given my scientific backgound (Molecular 
Neuroscience), I would like to hear your point of view on the topic of 
neuroinformation, how information "exists" within the Central Nervous Systems. 
My task was experimental; I was interested in investigating the molecular 
mechanisms underlying learning and memory, specifically, the role of the 
cAMP-PKA-CREB signaling pathway in such brain functions (In Ted Abel´s Lab at 
the University of Pennsylvania, where I spent 7 years). I generated several 
genetically modified mice in which I could regulate the expression of this 
pathway in specific brain regions and in which I studied the effects of 
upregulation or downregulation at the synaptic and behavioral levels. However, 
I am conscious that the "information flow" within the mouse Nervous System is 
far more complex that in the "simple" pathway that I was studying...so, my 
concrete question for you "Fishers" or "Fisers", how should we contemplate the 
micro and macro structures of information within the neural realm? what is 
Neuroinformation?


Best wishes,



-- 

Carolina Isiegas




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

[Fis] About weekly posting frequency.

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro, Jerry, and FIS Colleagues,

Several times I have not finished my discussions because of very long time I 
needed to wait for next (third or fourth) letter.


Practically no serious discussion could be provided - only messages on the 
moment and, of course - invited starting and finishing explanations.


In the same time, I see that the active part of FIS colleagues who really 
write letters is not so great.


And this part is separated in other two parts - colleagues who are 
permanently "on line" and those who respond only if it is in their short 
interest area.


Because of this I propose to add two new rules:

- to permit posting more than two or three letters if and only if they 
contain questions for clarifying the already presented ideas from other 
colleagues. It is possible to send such letters "of line" but practically 
one and the same questions rise from different colleagues and it is more 
good to see that such questions are already sent. For me, the questions are 
important part of the discussions. To make clear that the letter contains 
questions, in subject of the letter may be written "Question ...".


- to answer the questions in cumulative manner, i.e. the answering person 
has to collect questions and to answer to all of them in one or two letters. 
In this case we may permit two additional letters for answering the 
questions with corresponded subject:  "Answers ...".


For explanations,  comments and other messages I think two letters per week 
are enough


Friendly regards
Krassimir




-Original Message- 
From: pedro marijuan

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:00 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] RV: FIS, Weekly posting frequency.


BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@

-Original Message-
From: Jerry LR Chandler 
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:37:32
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Subject: FIS, Weekly posting frequency.

Pedro:

Just a small suggestion about the rules for posting to the FIS list serve.

Personally, I find the current constraint of two posts per week is so 
restrictive that it makes a conversation very difficult.  It necessitates 
long delays, during which time, one looses interest in the topic.  (We are 
flooded by a plethora of new ideas!)


I feel that the value of the list would be enhanced by permitting three or 
even four posts per week.


I would suggest that you consult with other members about this issue.

You may post this message to the list serve if you wish.

Cheers

Jerry


On Nov 3, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:


Dear Marcin and colleagues,

Many thanks for the sympathy and for the suggestion. I think your proposal 
is quite in the spirit of the fis initiative. Maintaining the academic 
code of conduct should be the First Rule of the list. The Second Rule, as 
is well known, says that only two messages per week are allowed. And the 
Third Rule, should be about clean posting. I mean, in order to placate the 
susceptibility of the server filters the messages should be addressed only 
to fis, exclusively, (a few other addresses might appear in the "cc", but 
the lesser the better), and not dragging old messages at the bottom is 
strongly recommended... Additionally, we have a fis steering committee 
(integrated by Yixin, Krassimir, Shu-Kun, and myself) that can arbitrate 
in contentious cases where the First Rule should apply.


Let us forget the present incident; always clarifying that FIS list is 
completely open to criticisms, first on fis itself, and also addressed to 
any other school or doctrine, either contemporary or from the past... 
knowing the opinion of "contrarians" is as much important as knowing the 
opinions of the followers. INFORMATION HAS ENORMOUSLY CHANGED OUR 
SCIENTIFIC-ECONOMIC-CULTURAL-SOCIAL WORLD AND WE NEED RADICALLY DIFFERENT 
IDEAS. By the way, there is an important work on "social physics" (but 
arguing from the information flow point of view) by Alex Pentland that in 
my opinion establishes the very foundations of "SOCIAL INFORMATION 
SCIENCE"--it is a pity, and possibly  an error (?), that this author has 
placed his exciting research under the banner of physics.


best wishes ---Pedro




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


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

Re: [Fis] "The Travellers"

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

For me it was amazing time to read exchanges about "The travelers" !
I was silent because for me is was stimulus brain storming discussion.
I received a plenty of influences.

Only one aspect there was not commented and let me now to this.

For this purpose I will use a remarkable text from:
[ Frege G. An extract from an undated letter, published in Frege's 
Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence (ed.) Gottfried Gabriel, Hans 
Hermes. Friedrich Kanbartel. Christian Thiel, and Albert Veraart, Abridged for 
the English (edn.), by Brian MeGuinness, and Trans. Hans Kaal (Oxford: 
Blackwell. 1980), 
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/00-01/phil235/a_readings/frege_jourdain.html 
(accessed: 15.11.2012) ].:

In a letter written to Philip Jourdain in 1914, Gottlob Frege had written:

"
Let us suppose an explorer travelling in an unexplored country sees a high 
snow-capped mountain on the northern horizon.
By making inquiries among the natives he learns that its name is 'Aphla'. By 
sighting it from different points he determines its position as exactly as 
possible, enters it in a map, and writes in his diary: 'Aphla is at least 5000 
meters high'.
Another explorer sees a snow-capped mountain on the southern horizon and learns 
that it is called Ateb. He enters it in his map under this name.
Later comparison shows that both explorers saw the same mountain. Now the 
content of the proposition 'Ateb is Aphla' is far from being a mere consequence 
of the principle of identity, but contains a valuable piece of geographical 
knowledge. What is stated in the proposition 'Ateb is Aphla' is certainly not 
the same thing as the content of the proposition 'Ateb is Ateb'.
Now if what corresponded to the name 'Aphla' as part of the thought was the 
reference of the name and hence the mountain itself, then this would be the 
same in both thoughts. The thought expressed in the proposition 'Ateb is Aphla' 
would have to coincide with the one in 'Ateb is Ateb', which is far from being 
the case. What corresponds to the name 'Ateb' as part of the thought must 
therefore be different from what corresponds to the name 'Aphla' as part of the 
thought. This cannot therefore be the reference which is the same for both 
names, but must be something which is different in the two cases, and I say 
accordingly that the sense of the name 'Ateb' is different from the sense of 
the name 'Aphla'.
Accordingly, the sense of the proposition 'Ateb is at least 5000 meters high' 
is also different from the sense of the proposition 'Aphla is at least 5000 
meters high'. Someone who takes the latter to be true need not therefore take 
the former to be true. An object can be determined in different ways, and every 
one of these ways of determining it can give rise to a special name, and these 
different names then have different senses; for it is not self-evident that it 
is the same object which is being determined in different ways.
We find this in astronomy in the case of planetoids and comets. Now if the 
sense of a name was something subjective, then the sense of the proposition in 
which the name occurs, and hence the thought, would also be something 
subjective, and the thought one man connects with this proposition would be 
different from the thought another man connects with it; a common store of 
thoughts, a common science would be impossible.
It would be impossible for something one man said to contradict what another 
man said, because the two would not express the same thought at all, but each 
his owns.
For these reasons I believe that the sense of a name is not something 
subjective (crossed out: in one's mental life), that it does not therefore 
belong to psychology, and that it is indispensable.
“

What is important in this example is :
-The names Ateb and Aphla refer to different parts of the same natural 
object (mountain);
-The position of the referred object (mountain) is fixed by any artificial 
system (geographical co-ordinates) which is another knowledge about the same 
object;
-The names correspond one to another and both to the real object but 
without the explorers’ maps and diaries, it is impossible to restore the 
correspondence.

In conclusion, let me remark that we really need “knowledge maps” to understand 
each other “travelling in an unexplored reality”.
Such knowledge maps usually are called “General Theories”.

Friendly regards
Krassimir




-Original Message- 
From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 3:45 PM 
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] "The Travellers" 

Dear FIS colleagues,

Quite interesting exchanges, really. The discussion reminds me the times 
when behaviorism and ethology were at odds on how to focus the study of 
human/animal behavior. (Maybe I already talked about that some months 
ago.) On the one side, a rigorous theory and a strongly reductionist 
point of view were advanced --about learning, conditioned & 
unconditi

Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Mark and colleagues,

I totally agree!

The need of variety of information theories which explain the information 
phenomena from different point of view and on different levels was fixed more 
than twenty years ago in the name of the first ITHEA Int. Journal called 
“Information theories and applications”. As more theories so much systematized 
knowledge.

Mark, thank you for brilliant remark!
As you see we continue and extend our common research started in 1989-1991.

Friendly regards
Krassimir





From: Burgin, Mark 
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 11:33 PM
To: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.

Dear Krassimir and Colleagues,
  In his e-mail, Krassimir very well explained the differences between energy 
and information in the sense of General Information Theory (GIT). These 
differences appear because GIT studies information on the higher level than the 
General Theory of Information (GTI). If we look into mathematics, we see that 
group theory studies mathematical structures on on the higher level than set 
theory. Although set theory is most basic, while group theory has more 
applications outside mathematics, both theories - set theory and group theory - 
are necessary for mathematics as a whole. Thus, we may compare GIT to group 
theory and GTI to set theory as groups have additional structure in comparison 
with sets as the information quadruple of GIT has additional structure in 
comparison with the information triad of GTI. 

 Sincerely,
   Mark Burgin


On 8/25/2014 11:51 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote:

  Dear Colleagues,

  Thank you for comments and remarks.
  Many thanks to Mark for his interesting post.
  Really, the correspondence between energy and information is fundamental and 
needs to be clearly explained.

  I want to present my point of view because it is different from other ones. 

  It is clear, the energy is needed to create a reflection. 
  Without energy no internal changes (reflections) in the entities may be 
realized.
  This means that energy is needed to realize reflection which may become 
information for given subject.
  Without energy information is impossible.

  But the opposite correspondence does not exist.
  Energy does not depend on information.
  It exists in reality without subjects’ “decisions”.
  Energy is objective phenomenon , Information is subjective phenomenon.

  Let see a simple example.

  Let we have two equal pieces of paper.
  They contain some energy, let assume that its quantities are equal in both 
pieces.
  In other words, for instance, if we burn these pieces they will release 
practically the same quantities of energy.
  If I have such piece of paper  and you have another such one, we may exchange 
them as equivalent without any additional conditions.

  Let now the pieces of paper are painted with some colors. 
  The paint will add some additional energy to pieces. 
  Let assume that again it is in equal quantities in both pieces. 
  Again, we may exchange pieces as equivalent without any additional conditions.

  At the end, let pieces of paper are painted as follow:
  - the first piece is painted as USD 100 (one hundred dollars)
  - the second one is pained as RUB 100 (one hundred rubles)
  i.e. let have two real banknotes.

  Now, we will not agree to exchange these pieces of paper without additional 
conditions.
  As it is shown by Bloomberg, on 08/25/2014, 12.59:59, 
(http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USDRUB:CUR) 
  US DOLLAR-RUSSIAN RUBLE Exchange Rate is:
  Price of 1 USD in RUB is 36.1646,
  i.e now the first piece of paper is equivalent to more than 36 pieces of 
second one.
  Because of information for the subjects, the pieces became different 
notwithstanding that the energy quantities are equal in both pieces.
  The subjective decisions have important role in this case.

  In conclusion, the energy and information are different phenomena – objective 
and subjective, respectively.

  Energy may be explained by triple (see Mark’s nice explanations about 
triples!) : (source, recipient, transition) => (x, y, f) => y=f(x) .
  Information has to be explained by quadruple (source, recipient, evidence, 
subject). Here, it is important to remember Mark’s “Infological System”  as 
Subject. 
  The triples are object of study by Mathematics, quadruples – by Informatics.

  Friendly regards
  Krassimir





  From: Stanley N Salthe 
  Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:51 PM
  To: fis 
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?

  Bob wrote: 

  Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like
  Helmholz & Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to
  information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the
  exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules


  S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy.

  I happen to be a radical who feels that th

Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.

