Re: [Fis] Re: What is information ?

Dear Loet,

I understand your concerns but how else are we to proceed? Shannon's
model is not nullified but it does not appear to characterize all that
we would wish it to. I am not asking for a full rewrite I am simply
observing that we need to extend information theory into the area where
we lack rigor - where the model seemingly needs to be extended. I am
simply contending that we cannot deal with the notion of information in
isolation.

In my view we need to develop two new models that complement current
physical theory with the mathematical rigor of Shannon: a theory of
organism (how sentient entities come to be) and a theory of semeiotics
(how sentient entities operate) - where semeiotics includes a theory of
communication and what I will call "memeiosis" which describes the
exchange of "information" and the development of concepts by individuals
in groups of sentient entities. Done rigorously, this is inevitably a
mathematical theory of meaning as you suggest.

As to "expected information can only be provided with meaning by
information systems"; I think this is problematic without a clear
definition of what you mean by "information systems." From my point of
view computational models do not adequately account for sentience.

Ultimately our theory of information must reduce to our model of nature
- and today that model appears incomplete.

With respect,
Steven

Loet Leydesdorff wrote:

> Dear Steven,
>
> I agree that there are obviously two usages of the word information: a
> group of definitions akin to Shannon's mathematical definition and a
> group of definitions which define information as "what in-forms" a
> system (Varela). In the latter case, the system invests some meaning
> in the information or, more generally, positions the information in
> its framework. Perhaps, one could use the word "observed information"
> for this, while the Shannon-information remains "expected information."
>
> What I like best about Shannon's approach is the mathematical
> character which frees us from specific semantics. When I read your
> mailings, for example, it seems that I have to buy a whole philosophy
> if I wish to understand it. From my perspective, this philosophy
> sounds like a meta-biology (unlike a meta-physics). Biological systems
> theory has helped us enormously in understanding how information can
> be stored into information systems and thus provided with meaning (by
> codification along the system's own axis). Social and psychic systems,
> however, can entertain (and perhaps communicate) horizons of meaning.
> Thus, they obviously have more degrees of freedom for processing
> information and meaning than biological systems (while the latter are
> also embodied?).
>
> It seems to me that we need a kind of mathematical theory of meaning.
> How can meaning be defined in the abstract, yet without giving it
> meaning with reference to any body of knowledge other than the
> abstract one which is contained, for example, in the mathematical
> theory of communication and its elaboration into non-linear dynamics?
> Let me make a first proposal: expected information can only be
> provided with meaning by information systems. I know that this
> circular definition begs the question, but it is only meant as a first
> step.
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> The Challenge of Scientometrics
> <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff-sci.htm>; The
> Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society
> <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Steven Ericsson Zenith [mailto:steven@semeiosis.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:05 AM
> *To:* Loet Leydesdorff; fis-listas.unizar.es; list@iase.info
> *Subject:* 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
>>
>>
>
Received on Mon Oct 3 03:16:49 2005