Re: [Fis] What is the “mental model”?

[tozziarturo]

> head>Il 23 febbraio 2018 alle 20.47 PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> Dear Krassimir and FIS colleagues,
> 
>  
> 
> Many thanks for your message & effort to prepare the compilation to be 
> published soon. It is good counting with dissemination works that take these 
> information debates to different environments so that new insights and 
> conceptual cross fertilizations may occur. (These weeks I have been rather 
> absent minded, involved with the nasty task of closing my desk room and 
> having to transport home all my archives--throwing away lots and lots of 
> reprints and docs. No space available at home! It was very fatiguing. 
> Hopefully it is almost over.) Well, about Arturo's last comment, am sorry 
> about having to leave out of science most of research activities of last 
> centuries, including some of the Greatest Founding Books of Biology 
> (Darwin's), Neuroscience (Ramon y Cajal's, Sherrington's) and many others. No 
> maths there! Watson & Crick's arch-famous paper with the DNA report had no 
> maths either... They all will join the heaps of papers I discarded! Well, 
> more seriously, FIS was conceived to articulate a common ground in between 
> the different info worlds, utterly separated, taking from the 
> physical/computational, to the biological/neuronal, and to the 
> personal/social. There was, and there is, no immediate "informational" 
> connection at all. Perhaps after taking various steps behind each one of 
> these realms, a sort of general interconnecting thread could be discovered; 
> this is what we thought long ago. Hélas, as all these years discussions have 
> witnessed, the itinerary resembles an intransitable Moebius band rather than 
> a linear path... But at least there is fun in the attempt.
> 
> About data, "dataism", and some other curiosities we will have a new 
> discussion session at the end of next week. Raquel del Moral will present the 
> chair of this new session.
> 
> Best wishes to all,
> 
> --Pedro
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:50:08 +0200 "Krassimir Markov" wrote:
> 
> blockquote>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
> 
>  
> 
> The main result of our paper “Data versus Information” is the 
> understanding that the data and information are different (external and 
> internal kinds of reflection for subjective consciousness), i.e. "Information 
> = data + something in and by consciousness"
> 
>  
> 
> After publishing the paper, Arturo wrote an important remark and I 
> promise to answer in this letter. In private conversation we had discussed 
> some aspects. The conversation was interesting but it is not available for 
> the FIS-list and I have no permission to publish it. Because of this I will 
> use abstract form of questions (Q) and answers (A).
> 
> Dear Arturo, I apologize in advance but I hope there is nothing bad in 
> this and it will be useful.
> 
>  
> 
> The remark of Arturo was: 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 maintain our firm position, we have 
> been censored.
> 
>  
> 
> (A):  Usually we say “we collect information” measuring different 
> real features – temperature, distance, weigh, etc. Scientists from physics do 
> this permanently.
> 
> p> 
> 
>  
> 
> The methodical error here is that really we collect data.
> 
>  
> 
> After processing the data in the consciousness, the information may be 
> created in it. Reflections (data) exist everywhere, but information exists 
> only in consciousness. It is important that information in the consciousness 
> of one subject is external for another, i.e. it is data for him/her.
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, I know that many people believe in the opposite, but still there are 
> no scientific basics this believing to become scientific theory.
> 
>  
> 
> I am mathematician who had worked in the institute of mathematics more 
> than 40 years and, in particular, I have taught probability and statistics. I 
> absolutely clearly know (and every good mathematician knows!) that the 
> probabilities are a human model and do not exist in the reality. Because of 
> this, all definitions of information based on probability are the same what 
> we had published in the paper. This kind of information exits only in the 
> concrete human consciousness!
> 
>  
> 
> The rest is data; sometimes called: "statistical data".
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> (Q):   Statistics is so important, that we can quantify the 
> standpoint of our reality, i.e., quantum mechanics, just through statistical 
> tools. If you negate statistics in the study of reality, you fully destroy 
> the medicine, the scientific method and 

Re: [Fis] What is the “mental model”?

[PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ]

Dear Krassimir and FIS colleagues,

Many thanks for your message & effort to prepare the compilation to be 
published soon. It is good counting with dissemination works that take these 
information debates to different environments so that new insights and 
conceptual cross fertilizations may occur. (These weeks I have been rather 
absent minded, involved with the nasty task of closing my desk room and 
having to transport home all my archives--throwing away lots and lots of 
reprints and docs. No space available at home! It was very fatiguing. 
Hopefully it is almost over.) Well, about Arturo's last comment, am sorry 
about having to leave out of science most of research activities of last 
centuries, including some of the Greatest Founding Books of Biology 
(Darwin's), Neuroscience (Ramon y Cajal's, Sherrington's) and many others. 
No maths there! Watson & Crick's arch-famous paper with the DNA
report had no maths either... They all will join the heaps of papers I 
discarded! Well, more seriously, FIS was conceived to articulate a common 
ground in between the different info worlds, utterly separated, taking from 
the physical/computational, to the biological/neuronal, and to the 
personal/social. There was, and there is, no immediate "informational" 
connection at all. Perhaps after taking various steps behind each one of 
these realms, a sort of general interconnecting thread could be discovered; 
this is what we thought long ago. Hélas, as all these years discussions have 
witnessed, the itinerary resembles an intransitable Moebius band rather than 
a linear path... But at least there is fun in the attempt.
About data, "dataism", and some other curiosities we will have a new 
discussion session at the end of next week. Raquel del Moral will present 
the chair of this new session.