[Krassimir Markov]

ies of
> information in mind is the most worthwhile strategy.
>
>   One of the values of Krassimir's approach is that it recognizes the
> existence of some of these more complex questions that need to be
> answered. I simply suggest that process language and a recognition of
> dynamic interactions (e.g., between 'internal' and 'external') could be
> part of the strategy.
>
>   Best wishes,
>
>   Joseph
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Krassimir Markov
> To: Jerry LR Chandler ; FIS ; Pridi Siregar
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 10:42 AM
> Subject: [Fis] Information quadruple
>
>
> Dear Jerry, Pridi, and Colleagues,
>
> Thank you for the nice comments!
>
> To answer to questions I have to present next step from the GIT
> (General Information Theory) we are developing.
>
> Let remember in words (below "Infos" is abbreviation from "Information
> Subject", it is an intelligent natural or artificial agent (system)):
>
> Information is quadruple (Source, Recipient, Evidence, Infos) or
> formally i = (s, r, e, I)
>
> The nest step is to define elements of the quadruple:
>
> s and r are structured sets;
> e is a mapping from s in r which preserves (all or partial) structure
> of s and resolves any information expectation of I
>
> I expect new questions:
> - what is an "intelligent agent"
> - what is "information expectation"
> - ...
>
> If it is interesting, answers to these questions may be given in
> further letters.
>
> ***
>
> Now I want to make some comments to letters received (their full texts
> are given below my answers).
>
> Pridi: "information cannot be viewed in any absolute sense but as
> internal representations of "external patterns""
> Kr.:  Yes, the "reflection" is a property of Matter, "information" is
> a reflection for which the information quadruple exists. But
> information is not "internal representations of "external patterns" ".
> It is result from resolving the subjective information expectation
> which is process of comparing of internal and external patterns. I
> know, this will cause new questions
>
> Pridi: In this framework then, it seems that "information" cannot be
> conceptualized without reference to the both "something out there" and
> the "internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive system.
> Kr.: Yes.
>
> Pridi: How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information
> ... ?
> Kr.: By distance between "external patterns" and "information
> expectation" (sorry to be not clear but it is long text for further
> letters).
>
> Pridi: All "objective" measures (entropy, negentropy,...) are actually
> totally dependant of I1 and I2 and can never be considered as
> "absolute".
> Kr.: Yes, but the world humanity is an Infos and its information
> expectations we assume as "absolute".
>
> Pridi: ... some researchers that posit that "information" may be more
> fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps).
> Kr.: Yes, there are other paradigms which are useful in some cases,
> but in our paradigm "information" is not fundamental but "reflection"
> is the fundamental.
>
> Pridi: ... no "absolute truth" (whatever this means) is really gained.
> "Only" a richer more complete (subjective but coherent) world-view .
> Kr.: Yes.
>
> Jerry: ... assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to the
> philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter "CSP")
> Kr.: Our paradigm is nor opposite to what science has explored till
> now. All already investigated information theories (Shannon,Peirce,
> etc) have to be a part or intersection of a new GIT.
>
> Jerry: ... moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the
> subjective realm. (CSP's notion of "interpretation?)
> Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence as
> they choose, including the relationships to engineering terms such as
> "bandwidth".
> Kr.: Yes

[Fis] Information quadruple

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Jerry, Pridi, and Colleagues,

Thank you for the nice comments!

To answer to questions I have to present next step from the GIT (General 
Information Theory) we are developing.

Let remember in words (below “Infos” is abbreviation from “Information 
Subject”, it is an intelligent natural or artificial agent (system)):

Information is quadruple (Source, Recipient, Evidence, Infos) or formally i = 
(s, r, e, I) 

The nest step is to define elements of the quadruple:

s and r are structured sets;
e is a mapping from s in r which preserves (all or partial) structure of s and 
resolves any information expectation of I

I expect new questions:
- what is an “intelligent agent”
- what is “information expectation”
- ...

If it is interesting, answers to these questions may be given in further 
letters.

***

Now I want to make some comments to letters received (their full texts are 
given below my answers).

Pridi: “information cannot be viewed in any absolute sense but as internal 
representations of "external patterns"”
Kr.:  Yes, the “reflection” is a property of Matter, “information” is a 
reflection for which the information quadruple exists. But information is not 
“internal representations of "external patterns" ”. It is result from resolving 
the subjective information expectation which is process of comparing of 
internal and external patterns. I know, this will cause new questions 

Pridi: In this framework then, it seems that "information" cannot be 
conceptualized without reference to the both "something out there" and the 
"internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive system. 
Kr.: Yes.

Pridi: How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information ... ?
Kr.: By distance between "external patterns" and “information expectation” 
(sorry to be not clear but it is long text for further letters).

Pridi: All "objective" measures (entropy, negentropy,...) are actually totally 
dependant of I1 and I2 and can never be considered as "absolute". 
Kr.: Yes, but the world humanity is an Infos and its information expectations 
we assume as "absolute".

Pridi: ... some researchers that posit that "information" may be more 
fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps). 
Kr.: Yes, there are other paradigms which are useful in some cases, but in our 
paradigm “information” is not fundamental but “reflection” is the fundamental.

Pridi: ... no "absolute truth" (whatever this means) is really gained. "Only" a 
richer more complete (subjective but coherent) world-view .
Kr.: Yes.

Jerry: ... assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to the 
philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter "CSP") 
Kr.: Our paradigm is nor opposite to what science has explored till now. All 
already investigated information theories (Shannon,Peirce, etc) have to be a 
part or intersection of a new GIT.

Jerry: ... moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the subjective 
realm. (CSP's notion of "interpretation?)
Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence as they 
choose, including the relationships to engineering terms such as "bandwidth".
Kr.: Yes. But not only researches, everybody has such freedom. Because of this 
there exist advertising processes ... but for this we have to talk in further 
letters. 

Jerry: Pridi's post appropriately recognizes the tension between objective 
scientific theories and subjective judgments about evidence by different  
individuals with different professional backgrounds and different symbolic 
processing powers. 
Kr.: Yes, there will be tension if we assume world as plane structure. But it 
is hierarchical one and what is assumed as “subjective” at one level is assumed 
as “objective” for the low levels.

Jerry: ... to show that these definitions of symbols motivate a coherent symbol 
system that can be used to transfer information contained in the signal from 
symbolic representations of entities. It may work for engineering purposes, but 
is it extendable to life?
Kr.: The goal of work on GIT is to create a coherent symbol system which is 
equal valid for life creatures and artificial agents.

Jerry: ... this requires the use of multiple symbol systems and multiple forms 
of logic in order to gain the functionality of transfer of "in-form" between 
individuals or machines.
Kr.: Yes, at least on three levels – Information, Infos, Inforaction 
(Information interaction)

Jerry: Anybody have any suggestions on how this quadruple of symbols can be 
formalized into a quantitative coherent form of communication?
Kr.: A step toward this I give above in the beginning of this letter but it is 
very long journey ...

Thank you for creative discussion!
Friendly regards
Krassimir





-Original Message- 
From: Jerry LR Chandler 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:57 

Re: [Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite informationcontent - Information content of Atomic Numbers

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Jerry and Colleagues,

Thank you for the interesting comments.

Yes, the physical, material concept of order is the empirical ground for 
enumerations of physical chemistry.

But only on the human level, on the level of science, which is a kind of 
reflection of reality.
I.e. we have quadruple where Information subject is a very complex social 
system (science) and the other entities of the quadruple are complex, too.

Let remember the example – Carbon has the physical world definition of "6" – 
what means this?
For the not specialists this has no meaning – they need evidence what it 
reflects, at least corresponded definition.
I.e. one needs to configure the quadruple to receive any information.

Friendly regards
Krassimir









From: Jerry LR Chandler 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:34 PM
To: FIS Information Science 
Cc: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite informationcontent 
- Information content of Atomic Numbers

List, Krassimir:


(I have posted Krassimir's response below, since it may not have been 
distributed to the list.)


My question was not a metaphysical question about materiality, my body and 
other such philosophical question of import.


Rather, it is direct question about the sufficiency of the rhetoric of the 
proposal to define a theory of information.


The response saids:
"Atom has no number in the reality, it has one in any information quadruple."


The physical, material concept of order is the empirical ground for 
enumerations of physical chemistry.


The concept of "atomic number" is central to elemental quantum mechanics as 
well as atomic table of elements as well as molecular biology and of course, 
the practice of medicine itself.


To assert that "Atom has no number in the reality"  is a denial of physical 
reality, is it not?


By logical extension,
if "Atom has no number in the reality", then the material world has no reality.
And:
If the material world has no reality, the proposed definition of "information" 
is self-contradictory.


This suggests to me that the proposed definition may need to altered to avoid 
the implication of self-contradiction.


Cheers


Jerry












Dear Jery,

Thank you for interesting remark.

Physical world means all material reality.
A special case of it are living creatures.

Your example is good for discussion – somewhere the Rutherford/Moseley 
experiments had been reflected to be further analyzed, i.e. we have information 
quadruple including scientists who assign atomic numbers. Atom has no number in 
the reality, it has one in any information quadruple. Of course, here we have 
very long chain of reflections and corresponded quadruples.

Ideal entities are reflections (information) in our brain and are so material 
as we are. This is long story about information models ... including your 
example ...

Friendly regards
Krassimir





On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:


  List, Karassimir: 

  I found your definition of information to be a bit confusing because the 
language is a bit ambiguous to me.

  While the definitions of the quadruple "make sense" from a rhetorical sense, 
one notion that is missing is the concept of what is the meaning of the  
central reference term:  "physical world".

  For example, please show how for your definition information works for the 
electrical nature of the carbon atom as defined by the Rutherford/Moseley 
experiments, which form the base of the atomic numbers. (Carbon has the 
physical world definition of "6".)  How would this information be symbolized?

  In other words, how does the concept of "quantity" enter into your definition?

  Cheers

  Jerry




  On Jul 21, 2014, at 4:40 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote:


Dear Pridi,

An accordance with my understanding:

In physical world there exist only reflections but not information.

Information “i" is the quadruple:
i = (s, r, e, I)
where
s is a source entity, which is reflected in r
r is the entity in which reflection of s exists
e is an evidence for the subject I which proofs for him and only for him 
that the reflection in r reflects just s, i.e. the evidence proofs for the 
subject what the reflection reflects.
I is information subject who has possibility to make decisions in 
accordance with some goals – human, animal, bacteria, artificial intelligent 
system, etc.

In other words, information is a reflection, but not every reflection is 
information – only reflections for which the quadruple above exist are assumed 
as information by the corresponded subjects.

For different I, information may be different because of subjects’ finite 
memory and reflection possibilities.
Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may have 
finite information content (for concrete information subject).

   

[Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite information content

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pridi,

An accordance with my understanding:

In physical world there exist only reflections but not information.

Information “i" is the quadruple:
i = (s, r, e, I)
where
s is a source entity, which is reflected in r
r is the entity in which reflection of s exists
e is an evidence for the subject I which proofs for him and only for him that 
the reflection in r reflects just s, i.e. the evidence proofs for the subject 
what the reflection reflects.
I is information subject who has possibility to make decisions in accordance 
with some goals – human, animal, bacteria, artificial intelligent system, etc.

In other words, information is a reflection, but not every reflection is 
information – only reflections for which the quadruple above exist are assumed 
as information by the corresponded subjects.

For different I, information may be different because of subjects’ finite 
memory and reflection possibilities.
Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may have finite 
information content (for concrete information subject).

Friendly regards
Krassimir





-Original Message- 
From: Pridi Siregar 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:35 AM 
To: Jerry LR Chandler 
Cc: Foundations of Information Science of Information Science Information 
Information Science 
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation 

I was thinking about particles with mass...:-)

If anyone has an idea concerning my question thanks for the reply. I'm totally 
ignorant concerning deep thoughts on the nature of information.

Pridi





- Mail original -
De: "Jerry LR Chandler" 
À: "Foundations of Information Science of Information Science Information 
Information Science" 
Cc: "John Collier" , "Pridi Siregar" 

Envoyé: Dimanche 20 Juillet 2014 05:12:53
Objet: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation

Pridi:

Are you mixing apples with citrus fruits?

Pure elastic collision are pre-suppose mass particles.
Electrical particles in this context do what?

Cheers

Jerry



On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:21 AM, Pridi Siregar wrote:

> Dear John and all,
> 
> The limiting case of the particle collision (pure elastic collision) can be 
> represented by a dirac impulse whose spectral content ranges over all the 
> frequencies. I have a question: What does it mean to have a physical event 
> with an infinite bandwith while its information content is finite ?
> 
> Best
> 
> 
> Pridi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Mail original -
> De: "John Collier" 
> À: fis@listas.unizar.es, "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
> Envoyé: Mardi 15 Juillet 2014 07:19:50
> Objet: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation
> 
> Dear fis members,
> 
> I don't think that granularity per se is a 
> necessary basis for the application of 
> information theory to analog channels. In some 
> cases it might be, and I agree that studying the 
> relations between analog (continuous) and digital 
> (discrete) processes is likely to be both 
> interesting and productive. However the bandwidth 
> of an analog channel typically can be defined 
> even if there is no discreteness, for example if 
> the information bearing process consists of waves 
> so that the information bearing capacity is 
> limited by the wavelength. Virtually all physical 
> processes are cyclical in some way and thus have 
> a limited bandwidth. A countercase would be a 
> collision between particles that carries momentum 
> from one to another. I can't think offhand right 
> now (I just woke up), but I suspect that even in 
> such cases there is a finite amount of 
> information transferred. In any case, Shannon 
> discussed the bandwidth of continuous process channels. It is worth looking 
> at.
> 
> John
> 
> At 10:28 PM 2014-07-14, Srinandan Dasmahapatra wrote:
>> I think I agree with Joseph Brenner 
>> here.  Analogue computing is linked to real 
>> processes, while living beings find ways of 
>> transducing information out of dynamical states. 
>> The graininess that information theories rely on 
>> to define measures may be directly linked 
>> to  physical limits in the information carriers 
>> (such as photons) or they might be limitations 
>> of the processing organism, extracting the 
>> sufficient "difference that makes a difference". 
>> And yes, there's often a too hasty rush to view 
>> analogue computing through pixellated perspectives.
>> 
>> I'm not sure if this is well known to members of 
>> this list, but Bill Bialek's biophysics text is 
>> a profound reflection of the interplay between 
>> the analogue and the digital, with selection 
>> pressure forcing the sufficiency of the grainy 
>> "difference that makes a difference" towards a 
>> necessity for organisms, and hence pushing 
>> sensory systems close to the physical limits of information transfer.
>> Cheers,
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>>  Original message 
>> From: Joseph Brenner
>> Date:14/07/2014 18:12 (GMT+00:00)
>> To: Pridi Siregar ,"Pedro C. Marijuan"
>> Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS in 

Re: [Fis] Perennial information question ...

