[Sigia-l] data as information?

[Alexander Johannesen]

Oh dear!

I said:
> > I've already stated it is a pattern

 Scott Nelson <skot at penguinstorm.com> wrote:
> a pattern of what?

The "what" is not important at all. In fact, that's missing the point
completely. If you can detect a pattern inside your brain, who gives a
monkey about "a pattern of what". A pattern is a recognised shape,
physical or abstract, and you put context to it. Noise is such a
pattern, and you apply context to it.

> you're still suggesting this exists in the abstract, while People do
> not.

I have not suggested such a thing, and I'm also sure you're not the
authority on what People think.

> >  If you can't handle a philosophical discussion
> > like this, then perhaps you shouldn't engage? And no, I'm pretty sure
> > I'm not your ex-wife.
> 
> pretty sure?

You know, this is the kind of bullshit response that pisses me off.
Can you explain why you feel the need to embark on this bull? Yes,
Scott, I'm pretty darn bloody sure I'm not your ex-wife. My identity
is not a secret; just ask around. Check me online, and you'll find out
I am not. Sorry to disapoint, but I am not your ex-wife, *even* if we
disagree. Disagreeing with you does not make people your ex-wife.
Again; if you disagree with people, they are not nescessarily your
ex-wife. Pissing about with this ex-wife bullshit is not productive,
it is obviously a folly, perhaps an attept at humor that was perhaps
tounge-in-cheek funny the first time, but is beyond stupidy the third.
Get off it, ok?

> this list serves a practical purpose. your continual insistence on
> being contrary has long since ceased to be practical.

Again, this is bull, and I ask you to back it up. As you know, some
people agree with what I say, some do not, and as we'll see later
down, there has not been a "thrashing" of my arguments anywhere, which
maks sense as a lot of the arguments are rethorical questions that
would be simple to answer, but noooooooo, simple we can't do. Why's a
contrarian again, you said? The only thing that has "thrashed" is the
courtesy bag breaking because of your constant "I'm right and you're
wrong" that are more interested in comparing me to your ex-wife than
talking about the argument.

> didn't the "purely philosophical" conversation conclude a long time
> ago? most, including yourself, have admitted that Data vs. Fact is
> not an objective thing, but rather a subjective judgement. You
> continue to try to push the conversation further into Objectivity,
> despite this tacit recognition.

You're of course wrong; there hasn't been a conclusion of any purely
philosophical conversation, apart from, perhaps, in your mind. But
hey, let's just agree that you and I disagree to a point where no
fruitful argument can be held, ok? I'm sick of this absolute lack of
tolerance for another viewpoint from you. And what the heck is this
"even you've admitted to X being subjective"? My stance from the
beginning of time has been that context is everything, that context is
a highly personal thing, and that we all create our own sets of
context, and further that datum can't be demonstrated because our
brain does not accept data alone; it will enforce context, any
context, *especially* your own personal one, right or wrong. It is the
"datum can't be demonstrated" which lies at the heart of the current
discussion (at least before it went totally sour), and that has *not*
been resolved by any degree.

Let me for the sake of clarity put this in context; this thread
started with Boniface saying that all IA's treat information as data.
I objected quite strongly to this, a) because all IA's are not equal,
and b) because "datum can't be demonstrated" and hence can't be talked
about in any practical and sometimes even abstract way, and hence
doesn't even fit into the world of what most IA's do. In fact, it's
piffle, non-interesting, a load of nonsense.

> > He was also used as comic relief,
> 
> not really. he was used to illustrate a point. your interpretation of
> that as comic relief speaks to your interpretation only.

Uh, smarty-pants, but I used him as comic relief. *I* used him. Me. It
isn't my interpretation of his use; it *was* his use. You brought him
in as an example, I used him as comic relief. Read it again, you'll
see.

> this entire discussion slipped into idiocy some time ago. The issues
> raised have largely been thrashed out by excellent comments from:

Really? Well, let's have a look then ...

> Timohty Karsjens

: If a tree falls in a forest with no one to observe it, it is data.  If a
: tree falls in a forest with someone to observe it, it is information.

He's talking about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which I happen
to agree with. And I've pointed to Schrodingers Cat, which, in
principle talks about the very same thing. Thrashing? Bollocks.

> Eric Scheid

: I think we're in violent agreement here

So after some back and forth (without calling me his ex-wife) we've
come to some sort of agreement. Thrashing? Bollocks.

> Dan Saffer

Dan stated "Dick Buchanan broke this data/information/context thing
down" and had a chat with Ziya. In fact Dan hasn't responded to a
single post of mine. Thrashing? Bollocks!

> Ted Han

Can't find any perticular post, neither with Ziya nor me that stands
out as proof in the pudding. Thrashing? Bollocks.

> and many others.

I say you're full of it. Back it up, or push off. You're leading a
silly argument now, just like Boniface "proof" that he is right; "just
read the archives". Yeah, right.

> I leave it to you to determine the value of your own effusive
> contributions.

That's very grown up of you.


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