Best

wishes to all,
--Pedro

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:50:08 +0200 "Krassimir Markov"  wrote:



Dear FIS Colleagues,

The main result of our paper “Data versus Information” is the understanding that the data 
and information are different (external and internal kinds of reflection for subjective 
consciousness), i.e. "Information = data + something in and by consciousness"

After publishing the paper, Arturo wrote an important remark and I promise to answer in this letter. In private conversation we had discussed some aspects. The conversation was interesting but it is not available for the FIS-list and I have no permission to publish it. Because of this I will use abstract form of questions (Q) and answers (A). 
Dear Arturo, I apologize in advance but I hope there is nothing bad in this and it will be useful. 


The remark of Arturo was: 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 maintain our firm position, we 
have been censored.


(A):  Usually we say “we collect information” measuring different real 
features – temperature, distance, weigh, etc. Scientists from physics do this 
permanently.

The methodical error here is that really we collect data.

After processing the data in the consciousness, the information may be created 
in it. Reflections (data) exist everywhere, but information exists only in 
consciousness. It is important that information in the consciousness of one 
subject is external for another, i.e. it is data for him/her.

Yes, I know that many people believe in the opposite, but still there are no 
scientific basics this believing to become

scientific theory.


I am mathematician who had worked in the institute of mathematics more than 40 years and, in particular, I have taught probability and statistics. I absolutely clearly know (and every good mathematician knows!) that the probabilities are a human model and do not exist in the reality. Because of this, all definitions of information based on probability are the same what we had published in the paper. This kind of information exits only in the concrete human consciousness! 


The rest is data; sometimes called: "statistical data".


(Q):   Statistics is so important, that we can quantify the standpoint of 
our reality, i.e., quantum mechanics, just through statistical tools. If you 
negate statistics in the study of reality, you fully destroy the medicine, the 
scientific method and the prospective and retrospective studies. It is totally 
absurd to negate the
importance of statistics. I'm sorry, but yours is just a metaphysical 
approach to scientific problems.



(A):   Yes, I agree that the statistics is very important and useful. But we discuss "what 
is the information?" and not "is the statistics important or not?".

Only what I say is that the statistics is pure humans' activity. By processing 
statistical data we may predict many events. But this not excludes humans'. 
Computer prosthesis of our brains does not change the situation.

Re: [Fis] What is the “mental model”?

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Colleagues,



Thank you for bringing up 3 main points of the discussion:



1)“ … the most represented position among FISers, i.e., that
information is an objective, quantitative, physical measure linked to
informational entropy”

2)"Information = data + something in and by consciousness"

3)“ … my simple question is: What is the “mental model”? “



To answer these points, it is necessary to recall some results from
research into learning. Learning is based on recurring, periodically
repeated, experiences which get associated with other mental images. The
key word here is “periodic”. It has already been suggested here that
children should first learn “how frequently” before learning “how many”.
The higher functions of the brain are dependent on the physiology of the
brain as an organ. The rules of physiology are rules of changes. The whole
system is based on periodicities, be they hunger, tiredness, any urges and
needs.



The fundament of our perception is made up of closed loops of cycles within
periods, producing rhythms. Against this background have thinkers evolved
the concept of a line and of equally spaced identical units along the line.
The idea contrasts well against the experience of: always the same,
returning in variations. So, this idea can well be abstracted, commonly
experienced, therefore communicated.



In actual fact, the first abstract concept a human child learns is that of
the mammae of its mother. The distinction happens along the line of
“not-me” within the cacophony of sensuous impressions coming from the
boundary-less general “me” of the first hours and days reigning in the
brain of the newborn. All pictures of all objects are descendants of the
experience of delimitation of specific brain activities – which will be
learnt as perceptions of outside – against the background of a wholly
un-differentiated melange of proceedings within the central nervous system.



The point to make here is, that the experience of being fed *reorders
*important
physiological parameters within the infant. The suckling’s cells will be
flooded with nourishment, and thus its change into a different state of
physiological order will have become attained. The predecessor state was
“hungry”, the successor state is “well-fed”. The intermediate state is that
which the organism is in actual fact continuously in, only purists would
want to point out the exact end of being hungry. It is a periodic process
that the infant learns to look forward to, and we indeed see babies to show
great interest in preparations for being fed, if they are hungry. Pawlow’s
dogs make the point crystal clear: it is a *periodic *process, of which
there are *previous parts*, that is all that that has happened, and *parts
that are yet to come*, that is, what the children and dogs look forward to.



This is the answer to point 2: "Information = data + something in and by
consciousness" is the same as “Reflex = remembered perception + prediction
about future”. Information is in this sense the physiological changes
caused by the expectation (salivation, agitation), usually called
conditioned reflex, and has much to do with enthropy, as an allegory of the
physiological state. Data is the input by the sensory organs. The something
that connects data and prediction is the rule, and it is usually not
distinguished between conscious or not. To keep the terminology in line
with formal definitions, information are such elements of the data set that
are not yet in existence and of which the future existence is predicted.



Point 3:  The simple question: What is the “mental model”? is an invitation
to present a mental model.



We know that we have to deal with periods, cycles within periods, and
rhythms caused by the interference among cycles and periods. This because
our brain is organised to work in such way. We have been so far quite good
at describing that part of our mental contents that are children of the
distinction me – not-me. The not-me we can already talk a lot about. Now
the time has come to start talking about the me part of the brain.



We know that learning is improving the predictive power. To predict
something, that something must be in the future, as a successor to the
present. To be able to predict, some signals must have been perceived,
based on which the prediction is made. These are in the past, are
predecessors to the present. The two different states are each well-ordered
(in one state: hunger, in the other state: well-fed; both states with,
theoretically or practically, measurable differences in physiology). The
present state is an intermediate one (not yet fed, but already alerted to
soon being fed) between two ordered states, and therefore subject to
constraints implicated in the neighbouring states’ orders.



A model that exemplifies a) order, b) transition, c) prediction would be
helpful in this situation, if the task could be done in a neutral way,
transparently, in an inherently logical