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

I agree that now it is not good approach to try to have common "general info 
doctrine" but it is important to define personal understanding when one is 
discussing some problems connecting the "information". I other case, there is 
no common sense in the written sentences.

About Vienna and Varna conferences - they are quite different and no 
conflicting.

FIS and ISIS are specialized societies only to foundations of information 
sciences.

ITHEA is more large society than FIS - about 3000 members - and covers all 
fields of informatics ( see www.ithea.org )

Because of this, I stay on the position that Vienna conference is the right 
place for FIS meeting next year.

Unfortunately, the Vienna conference will be in the heavy time for me due to 
preparing Varna conference and it is really impossible for me to take part.

Friendly regards
Krassimir
presid...@ithea.org 



-Original Message- 
From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 1:14 PM 
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna 

Dear FISers,

Just a few brief points on the many themes open.

Pridi's morphogenesis: The new computer fabrication techs based on 3D 
printers are opening a new realm of artificial morphogenesis. We are 
achieving, finally, something very similar to the intususpection growth 
of life, which is based on cellular signaling strategies coupled to 
force fields and electrical fields. This signaling involvement, 
basically in the control of the cellular life-cycle, is very interesting 
to me and have done some work . We could have an special section about 
that, maybe in a "New Biology" session next year in Varna, and maybe 
also in Vienna. Also with a European Projects and Innovation transfer 
session.

Perennial information question: given the open-ended characteristic of 
information and the proliferation of hundreds of "definitions", 
advocating for a consensus is the most prudent strategy. Also it is 
needed  a new way of thinking consolidating different approaches to 
"informational entities" from a naturalistic and empirical perspective. 
The prejudice of looking for a general info doctrine out from physical 
fields, or from classical info theory, or from logics, keeps us into our 
beloved "cul de sac".

Information flow: in the same way that understanding the "energy flow" 
in the biosphere, in the 50's and 60's (eg, Morowitz, Margalef) changed 
quite a bit the bioenergetic panorama, establishing the "laws" of the 
"information flow" could do the same effect in information science 
today; not only in biology, think also in enterprises, cities, 
countries, etc. I already posted on new urban science, how it relies on 
information flows (legitimately!). Quite a panoply of "informational 
entities" are based in communication and self-production intertwining of 
flows. Communication is held for the sake of self-production.

Great Domains of Science: Information Science(s) constitute with the 
Social, the Biological, and the Physical the four great domains of 
contemporary science (echoing Rosenbloom, modified)--that should be our 
working perspective. Not just that we are enlarging classical Library 
Science.

Varna's, Vienna's ... Both are we are quite complementary. Fortunately 
we are counting with two channels for our face-to-face communication. 
One devoted to the most general, and the other for the link with 
research & technical fields. Next week I will make some comments on 
Wolfgang's text, as I think it needs a little bit more of scientific 
contents (say related to info science & natural science) in order to 
attract active researchers in these fields.

best greetings

--Pedro

-- 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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

Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro, Joseph, John, Sri, and FIS Colleagues,

At first place, I want to congratulate all of you with 20-th Anniversary of FIS!
This is remarkable achievement of FIS community!
I wish you health and good positive spirit to continue our very important, 
interesting and fruitful collaboration!  

In Varna (Bulgaria) we have nice meeting. Many thanks!
Next year Varna conference will be in a new 4 stars SPA-hotel with very large 
mineral water pool, SPA procedures, and very good prices for ALL INCLUSIVE: 
EURO 36 for a single room and EURO 32 for person in double room.

***

About  Analogue and Discrete Computations as well as Continuity and 
Discontinuity as properties of information:
We still need clear understanding of WHAT IS INFORMATION to discover WHAT ARE 
ITS PROPERTIES and WHAT IS REALLY DONE DURING COMPUTATIONS.  
Do we process information or exchange and transform energy, or reconfigure 
mater objects?
I think, it is important one to define the basic point of view (clear 
definition) before discussing in details one or another aspect of information.
Of course, many different points of view are possible and, because of this, we 
may have many different information theories and corresponded implementations.

It will be very useful to prepare a list of definitions we will use (a part of 
all ones) with links to corresponded bibliography.
Mark Burgin, Wolfgang Hofkirchner, John D. Collier, Luciano Floridi,  as well 
as several other colleagues, already have published nice surveys or theories 
(incl. LIR of Joseph Brener!), so what we have to do now is to select 
definitions appropriate for our discussions. 
Is it possible ? 

Friendly regards
Krassimir
presid...@ithea.org  










-Original Message- 
From: Joseph Brenner 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:14 PM 
To: fis ; Pedro C. Marijuan ; John Collier 
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation 

Dear John,

Thank you for this interesting perspective. Regarding the origin of the
"limited band width" of physical processes, could this have its origin in
some regularity other than circularity? For example, the "continuous going
back and forth" (the phrase is Botero's) between opposing attitudes or
states, alternately predominantly actual and potential?

All natural processes, then, have a capacity for continuous information
bearing. The problem is then the origin of /discreteness/, not only in your
countercase, which involves quantum particles, but at higher levels of
interactions between complex entities! For me, the only solution is that
continuity and discontinuity are properties of information which are
not totally separate from one another.

Perhaps Sri, there may be here the physical basis for the "interplay"
between analogue and digital that you see in Bialek's book, of which I have
only read the (free) introduction?

Best,

Joseph

- Original Message - 
From: "John Collier" 
To: ; "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation


Dear fis members,

I don't think that granularity per se is a
necessary basis for the application of
information theory to analog channels. In some
cases it might be, and I agree that studying the
relations between analog (continuous) and digital
(discrete) processes is likely to be both
interesting and productive. However the bandwidth
of an analog channel typically can be defined
even if there is no discreteness, for example if
the information bearing process consists of waves
so that the information bearing capacity is
limited by the wavelength. Virtually all physical
processes are cyclical in some way and thus have
a limited bandwidth. A countercase would be a
collision between particles that carries momentum
from one to another. I can't think offhand right
now (I just woke up), but I suspect that even in
such cases there is a finite amount of
information transferred. In any case, Shannon
discussed the bandwidth of continuous process channels. It is worth looking
at.

John

At 10:28 PM 2014-07-14, Srinandan Dasmahapatra wrote:
>I think I agree with Joseph Brenner here.  Analogue computing is linked to
>real processes, while living beings find ways of transducing information
>out of dynamical states. The graininess that information theories rely on
>to define measures may be directly linked to  physical limits in the
>information carriers (such as photons) or they might be limitations of the
>processing organism, extracting the sufficient "difference that makes a
>difference". And yes, there's often a too hasty rush to view analogue
>computing through pixellated perspectives.
>
>I'm not sure if this is well known to members of this list, but Bill
>Bialek's biophysics text is a profound reflection of the interplay between
>the analogue and the digital, with selection pressure forcing the
>sufficiency of the grainy "difference that makes a difference" towards a
>necessity for organisms, and hence pushing sensory systems clos

[Fis] The Interaction Man

[Krassimir Markov]

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 which I think is worth a note. The two
elements (I say) are in a dynamic relation and a logical relation, as the
mind moves between them. Alternately one or the other is predominant (more
actualized)

Lupasco said: "experience is logic; logic is experience". Closer to home we
have: "information is constraints and constraints are information" (Kauffman
et al, 2008).

The purport of metabolism is change, not only burning carbon-hydrogen bonds.
But perhaps we might all prefer "communicating is life; life is
communicating".

Best,

Joseph
Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
>
> Dear Bob,
>
> Thank you so much for this paper (that I had seen before). I agree
> with many of the things written here, but my intellectual orientation
> is another one, namely one that does not consider biology, philosophy
> of biology, or the definition of life as a fruitful starting point for
> the analysis of cultural phenomena such as scientific communication.
>
> Discursive knowledge does not emerge as autonomous agency in molecular
> processes, but at a next level in terms of exchanges among human
> (reflexive!) agents. The interactions exhibit a non-linear dynamics of
> expectations and meanings. Shannon-type information-theo

Re: [Fis] Praxotype

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear FIS colleagues,

Sorry to double a part of this text for some of you but the SPAM filter of
FIS server stopped my first letter.

It is good for me because now I have second “first” attempt for this week
in FIS mailing list.


About words and numbers:

Numbers are invented to make possible the abstraction from real word and,
of course, from names of things from real word.

NUMBERS ARE NAMES of abstract entities.

One may make abstraction from reality to numbers and vice versa – to
concretize some numbers to real entitles.
In every case he/she may found some regularity.
This game has no limits.

The main question is “what is usefulness of the results from the game?”.

In many cases, this question is without answer.

But what about “numbering” and “numerology” ?

Mapping words to numbers has no rational meaning for humans because
numerology is not science but mystic approach for influence over non
educated humans. I am specialist in numerology and immediatelly will ask
"Why we use decimal system in this "science", why not any other - binary,
hexadecimal, Roman numerals, etc." :-)

In the same time, mapping letters, words, and phrases to numbers
(numbering) permit us to realize (new type) computer systems which model
human brain memory.
Two weeks ago I speak about this at NIT 2013 Int. Conference in Madrid.
This approach we call “Natural Language Addressing”.
It solves some difficult problems with so called “big data”.


Abouit "Praxotype":

Every scientific research needs concepts to be used in corresponded theory.

New concepts are useful if they could not be replaced by any other single
concept.

Because of this, proposing new concepts, they have to be accomplished with
a survey of known similar concepts already used in the same or other
scientific areas. I need such survey for "Praxotype" and "Cognotype".

FIS is right place to provide such work and to propose common concepts and
definitions for Information Science.

Friendly regards
Krassimir

P.S. I apologize to all who assume concept “usefulness” as a forbidden one
:-)




From: Karl Javorszky
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 6:23 PM
To: Stanley N Salthe
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Praxotype

As Bob said experiences -> words. Wittgenstein said words -> numbers.
Pythagoras: world -> numbers. Idea: organise numbers like you organise
words and see the world.

Question from Stan: experience <-> number ?.

Answer:

Like in Bobs analogy: water as a recognisable, recurring experience,
sufficiently interpersonal to be consistently named and understood that
this is what was meant by "water". In our case, we have to communicate
recognisable, recurring expriences that relate to mental products that are
thought. The brain experiences by the sensory organs differently than by
thinking. Feelings that arise on thoughts, rather than on sensual
experiences, can also be circumscribed. This will happen in an abstract
way. The audience is invited to recognise a pattern of patterns.  These
can be communicated by ponting to a table and saying "such is the place
here and then", these statements being numbers. One may want to be
perceptive to the experience that a point in space and a load on this
point can be directly read out of the natural numbers. We are presently
learning the common, unifying experience that a table - slightly more
complicated than a multiplication table - delivers exact data on "what is
where and when". Therefrom, one will be accessing a logical experience of
"order". Like the physiological experience "water" has got a common name,
the cultural invention is now to give the name "order" to a way of reading
the contents of a table that makes the concept explicable to all.

This is the stage we are at now.

As to the sufficient number of noumena - see Gordana - as compared to that
of words used by traditional languages: we are at learning to give names
to experiences, and the experiences themselves are not yet universally
connected to such an interpretation of numbers which allows saying "this
experience is commonly shared and is called", e.g., 'order', or 'future'
or 'space-mass-time stitch-up by standard place changes'.

There is by far enough of numbers to represent all that could have ever
been said. In fact one needs rather only a few of the numbers. It is
mostly combinatorics, and Nature makes do with 3 places and 4 markers to
convey the message. One can simulate genetics in a crude way by using
twice 16 elements. Their relations are very intricate. They deserve a
closer look. There, one can experience that feeling of order about which a
rational dialogue is possible.


Bruno: non-computability is true

The physical facts must lie within the nature of the numbers. The
perception by the human is where the information is added: aha, this
relation means that such-and-such will be that way. The content is in the
numbers, and is not computational. It is indeed us that have to understand
the movement of the elements by applying to the set of beliefs that

Re: [Fis] THE SOCIOTYPE: SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BEYOND

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Raquel, Loet and FIS Colleagues,

Yes, “global brain” is mystification.

One may find similarity between organization of society and human brain.

But this is the same kind of similarity as to mechanism, computer, clock, etc. .

Such similarities may be used to generate some new ideas or to break down old 
paradigms.

Social organization is a separate level of living matter hierarchy with 
specific “emerged” [Ashby] features.

There is no direct “smooth” transition from one level of living matter to 
another.

What is common for all levels of living matter organization are the 
“information phenomena and processes” which (of course!) are specific for 
different levels.

Because the information is a kind of reflection and the reflection is attribute 
of the matter.

If one ask me what is the “emerged” feature of human society, my answer will be 
“the natural languages” and information interaction based on linguistic 
constructions.
  
