Re: [Fis] Re: What is the definition of information ?

The argument that information is the "difference that makes a
difference" - which has been especially popular in recent years -
troubles me. It requires either a blending of discernment that I simply
cannot accept at this level, or it fails to describe the zero sum game.

Nor can I accept the argument given here that data is information - I
think you are confusing two distinct things.

 From my point of view, there is "state" - and one might describe state
and call the description "data." In any system of states then
"information" is the difference between any two - and one might use
descriptions of these states (datum) and a system of logic to reason
about the difference. A collection of such differences then allows us
to consider "patterns of information."

Neither "state," "information" nor "patterns" in these definitions
require any complexity to be involved in an interpretation - a
mechanical interpretation is sufficient.

"Recognition" (as opposed to "comparison") is a process of complexity -
involving motile transformations in organisms. Complexity requires the
introduction of additional concepts.

With respect,
Steven

--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
SEMEIOSIS RESEARCH
http://www.semeiosis.com
Guy A. Hoelzer wrote:
>  Shu-Kun et al.,
>
> On Aug 31, 2005, at 1:15 AM, Shu-Kun Lin wrote:
>
>> Dear Juan,
>>
>>
>> I reply my part:
>>
>> > Data compressed---seems related to the concept of algorithmic
>>
>> > information. But what is the definition of "data"?
>>
>>
>> What is data? Data are the things which are or can be
>>
>> recorded in notebooks, photo plates,
>>
>> magnetic tapes or floppy disks, or hard disks, in the amount
>>
>> with unit like bytes. If the data can be compressed to a size much
>>
>> smaller, we say the original data does not have much "information".
>>
>>
>> If there are symmetries in a structure, the data representing that
>>
>> structure can be compressed. E.g., a picture has nothing on it
>>
>> (white everywhere) has very high symmetry and little information.
>>
>
> My preference is to take the data itself as information.  I know that 
> this view contradicts the view so nicely developed by Shannon and 
> others that information is in the eye of the beholder, requiring 
> interpretation and evoked meaning, but this trivializes information in 
> my opinion.  Pattern (non-random configurations of matter/energy) 
> exists in the absence of an observer, and interpretation can only add 
> error to the appreciation of that pattern.  Of course inductive 
> inferences about what certain patterns might indicate are very 
> important in human science, and I would argue also to the functioning 
> of other sorts of dynamical (self-organizing) systems, but it seems to 
> me that this process follows the recognition of information (pattern) 
> rather than constituting information.  If it turns out that there is 
> too much inertia in the interpretation-bound meaning of the term 
> "information", then I would personally like to see the development of 
> a term capturing the essence of informational sources (non-random 
> configurations), because I think this is the basis for dynamical 
> reactions to external conditions and signal formation by 
> self-organizing systems.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy Hoelzer
>
> Department of Biology
>
> University of Nevada Reno
>
> Reno, NV  89557
>
>
> Phone:  775-784-4860
>
> Fax:  775-784-1302
>
>