[Sigia-l] data as information?

[Alexander Johannesen]

I wrote:
> > But it's not; my brain read that number, and thinks its a part of a
> > phone number! What shall I do?!

On 6/30/05, Eric Scheid <eric.scheid at ironclad.net.au> wrote:
> If your perception of reality confuses you, that's your problem. Please do
> adjust your set.

No, I think the thing which needs adjusting here is the
reality-to-philosophy ratio, because it is *only* on the philosophical
level that 'data' exist, not in reality. Which data are you hence
referring to? I've referred to Schrodingers cat in another post which
really points to what the problem is; you cannot hold data in
isolation and point to it, because the very pointing implies some form
of translation or interpretation of where the finger points. There is
no data as such, only interpretation of noise.

> > Well, you need to make up your mind; is it a number, or is it noise?
> > Because they are two different patterns, two different things.
> 
> It is noise represented as a number.

Hey, there's no problem saying its a number, but noise is not a
number. You cannot represent noise by such; it goes against the very
nature of those two patterns. A number is a concept in human thinking,
and so is noise. They are not equal.

...

> Can you imagine Gil Grissom* holding a bloodied knife, and wondering "is
> this evidence, or just some irrelevant trash that is coincidentally at the
> crime scene"? 

Context is interpretation, so unless he's really stupid (which he
actually is, given he needs a script and doesn't even bloody exist!)
he'll make some good observations, but hey, he could be in a butchery
you know. The existance of facts are proof of other facts, just mere
indication.

> You know he's not going to stare at that knife endlessly,
> hoping it will reveal it's true nature. He's going put it to one side, go
> gather some more potential evidence, and come back later once he's got a
> wider understanding of the context. So, is it noise, or is it evidence ...
> that's not an important distinction at that time, stop obsessing, get over
> it, move on ... and come back later once you have more context, when you are
> able to pick out the data from the noise.

Hmm, we were talking about the theory where you state  "Data is the
evidence of a relationship between two things" Are you saying data
could be noise? *confused*


Alex
-- 
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________