Friendly regards
Krassimir





From: Loet Leydesdorff 
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 5:11 PM
To: 'Raquel del Moral' ; fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] THE SOCIOTYPE: SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BEYOND

Loet, your criticism is very accurate, thanks. But I really think, as said 
Jorge, that our sociality has to have a fairly stable structure, that is to 
say, lower and upper limits that "feed" our mental wellbeing. It's not fixed, 
of course, but individuals become integral embodiments of emotions, and most of 
the active components of these emotions reside in our social environment. 
Evolutionarily we have developed this social dependence, and therefore the 
absence of such bonds, or the feeling of not having them, is devastating to our 
health --both physical and mental, as emphasized by numerous studies.

Dear Raquel: 

Expectations of social structure are extremely stable without materialization. 
For example, the expectation of the rule of law. These are anchored/reflected 
in codes of communications. One does not have to appeal to a “global brain”. It 
seems a mystification to me. 

Of course, the social expectations when codified leave footprints behind in the 
form of institutions. For example, courts and parliaments as places where one 
enacts the rule of law.

Best,

Loet

 




___
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

[Fis] about common language

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Steven, Plamen, and  FIS Colleagues,

SI [Guilford, 1967] of the Infos  [Markov et al, 2009] is a consequence from
inforaction [Markov et al, 2008] with other ones , isn’t it?

Thank you for short discussion about common language.

Friendly regards
Krassimir

Bibliography

[Guilford, 1967] Guilford, J.P.  The nature of human intelligence. New York,
NY, US: McGraw-Hill. 1967.

[Markov et al, 2008] Markov Kr., St. Poryazov, Kr. Ivanova, I. Mitov, V.
Markova. Culture Aspects of Inforaction. IJ ITK, Vol.2. ITHEA, 2008. pp.
335-342

[Markov et al, 2009] Markov Kr., Kr. Ivanova, I. Mitov. Theory of INFOS. In:
G. Setlak, Kr. Markov (ed.) Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems.
International Book Series “INFORMATION SCIENCE & COMPUTING”, Number 13.
ITHEA, 2009. pp. 9-16. 

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

Re: [Fis] FIS new course

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Plamen and colleagues,
Sorry to use my second attempt this week for so short remark but what to do?

I never seen Olympic games with two or three participants.
And never seen “sophisticated” Olympic games like chess.

If we want to be understandable we have to explain our ideas clearly and to use 
common language!

Best regards
Krassimir




From: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov 
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:33 PM
To: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS new course

Well, I agree Krassimir, but if we follow that simplification pattern we are 
lowering the education level our fellow citizen. 
Recently, even Indian based editorial services are looking for high-end 
qualified scientific journal editors. There is no way around this. Newton and 
Leibniz were speaking even more complex language than we speak today. I am 
against dumbing down of science. 

This would mean Olympic Games without records. Who would like to participate?

Young fellows consume sufficient junk nutrition from the mass media and I think 
we have to keep the status quo level.
The Pythagoreans were even more serious in following this line, sorry.

Best wishes,

Plamen




On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:

  Dear Raquel and FIS Colleagues,

  Nice to see such activity on the FIS-land.

  May I ask for more “simple English” in the explanations.

  Main part of texts, I had received from FIS-list till now, are at the “very 
high scientific level” for which understanding one has to look for special 
knowledge.

  As I understand, FIS is collaborative society of scientists, artists, young 
students ...
  It is clear, we have to address all of our partners but not only one or two 
who understand us.
  The latest case is for private correspondence.

  I have more than 20 years practice as chairman and editor in chief of 
international scientific conferences, journals and books (see www.ithea.org ).
  The conclusion is that “sophisticated texts” are not acceptable for large 
auditory.

  Friendly regards
  Krassimir




  From: Raquel del Moral 
  Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 5:52 PM
  To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
  Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS new course

  Dear FISers,

  We have been working in a couple of new ideas for the list. As Pedro has 
advanced you, for this new course we have planned two different kind of 
discussions, the thematic regular session (both junior and senior), and a new 
modality consisting in short discussions about interesting papers (we will 
arrange in the refurbished fis webpages a new platform to upload the papers). 
In relation to this, let me introduce you our new web master, David Sierra. We 
two will try to develop progressively the new changes, including the 
suggestions I have already received (Thanks!). 

  About the sociotype session, in a few weeks I will have finished the opening 
text.

  I hope we will have an exciting discussion!


  All the best, 
  Raquel



  El 10/09/2013 18:05, Pedro C. Marijuan escribió: 
Dear FISers,

We start a new course, hopefully retaking our exciting exchanges and 
discussions. Next days Raquel will send all of us a few detailed proposals. 
Besides our chaired discussion sessions, we are also trying to develop a new 
type of sessions, shorter ones, for instance around interesting publications 
--sort of a Journal Club. We have planned a couple of tentative regular 
sessions (one around the "sociotype", and another about "Noumena"... well next 
days we will send more info. Herein I am adding below an abstract we have just 
published about "eukaryotic intelligence". Maybe we can discuss about it until 
the next session starts.

best wishes to all

---Pedro

-- 
BioSystems 114 (2013) 8– 24
On eukaryotic intelligence: Signaling system’s guidance in the evolution of 
multicellular organization
Pedro C. Marijuán∗, Raquel del Moral, Jorge Navarro
Bioinformation and Systems Biology Group, Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de 
la Salud (IACS), Zaragoza 50009, Spain

Communication with the environment is an essential characteristic of the 
living cell, even more when
considering the origins and evolution of multicellularity. A number of 
changes and tinkering inventions
were necessary in the evolutionary transition between prokaryotic and 
eukaryotic cells, which finally
made possible the appearance of genuine multicellular organisms. In the 
study of this process, however,
the transformations experimented by signaling systems themselves have been 
rarely object of analysis,
obscured by other more conspicuous biological traits: incorporation of 
mitochondria, segregated
nucleus, introns/exons, flagellum, membrane systems, etc. Herein a 
discussion of the main avenues of
change from prokaryotic to eukaryotic signaling systems and a review of the 
signaling resources and
strategies underlying multicellularity will be attempted. In

Re: [Fis] FIS new course

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Raquel and FIS Colleagues,

Nice to see such activity on the FIS-land.

May I ask for more “simple English” in the explanations.

Main part of texts, I had received from FIS-list till now, are at the “very 
high scientific level” for which understanding one has to look for special 
knowledge.

As I understand, FIS is collaborative society of scientists, artists, young 
students ...
It is clear, we have to address all of our partners but not only one or two who 
understand us.
The latest case is for private correspondence.

I have more than 20 years practice as chairman and editor in chief of 
international scientific conferences, journals and books (see www.ithea.org ).
The conclusion is that “sophisticated texts” are not acceptable for large 
auditory.

Friendly regards
Krassimir




From: Raquel del Moral 
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 5:52 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS new course

Dear FISers,

We have been working in a couple of new ideas for the list. As Pedro has 
advanced you, for this new course we have planned two different kind of 
discussions, the thematic regular session (both junior and senior), and a new 
modality consisting in short discussions about interesting papers (we will 
arrange in the refurbished fis webpages a new platform to upload the papers). 
In relation to this, let me introduce you our new web master, David Sierra. We 
two will try to develop progressively the new changes, including the 
suggestions I have already received (Thanks!). 

About the sociotype session, in a few weeks I will have finished the opening 
text.

I hope we will have an exciting discussion!


All the best, 
Raquel



El 10/09/2013 18:05, Pedro C. Marijuan escribió: 
  Dear FISers,

  We start a new course, hopefully retaking our exciting exchanges and 
discussions. Next days Raquel will send all of us a few detailed proposals. 
Besides our chaired discussion sessions, we are also trying to develop a new 
type of sessions, shorter ones, for instance around interesting publications 
--sort of a Journal Club. We have planned a couple of tentative regular 
sessions (one around the "sociotype", and another about "Noumena"... well next 
days we will send more info. Herein I am adding below an abstract we have just 
published about "eukaryotic intelligence". Maybe we can discuss about it until 
the next session starts.

  best wishes to all

  ---Pedro

  -- 
  BioSystems 114 (2013) 8– 24
  On eukaryotic intelligence: Signaling system’s guidance in the evolution of 
multicellular organization
  Pedro C. Marijuán∗, Raquel del Moral, Jorge Navarro
  Bioinformation and Systems Biology Group, Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de 
la Salud (IACS), Zaragoza 50009, Spain

  Communication with the environment is an essential characteristic of the 
living cell, even more when
  considering the origins and evolution of multicellularity. A number of 
changes and tinkering inventions
  were necessary in the evolutionary transition between prokaryotic and 
eukaryotic cells, which finally
  made possible the appearance of genuine multicellular organisms. In the study 
of this process, however,
  the transformations experimented by signaling systems themselves have been 
rarely object of analysis,
  obscured by other more conspicuous biological traits: incorporation of 
mitochondria, segregated
  nucleus, introns/exons, flagellum, membrane systems, etc. Herein a discussion 
of the main avenues of
  change from prokaryotic to eukaryotic signaling systems and a review of the 
signaling resources and
  strategies underlying multicellularity will be attempted. In the expansion of 
prokaryotic signaling systems,
  four main systemic resources were incorporated: molecular tools for detection 
of solutes, molecular
  tools for detection of solvent (Donnan effect), the apparatuses of cell-cycle 
control, and the combined
  system endocytosis/cytoskeleton. The multiple kinds of enlarged, mixed 
pathways that emerged made
  possible the eukaryotic revolution in morphological and physiological 
complexity. The massive incorporation
  of processing resources of electro-molecular nature, derived from the osmotic 
tools counteracting
  the Donnan effect, made also possible the organization of a computational 
tissue with huge information
  processing capabilities: the nervous system. In the central nervous systems 
of vertebrates, and particularly
  in humans, neurons have achieved both the highest level of 
molecular-signaling complexity and
  the highest degree of information-processing adaptability. Theoretically, it 
can be argued that there has
  been an accelerated pace of evolutionary change in eukaryotic signaling 
systems, beyond the other general
  novelties introduced by eukaryotic cells in their handling of DNA processes. 
Under signaling system’s
  guidance, the whole processes of transcription, alternative splicing, mobile 
elements, and other elements
  of domain recombina

Re: [Fis] A "young" science?

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Zong-Rong,

I am very interested to receive your files.
Please send them to :
mar...@foibg.com 

Let me remember that ITHEA ISS support a web page

http://ithea.org/fis/

at which we may publish files to be downloaded from all FIS-ers.

If you agree, I will add your files at this web page.

Our point of view about theory is given in 
Markov Kr., Kr. Ivanova, I.Mitov. Basic Structure of the General Information 
Theory. IJ ITA, Vol.14, No.: 1, ITHEA, 2007. pp.5-19
and is available at FIS page too.

Friendly regards
Krassimir



From: Zong-Rong Li 
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:43 AM
To: fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] A "young" science?

Dear all,
Please open attached file.
Best,
Zong-Rong

-- Origin message --
>From："Raquel del Moral" 
>To："fis" 
>Subject：[Fis] A "young" science?
>Date：2013-06-07 00:07:31

Dear all,

Last week I posted into the list to present myself as a new collaborator
in the Fis secretariat, now I would like to talk about my other
"profile": I am a graduate student, making the PhD in neurosocial
information. I am working in the structure of human relationships,
social bonds, and in the dynamics of person-to-person communication from
an evolutionary point of view (I have done my degree on biology).

>From hereon, I think that PhD students should try to enter into Fis
discussions more often (I am sure that among the 300 FISers there
should be several tens of PhDs!). We should be able to post our own
ideas and to coordinate a "junior" session too. I think FIS forums are a
great platform to exchange ideas and they could be very enriching to
develop our Theses. At least I will risk to post the central ideas of my
own thesis in a few weeks, with the hope that a good debate could be
established... isn't the new information science a "young" science??


Best,
Raquel

--
-
Raquel del Moral
Grupo de Bioinformacion / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco 13, 50009 Zaragoza

Tfno. +34 976 71 44 76
e-mail.rdelmoral.i...@aragon.es
-

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

Re: [Fis] the intelligent agents

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Gordana and colleagues,

You are right, the concept ‘agent’ is just the abstraction of our understanding 
about the active entities which has possibility to be ‘intelligent’.
Below I remember a short text about it:

The definition of the concept "intelligence" was given in [1]. It follows from 
the “General Information Theory” [2] and especially from the “Theory of Infos” 
[3].

The intelligence is a synergetic combination of:

–  (primary) activity for external interaction. This characteristic is 
basic for all open systems. Activity for external interaction means possibility 
to reflect the influences from environment and to realize impact on the 
environment;

–  information reflection and information memory, i.e. possibility for 
collecting the information. It is clear; memory is basic characteristic of 
intelligence for “the ability to learn”;

–  information self-reflection, i.e. possibility for generating "secondary 
information". The generalization (creating abstractions) is well known 
characteristic of intelligence. Sometimes, we concentrate our investigations 
only to this very important possibility, which is a base for learning and 
recognition. The same is pointed for the intelligent system: “To reach its 
objective it chooses an action based on its experiences. It can learn by 
generalizing the experiences it has stored in its memories”;

–  information expectation i.e. the (secondary) information activity for 
internal or external contact. This characteristic means that the prognostic 
knowledge needs to be generated in advance and during the interaction with the 
environment the received information is collected and compared with one 
generated in advance. This not exists in usual definitions but it is the 
foundation-stone for definition of the concept "intelligence";

–  resolving the information expectation. This correspond to that the 
"intelligence is the ability to reach ones objectives". The target is a model 
of a future state (of the system) which needs to be achieved and corresponding 
to it prognostic knowledge needs to be "resolved" by incoming information.

