Trying this again ... Information ...

[Jorge]

The answer is in here somewhere (p7 looks promising). No doubt you will understand this much better than I do:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1091...nformation.pdf

Nah, not really. Here's a relevant excerpt:

"Moreover, there have been attempts to add a semantic dimension to a formal theory of information, in particular, to Shannon’s theory (MacKay 1969; Nauta 1972; Dretske 1981). Although very fruitful, these approaches do not cancel the fact that Shannon’s theory, taken by itself, is purely quantitative: it ignores any issue related to informational content. Shannon information is not a semantic item: semantic items, such as meaning, reference or representation, are not amenable of quantification. Therefore, the issue about possible links between semantic information and Shannon information is a question to be faced once the concept of Shannon information is endowed with a sufficiently clear interpretation. But precisely this is still the step to be done: what is the nature of Shannon information?"

In short, Shannon equates symbols/tokens with what they convey (the 'information'). For Shannon's purpose (namely, engineering communication) that was perfectly valid and most fruitful, as history has shown. But Shannon was light years away from determining the core nature of information.

Jorge

[firstfloor]

Nah, not really. Here's a relevant excerpt:

"Moreover, there have been attempts to add a semantic dimension to a formal theory of information, in particular, to Shannon’s theory (MacKay 1969; Nauta 1972; Dretske 1981). Although very fruitful, these approaches do not cancel the fact that Shannon’s theory, taken by itself, is purely quantitative: it ignores any issue related to informational content. Shannon information is not a semantic item: semantic items, such as meaning, reference or representation, are not amenable of quantification. Therefore, the issue about possible links between semantic information and Shannon information is a question to be faced once the concept of Shannon information is endowed with a sufficiently clear interpretation. But precisely this is still the step to be done: what is the nature of Shannon information?"

In short, Shannon equates symbols/tokens with what they convey (the 'information'). For Shannon's purpose (namely, engineering communication) that was perfectly valid and most fruitful, as history has shown. But Shannon was light years away from determining the core nature of information.

Jorge

And presumably this is where you come in. It will be interesting to see what you come up with.

[Leonhard]

After you get the sex change operation you've been hinting at.

I'd rather be a transsexual, than someone who weasles out of promises.

[seer]

After you get the sex change operation you've been hinting at.

Jorge

That was uncalled for Jorge...

[oxmixmudd]

Nah, not really. Here's a relevant excerpt:

"Moreover, there have been attempts to add a semantic dimension to a formal theory of information, in particular, to Shannon’s theory (MacKay 1969; Nauta 1972; Dretske 1981). Although very fruitful, these approaches do not cancel the fact that Shannon’s theory, taken by itself, is purely quantitative: it ignores any issue related to informational content. Shannon information is not a semantic item: semantic items, such as meaning, reference or representation, are not amenable of quantification. Therefore, the issue about possible links between semantic information and Shannon information is a question to be faced once the concept of Shannon information is endowed with a sufficiently clear interpretation. But precisely this is still the step to be done: what is the nature of Shannon information?"

In short, Shannon equates symbols/tokens with what they convey (the 'information'). For Shannon's purpose (namely, engineering communication) that was perfectly valid and most fruitful, as history has shown. But Shannon was light years away from determining the core nature of information.

Jorge

Actually, Shannon ignoring semantics is able to get to the core of information, in that his theories allow us to make quantitative statements about information independent of what it's semantics are.

In fact, a quantitative theory of Information to be useful needs to ignore senantics. For example, there are a virtually unlimited set semantic mappings I can assign to
16 bits, but in not one of those meaning sets can represent any more than 65536 unique semantic mappings. Thus the limit on the number of different meanings for 16 bits is the same, regardless of what chose to define as the meaning of those bit configurations. Meaning then is arbitrary, but the information capacity is fixed and quantifyable.

Jim

[Jorge]

That was uncalled for Jorge...

Obviously logical sarcasm is beyond both you and Leonhard. Oh well ...

Jorge

[Jorge]

Actually, Shannon ignoring semantics is able to get to the core of information, in that his theories allow us to make quantitative statements about information independent of what it's semantics are.

In fact, a quantitative theory of Information to be useful needs to ignore senantics. For example, there are a virtually unlimited set semantic mappings I can assign to
16 bits, but in not one of those meaning sets can represent any more than 65536 unique semantic mappings. Thus the limit on the number of different meanings for 16 bits is the same, regardless of what chose to define as the meaning of those bit configurations. Meaning then is arbitrary, but the information capacity is fixed and quantifyable.

Jim

First, in this thread I was asking for QUESTIONS. I don't see any here.

