Dear Richard, Dear FIS Colleagues:
(I hope you will accept my addressing you by your first name
as just an adaptation to the friendly style of FIS
discussions.)
I am not surprised that the issue how to define
information is coming back to the discussion of other
matters related to information. I am actually very happy,
because it confirms importance of the continuing work in
this direction.
Your proposal to develop a form of taxonomy of information
is very interesting. The reference to biological taxonomy
brings another argument for informational taxonomy. Long
before there was any agreement on what does it mean "life"
(well, still there is no common agreement, but there are at
least quite clear positions on this subject,) the forms of
life have been categorized, and this categorization has had
great impact on the development of biology. So, it could be
argued, when we cannot reach agreement what information is,
we may be able to agree on inter-relations between its
different forms. It can help in the development of
information science.
There is however another side of the issue. Biological
taxonomy is based on Aristotelean genus/species form of
definition. Actually, biological taxonomy is using the
logical terminology of genus and species for its two levels
of the hierarchical order. Thus, your proposal of creating
a taxonomy of information is not completely unrelated to
the attempts to use the classical (genus/species) form of
definition to define information.
In the discussion last year there were several voices
(including mine,) that for instance using the concept of
data (or datum) to define information is an error as datum
is a special instance of information. As an argument (not
very clear to me, as the situation in this case is
reversed,) impredicative definitions have been mentioned. As
I understand, not everyone supported insistence on using the
classical form of the definition. Thus, if a genus/species
definition of information is just an option, why should we
expect that a taxonomy of information can help.
Since I am mathematician and physicist by education, I am
looking for the definition in this classical genus/species
(or genus/differentia) form. This is why I have formulated
in this form the definition which I have proposed (before
the discussion and in my contributions to the discussion
last year) and which is directing me in my further research.
So, from this point of view I agree that your proposal
makes sense. The mutual relations of concepts related to
information are important for its understanding. It is some
form of looking for understanding information from the
(conceptual) inside.
However, I think that more important is to find an
appropriate perspective on the concept of information from
the outside. How is the concept of information related to
the other concepts?
In the discussion last year, as well as in many earlier
discussions, I could see the same problem. In many
contributions to the discussion I could see reflection of,
in my opinion naive and incorrect, belief that the more
general concept we want to define (information is such a
general concept,) the more "common sense" concepts should be
used in explanation (definiendum.) This is the reason why so
popular is an "explanation" of information by "uncertainty"
(originally, probably because of its "scientific"
association with quantum mechanics and the Uncertainty
Principle.)
I strongly believe that only a definition of information
based on the concepts with firm philosophical foundations
can be of any value for the development of information
science. This is why I have proposed probably the oldest,
and for sure thoroughly examined philosophical problem
of "one vs. many" as a background for the concept of
information. I would accept use of the concept of a form
with its rich philosophical tradition for this purpose,
although I do not subscribe to this approach.
Thus, although I agree that a taxonomy of information can
bring more clarity into the discussions on the concept of
information, I think that it cannot resolve the problem how
to define information, so that all interested parties are
satisfied. Or, I should speak for myself, I do not expect it
can resolve the problem of the definition of information in
a way which can help me to understand this concept.
Regards,
Marcin
Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D.
Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs
Akita International University
Akita, Japan
mjs@aiu.ac.jp
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 09:45:01 -0800
>From: Richard Emery <rmemery@earthlink.net>
>Subject: [Fis] General Question
>To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>
> Hello, FISers I have general comment.
>
> I read almost every post on this forum, and I admire
> the quality of these contributions. (Pedro runs a
> fine shop!). I’d contribute more if I actually
> had something important to say that hasn’t already
> been said. However, something continues to bug me
> about what exactly “information” is, what it
> means exactly to living systems, and how exactly to
> interpret it.
>
> Last year’s exquisite fight that broke out over
> the various definitions of information was a feast
> to my eyes. But it also left me confused. One
> thing that bothered me was the lack of emphasis on
> differences between analog and digital information,
> such as that embodied in a protein verses that
> encoded in a gene.
>
> With this in mind, along with numerous other
> concerns about exactly how to define
> “information,” I am wondering if anyone here has
> attempted to build a taxonomic key to the “species
> of information.” I think we need some kind of a
> classification system. Ideally, it would be a
> dichotomous key that would differentiate
> hierarchically among “domains,” “kingdoms,”
> “phyla,” “classes,” “orders,” etc. of
> information. (And hierarchy does seem to be a
> favored paradigm here on this forum). This key
> would effectively become a cladistic tool, requiring
> a formalized approach to the problem of defining
> information.
>
> Is such notion of "informational systematics"
> reasonable? The FIS archives left behind from the
> “Information War of 2005” should be very rich in
> concepts useful for developing such a taxonomic
> key. I am not well-enough informed about the
> particulars of information to build this key, and
> few of us have the time to devote to it. But
> perhaps one of our graduate students would like to
> take this on. A thesis title might be something
> like “A hierarchical system for classifying the
> relative and specific meanings of information.”
> Could be fun project, and useful.
>
> My best to all, Richard Emery
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Mar 8 08:05:59 2006