In summary, the intelligence is creating and resolving the information 
expectation [1]. 

The concept "intelligence" is a common approach for investigating the natural 
and artificial intelligent agents. It is clear; the reality is more complex 
than one definition. 



Presented understanding of intelligence is important for realizations of the 
intelligent computer systems. The core element of such systems needs to be 
possibility for creating the information expectation as well as the one for 
resolving it. The variety of real implementations causes corresponded diversity 
in the software but the common principles will exist in all systems. 
Summarizing, the artificial system is intelligent if it has:

–  Activity for external interaction; 

–  Information reflection and information memory; 

–  Possibility for generalization (creating abstractions); 

–  Information expectation; 

–  Resolving the information expectation.



At the end, the five main problems of the science “Artificial Intelligence” are 
to develop more and more “smart”:

–  sensors and actuators - to realize external interaction;

–  memory structures - to learn; 

–  generalization algorithms - to make abstractions; 

–  prognostic knowledge generation - to create information expectation;

–  resolving the information expectation - to reach objectives.



Bibliography



1.  I. Mitov, Kr. Markov, Kr. Ivanova. The Intelligence. Plenary paper. Third 
International Scientific Conference “Informatics in the Scientific Knowledge”. 
University Publishing House, VFU “Chernorizets Hrabar”, 2010. ISSN: 1313-4345. 
pp. 7-13

2.  Kr. Markov, Kr. Ivanova, I. Mitov. Basic Structure of the General 
Information Theory. Int. Journal “Information Theories and Applications”, 
Vol.14/2007, No.:1, pp.5-19.

3.  Kr. Markov, Kr. Ivanova, I. Mitov. Theory of Infos. Int. Book Series 
"Information Science & Computing" – Book No: 13. Intelligent Information and 
Engineering Systems, Sofia, 2009, pp.9-16.




Friendly regards

Krassimir







From: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:06 PM
To: karl.javors...@gmail.com 
Cc: Pedro C. Marijuan ; Krassimir Markov ; Joseph Brenner ; Loet Leydesdorff ; 
bob logan ; fis 
Subject: RE: FIS Information and the Eye of the Beholder

My interpretation of Krassimir’s words:

“In other words, the information is kind of reflection for which the CONCRETE 
Subject have appropriate interpretation (an evidence what is reflected). 
Subject may be a human, an animal, an electronic device, etc. i.e. natural or 
artificial entity.“

is that by “subject” Krassimir refers to an agent, animate or inanimate.

 

And an agent is anything with ability to act (on its own behalf).

It can be a neut

[Fis] Informatics vs. Mathematics

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear FIS Colleagues,
It is really pleasure to read your posts in this exciting mail list.
During the time I am subscribed in (Thanks to Pedro for inviting me!) I have 
read interesting and very useful ideas.
Now I think is the right time to put one very important question: 
What is the main difference between Informatics and Mathematics?
In other words: What is the main difference between “Information object” and 
“Mathematical one” ?
Well, I nave answer (of course, from my point of view):
The main difference is the Subject!
Mathematical theories totally avoid the subject and subjective interpretation 
of mathematical structures and operations.
It doesn’t mater who will interpret the mathematical constructions ( like 
y=f(x) ) – now and after 1000 years the interpretation MUST be the same.
In Informatics it is just the opposite – it is of crucial importance who will 
interpret the information structures and operations.
Let remember the Turing Machine, the basic Subject of Informatics with which 
all interpretations of algorithms have to be compared.
The philosophical conclusion is simple – the information phenomena (as 
reflections) exist in the reality but may be interpreted ONLY by the Subjects.
In other words, the information is kind of reflection for which the CONCRETE 
Subject have appropriate interpretation (an evidence what is reflected).
Subject may be a human, an animal, an electronic device, etc. i.e. natural or 
artificial entity.
In all cases, the “reflection” (or “pattern”, if you prefer) has to be 
recognized by the Subject to became “information”. 
 
Friendly regards
Krassimir___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK - PRESENTED BY DEACON

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Gordana, Pedro ans FIS colleagues,

Now I am too busy with the summer conferences and have no time to explain in 
deep what I think about Terry’s book.

Shortly I can say that many already clear phenomena in the book are presented 
as “just invented or to be invented”.

At the first place the idea of “constraint” which is well know phenomena of 
valences and processes of resolving them.

Yes, Pedro, the “symmetry” is the right way because it closely correlate with 
well known “reflection” :-)
And from many years there exist “Theory of reverberation” concerned to it.

The conference is just the place where we may discuss all ideas.

Friendly regards
Krassimir






From: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 1:08 PM
To: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK - PRESENTED BY DEACON

Dear Pedro,

 

I am sure that Terry Deacon would agree with you – the book is incomplete, and 
it leaves host of open questions.

But that is what makes it attractive. It is a book that moves and provokes 
thoughts. 

So the idea to organize a conference about Incomplete Nature is a very good 
idea.

 

All the best,

Gordana

 

 

 



Dr Dr Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, 

Associate Professor

School of Innovation, Design and Engineering

Mälardalen University

Sweden

http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/

 

Organizer of the Symposium on Natural/Unconventional Computing, 
the Turing Centenary  World Congress of AISB/IACAP

https://sites.google.com/site/naturalcomputingaisbiacap2012  

 

 

 

 

From: Pedro C. Marijuan [mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es] 
Sent: den 4 maj 2012 11:35
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Cc: Hector Zenil; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK - PRESENTED BY DEACON

 

Dear Gordana, Hector and colleagues,

I keep thinking that the theme of "absences" is really fundamental for 
advancing the foundations of information science, but I am disappointed  by the 
way Terry has oriented the book. Both style and contents are inadequate for my 
taste. He continues to do what he did in previous papers, highly promising ones 
(as some parties discussed in past messages we had in the list); pointing to 
exciting new absential aspects but finally focusing in the physical ones 
(without much new enlightenment). 

In my opinion the most appropriate direction to advance an absential calculus 
of sorts is the language of SYMMETRY. Several parties in this list have already 
discussed the theme (me included). Symmetry breaking and symmetry restoration 
and related formal tools are the way to tackle the absential dimension in the 
genuine informational entities: cells, nervous systems, societies (and the 
vacuum!!). To reiterate that the fundamental point is not about computation, 
but about self-construction. Those "absences" refer to "gaps", " functional 
voids" in the self-construction cycles/processes of those entities --there 
might be 'natural computation' associated, eg, in cellular signaling systems, 
but finally the ruling aspect is about self-maintenance and reproduction. We 
could also enlist McLuhan in this critical position regarding the 
physicalist-computationalist interpretations, I think.

So, after a glance in the whole book, I am now in the detailed reading of 
Chapter 4, with mounting disappointment... "Incomplete Book"!! Deeper 
exploration needed!! 

best

---Pedro



Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic escribió: 

Dear Hector, This might be a good way, Terry Deacon presenting his 
book:http://fora.tv/2012/04/18/Incomplete_Nature_How_Mind_Emerged_From_Matter  
What I find fascinating with this book is the whole dynamical framework,from 
thermodynamics, to morphodynamics and teleodynamics.See also: 
http://www.american.edu/cas/economics/info-metrics/pdf/upload/Beavers-Oct-2011-presentation.pdf
 For sure, Deacon is not computationalist and his ideas of information and 
computation are pretty classical ones.But it does not matter in this context. 
For a computationalist all three kinds of dynamics are computational 
processes,and corresponding structures are informational structures. With best 
wishes,Gordana  -Original Message-From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Hector ZenilSent: den 27 
april 2012 22:40To: Pedro C. MarijuanCc: fis@listas.unizar.esSubject: Re: [Fis] 
POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is 
such a presumedbreakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among 
FISenthusiasts? Thanks.  On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. 
Marijuanmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:  Dear colleagues, Krassimir 
Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have aFIS conference in 
his place, centered in the exploration of the new infoavenue drafted by 
Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffmanand others. Previously my 
suggestion is that we have a regulardiscussion session (

[Fis] Conferences in Varna

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

Every year, including this, we organize special conference on FIS called 
"GIT" from "General Information Theory".
This year it will be organized, too.
We received interesting contributions, for instance from FIS-ers Mark Burgin 
and Karl Yavorsky (who already have submitted theirs GIT 2012 papers).
It is still possible to make submissions for GIT 2012.

For the next years we are ready to meet you again.

Usually, a good conference has to be organized at least two years in 
advance.
Because of this now is just the right moment to start !

Welcome in Varna and Bulgaria !

Friendly regards
Krassimir

PS: Let remember the web address:

www.ithea.org

or simply

ithea.org






-Original Message- 
From: Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:09 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Cc: lricha...@ocad.ca ; stephen.guaste...@marquette.edu ; 
jtrevira...@faculty.ocadu.ca ; stukauff...@gmail.com ; 
stuart.kauff...@uvm.edu ; dea...@berkeley.edu ; gvanalst...@faculty.ocadu.ca
Subject: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK

Dear colleagues,

Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have a
FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the new info
avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffman
and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular
discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple of
voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob Logan
could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh
discussion session for the coming months.

Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list; the
filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together.
Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated or as
as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one.

best

---Pedro
(fis list coordination)

-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-


___
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] Incomplete Nature - Completing the discussion that Terrystarted

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Bob, Terry and FIS colleagues,
Let me remember the possibility to organize conferences on FIS offerd by the 
ITHEA ISS in Varna, Bulgaria.
Please see what we have done till now at
http://ithea.org/
You and all FIS colleagues are welcome !
Friendly regards
Krassimir





From: Bob Logan 
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 6:45 PM
To: dea...@berkeley.edu 
Cc: Greg Van Alstyne ; Guastello,Stephen ; Jutta (Academic) Treviranus ; Lenore 
Richards ; off...@nesci.org ; Stuartkauffman ; stuart.kauff...@uvm.edu ; 
yan...@nesci.org ; fis ; Stuart Kauffman 
Subject: [Fis] Incomplete Nature - Completing the discussion that Terrystarted

Hi Terry - I just finished your book literally 2 minutes ago. I just had to 
tell you what a brilliant and moving piece of work it is. I plan to go through 
it and write a lengthy review of it just to attempt to nail down all the ideas 
you developed in this amazing tome. And I agree "there is more here than 
stuff". 

The first thing that comes to mind is that a conference should be organized 
around this book so we can discuss as a community the implication of the 
challenges you have presented. This is an important piece of work the 
implications of which need to be discussed.

I would be happy to help organize such a conference but I do not think I have 
the resources to organize such a conference myself at OCAD University but I 
will try. I can think of some organizations for which this idea would appeal. 
Perhaps the complexity conferences organized by Yaneer at NESCI would be an 
appropriate venue. I remember vividly a conversation that you and Stu had in 
which I participated in a peripheral way at one of Yaneer's conferences a 
number of years ago, which I believe was held in Boston.


Another possibility is the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life 
Sciences conference co-ordinated by Stephen Guastello

Another possibility is someone in the FIS group based primarily in Europe might 
want to do something.

{If any of the groups I mentioned are interested in  a conference on Terry's 
book Incomplete Nature please contact me so I can volunteer to help}

I would want to involve Stuart Kauffman in such a conference as you refer to 
him frequently. I am very proud that you began Chapter 13 with the quote from 
Stu that was contained in the paper I co-authored with him and others.

Perhaps there is a conference already being planned in which case I would like 
to participate. 

Finally, you asked that I remind you to write a short piece for the special 
issue of the e-journal MDPI Information. So this is another reminder. An 
excerpt from your book would do as well.

Thanks so much for writing such a great book and stimulating so much thought. 

Bob

__ 

Robert K. Logan
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan








___
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

[Fis] Spring Season greetings ! ITA 2012 is opened for submissions.

[Krassimir Markov]

Spring Season Greetings !


Dear Colleagues,

ITA 2012 Summer Session Submission is opened and will be closed at the end
of March.

More information for ITHEA Joint International Events on Informatics is
given at
http://www.ithea.org

Detailed ITA 2012 Call for papers is given at:
http://www.foibg.com/conf/ITA2012/ITA2012-cfp1.pdf

Please visit http://ita.ithea.org and submit your papers.

Friendly regards
Krassimir Markov

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

Re: [Fis] THEORY AND SCIENCE From QTQ

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear QTQ and FIS Colleagues,

I am afraid we had not define the terms ‘theory” and “science” but start 
discussion.
Let firstly clear what they means and after that to make conclusions.

It is clear the theories are part of the science but the science is something 
more.

In our area - the Information Science is quite more than any theory for 
information.

Of course,  “What is information?” is the basic question, but after it follow 
the questions “How it is used by live organisms?” and “Why it is needed for 
social structures?”, “Why one and the same reflection is information for one 
but not for another subject?” and “Can the information be totally destroyed or 
not, i.e. is the information depended with physical (material) world or not?”, 
etc.

---

About the journals:

I have more than 35 year experience in editing and publishing scientific 
collections and journals. 
My personal position is: “The Variety and Independence cause Development!” 

Every journal has its own politic and there is no sense to discus its rules.
My personal position is presented in the name of my firs Int. Journal: 
“Information Theories and Applications”.
Yes – Theories. 

