AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 161
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
well, we have already agreed to the point that you put an equal sign between data and matter....
information for you is a philosophical concept, you have the right. for me information is a practical concept used in information technologies. for me it is quite normal that information can be stored, processed, compressed and unpacked. most likely you call the word "information" something else, but then it is off-topic within the forum.
I have several times given references to the definition of the abstract concept of "information", which I agree with
Although information must acquire someform of representation ( i.e. becomedata) in order to be exchanged, information is primarily theinterpretation(meaning) of that representation ( ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010)[10]. Therefore, in a strict sense,information is different fromdata, although in an informal context the two terms are often usedsynonymously.
According to modern ideas, information is considered intangible, and what is contained in the structure of objects is calleddata ( representation form - ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010).
I don't understand what this is all aboutwell. does this change the field of knowledge of information technologies from a practical point of view? i.e. you can accept that a flash drive can contain data, but you can't accept that a flash drive can store information. religion doesn't allow you to store information on a flash drive?)))) how to store, process, create new information in a non-human head then? well, if you don't like the word "information", then use the word "data", but what will change?))
We go round in circles. When you say that information exists outside of us, I suggest you name its physical properties. You say there are none, because information is an abstraction. I say right, so it only exists in the realm of the mind, you say no, it exists independently of us.
We go round in circles. When you say that information exists outside of us, I suggest you name its physical properties. You say there are none, because information is an abstraction. I say right, so it exists only in the realm of the mind, you say no, it exists independently of us.
To end this argument, I am willing to adjust my statement as follows: data is independent of whether we are aware of it or not. Data are raw facts or measurements, while information is the meaning or value we attach to data based on our knowledge, experience, and purpose. By distinguishing between these concepts, we can recognise the importance of correctly interpreting and refining the data we have in order to produce meaningful information and build knowledge.
To end this argument, I am willing to adjust my statement as follows: data is independent of whether we are aware of it or not. Data are raw facts or measurements, while information is the meaning or value we attach to data based on our knowledge, experience and purpose. By distinguishing between these concepts, we can recognise the importance of correctly interpreting and refining the data we have in order to produce meaningful information and build knowledge.
Almost there already, information still has physical meaning
then connect the principle of how your box works with the physical meaning to stop describing information in poetic form
try
(AI).
"Based on commonly accepted definitions of data and information, it can be argued that data exists independently of the meaning or significance we derive from it, while information is derived from data and depends on our interpretation and understanding. Therefore, it can be argued that data can exist without information, but information cannot exist without data."
Q: Does this mean that information is only an effect and not a cause?
A: It depends on how we understand cause and effect. If we believe that a cause is something that causes or conditions something else, and an effect is something that occurs or results from something else, then we can say that information is a consequence of data, not a cause. Data itself does not cause information, but information comes from the processing of data. But if we consider that a cause is something that explains or justifies something else, and an effect is something that is inferred or follows from something else, then we can say that information is a cause of data, not an effect. The data itself does not explain the information, but the information justifies the data. So the answer to your question depends on how we define the concepts of cause and effect.
To end this argument, I am willing to adjust my statement as follows: data is independent of whether we are aware of it or not. Data are raw facts or measurements, while information is the meaning or value we attach to data based on our knowledge, experience and purpose. By distinguishing between these concepts, we can realise the importance of correctly interpreting and refining the data we have in order to produce meaningful information and build knowledge.
Oh, my God. I mean that if there are no people, then there is no one to cultivate the land and there is no picture of the world and no concept of the world as such. That is, there will be no world as we understand it, and nobody knows if there is any other world and what kind of world it is, it is as if it does not exist.
Let's say there are no people. But there are gophers. Here - gophers, this is an objective reality.
Let's say there are no people. But there are gophers. Gophers, that's the objective reality.
And if no one has seen them, who thinks they exist?
Or an alien sees his world, let's say, with his head. To him, gophers are fuglies, and in fact at that wavelength they hardly even move at all, and all rocks are fuglies too.
and the fuglies don't even realise they exist.
Genesis in general is not so defined anymore. This is to the topic about objective reality.
You are misdirecting the discussion.
What is the difference between an Ignostic and an Atheist, an Agnostic and a Believer? He cannot reason about something that is not defined. Therefore, he is smarter than all of them.
To the question "Do you believe in God?", the believer will answer unhesitatingly, "Yes!", the atheist confidently: "No!", the agnostic uncertainly: "I don't know!"
And only the Ignostic will ask: "What does God mean ?", "What is to believe in? What is the subject of discussion?".
Start with the phenomenon, its description, and then you will come to the definition.
Here is the beginning of the discussion:
There are three phenomena:
1) When a photon hits the material matter and the latter performs only one function: absorbs or reflects it.
2) When a photon hits matter and the latter performs two functions: absorbs it and reacts.
3) When a photon hits matter and the latter performs three functions: absorbs, reacts and processes.
The first phenomenon is not interesting. It's a common one. The whole universe is filled with it.
The second phenomenon is interesting. From this point we have a division into ordinary matter interaction (absorption/absorption or A/NE A) and complex matter interaction (absorption/reaction or A/B).
The second is, for example, plants. A photon falls on the leaves, a chemical reaction starts, which leads to some transformations in the plant matter.
Also here we can refer to the robot optics, the logic of which is based on algorithms: a photon falls on the optics, there is a calculation of brightness and some response of the system. That is, some primitive single function.
The third phenomenon: non-linear. A photon hits the receptor of a living (protein) or non-living (silicon) creature and, through a complex system, this signal is processed. At one and the same moment this photon can cause different reaction, despite the fact that the material state of the system is the same: for example, the health of the organism. A perfectly healthy person, having received a portion of photons, which, when processed, caused suicidal thoughts and images, went out the window. It would seem that it is only photons, plants would not do such "stuff".
So, by the example of matter "photon" we have three phenomena, which differ from each other by their features. The same applies to the matter "sound wave", and direct interaction of two substances (touch/push/push).
From here we can continue further, instead of throwing 100500 definitions and terms.