Clarifying our aims

John Collier wrote:

"I am not clear why you think it is "crucial" to retain the term
"information" for only the cases in which there is a semantic
interpretation."
-------------------

I guess that the way we choose to use words is a function of our
background assumptions and our aims, so let me explain mine.

First, I start from a premise of realism. I believe the world would
exist more or less as it is, even if I were not a part of it. I believe
the moon is there even when I am not looking. I believe the moon would
still be there, even if the entire human race were exterminated. In the
same way, I believe bacteria exist and go about their business quite
independently of my or our observations of them. One aspect of that
business is the use of information. So, this is information in an
objective sense, where "objective" means independent of outside
observation.

As for my aims, I wish to understand how something like a bacterium came
to be within the wider context of cosmic evolution. In order to achieve
this, we need a story about how structuration occurred before the origin
of life, and then we need a story about how life originated out of
nonliving structures and processes. Certainly, I agree with you that
"negentropy" is a useful concept for describing both of these
explananda---but negentropy can be adequately articulated within the
framework of statistical mechanics. There is no necessity for an
information-theoretic overlay (I agree with K.G. Denbigh on this point).

So, in short, if my goal is to understand cosmic evolution
(structuration) up to the origin of life, why would I need to introduce
the concept of information? Of course, one can do so if one likes, but
only in the subjective sense that presupposes us as observers. This only
confuses matters. And anyway, there is no necessity for doing so. I
don't see how it helps out in any way. It only introduces needless
confusion. And if it is not needed, then by Ockham's razor we ought to
get rid of it.

As for the origin of life, well that is the great problem that I think
we currently have little idea how to attack. But if you are prepared to
grant me that there is a sui generis dynamics of life---however it may
have arisen and whatever its essential nature may be---at least on that
assumption we can begin to see how objective information use came into
being. And that is, or should be, the main goal, in my opinion.

So, once this distinction between pre-living and living physics is
granted, then it makes sense to restrict the concept of information (in
the objective sense) to the living side of the divide. If we do this,
then we should be able to agree to use the word "information" in a way
that always implies a semantic component (as ordinary usage also
sanctions). That is, there is "structure" on one side of the divide,
and "structure that is meaningful for a cognitive agent" (i.e.,
information) on the other side of the divide.

Given this scenario, if our aim is to understand how WE got here, then
we need to construct a story that does not build us into the
foundations. Or at least, one needs to do that if one is a realist . . .

James
Received on Thu May 23 14:30:56 2002