Re: Conceptualizations of information and ways of thinking

From: Wolfgang Hofkirchner <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 17 Dec 2002 - 14:13:12 CET

dear christophe, thank you for the comments.

>Dear Wolfgang,
>Here are some points your article brings up that I would like
>to comment.
>Presentation of "information" as a super concept that deserves
>being subdivised into relevant particular concepts is an interesting
>way to addres the subject, as it is true that "information" per se
>addresses an immense field of events.

well, to some degree it may be a kind of a terminological problem
which one of the related and cognate concepts is fixed in order to
play the role of the generic one. but what i want to capture by that
is that there ought to be a relationship between the concepts like
the relationship between something more general, universal, and
something more specific, particular. e.g., i think it makes sense to
characterise knowledge as information with certain concrete traits.

>Your next point is to propose three fields: Cognition (content of
>consciousness), communication (common understanding),
>cooperation (sense embodied in social structures).
>A comment would be about the entry point you choose (in terms
>of complexity) to introduce the concept of information: the level
>of human (cognition).

yes, at the first glance, it is the level of human systems/ social
systems where to find three fields of information processes. at a
second glance, however, three fields like the ones mentioned seem to
be characteristic of any systems. that is, in the systems
perspective, you can focus on the intrasystemic field (the interior
of a system) or on the intersystemic field (the field inbetween of
systems) or on the suprasystemic field (the supersystem which is made
up by the systems in question). (this categorisation, by the way, is
due to the metasystem transition evolutionary systems undergo - an
initial phase of, so to say, solitary systems, an intermediate phase
of interacting systems and a phase of integration of the systems with
a higher order system.) investigating into information processes in
the first field is dealing with cognition, given human systems, and
it is dealing with similar processes (soemthing like precognition) on
the prehuman level. in the second field it is communicative processes
on the human and something like precommunication on the prehuman
level. and information processing for co-operation on the human level
in the third field, while something like pre-co-operative processes
on the prehuman level.

>I feel one can take information as beginning to exist at the level
>of basic life (lower organization level than human), or even
>at the level of matter (see Edwina's approach relative to
>"informed matter"). But later, in your "unifying perspective", you
>reword this entry point as "self organizing systems cognizing their
>umwelt". This wording can be looked at as containing basic life (but
>not matter). Could you provide more precision about your entry point
>for information concept introduction ?

ok. i side with edwina in this point. i do not identify the beginning
of information processes with the beginning of life but with the
beginning of self-organisation instead. the big divide between
systems that show information processes and those that don't is
whether they are capable of organising themselves or not. systems
that do not self-organise do not manifest information generacy. only
self-organising systems are able to generate information. the most
simple unit that shows information generation is the most
rudimentary, the primordial self-organising system. this is clearly
in the physical realm, long before and below living systems. it is my
conviction that there you will be able to identify rudiments of
cognizability, of communicability and of co-operability as to the
three fields mentioned above. maybe my wording in the table is not
exact and should read "cognising resp. precognising".

>Also, you write that "properties of information in non human
>domains are usually extrapolated from properties of information in the
>human domain". I agree with this statement as being a fact, but do not
>really understand the rational behind it.

that's a misunderstanding. i do not advocate anthropomorphic
extrapolations. i warn against doing so.

>Indeed, I feel that information really exists, and is to be considered, at
>levels of organization lower that human. And extrapolating to non human
>cases the properties of information as understod for human is a bit risky.
>This because the level of human posseses specific performances (reflected
>consciousness, highly developped domain of emotions) that are not
>currently extrapolatable to non human cases.

sure, i absolutely agree. i try to favour a perspective that goes
beyond capurro's trilemma as well as beyond snow's two cultures. that
is, i argue against extrapolationism as well as reductionism.

>And anthropocentrism may be misleading (one could prefer an evolutionist
>approach starting from a well understood position at basic life level, and
>then climbing up the ladder of complexity. Understanding that the nature
>of human is still to be explained in scientific terms).

yes, in my opinion evolutionary systems thinking understood
dialectically promises to be the remedy. it tries hard neither to
extrapolate qualities appearing in a later stage of evolution onto
earlier stages nor to reduce qualities appearing in a later stage to
qualities appearing in an earlier stage. it looks upon evolution as a
"discontinuous continuum". that is, system qualities at different
stages of evolution are linked by the relationship of emergence: they
have something in common, but they differ by concrete forms - a
succession of forms is resulting with each form containing the
previous form by negating the previous form. emergent evolution adds
new qualities to the old ones and redefines hereby what is in common
(what is general, universal) and what is not (what is specific,
particular). so the relationship of the universal and the particular
is a historical one (and not only a logical one).

>Then you distinguish two views on information: subjectivist and objectivist.
>This seems quite close to the two approaches of knowledge: constructivism
>(knowledge as specific build up of reality by the knowing element) and
>representationalism (knowledge as a true image of the outside world).
>Would you agree on this comparison ?

yes, that's the difference between the two views regarding human cognition.

like the options of capurro's trilemma and the options of snow's
cultures objectivism and subjectivism are one-sided, and therefore
not completely wrong. my intention is to reconcile the views by
analysing what can be accepted.

>If by any chance you have developped elsewhere some of the points
>addressed in your short article, please let us know.

unfortunately, since the end of october i have been trying to replace
my extended abstract on the website by a full version draft - the
mdpi webmasters could not help so far. i will attach my file to a
personal email to you.

>
>Regards
>
>Christophe

best,

wolfgang

**431-58801-18733
Received on Tue Dec 17 14:13:11 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:46 CET