Second, the point you make is perfectly understood by me. In 1948 Shannon was far more a communications engineer than he was an information theorist. Later in his life he 'matured' regarding the information question but he never actually 'got there'. But back to your statement, "In fact, a quantitative theory of Information to be useful needs to ignore senantics [sic]." In this you're committing the same error that essentially everyone does, namely, equating the quantification of 'information' with what information actually IS.

Third and last, I see you retain you sig - proof positive that you've not 'Evolved' in the moral arena.

Jorge

[Sparko]

What is information?

[seer]

Obviously logical sarcasm is beyond both you and Leonhard. Oh well ...

Jorge

And sarcasm can't hurt - emotionally?

[oxmixmudd]

First, in this thread I was asking for QUESTIONS. I don't see any here.

Second, the point you make is perfectly understood by me. In 1948 Shannon was far more a communications engineer than he was an information theorist. Later in his life he 'matured' regarding the information question but he never actually 'got there'.

I 'see'. And why would I ask you questions? Seems rather pompuous of you to trot in here as if you are some sort of world renouned expert in the subject. Do you have any new ideas you want to present for discussion? Fine. Do it, and without all the theatrics.

But back to your statement, "In fact, a quantitative theory of Information to be useful needs to ignore senantics [sic]." In this you're committing the same error that essentially everyone does, namely, equating the quantification of 'information' with what information actually IS.

Ok here is a question for you Jorge: What - in your view - IS information ... actually?

Third and last, I see you retain you sig - proof positive that you've not 'Evolved' in the moral arena.

Jorge

Nothing there but the facts Jorge. The facts as they are contrasted with a quote from your paper on asteroid impacts. I understand that is uncomfortable for you - but the only moral shortcoming lies with the person who can without so much as a pang of conscience write as fact what is known not to be true.

Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

I 'see'. And why would I ask you questions? Seems rather pompuous of you to trot in here as if you are some sort of world renouned expert in the subject.

C'mon, Clucky spent at least $2500 (IIRC) buying himself a phony Doctorate from an unaccredited diploma mill. Doesn't that make him an expert? In something anyway.

[Jorge]

What is information?

Believe it or not, I actually spent a large amount of time and effort answering that question.

Strange, huh?

Seriously, that question is answered in the work - rest assured.

BTW, what do YOU think information is? Information is a word used
often yet ask anyone to define 'information' and hold on to your seat.

Jorge

[Jorge]

And sarcasm can't hurt - emotionally?

Depends on the recipient. Even mild sunlight will hurt an overly-sensitive person.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I 'see'. And why would I ask you questions? Seems rather pompuous of you to trot in here as if you are some sort of world renouned expert in the subject. Do you have any new ideas you want to present for discussion? Fine. Do it, and without all the theatrics.

As I've remarked scores of times here on TWeb, I can always count on old O-Mudd to take my posts in their worst possible way. Here, I am being "pompous" ... "as if I were some sort of world renouned [sic] expert" engaged in "theatrics". That's a trifecta from ol' O-Mudd!

The ideas that I have will be out in due time. I'm asking for QUESTIONS to see if there is something beyond what I've considered. No "theatrics" - just more blind, rabid hatred from you.

As for "world renowned expert" -- no, definitely not "world renowned",
but I certainly do know/understand the topic well beyond the 'average'.

Ok here is a question for you Jorge: What - in your view - IS information ... actually?

As I just finished posting to Sparko, OF COURSE I devote a large amount of time and effort to answering that question. It would be odd if I didn't. You'll see that answer soon enough.

Do you have any other questions - questions that perhaps I did not consider?

Nothing there but the facts Jorge. The facts as they are contrasted with a quote from your paper on asteroid impacts. I understand that is uncomfortable for you - but the only moral shortcoming lies with the person who can without so much as a pang of conscience write as fact what is known not to be true.

Nonsense. Besides, you wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you on the rump. A while back I even posted an article by a specialist in the field that stated many of the same things I wrote in my article (with more details and references). But yeah, I know -- none of those were "facts" for you. Gee, I wonder why?

Jorge

[Jorge]

C'mon, Clucky spent at least $2500 (IIRC) buying himself a phony Doctorate from an unaccredited diploma mill. Doesn't that make him an expert? In something anyway.

I've been away for a while so let me ask, does the originator of a thread still have
the authority to boot a worthless piece of garbage off the thread?

If so, I am hereby officially using my size 11 boot to drop-kick Beagle Boy into the next county.

Goodbye, Beagle Boy. ........................ and don't come back.

Jorge