RE: [Fis] Re: What is information ?

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 <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff-sci.htm>
Scientometrics; The <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm>
Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society

  _____

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 
 <mailto:loet@leydesdorff.net> loet@leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.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
<mailto:marijuan@unizar.es> <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 marks - 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