Re: [Fis] Re: What is information ?

Dear Loet,

I have pointed out that this is exactly the area where I think the term
information is overloaded in common use and needs clarification.

When we use the terminology "a /informs /b" we mean one convention
contributes to another - which appears quite different from the formal
Shannon meaning. This is because the term has in fact evolved along
quite separate paths - one in mathematics / computational science
(/informatique/), the other in philosophy / language and communication
studies.

I have argued that we cannot define the term /information /in isolation.
We really must make our model, our context, clear.

In my own definition of the term *information *I mean /that which
identifies cause and contributes to knowledge/ but I have this kludge
around the definition of the term *knowledge *that allows me to
generalize and include mechanics - I mentioned this earlier as something
that I occasionally feel uncomfortable about. :-)

Recall I define *knowledge *as /the determinant of action/. So, in
semeiosis, knowledge is in the /information/ that/ /is /embodied /in the
set of /meaning/* *(itself the /embodiment /of traces of prior
semeiosis) that determines the behavior of an organism. In mechanics it
is the set of /information/* */embodied /in prior cause that determines
behavior - and I refer to this set as *super-knowledge*. Which, as I
say, occasionally makes me uncomfortable, partly because at first it
seems so cheesy. Think of it as unmediated knowledge.

The primary distinction between the two - and this is why I did it in
the first place - is that physically /one //deals with the engineering
of sentience and the other deals with mechanics/ - one involves sentient
physical structures formed around my notion of the affective
primitive-of-experience and the other does not. But the roles of both
fit the same definition - they are both/ determinants of action/ and
this feels far from cheesy. It allows me to generalize and unify my
definitions of knowledge and behavior.

So, by the above you can see how I can use the term /information /in
both cases. Since *information *is that which identifies cause and
contributes to knowledge (including super-knowledge). It is how
sentient and mechanical things know what to do next :-)

At the purely physical level - /in both cases, beit the engineering of
sentience or mechanics/ - information is physical /difference/ and it
identifies cause and contributes to knowledge.

When I say embodied, I mean exactly embodiment in the engineered
physiology of organism. Everything above reduces to a physical
embodiment - /the only element that is not a part of currently accepted
physical models is the primitive-of-experience described earlier/.
Meaning (and all memory) is the experience-of the physiological traces
that are the product of prior semeiosis - itself an embodied physical
process - not the product of simple mechanics but /the product of the
engineering of sentience by natural selection in nature around the inert
primitive-of-experience/.

When I use the term *consciousness *I define it as the "conspiracy"
between physiology and this primitive. Physiology characterizes sense
in the high-order experiences we are familiar with, semeiosis is the
ongoing recursive internal process that takes input directly as sense
and from the/ internal sense/ of embodied traces of prior semeiosis.

Uncertainty and misunderstanding in communication between sentient
entities is simply the mismatch of embodied conventions.

Information processing in this model has two forms - Turing / Shannon
computation and semeiosis - Again, one is the product of simple
mechanics, the other is the product of sentience engineering - the
source of all complexity.

With respect,
Steven

--
Dr. Steven Ericsson Zenith
SEMEIOSIS RESEARCH
http://www.semeiosis.com
Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
> Dear Steven,
>  
> Do you mean with "embodied" embodiments in biological bodies or in 
> bodies of knowledge. I find it very difficult to understand that 
> meaning has to be embodied if this is meant biologically. However, I 
> can accept that meaning is systemic and thus potentially different 
> among bodies of knowledge.
>  
> How does this relate to information processing? If one distinguishes 
> between (Shannon-type) information processing and meaning-processing 
> (e.g., in the generation of knowledge), the uncertainty has to be 
> positioned within the meaning processing system as meaningful 
> information (different from Shannon-type information). Investing 
> meaning to an information can then be considered as an operation of 
> the selecting system. The operation is recursive: some meanings are 
> more meaningful than others given a body of knowledge. Knowledge can 
> again be communicated as discursive knowledge.
>  
> This is all relatively independent of the bodies involved. They 
> provide the historical conditions for an evolutionary process of 
> expectations operating selectively upon one another. Of course, the 
> historical conditions matter because they set the stage for this 
> cultural evolution.
>  
> With kind regards,
>  
>  
> Loet
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Loet Leydesdorff
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
> loet@leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet@leydesdorff.net>; 
> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>  
>  
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es
>     [mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Steven
>     Ericsson Zenith (by way of Pedro Marijuan<marijuan@unizar.es>)
>     *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2005 11:38 AM
>     *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
>     *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Re: What is information ?
>
>
>     [sorry for the delay in this posting, due to problems in our local
>     server; please, note that all messages during past week have been
>     lost. They have to be resend... --Pedro]
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Dear Pedro and list,
>
>     Once again Pedro, I am in general agreement with your observations.
>
>     However, what you ask here is not merely for a simple definition
>     of information but the entire context in which such a notion can
>     be founded.  Other definitions / notions are needed.  You must
>     define what it is to "know" - what meaning and prediction are, for
>     example. 
>
>     I have explored this question somewhat - so let me put it out
>     there as a "straw man."  This model takes my previous assertions
>     regarding experience as its premise.
>
>     In my model all *metaphysics *is the embodied content of experience. 
>
>     *Meaning *is the embodied trace of experience - the physiological
>     structure that characterizes a product of *semeiosis*.  Here is
>     the cellular level requirement - as yet determined, but let us
>     point to neuroplasticity as a possible example. Penrose might
>     point to Orchestrated Objective Reduction as another possible
>     example - whatever, it doesn't matter at this point except to
>     observe that the model's architecture, when detailed, allows the
>     prediction of the engineering of that physiological structure.
>
>     *Knowledge *is the determinant of action.  That is, it is revealed
>     in action, in sentient entities it is the product of semeiosis
>     over the embodied meaning set.  We know how to walk by our *innate
>     *embodiment of meaning - the product of our genetics.  We know how
>     to prove the Pythagoras theorem by *acquired *embodied meaning. 
>     We know how to communicate by speech because we share a common
>     acquired embodied *convention *(imperfectly).
>
>     Books, paintings, music are all *marks *- the subjects of signs. 
>     *Signs *are the embodied experience of marks.  The sun rise, the
>     wind blowing, flower in the field, are all marks.  Marks are
>     either *natural marks* - the product of physical laws - or they
>     are *metaphysical mark*s - the product of intent.  *Intent *is the
>     meaning embodied by the creator of a metaphysical mark in its
>     creation.
>
>     *Semeiosis *is the ongoing experience of signs - both those
>     embodied as the traces of experience from past semeiosis and those
>     that are the immediate product of senses.
>
>     So, finally, what is information?  *Information *is that which
>     informs - by which we mean it identifies cause and adds to
>     /knowledge /(see above definition). 
>
>     In my model I generalize the notion of knowledge so that I can
>     apply the notion over inanimate/non-sentient cases - I know that
>     this generalization makes people uncomfortable, as it does me on
>     occasion,  but it is by this generalization that I can essentially
>     define information simply as "difference" in all cases and I can
>     argue that a particle "knows" what action to take as the product
>     of information input.  This leads inevitably to my notion of
>     "perfect action" ... but that will side track us here.
>
>     For completeness I should also mention my prediction model. 
>     *Abduction *is the foundation of all prediction - it is the
>     unfettered intuition.  *Induction *is the constraint of abduction
>     by prior reductive experience - we learn induction by taking apart
>     the world and putting it back together.  *Deduction *is the
>     constraint of induction by formal conventions (such as
>     mathematical logic) that we use in analysis and communication.
>
>     I hope this helps the discussion - I think I covered all Pedro's
>     points.
>
>     With respect,
>     Steven
>
>     --
>     Dr. Steven Ericsson Zenith
>     SEMEIOSIS RESEARCH
>     http://www.semeiosis.com
>
>