[Sigia-l] data as information?

[Ed Housman]

I wonder if information IS a form (or pattern), or whether it only exists as a
pattern encrypted into some medium.  A medium (be it e.g. a piece of paper or a
radio wave) is basically a relatively homogeneous background of noise (the
paper's white surface or the radio hiss) on which a pattern can be
superimposed.  Remember the signal-to-noise ratio?  If there is no noise, we
are essentially dividing by 0.

I move that we table this discussion for a while ... so we can digest 
this storm of messages.

--Ed
--- Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/ __________________________________________________
> ------------
> When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
> *Plain text, please; NO Attachments
> 
> Searchable Archive at http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
> 
> IA 06 Summit.  Mark your calendar.  March 23-27, Vancouver, BC
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
> Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
>