Some scientists prefer to be protected from “spam” papers by the reviewers, but 
this has simple decision – “Do not read papers at all !”

The science needs new ideas. 
Sometimes the proper way is not in the fat books but in the thin papers.  
We have long history of development but are we sure that all in it (especially 
for information) is absolutely correct ant may be accepted without doubt?

---

Happy New 2012 Year!
Friendly regards

Krassimir




From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:48 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: THEORY AND SCIENCE] From QTQ



 Mensaje original  Asunto:  THEORY AND SCIENCE 
  Fecha:  Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:49:58 +0800 
  De:  whhbs...@sina.com 
  Responder a:  whhbs...@sina.com 
  Para:  Pedro C. Marijuan mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, mjs 
mailto:m...@aiu.ac.jp, Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch, fislist 
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es 



Dear Pedro, Dear Marcin, Dear Joseph, Dear FIS Colleagues, 

Theory is important and necessary, but theory is different from science, theory 
is a growing view or hypothesis. We should remember Russell's paradox and the 
third number of Math Crisis, we should remember Aristotle and Galileo, and we 
shouldn't forget the article about MDMA by Jan Hendrik Schön in 2002. Let us 
remember history that go on record according to gubernatorial volition usually. 
Furthermore, lie is not science, for example Hwang's cloning experiments in 
stem-cell research. 

Newton's mechanics is science, computer science is true, and however there is 
no information science. The sole criterion for truth or science is practice.

Of course, after the Hwang affair, Science（journal）gets its wrist slapped for 
publishing a fraudulent stem-cell paper. Instead, the committee recommends that 
papers received by the journal should be divided into uncontroversial and 
controversial, and the latter gone over with a fine comb of new check.  This is 
a way to arrive at science, too.

Best wishes

 

QTQ










___
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] Discussion of Information Science Education

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Gordana, Marcin and FIS Colleagues,

I think we all talk about a new interdisciplinary area, already called:

“Intelligence Science”

Please see:
http://www.intsci.ac.cn/en/index.html

Maybe it is good to name our summer school:

“Foundations of Intelligence Science”

Please comment this.

Friendly regards
Krassimir







From: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 8:38 PM
To: Joseph Brenner
Cc: m...@aiu.ac.jp ; Krassimir Markov
Subject: RE: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education


Dear Joseph,

Now I have no right to post to the list, but I anyway want to say that I of 
course agree with you, and also that Loet made a good practical point.

We talk about two different things and I believe it could be useful to make 
this distinction as clear as possible.

If we (FIS = Foundations of Information Science) are something different 
from what is called “Information Science” and funded, supported by 40 
journals etc.

we must be able to show definitely the distinction and why this is 
important.



It also seems to me that what Marcin and Krassimir say is important, as we 
(FIS) see this synthetic potential to connect different seemingly disparate 
fields like

1. Nature

2. Living organisms

3. Society



That which “Information Science” is not interested in.

This is what it is about according to Bertram C. Brookes:

The foundations of information science Part I. Philosophical aspects

It is first argued that a niche for information science, unclaimed by any 
other discipline, can be found by admitting the near-autonomy of Popper's 
World III - the world of objective knowledge. The task of information 
science can then be defined as the exploration of this world of objective 
knowledge which is an extension of, but is distinct from, the world of 
documentation and librarianship. The Popperian ontology then has to be 
extended to admit the concept of information and its relation to subjective 
and objective know ledge. The spaces of Popper's three worlds are then con 
sidered. It is argued that cognitive and physical spaces are not identical 
and that this lack of identity creates problems for the proper 
quantification of information phenomena.

http://jis.sagepub.com/content/2/3-4/125.short



So this information is about human knowledge, as Marcin says.

But that is not the only or even the main interest of FIS.





Maybe “Information Science” is an already established name and maybe we have 
no chance to change it given existing structures of research communities.



But if we would insist that we work on the foundations of information which 
underlie all information (be it in inanimate nature, living beings or 
societies) that may make good practical sense.

“Foundations of Information” (and not “Foundations of Information Science”!) 
seems to be still free.

Pragmatically, I would insist that what we do is not Information science but 
Foundations of Information.

Of course, one may expect confusions again, but I would start from placing 
all those different fields in some boxes and say that we have a box of our 
own that no one else
dealing with information (in scientific way) have covered so far.

And I would insist on this synthetic capacity of information as FIS 
discusses it, which Marcin already pointed out.



Best, Gordana



PS

Krassimir, I think summer school is right idea and it would be good if 
discussion can help to understand what to present.







@bluewin.ch]
Sent: den 4 december 2011 16:19
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic; Loet Leydesdorff
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education







Dear Gordana and Loet,







Ref.: Cat, Jordi. 2007. "The Unity of Science". Stanford Encyclopedia of 
Philosophy.







I think you are being too defensive vis à vis "the conventional idea of 
science". The authority of people who have decided to what information 
science must be limited may be open to criticism as reductionist, and there 
are views (see attached) that emphasize epistemological and ontological 
pluralism. As Cat says, contra epistemological monism, there is no single 
methodology that supports a single criterion of scientificity, nor a 
universal domain of its applicability.







To keep the concept of information science as broad as possible, however, 
implies a great deal of individual responsibility to insure high 
intellectual standards, in or out of the "mainstream". The definition of any 
science should be determined by these and not by what is funded.







Cheers,







Joseph



- Original Message - 



From: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic



To: Loet Leydesdorff



Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es



Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 10:08 PM



Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education







Dear Loet,



I think you made an important point.

It is really a problem if we use the same term “Information Science” for 
different things.

Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Marcin,

You are quite right: Your Theory is absolutely correct !

As well as the Theory of Mark, of course as main, and as all others, at the 
first place - the Theory of Shannon !

Every theory represents any specific point of view and from its point of 
view it is correct.

What we have to do is to agree that:

1. The variety is not bad but very stimulating for reasoning, and
2. Independence is absolutely needed for growing our knowledge and 
developing the science.

During my work on information theory I found at least three areas of 
information phenomena (if you remember my presentation at GIT in Varna):
1. Nature
2. Living organisms
3. Society

All they have one common occurrence - reflection.
This way it is clear that information has to investigated in correspondence 
of it.

The education has to be turned toward this common phenomena, which had been 
recognized by the ancient philosophers.

Friendly regards

Krassimir




-Original Message- 
From: m...@aiu.ac.jp
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 12:57 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education

Dear Colleagues:
Thank you for many interesting contributions in the first day
of the discussion.
I will try to answer in one entry to three postings from Stan,
Loet, and Steven.

1. Specialization in Education (Answer to Stan)

There was a period of overwhelming tendency to increase
specialization of education. However, the ideals of Liberal
Arts Education are coming back. I can give you example of
Japan, but I know that it's a global phenomenon. When we
opened our university seven years ago it was just a beginning
of the return. Our university has its Japanese name
International Liberal Arts University (kokusai kyoyou daigaku
- but kyoyou is based on Japanese tradition of personality
cultivation, not European university tradition) and was
designed to develop intellectual autonomy and the ability to
learn rather than to specialize in any particular subject.
This was the "selling point" which in short time gave us one
of top ten (or top five) ratings among more than 300
universities in Japan. Now, all leading universities in Japan
declare this style of educational philosophy.
Many American universities have been faithful to the ideal of
what is called there Liberal Education which was interpreted
in various ways, but was always opposed to excessive
specialization.
In all variety of educational philosophies of Liberal Arts,
there is a recognition of the need for the integration of
curricula and for the crossing disciplinary borders.
This creates a niche for Information Science to develop as a
domain integrating different parts of the curriculum.

2. Reinventing of a Wheel (Answer to Loet)

I agree with Gordana, that there are ways to find place for
what FIS is about in curriculum.
Here is a related, but little bit different issue. There are
already some routines in using terms related to information.
"Information Theory" is typically understood as mathematical
theory initiated by Shannon, which as already observed by
Carnap and Bar-Hillel in 1952 does not say much about
information, but about its transmission.
"Information Science" as Loet pointed out in the States is
associated quite commonly with Library Science, but actually
is more about knowledge management (it's my opinion). For
quite long time American journals related to library
associations were the only places where you could publish non-
mathematical articles about general concept of information. No
wonder that Library Science in 1990's inherited title for
representing all studies of information.
In Japan, Information Science is considered a different name
for Computer Science. There is no category in Japanese
Ministry of Education system where you can apply for grant to
do research in Information Science. You have to use category
basically meaning computer science.

Now, we can think about using different name for the
discipline (Information Studies), or we can try to promote the
view that Information Science is broader than it is usually
recognized. A generic course in Information Science for all
students (within General Education, or in Liberal Arts
curriculum) could serve this role to propagate the view that
study of information includes many different perspectives on
the information phenomena, and that it requires a broad,
uniting philosophical reflection on information.

3. Do we know what we are talking about? (Answer to Steven)

Sometimes I doubt it, when I read FIS discussions. Of course,
I am joking. The unity to all disciplines are given by their
philosophy and their methods, not by the definitions of the
concepts involved. I am a mathematician and theoretical
physicist. I do not know two physicists who would share
exactly the same definitions of all concepts. Even more, I do
not know two physicists who would agree what exactly physics
is.
I do not see any problem in discussing ten different concepts
of information, as long as there is a common 

Re: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear  Marcin, Gordana, and FIS colleagues,

It is impossible for me not to answer of such very important and, I think, 
on time proposal.

What we have to do?
Of course, to establish common paradigm !?!
The great problem here is that every author stay on his own position and do 
not accept the others.
Well, I hope this is temporally (till corresponded persons pas away) but it 
is not so short period.

The decision is coming himself:

We have to start not with building common paradigm accepted all over the 
world,
but with writing and teaching "History of information Science and Theories",
where most popular authors may be presented starting from the ancient 
centuries.

Such surveys are available in many monographs, for instance Mark made very 
nice one.
Greetings to Gordana, Mark and other colleagues for the new book 
"INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION" !
"Handbook on the Philosophy of Information" is another example.

***

At this point I want to stop this explanation and to congratulate Pedro for 
his new very important position!

Dear Pedro, please receive my greetings for your best work, which is now 
recognized by electing you as Scientific Director of your Institute !

***

The idea of Pedro to organize Summer School of FIS is very appropriate.
Let start this way.

Varna is nice place for such event.
In Spain, during the NIT 2011,  we had discussed it but we had no 
possibilities to start advertising this idea.
Now is the right time.

Following proposition of Pedro we have to establish a lecturers' group,
which will present main areas and theories of Information Science.

Please see the preliminary variant of ITA 2012 First Call given at:

http://www.ithea.org/fis/ITA2012-cfp1.pdf

In the time table we reserve five days for GIT and Summer School on FIS.
( The Summer School on FIS may occupy more days than GIT conference,
i.e from June 25 until June 29, 2012.
It depends of quantity of presentations.  )

Who has possibility to participate and what will he/she present ?

Dear members of PC of GIT Int.Conf.,
Please help us to prepare a good program for the Summer School on FIS and to 
have as more participants as possible !

Dear Colleagues from FIS,
Please be invited to take part as lecturers and/or participants is this very 
important and, I hope, pleasant for everybody, event !

Friendly regards
Krassimir






-Original Message- 
From: m...@aiu.ac.jp
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 2:23 PM
To: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ ; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Discussion of Information Science Education

Dear Colleagues:
There are some questions which periodically return to FIS
discussions without conclusive answers. For instance: "What is
information?" However, the lack of consensus regarding central
concept is not an obstacle in the development of Information
Science. There is no commonly accepted answer to the question
"What is life?" But, this does not threaten the identity of
Biology.

Information Science has not yet achieved a status of a
commonly recognized discipline. It is frequently confused with
Computer Science, because of the term Informatics which in
Europe denotes what in the US is called Computing, or with
Library
Science and sometimes even with Philosophy of Information,
as visible from the Handbook on the Philosophy of Information
http://www.illc.uva.nl/HPI/ where philosophy and science
interleave
on many levels.

Information Science will never receive recognition without an
organized effort of research community to introduce its
philosophy,
goals, methods, and achievements to the general audience.

Books and articles popularizing the theme of information as
a subject of independent study do not have big enough
circulation to be sufficient in establishing an identity of
the discipline. The only effective way is to introduce
Information Science as a subject of education at the college
level for students who do not necessarily want to specialize
in this direction.

Certainly, introduction of a new subject to curriculum is not
easy, but it is possible. After all, Information Science is a
perfect tool for integration of curriculum, especially in the
context of Liberal Arts education. Which other concept, if not
information, can be applied in all possible contexts of
education?

Now, the question is whether we are ready to come out with a
syllabus for such a course acceptable for all of us, those who
are involved in the subject, and those who aren't, but
participate in the development of curricula. Can we overcome
differences between our views on the definition of
information, on the relationship of information understood in
a general way to its particular manifestations in other
disciplines?

Since the course (or courses) should present an identity of
the discipline of Information Science, it is very important
that we are convinced about the authentic existence of a large
enough common ground. Can we develop a map of this territory?
Can we pool resources to establish foundation

[Fis] MDA 2012, second circular

[Krassimir Markov]

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

[Fis] Fw: Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik

[Krassimir Markov]

-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 p

[Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik

[Krassimir Markov]

-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 p

[Fis] Fw: General Information Theory

[Krassimir Markov]

-Original Message- 
From: boris.sunik 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 11:10 AM 
To: ithea-...@ithea.org 
Subject: General Information Theory 

Dear Colleague,

For your information:
http://www.GeneralInformationTheory.com

Regards,
Boris Sunik

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

[Fis] ITA 2011 Summer Session Program and Papers

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear colleagues,

I am glad to inform you that the ITA 2011 Summer Session Program is published 
at the ITHEA web site ( www.ithea.org ).

