Re: [Fis] Re: What is information ?

Dear Pedro,

Given that the definition of information we seek should broadly be
stated in English as "that which informs" by which we mean that which
identifies cause - that we, as sentience entities, may capture, analyze
and make predictions from. Then the simple general notion that
"difference" is information is a sound basis for the notion in the
physical realm - at all levels of complexity.

The shift between the complex and the non-complex systems of information
comes from our underlying theories of nature that allow us to interpret
difference. Gravity is my favorite example here where we see a clear
progression of interpretation from Galileo through Newton to Einstein -
all founded essentially on the same observable differences.

Falsification plays a central role in moving us from one interpretation
to another - and it is because Newton's theories are falsifiable that we
can readily accept Einstein. Einstein's theories explain more of the
observable differences - IOW "they have greater consistency with the
available information."

The theory of Evolution is informed by observable differences at a level
of greater complexity - and it can be seen that science makes the same
mistakes as it did between Newton and Einstein. It is the underlying
premise that alters the interpretation of apprehended information.

So, on reflection, I can be quite happy with extending the simple
difference model I laid out earlier as the fundamental definition of
"that which informs" if we allow that all apprehended information in
semeiosis demands models of interpretation (the basis of Analysis) to
provide us with embodied knowledge and truth (the embodied experience of
the map between what we know and the way things are).

The basic physical definition of "information" holds despite our
apprehension and there is no conflict in moving from the animate to the
inanimate.

The formal metaphysical question then becomes how we analyze and express
our apprehension and interpretation - and this is no longer a question
of the definition of information but now one of analysis, communication
and convention, by which we build consensus in formal deliberation.

It is in this context that my proposed quantification of and role for a
primitive of experience apply - we simply cannot correctly interpret the
available information without it. This premise and the formal operator
"experience-of" essentially add the basis of complexity to current
convention and moves us toward a place for experience in our formal models.

Now, clearly these models of interpretation that exist as the result of
semeiosis do, in the common sense of the word, inform - they do assist
us, in semeiosis, to "identify" cause - and it may be here that
clarification is required - since this usage of the terms is a "category
error" by the above reasoning.

With respect
Steven

--
Dr. Steven Ericsson Zenith
http://www.semeiosis.com
Pedro Marijuan wrote:
> Resilient FISers,
>
> Let me expand, again, on some biological and social-economic matters 
> related to below (John), and also to Steve, Hans, Marcin...
>
>> ... The nature of meaning is the great object of desire for 
>> information theory. Within the scope of meaningful, or semantic 
>> information, is intentional information, or cognitive content. At the 
>> next level of restriction is social information, though some authors 
>> hold that cognitive content depends on language, which is a social 
>> activity...  So rather than a single definition of information, I 
>> suggest we work more towards a unification of the theory of 
>> information, otherwise there will be no science of information as such.
>
>
> If we relate meaning not only to human language but also to "life", as 
> most biosemioticians would agree, we could ask what differential 
> traits of biomolecular networks lead to a new type of dynamics that 
> allows eg, a Bayesian behavior --anticipatory respect the coming 
> "states" of the system-- that bona fide appears only in living matter. 
> Theoretically, perhaps, the cellular construction of meaning 
> throughout emergent properties of molecular networks has not 
> attracted  a lot of attention ---not a glamorous big question, such as 
> the "red herring" of consciousness. But  several aspects of the new 
> studies (particularly in network analysis, in signaling systems, and 
> in proteomics, even in systems biology) might help to achieve a new, 
> clearer picture of what "meaning" may consists of at the cellular 
> realm. At least, having the next discussion session on biomolecular 
> networks might represent a nice occasion of making some initial 
> advancement into that "terra incognita". Apart from the classics, what 
> new formal constructions could be of help into that task (eg, Steve's 
> suggestions, or Karl's, or Bayesian views, or Michael Leyton's ones?
>
> Overall, my contention is that we have a lot of new "informational" 
> thinking ahead, necessarily including science, society and economics. 
> Some of the basic abstractions of science concern the ways and means 
> by which individual thought overcomes its own limitations of time, 
> space, and "intensionality" (Stan), so that the little piece of 
> knowledge can be accepted into the collective repository of a 
> scientific "discipline". But once we insensibly accept anyone of these 
> regimented regimes, the ecumenical vision of info we aspire dissolves 
> into the provincial one... it will be dizzy until we frame our own 
> "supradisciplinary" way of thinking.
>
> In our economy-centered societies, we do not interpret "signals" sent 
> from the marketplace "invisible hand" but in a rudimentary 
> quasimechanistic way --away from equilibrium, would say a neoclassic. 
> As we do not see the "informational" commonality of enterprises and 
> living beings, being constantly changing, with additions and deletions 
> of components, where the stability at any moment depends on the 
> importance of a given "signal" ingoing or outgoing from the momentary 
> structure. Being informational means keeping always the own structure 
> in-formation... as the cell does (and not as computers do!).
>
> Thanking the patience,
>
> Pedro
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis