Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Data, Information, and all that....
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 1 of 299 (71147)
12-05-2003 7:03 AM


I came across this recently:
"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."
The research is actually from a doctoral thesis by Graham Rowinson
at Nottingham University (1976), but it made me think.
Several very different orderings of the same data can provide
exactly the same information.
Not because of anything in the data, but because our minds
interpret the data into something we recognise.
I think this shows that data and information are separate
(not entirely independent, but not the same thing).
This means that ANY change in data COULD be an increase information regardless if whether the data increases or decreases and may
not change at all.
Not sure whether that is a useful thought or not now ... still
that's never stopped me before

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Joralex, posted 12-06-2003 9:55 PM Peter has replied
 Message 4 by Rrhain, posted 12-07-2003 12:38 AM Peter has replied

Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 299 (71411)
12-06-2003 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
12-05-2003 7:03 AM


I think this shows that data and information are separate
(not entirely independent, but not the same thing).
This means that ANY change in data COULD be an increase information regardless if whether the data increases or decreases and may
not change at all.
Not sure whether that is a useful thought or not now ... still
that's never stopped me before.
Maybe you should begin stopping now?
The reason for this apparent "identity" between data and information is that you've forgotten about the presence of the bridging feature - the software!
It is the human mind - with its vast processing capabilities including memory, pattern recognition, and structuring software - that is able to tkae teh gralbed msseage and "FIX IT". Eliminate the existing software in the human brain and I'd like to see the feat accomplished (I really would but I won't be holding my breath!).
By the way, programming a computer to accomplish this won't cut it either since, obviously, the computer program is merely a substitute for the human software. I'm afraid the 'intelligence requirement' is there to stay - certainly in this case.
The study is interesting for other reasons but it doesn't do squat to support evolution.
Sorry to rain on your parade, Peter.
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 12-05-2003 7:03 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2003 11:00 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 12-08-2003 7:41 AM Joralex has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 299 (71417)
12-06-2003 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Joralex
12-06-2003 9:55 PM


Here's a much more reasonable explanation: the data or information content of the words is not in the words, it's in our heads. Therefore it's easy for our heads to reconstruct the meaning because the meaning is already there.
By the way, programming a computer to accomplish this won't cut it either since, obviously, the computer program is merely a substitute for the human software.
Software is software. If it can't be done by a computer then it isn't software.
Maybe you should begin stopping now?
You know if I was as consistently wrong about stuff as you are I'd sure make a lot less smart-ass comments. But that's just me, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Joralex, posted 12-06-2003 9:55 PM Joralex has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 4 of 299 (71428)
12-07-2003 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
12-05-2003 7:03 AM


One example of where this breaks down is in words that are composed of the same letters such as tarp and trap. One can usually coax out the meaning due to context, but I suspect crash is correct: If the reader has a solid grasp of the langauge, he will be able to unjumble the mess, often unconsciously.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 12-05-2003 7:03 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 12-08-2003 7:34 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 12 by Joralex, posted 12-08-2003 12:08 PM Rrhain has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 5 of 299 (71437)
12-07-2003 2:00 AM


I slhal aplocsmich ilnlntsiag scneetnes porir to igetnelnlcie dphniieercg mgainnes whiitn.
Nah that was too easy.

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 6 of 299 (71451)
12-07-2003 10:32 AM


Wait I got another one.
Psraeniudg vnoeilt peitras to pttpaicaire tguhroh cpoateioorn nsseetetiacs emxerte couaitn.
I kind of like this.See all those years on bad drugs finally has some weird purpose.LOL!
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-08-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2003 5:13 AM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 7 of 299 (71488)
12-07-2003 8:34 PM


It would seem to me that the mind does have its limits on how complex a sentence can be before unscrambling a series of words becomes too difficult to automatically be deciphered.

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 8 of 299 (71523)
12-08-2003 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by sidelined
12-07-2003 10:32 AM


quote:
I slhal aplocsmich ilnlntsiag scneetnes porir to igetnelnlcie dphniieercg mgainnes whiitn.
I shall accomplish installing sentences prior to intelligence deciphering meanings within.
That makes no sense, crashfrog.
quote:
Psreniudg vnoeilt peitras to pttpaicaire tguhroh cpoateioorn ntcseettias emxerte couaitn.
? violent parties to participate through cooperation ? extreme caution.
I think the second word is supposed to be "necessitates," but the letters provided do not spell out "necessitates"...there's an extra "t" and is lacking an "e" and and an "s."
I can only guess that the first word is supposed to be "producing," but the letters provided don't spell that ("predusing"?)
At any rate, the rest of the sentence makes no sense.
There is already evidence that a person who is a native speaker of a language has the functional comprehension of the language. It allows us to say something like, "Blank blanked the blank blank," and knowing that the first "blank" is a noun, most like a proper noun, the second "blank" is a verb (in past tense because of the "-ed"), and the third and fourth "blanks" are either an adjective/noun combination or a noun/adverb combination. You could put true nonsense in those places, but the physical structure of the sentence requires certain types of speech to exist in certain places.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 12-07-2003 10:32 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 12-08-2003 6:35 AM Rrhain has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 9 of 299 (71532)
12-08-2003 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rrhain
12-08-2003 5:13 AM


You are right the first makes no sense so I constructed the second one.Again I messed up and I have to apologize for that.The sentence translates as follows. Persuading violent parties to participate through cooperation necessitates extreme caution. I messed up by not including an 'a' in persuading so small wonder you missed that.I am curious though did you immediately recognize the pattern of the words I did spell correctly or did it require a drawn out process?
Oh. I must state that you owe crashfrog an apology as I am the author of both examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2003 5:13 AM Rrhain has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 10 of 299 (71535)
12-08-2003 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rrhain
12-07-2003 12:38 AM


Interestingly this jumbing doesn't work in Hebrew.
The language is apparently compressed already
by the removal of vowels (or some such).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rrhain, posted 12-07-2003 12:38 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Joralex, posted 12-08-2003 12:24 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 11 of 299 (71536)
12-08-2003 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Joralex
12-06-2003 9:55 PM


quote:
The reason for this apparent "identity" between data and information is that you've forgotten about the presence of the bridging feature - the software!
I've not forgotten about it -- I am pointing it out
sepifically as the reason that data and information are
not directly related.
The extrusion of information from data requires an
interpretive act ... so information in this sense cannot
be applied to DNA, or if it is, it must be recognised
that it is the interpretation of the data that forms the
informaiton, not the data itself.
Adding or removing a base changes the data, it may or may not
changed the information.
The same addition/deletion could represent a gain or a loss
of inforamtion dpnednig on context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Joralex, posted 12-06-2003 9:55 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joralex, posted 12-08-2003 12:54 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied
 Message 98 by DNAunion, posted 12-18-2003 8:19 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 299 (71573)
12-08-2003 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rrhain
12-07-2003 12:38 AM


"Here's a much more reasonable explanation: the data or information content of the words is not in the words, it's in our heads. Therefore it's easy for our heads to reconstruct the meaning because the meaning is already there."
"One example of where this breaks down is in words that are composed of the same letters such as tarp and trap. One can usually coax out the meaning due to context, but I suspect crash is correct: If the reader has a solid grasp of the langauge, he will be able to unjumble the mess, often unconsciously."
I didn't think it possible for two people to simultaneously miss the exact same point.
Uhhh ... crash ... if it's "in your head" then may I ask, what IS IT that is "in your head"?
That "meaning" that you speak of is a combination of things formally called 'vocabulary, syntax and semantics'. Nowhere except associated with intelligence are such things found.
And the reason that we would be able to distinguish between 'tarp' and 'trap' is due to context considerations (as you've recognized) maybe mixed with some forward-scanning. Such actions are directly linked with an intelligence and, therefore, the rain continues on the Naturalistic parade.
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rrhain, posted 12-07-2003 12:38 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2003 8:42 AM Joralex has not replied

Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 299 (71574)
12-08-2003 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peter
12-08-2003 7:34 AM


Interestingly this jumbing doesn't work in Hebrew.
The language is apparently compressed already
by the removal of vowels (or some such).
Now that's an interesting observation, Peter!
Seriously, my background includes pattern recognition theory and one of the aspects that we investigated was that of 'redundant/extraneous information'. For example, if you saw the tip - and only the tip - of the nose of someone's face, would that information allow you to recognize who that person was? Probably not. So, at what point do you have "just enough" information to allow a positive recognition? Such was the nature of the questions that we investigated back then.
Applying this here, how much may words (or even a language) be "compressed" while retaining recognizability? And, as you've observed, it appears that some languages have a higher 'compressibility potential' than others.
Now, isn't all this much better than that ridiculous notion of 'evolution'?
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 12-08-2003 7:34 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by MrHambre, posted 12-08-2003 1:17 PM Joralex has replied

Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 299 (71581)
12-08-2003 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peter
12-08-2003 7:41 AM


I've not forgotten about it -- I am pointing it out
sepifically as the reason that data and information are
not directly related.
The 'data' is the "material carrier" of the information. Naturalistically speaking, show me any information that does NOT have a carrier.
I'm afraid that within Naturalism you cannot separate the two, Peter; i.e., the two are directly related.
The extrusion of information from data requires an
interpretive act ... so information in this sense cannot
be applied to DNA, or if it is, it must be recognised
that it is the interpretation of the data that forms the
informaiton, not the data itself.
Precisely my point! Tell me, WHAT performs the 'interpretation'? DNA encodes the information for the assembly of proteins (via base sequences) and something has to interpret those base sequences as meaning exactly what the code intends it to mean. But that interpretative act is conducted by a system that is ALSO encoded within the DNA. The mother of all chicken-n-egg?
Adding or removing a base changes the data, it may or may not
changed the information.
That is an unsubstantiated assumption. In fact, while the contents in your brain are able to help you retain the information in 'To be, or not be to', changing a base will likely yield an interpretation producing B instead of A. The quantity of information may have remained the same but it is the quality of information that determines life.
The same addition/deletion could represent a gain or a loss
of inforamtion dpnednig on context.
Again, the quantity of information may have remained the same but it is the quality (i.e., the specificity) of information that determines many aspects connected with life. Thus, you are partly correct but the important part that you're missing is why the rain continues on the Naturalist's parade.
Joralex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 12-08-2003 7:41 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 12-08-2003 1:01 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 17 by Loudmouth, posted 12-08-2003 4:29 PM Joralex has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 299 (71583)
12-08-2003 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Joralex
12-08-2003 12:54 PM


good.
quote:
Adding or removing a base changes the data, it may or may not
changed the information.
That is an unsubstantiated assumption
Yep for for me the substantive may be the reverse "adding or removing a base" may change the information but it might NOT change the data. In 1992 I was doing research in the ANIMAL SCIENCE DEPT at Cornell and I speculated that it might be that Guanosine changes (in the base) could change the way the centriolar cycle cycles across generations (AND HENCE ACROSS THE CELL BLOCK CLONING PROBLEM , I had been hired to solve, If...)but this would NOT CHANGE ANY DATA, only how time IS SIMULATING THE electronic option to visualize the data.- J got that yellow read right and writed. Sorry for not seperating the quotes. I think we all "know" who said what.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Joralex, posted 12-08-2003 12:54 PM Joralex has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Peter, posted 12-09-2003 11:09 AM Brad McFall has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024