Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles

[Bruno Marchal]

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 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].


Very nice, although in my approach, I identify "science" and belief,  
in a first axiomatic approximation. later, new axioms can be added to  
introduce the nuances, when needed (and such nuances does exist, and  
eventually are imposed by the working hypothesis (mechanism).






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.


I agree. But if we decide to do metaphysics or theology with the  
scientific method, we can put the metaphysics in the hypothesis, and  
search for criteria of verification.






The first,
Idealism, is based on belief about existence of 

Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles

[Logan Streondj]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi Krassimir and all,

Thank you for the warm welcome.

I did hear about how there was a an exciting debate going on here
about the definition of information and apparently the principles of
information.  I've glanced through the archives and see there have
been many great ideas proposed.

I thought I would add my own perspective to it.  I am from a computer
programming background,  so data would be a more natural word than
reflections.  However I also made an auxlang (Pyash) which has a
vocabulary that intersected about 30k English words, left me with
about 8k words to work with, in it there is no word for information,
or data,
however there is a word for description, belief, truth, real and
knowledge.

I'd like to give my axiomatic perspective of the principles on
information science.

0. A belief is an independent-clause (sentence).
0a)  You can call it an information packet or w/e you prefer.

1. Truth is a private belief.
1a) A person has a cluster of harmonious beliefs which form a template
for sieving input.
1b) Beliefs which align with the template are "True".
1c) Beliefs which are not applicable to the template are noise or
confusing.
1d) Beliefs which conflict with the template are either discarded, or
the template is modified to align with them. (to avoid cognitive
dissonance).

2. Knowledge consists of experienced beliefs, typically those that
have been subsumed by the template. For instance "false" belief could
subsume as beliefs held by an other community.

3. Real are the mutual beliefs of a community of people.
3a)  By Integrated Information Theory, even protons have some
consciousness. for example an atom communicates it's beliefs about
it's location and frequency when probed by a photon. So the beliefs of
"inanimate matter" must also be taken into consideration of what is
real. The beliefs of inanimate matter, as measured by mechanical and
electronic tools are typically what is described as "objective reality".

4. Dialogue is the exchange of beliefs.

On 2017-10-31 10:07 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote:
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
> 
> What is the proper attitude to the ocean of the data we create and
>  perceive?

Each of us has our own template.

> 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.

Each group has their own reality (though most intersect with objective
reality).


> Scientists do not assume anything in advance

While that may be ideal, it's difficult to achieve as each scientist
has their own template of the world.

> and try to make reasoning based only on repeatable and controlled 
> experiments.

For sure, I think the scientific method is what makes science.
Repeatable controlled experiments are what lead to practical innovation.


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

For sure.

So for example the above principles, can have some experiments.

For the belief template, can use a toUpper function as a straw example,
it will convert any input that is the lower-case ASCII range, an
upper-case ASCII range, and either discard or return any other inputs,
as they don't fit it's template.

A more complicated function may be able to process a greater range of
inputs.

string.h is a community of persons that believe series of integers end
in 0's.  C-strings are real to them.

Though there is an issue with those examples,  mainly that since they
are state-less feed-forward functions they aren't conscious. Perhaps
you can come up with some better examples or counter-examples?


> 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.

I also prefer M1 here.

Though I'd say that "subjectively comprehended reflections" is an
example of exclusively integrated information (to use IIT terminology).

- -- 
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles

[Alex Hankey]

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.

On 31 October 2017 at 14:07, 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.
>
> 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.
>