To read it you may follow the link: 
http://www.foibg.com/conf/ITA2011/Program-ITA2011.pdf.

All papers of ITA 2011 Summer Session are published in:

ITHEA International Journal “Information Theories and Applications”, Vol. 18 / 
2011, No.: 1, 2 and 3 
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol18/ijita-fv18.htm

ITHEA International Journal “Information Technologies and Knowledge”, Vol. 5 / 
2011, No.:1, 2 and 3 
http://www.foibg.com/ijitk/ijitk-vol05/ijitk-fv05.htm

and in the Thematic Collection “ Applicable Information Models”
Book No.: 22 from ITHEA International Scientific Book Series:
http://www.foibg.com/ibs_isc/ibs-22/ibs-22.htm

Respectfully yours

Krassimir Markov
ITHEA President


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

Re: [Fis] ON INFORMATION THEORY--Mark Burgin, Colophon

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Guy, Mark and FIS colleagues,
This misunderstanding may be solved with simple step - if we will accept 
definition of information as a kind of reflection, which is internal 
structure in the "thing" but not the whole "thing" .
Friendly regards
Krassimir

-Original Message- 
From: Guy A Hoelzer
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 7:08 PM
To: Foundations of Information Science Information Science
Cc: Mark Burgin
Subject: Re: [Fis] ON INFORMATION THEORY--Mark Burgin, Colophon

Hi Mark,

The only part that I take exception to is at the end of your colophon. 
Specifically, I disagree with the statement “it is evident that to consider 
that everything IS information is unreasonable and contradicts principles of 
science.”  I see contrast, or difference, as fundamental to the concept of 
information.  All ‘things’ must be bounded such that there is a distinction 
between the inside and outside of the thing; therefore I don’t see how it is 
possible or reasonable for anything not to be information.

Regards,

Guy


On 6/7/11 6:34 PM, "Mark Burgin"  wrote:



Discussion colophon



  Dear all participants of the discussion (active and passive),



  I would like to express my gratitude to Pedro for asking me to start a 
discussion about basic problems of information theory and methodology, in 
which many qualified researchers have participated. I also appreciate 
efforts of all active participants of the discussion, who shared their 
interesting ideas related to information theory and practice, and especially 
to Joseph Brenner, who expertly distilled communication of different 
participants separating more or less direct answer to the suggested 
questions. As these questions have quintessential importance for information 
theory and methodology, I would like to suggest tentative answers to these 
questions, giving arguments in support of this approach.

Question 1. Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a strict distinction 
between information as a phenomenon and information measures as quantitative 
or qualitative characteristics of information?

All educated people understand that a person and her/his measure, for 
example height, are essentially different entities. It’s impossible to 
reduce a person to one measure. The same is true for subatomic particles and 
other physical, chemical and biological objects. However, when it comes to 
information, even qualified researchers don’t feel a necessity to make a 
strict distinction between information as a phenomenon and information 
measures, although there are infinitely many information measures. We can 
often hear and read such expressions as “Shannon information” or “Fisher 
information”.



Question 2. Are there types or kinds of information that are not encompassed 
by the general theory of information (GTI)?

  A grounded answer to this question depends what we understand when we 
say/write “types or kinds of information”, that is, on information 
definitions. If we take intrinsic information definitions, then the answer 
is YES as it is demonstrated in the book (Burgin, 2010).

  At the same time, if we take all information definitions suggested by 
different people, then the answer is NO because some of those definitions 
define not information but something else, e.g., information measure or 
knowledge or data. There are also other “definitions” that actually define 
nothing. Naturally, these definitions and related concepts (if there are 
any) are not encompassed by the GTI. However, GTI organizes all existing 
knowledge on information and information processes in one unified system, 
allowing one to discern information from other phenomena.

Question 3. Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a distinction between 
information and an information carrier?

In the mundane life, it is possible not to make a distinction between 
information and an information carrier. For instance, we do not make 
distinctions between an envelope with a letter and the letter itself, 
calling both things “a letter”, or between a book with a novel and the novel 
itself, calling both things “a novel”.

At the same time, a proper theory of information demands to make a 
distinction between information and an information carrier, especially, 
because any thing contains information and thus, is an information carrier, 
but it is evident that to consider that everything IS information is 
unreasonable and contradicts principles of science.



I would appreciate any feedback to the ideas from this e-mail.



Sincerely,

Mark



___
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

[Fis] Main papers of GIT 2011

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Colleagues,

Selecting process of the papers for GIT 2011 is done and main papers are in 
print in International Journal "Information Theories and Applications", 
Vol.18, Numbers 1 and 2.

Only for FIS the PDF variant if these numbers are available at:

http://www.ithea.org/fis/

Welcome in Varna!

I kindly ask participants to inform me ASAP about travel details and 
accommodation preferences.

Friendly regards

Krassimir




-Original Message- 
From: karl javorszky
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 7:13 PM
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] end of session

Very Unfrequently Asked Questions

We have proposed a rethink of the procedure of additions. We state
that setting a1+b1=c=a2+b2 with a1#a2 (that is, saying that between
2+5 and 3+4 there is no real difference and ignoring this difference
carries no costs and working on this difference is a waste of time) is
a crude rounding. We say that the concept of additions merits a
revisiting and that not accepting a rounding error (which we commit by
setting 6+11=8+9) greatly improves our ability to count more exactly.
Furthermore, looking into the interdependences of additions allows us
to model Nature in fruitful ways.
This idea has been repeated and repeated again, with a very elaborate
numeric Table as demonstrational tool.

So far, the response has been rather hesitant. Questions in the
following fields could help to find the useful behind the unexpected:
1. Psychology
2. Numerical
3. Nature
4. Sociology
5. Applications and Business

Let me help the reader by offering a structure by which understanding
the concept of a+b=c becomes easier. The following are questions that
could well be raised:

1.1. Is this an explanation in the sense of the term “explanation” as
used in epistemology and psychology?
1.2. What is the novelty value of the invention?
1.3. Is it reasonable that the normal reader of the concept goes into
resistance?
1.4. Is it to be expected that the normal reader of the concept goes
tilt (becomes mute)?
1.5. Is the rounding error connected to thinking one-dimensionally,
similarity-oriented?
1.6. What is the relation between foreground and background?

2.1. Is a sequence 1,2,3,… one-dimensional?
2.2. Are additions generally seen as one-dimensional?
2.3. Is a sorting procedure a specific partition of the set?
2.4. Does the difference between a and b translate into a linear
position in the set?
2.5. What is a maximally structured set?
2.6. Why 136?
2.7. Does the set leak above 136?
2.8. Is the search path to individual elements differently long in
multidimensional sets?

3.1. Is the DNA traditionally seen in the literature as one-dimensional?
3.2. Does the model offer two logically and physically different
sub-spaces with 3 rectangular axes each?
3.3. Can the two sub-spaces be merged into one, Newtonian, space?
3.4. Does the model show spatial properties of objects to be
translatable into mass properties?
3.5. Does the model offer clear definitions for properties of time?
3.6. Are the spatial points thru which strings run a concept for mass?
3.7. Could the spatial geometry of molecules be understood by means of
the model?

4.1. Has the usage of additions heretofore been an ex cathedra dogma?
4.2. Is the insistence on the irrelevance of the difference between
2+4 and 3+3 a cultural heritage?
4.3. Is the concept of the right hierarchy connected to experiences
transmitted by the gravitation?
4.4. Is it usual to be very angry with someone who makes the system as
understood so far collapse?
4.5. Why has this so-called “invention” not been invented so far?

5.1. Can I publish very many papers if I understand before others what is 
a+b=c?
5.2. Is this the time to jump the band-wagon?
5.3. Is there anything to publish left for me?
5.4. Is this stuff good to sell to the general public?
5.5. Has anyone made a Book Of Additions with many colourful drawings yet?
5.6. About 1% of the population of the Earth is a mathematician. Is
that a market?
5.7. Could this idea work in the fashion (using the principle) like
the neurons integrate information?
5.8. Would it be profitable to have such a Table on both ends of a
communication channel?
5.8. Are there inventions ready to patent if only I ask for a private 
meeting?

Varna is a nice town, specifically end of June. I shall be there from
the 21st till the 26th and look forward to any of these questions. It
would be friendly of you if you could advise about which you would
like to work on. Of course, I will do my best if you come up with some
other questions, but of course it is open if I can give you an answer
to those.

Looking forward an interesting exchange:
Karl

___
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] [Different GTI]

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS colleagues,

I agree with the proposition that at this moment “the most universal form of 
information is unattainable”.

What we have to do, I think, is to classify the existing theories, to explain 
theirs main features and to publish the survey for further work.
This work is very important. It is mile-stone for further research and creating 
new theories.

Of course, the example with the blind men and the elephant, presented in 
details in the book of Mark, is valid for this case.
But we already have seen that in several different books one and the same 
theories are pointed and discussed.
Because of this, systemizing of the received results in FIS, concerning the 
concept “information” and connected to it phenomena will be fruitful for the 
society.

What we may do is to invite everybody to present from his/her point of view one 
or more (own or not) information theories. The texts we will organize in a book 
for free access from all over the world.

ITHEA already organize such work in the area of Global Monitoring for 
Environment and Security. 62 authors were united to prepare a monograph. The 
result is available online for free at the address:  
http://www.foibg.com/ibs_isc/ibs-21/ibs-21.htm

I am sure, we may realize similar project in the FIS area, too.

Friendly regards

Krassimir



From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:57 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Re: [Different GTI]

Dear Igor, Joseph, Krassimir, QTQ... and All,

It is my contention that the most universal form of information is 
unattainable. Whatever the notion chosen, it is always feeding back and 
forwards with the subject him/herself and the conceptions or frame of thought 
which are momentarily held by the subject. Given that our brains are configured 
into open-ended forms of "openness", there must be a "discipline" maintained 
throughout a series of conventions, principles, and standards, so that our 
concepts, percepts, and actions may collectively establish a sort of "unison". 
This is what we rigorously do in sciences, and of course, in very different 
ways, for languaging, economic activities, social relationships, etc. Following 
those conventions is like respiring, absolutely automatic and unconscious.

The above does not mean that "information science" or "information theory" 
become empty or questionable purposes. Just the opposite. I think that Igor has 
made a good job putting together important aspects within the field of 
"information physics", though the consistency of the whole info views can be 
put into question --as Joseph has cogently dissected. Mark and Krassimir have 
worked hard of information theory, and that means counting with a substantial 
metrics regarding the diversity/heterogeneity of established information 
configurations. QTQ has also added views with novelty... But a new framework 
(way of thinking) is needed where we somehow de-anthropogenize the field, 
getting it partially free of the above circularity: "because I am 
philososphically or disciplinarily configured that way, info is this and that 
for me". My usual argument in this list has been that a few "informational 
entities" have to be taken as model systems, and then a comparative study 
undertaken. Now what I would ad is that a previous new "theory of mind" has to 
be advanced, a little bit at least. Let me include a couple of paragraphs from 
the work I am presenting in next fis session at Varna:


It is of particular interest in the human case that the combined system formed 
by the frontal and prefrontal areas with their massive increase in connectivity 
are breaking the brain’s reliance on modular specialized subsystems and 
maximally expanding the combinatory possibilities. Following Dehaene (2009), a 
“neuronal workspace” emerges whose main function is to assemble, confront, 
recombine, and synthesize knowledge. This system is further endowed with a 
fringe of spontaneous fluctuation that allows for the testing of new ideas, 
related to both the emergence of reflexive consciousness and the human 
competence for cultural invention. Although conscious brain activity fluctuates 
stochastically it does not wander at random. Selection mechanisms stabilize the 
combinations of ideas that are most interesting, useful or just “contagious”: 
privileged neuronal projections coming from the evaluation and reward circuits 
of orbitofrontal and cingulate cortex as well as the subcortical nuclei of 
amygdala and the basal ganglia are participating in this process.

Therefore, in the extent to which those premises are correct, a compact 
approach to knowledge automation and recombination by the central nervous 
system seems achievable, and further, a new “Theory of Mind” could be 
contemplated. It will be close to current attempts on formulating a 
motor-centered epistemology, which has been deemed by relevant neuroscientists 
as one the best foundations for explaining our "automated cogn

Re: [Fis] ON INFORMATION THEORY--Mark Burgin

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Mark, Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

It is nice to talk about our common (future!) understanding of the phenomenon 
“information.

Dear Mark,

Congratulations for your very good book (Burgin, 2010).  
It is proper example what we all need to do step by step.

Thank you for pointing my work on GIT. Small misprinting at the page 12
It is written:
“..., Markov, et al (2007) write that when a triad
(source, evidence, recipient)
exists, then the reflection of the first entity in the second one is called
information. Thus, information is interpreted as a specific reflection.”

The triad need to be written
(source, recipient : evidence)

No problems, the main meaning is clear.

Now about your questions. 

In general, there are no answers to these questions. 
It is impossible to answer without pointing the paradigm to which the questions 
and answers belong to.
We may stay at the point of view of GTI (Burgin, 2010) and to try to answer. 
However, we need to study in deep GTI, to understand and after that to try to 
answer the questions.
The same is for any other theory, for instance GIT (Markov, et al, 2007).

What to do?

Dear Pedro,
I am novice in FIS Group and maybe I do not know the accepted by FIS colleagues 
style of work in such difficult situations. Please help me.

What I can do at this moment is to sketch my answers without deep explanation, 
which may be done in further discussion.

My point of view is just the triad given above. 
The forth element is not included in it – the Subject (Infological System, 
Information Subject, INFOS).

This means that we have quadruple 
( source, recipient : evidence, Infos )

Now, I will answer the questions in the reverse order:

3.  Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a distinction between information 
and an information carrier?
 

One and the same source may be reflected in many different recipients, for 
which may exists again many evidences and Infoses. It means that as more 
different recipients and etc. we have
so different information(s) about source will exists. The information is 
reflection IN the information carrier and destroying the carrier leads to 
loosing current reflection of the source.  

Now the answer:
YES,
Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a distinction between information and 
the information carrier, taking in account that the information is reflection 
in the carrier but not whole carrier.



2. Are there types or kinds of information that are not encompassed by the 
general theory of information (GTI)? 

Here the answer is simple:
NO.
The reason is in the definition of information in the frame of GTI (Burgin, 
2010) . The other definitions lead to different types of information.



1.  Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a strict distinction between 
information as a phenomenon and information measures as quantitative or 
qualitative characteristics of information?

This is the most difficult question and I need more deep explanation for the 
answer.

To measure means to have at least one measurement system. 
Again the variety is so great that it is impossible to answer simply.

What we really may measure concerning the information phenomena? 
The source, the recipient, the evidence or the Infos characteristics (features)?
Again, without concrete paradigm, there is no answer.

In GIT (Markov, et al, 2007), we introduce the concept “Information 
Expectation” of the Infos as point in the multi-dimensional subjective ( mental 
! ) attributive space of Infos. 
(Mark, do you remember the “ideal objects” and their materialization ?)

The information, subjectively received by Infos, is another point in the same 
space. 

In this case we may introduce any measurement system, in which we may measure 
some characteristics of subjective reflection (information).

Finally the answer is:
YES,
Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a strict distinction between 
information as a phenomenon and information measures as quantitative or 
qualitative characteristics of information,
because the information as phenomenon cover all instances of the quadruple 
“(source, recipient : evidence, Infos)”, but the information measures are 
closely depended on concrete instance of the quadruple, i.e. on concrete 
quadruple elements. 

Of course, there exist possibility to define measurement systems for classes of 
instances of the quadruple, for example see Shannon, C. E. (1993).


Sorry to be so talkative :-)

Friendly regards

Krassimir 


Source:
(Markov, et al, 2007) Markov, K., Ivanova, K. and Mitov, I. Basic structure of 
the general information theory, Information Theories and Applications, v. 14, 
2007. pp. 5–19
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol14/ijita14-1-p01.pdf 








From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:08 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: [Fis] ON INFORMATION THEORY--Mark Burgin

Discussion session on information theory:




INFORMATION: MYSTERY SOLVING

Mark Burgin
Professor & Visiting Scholar
Department of Math

Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and OrderingPrinciples

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Loet, Pedro and FIS Colleagues,
It is very important to take in account the ontological structure of the 
"information subjects" in the reality.
The hierarchy of the intellectual properties is not investigated in deep 
till now.
Who may say that the human brain is one whole but not a very complicated 
system of small cells and possibly special kinds of bacteria and other micro 
organisms ?
The phenomena of intelligence could not be investigated separately taking in 
account only one of its realizations.
Let remember the very actual scientific area called "Natural Information 
Technologies".
I expect in the future the scientific collegium to recognize special kind of 
intelligent systems which is seen today - social human-technic systems where 
the new kind of information subject was established - a society built by 
connected nodes of human-computer systems. Let remember Nord Africa.
I think we made step to the next discussion. It is nice to meet Mark!
Friendly regards
Krassimir



-Original Message- 
From: Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 1:14 PM
To: 'Pedro C. Marijuan' ; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and 
OrderingPrinciples

Dear Pedro,

I understand that you have some problems with my epistemic stance. Let me
try to clarify.

Let me go back to Maturana (1978) "The Biology of Language ..."
On p. 49, he formulated: " ... so that the relations of neuronal activity
generated under consensual behavior become perturbations and components to
further consensual behavior, an observer is operationally generated." And
furthermore (at this same page): " ... the second-order consensual domain
that it establishes with other organisms becomes indistinguishable from a
semantic domain."

This observer (at the biological level) is able to provide meaning to the
information. However, as Maturana argues later in this paper this semantics
is different from that of "human super-observers" introduced from p. 56
onwards.

My interest is in human super-observers. I consider the latter as
psychological systems which are able not only to provide meaning to the
observations, but also to communicate meaning. The communication of meaning
generates a supra-individual "super-semantic" domain, in which meaning
cannot only be provided, but also changed; not in the sense of updated but
because of the reflexivity involved. Robert Rosen's notion of anticipatory
systems is here important.

Dubois (1998) distinguished between incursive and hyper-incursive systems
and between weak and strong anticipation. Both psychological observers and
interhuman discourses can be considered as strongly anticipatory, that is,
they use future states -- discursively and reflexively envisaged -- for the
update. Non-human systems do not have this capacity: they learn by
adaptation, but not in terms of entertaining and potentially discussing
models.

Models provide predictions of future states that can be used for updating
the persent state of the systems which can entertain these models. Thus, new
options are generated. This increases the redundancy; that is, against the
arrow of time. Meaning providing already does so, but communication and
codification of meaning enhances this process further. Non-human observers
(e.g., monkeys) are able to provide meaning and perhaps sometimes to
entertain a model, but they are not able to communicate these models. That
makes the difference. If models cannot be communicated, they cannot be
improved consciously and reflexively.

Thus, a non-human may be an observer, but it cannot be a cogito. This makes
the psychological system different from the biological. Cogitantes can
entertain and discuss models (as cogitata). One of the models, for example,
is the one of autopoiesis.

Best wishes,
Loet

Loet Leydesdorff
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/


-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 11:29 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering
Principles

Dear FIS colleagues,

I have some differences about the epistemic stance recently discussed by
Karl, Loet (and in part, Joseph, but he looks more as trying to step on "the
reality", whatever it is). Basically, their informational subject looks like
the abstract, disembodied, non-situated, classical observer, equipped in a
Cartesian austerity --and outside, just the Order or maybe the Disorder.

My contention is that the epistemology of information science has to give
room for non-human "observers", I mean, there is cognition and informational
processes (forms of knowledge and intelligence included) in bacteria, living
cells in general, non human ne

Re: [Fis] Extension of Deadline for Submission in GIT 2011

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Joseph, Pedro and FIS colleagues,
The deadline for our Int. Conference on GIT, Varna 2011, is extended at least 
to April 15, 2011. 
This means that after this date the submission system will receive your papers 
but possibly we will publish them after the conference in our books and 
journals.
Welcome in Bulgaria!
Friendly regards
Krassimir






From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch 
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 5:18 AM
To: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Extension of Deadline for Submission

Dear Krassimir, 


Since I saw your agreement to extend the deadline to April 15 (for which 
thanks), I expected you would send out a message to the FIS list and others 
indicating the new date. Are you still going to do this? Has the change been 
made in the central ITHEA ISS Submission Web System?
Please let me (us) know.
Thank you and best wishes,
Joseph___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] comments & next session

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS colleagues,

In Russian literature there exists an collective “author” Kuzma Prutkov , i.e. 
a group of writers who have used this common name to publish sentences.
One of Kuzma Prutkov’s sentence is “Нельзя обнять небъятного!”, or in English 
“It is impossible to embrace the infinite”.
What I mean? It is impossible to have only one information theory to cover all 
information phenomena.
Because of this we need to have philosophical paradigm which will unite all 
particular information theories.
I think we need to clear what theory will discuss in given moment. This way we 
will have a frame in which the concepts will be not contradictory.
How such frames can be drawn is topic just of the common philosophical paradigm.
Friendly regards
Krassimir
P.S. Many thanks to all who became members of the ITA 2011 GIT Int. Conference 
Committees. 
The updated Call for Papers is published for the FIS society at:
http://www.ithea.org/fis



From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:34 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: [Fis] comments & next session

Dear FIS colleagues,

I found very intriguing the "fast & furious" messages of past days. One of the 
main triggers, I think, was Karl's response to Joseph's requests on his info 
theory... The logic of distinctions that Karl worked out years ago was in my 
view an outstanding contribution (the use of multidimensional partitions in set 
theory). Unfortunately he linked it to very idiosyncratic notions on cellular 
dynamics between DNA and cytoplasm, and he also miscalculated the number of 
multidimensional partitions. These are nontrivial matters that he has to solve 
or that we can discuss (necessarily in face to face exchanges!!), at least for 
me to accept any of his further developments. But let me insist that his "logic 
of distinctions" is highly original and very elegant. 

Then, among the many other exchanges (Jerry, Loet, Gavin, John, Bob...) my 
contention is that most of them were insisting in the predominance of some 
disciplinary orientation versus the competing ones. Jerry put it in a very 
clear way: "The abstract symbol systems of Dalton, Lavoisier, and Coulomb 
underly the foundations of thermodynamics as well as the Shannon theory of 
information as well as our concept of such abstractions as “energy” and 
“entropy.” These symbol systems are now firmly embedded in the logic of 
scientific communications..."

Thus, was the exciting discussion basically a rhetorical contest between 
disciplinary orientations (where unfortunately neuroscience was missing)? Yes 
and No. Let me interpret it in favor of what I argued about the undefinability 
of information, and the possibility to establish a number of info conceptions 
after reliance on some particular disciplinary narrative. If we accept that 
undefinability, we can start to discuss in a different and more productive way: 
about conditions and procedures to establish the most elegant and economic 
general approach to information GIVEN THE DISCIPLINARY CONTENTS OF OUR TIME. 

Thus the past discussion on "intelligence and information" was very strategic 
(entering a new focus in our discussions), as can be the coming session, on the 
historical background of modern science. What kind of "info theory" and what 
conceptions of information could be framed or were present in the medieval 
world? How were they "recombining" their knowledge? Our presenter Dr. James 
Hannam (James in our friendly list) has recently written a very successful 
book. "God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of 
Modern Science" in Icon Books (2009), which has been translated to several 
languages and has been shortlisted for the Royal Society Science Book Prize 
2010 (and is now out in paperback). The "official" announcement of the session 
will be made in a few days.

Information science is different, and fascinating, as it contains so many 
tricks and labyrinthine paths!

best

---Pedro 

-- 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-



___
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] GIT (& FIS) conference at ITA 2011

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

It is nice to collaborate with you. 

Our area is very important for the new century science. 
Many scientific results closely depend on our common work on Foundation of 
Information Science.

Step by step, Foundation of Information Science take its place in the 
scientific world.

The next step may be ITA 2011 Joint International Events on Informatics of 
ITHEA International Scientific Society (www.ithea.org).
The GIT Int. Conference will continue our discussions. 

At very nice resort, 300 meters from the beach, we will have good time to work 
during the best weather time in the beginning of summer.

Our reservation for Hotel “Panorama” is from June 15 until July 05.2011 but you 
may stay longer. Visa invitation is for period 15.06-10.07.2011. 

The resort give possibility for all kinds of personal preferences.
Hotel “Panorama” where the ITA is usually organized is *** (3 stars) : 
http://www.panoramahotel.bg/prices_eng.html
In the same time near this hotel there are hotels up to * (5 stars) with 
all inclusive service, for instance:   
- Azalia: http://www.azaliahotel.com/en.html 

- Sirius beach :http://www.siriusbeach.com/ 

- Dolphin Marina: http://www.beachbulgaria.com/stellias/dolphinmarina.shtml 

- as well as all other hotels from the Grand Hotel Varna Chain: 
http://www.grandhotelvarna.com/


In addition, we will have unique chance to meet  many scientists from Eastern 
Europe and Neighborhood Countries (Armenia, Russia, Ukraine,  etc).
Our papers will be published in ITHEA Int. Journals or Int. Books. It depends 
on your preferences.

I will be glad to see you in the Program Committee of International Conference 
on General Information Theory (GIT 2011). 

Please contact me about any questions you have. 

Respectfully yours
Krassimir




From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 1:05 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: [Fis] GIT (& FIS) conference at ITA 2011

FIS Friends,

Within the ITA series of conferences planned by the ITHEA organization for this 
year, there will be the GIT (General Information Theory) Int. Conference which 
is co-organized with FIS. 

The GIT conference is announced from June 20 until June 26, with two plenary 
days June 25 and 26. 

All FIS people who are interested to appear as members of the Program Committee 
and cooperate in the organization (irrespective that they finally can attend or 
not) should contact Krassimir Markov  mailto:mar...@foibg.com


The ITA 2011 Call for papers will be updated and posted at www.ithea.org/fis  
as well as to main ITA 2001 web page http://www.foibg.com/conf/itaf2011.htm .   
The ITA 2001 information is accessible from www.ithea.org  too.

This will be a great opportunity to continue the exciting face-to-face 
discussions we had in Beijing, now in a closer place, at least for the 
Europeans.

 
See you there!

---Pedro



-- 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-



___
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