Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS

[Christophe Menant]

Dear John,
It is interesting you bring us to the Interpretant in the Peircean triad where 
“meaning” is indeed key.
The Interpretant is understood as the meaning of a sign, created by the mind of 
the Interpreter (Nöth, Handbook of Semiotics).
But the triad Sign/Object/Interpretant does not explicit the Interpreter and 
considers it as somehow implicit. The many writings about the Object, the Sign 
and the Interpretant tell almost nothing about the Interpreter. This is 
surprising.
The Interpreter looks to me as key as it is the place where the meaning 
generation happens in the Peircean triad, allowing the Interpretant to exist.
Your knowledge of Peirce being much higher than mine, could you tell us how you 
feel about the neglected Interpreter?
All the best
Christophe


De : Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> de la part de John Collier 
<ag...@ncf.ca>
Envoyé : lundi 2 octobre 2017 08:28
À : fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS


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<mailto: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<mailto:presid...@ithea.org>
www.ithea.org<http://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 <fis-boun...@listas.un

Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS

[John Collier]

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
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 

Re: [Fis] TR: Principles of IS

[Michel Godron]

Le 30/09/2017 à 08:38, Christophe Menant a écrit :
1) The "increasing complexity from the Big Bang to us humans" and this 
increasing complexity is  local structuration founded on the 
functioning of non-isolated systems which use information as in Benard 
cells. Is it necessary to explain ?
2)  Yes, information is efficient only if it is more than a Shannon 
measure, but what word  other than "meaning" would you be correct for 
the information present in a book which enjoy your spirit ?


3) "energy=> matter => life => self-consciousness => are identical to 
the "increasing complexity from the Big Bang to us humans"


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

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 discussion of cell-cell
communication, because it is very important and 

[Fis] TR: Principles of IS

[Christophe Menant]

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 discussion of cell-cell communication, 
because it is very important and perhaps demands some more exchanges on the 
preliminary info matters.

May I return to principles and Aristotle? I think that Rafael and Michel are 
talking more about principles as general concepts than about principles as 
those peculiar foundational items that allow the beginning of a new scientific 
discourse. Communication between principles of the different disciplines is 
factually impossible (or utterly