Information exist as substance-entity?
Let's think of a USB memory stick. If we open it we do not find any information, we only find an electronic and physical layout. To obtain information we must have a suitable device, a USB reader.
I wonder if the expression "to obtain information" is the correct way to refer to the case. Since the information, this is my theory, does not exist inside the USB stick. Nor does it exist in the USB reader.
The information exists in the relationship between the two devices, the interpreting reader and the USB device. But then we cannot say that the information was contained in the USB stick as a ghost in the device.
Information is always created as a relationship between an interpreter and an interpreted.
But we can go further. When we see the "information" on our computer, in reality we do not see information either, we see pixels, letters, etc. In reality what we see is a transcription, that is to say the effect between two systems of signs put in contact and relationship.
And we go further. Does the information appear in our minds when we read our PC screen? Neither would be the case, is my theory. We function as another reader who transcribes and in which effects arise in our learned language and in our cognitive apparatus that in turn affect us as an organism.
In this sense information is not a noun but a verb, it is always the act of informing as causing transcription effects. Information is never contained anywhere. Information is always to inform, that is, to give-form, in-form. To cause different formations in each case where there is an interpreter and an interpreted.
Further still: information is not transmitted. Since there is nothing contained anywhere that passes from an interpreted to an interpreter, and since what we have are transcription effects (i.e. con-formation in-formation) there is no entity, no substance called information.
I wonder if the expression "to obtain information" is the correct way to refer to the case. Since the information, this is my theory, does not exist inside the USB stick. Nor does it exist in the USB reader.
The information exists in the relationship between the two devices, the interpreting reader and the USB device. But then we cannot say that the information was contained in the USB stick as a ghost in the device.
Information is always created as a relationship between an interpreter and an interpreted.
But we can go further. When we see the "information" on our computer, in reality we do not see information either, we see pixels, letters, etc. In reality what we see is a transcription, that is to say the effect between two systems of signs put in contact and relationship.
And we go further. Does the information appear in our minds when we read our PC screen? Neither would be the case, is my theory. We function as another reader who transcribes and in which effects arise in our learned language and in our cognitive apparatus that in turn affect us as an organism.
In this sense information is not a noun but a verb, it is always the act of informing as causing transcription effects. Information is never contained anywhere. Information is always to inform, that is, to give-form, in-form. To cause different formations in each case where there is an interpreter and an interpreted.
Further still: information is not transmitted. Since there is nothing contained anywhere that passes from an interpreted to an interpreter, and since what we have are transcription effects (i.e. con-formation in-formation) there is no entity, no substance called information.
Comments (86)
The information is the texture of a substance.
The information does exist in the USB stick, in the form of variations in electrical charge in different regions of a flash memory chip. This is why the device works as a memory.
It doesn't appear to me that you are formulating a very useful theory.
Imagine that you use that USB flash drive to access a Paper you have composed. Now think about the memory itself, do you really see the Paper (the supposed information) inside the USB stick? No. You see exactly what you said, variations in electrical charge. But you don't see the Paper. The Paper is created at the moment of contact and transcription with the interpretant. But before, it did not exist.
A couple of thoughts - The definitions of information I looked up call it a type of knowledge. We have enough trouble here on the forum deciding what knowledge is. Im not sure how this discussion of information fits into.
I pushed the post comment button too soon. Heres my second thought. I dont disagree with the distinctions youre making, but Im not sure what the implications are.
In both cases the information is presupposed on the side of the interpreted. A correct expression according to my theory would be, "In-form me!" In the sense of causing something in the interpreter. To in-form him is to give form to the language of the one who says "In-form me!". In no case is something transmitted (like a ghost in sound, in ink, or in electric flow). In this case we are only talking about causes and effects, about how signs affect us and create things on the side of the interpreters.
This is quite counter-intuitive. But imagine it is but it is true theory. This prevents us from substantivizing information and treating it as an entity that passes from one side to the other. Which has many consequences for information theory like the ilusion of transmission.
Yes, information is a relationship and relationships are fundamental. Everything is a relationship, or process.
Information exists everywhere causes leave effects. Information about who committed a crime exists in the effects they left at the crime scene, and those effects exist whether anyone ever finds the crime scene or not to be informed that a crime occurred, at least until time begins to erase the evidence - another causal process.
There is a lot of information that makes up a USB stick other than the binary data that is stored on it. The manufacturer and the factory it was built in is all part of the causal processes that went into the existence of the USB stick. The existence of the USB stick is itself informative of the causal processes that preceded the effect of it being in your hand and plugging it into the USB port on your computer. Information is everywhere you care to look and which information is relevant is dependent upon the goal in the mind of the informed.
I would not reduce the interpreter to a mind for all cases. A computer can in-form itself by acting as an interpreter as soon as there is a process leading to a transcription effect. That is to say, as soon as the sign system "USB memory" enters into a causal relationship with the computer and its language.
Sure, that makes sense. I was trying to disambiguate the uses of "information" as a noun, based on @wonderer1's comment, which I understand wasn't the main thrust of your OP.
The interesting question now becomes, if Joe and Jane are both "in-formed" in the same way, or with the same result, what fact about the interpreted (document, e.g.) allows this to be so?
In this case it is not so much the properties of the document if is the same for both, as the conditions imposed by the interpreters. Both have the same language for example, and the same context of interpretation.
A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties so in this sense the information is not a substance. The information exists in a form in a substance and the form is the result of the substance having specific properties.
1. I cannot speak of information as something that is interpreted because that makes us speak of it as a substance. But there is interpretation as the act of an interpreter who exerts a series of effects on a system of signs. For example a person who exerts his language and his context of interpretation on a book, what another person says, etc.
2. Can You give me more context to that question?
3. Since I conceive information as a relation always in act and not as a substance, I cannot say that information resides as an addition to anything. What appears is a system of signs that must be interpreted; and these have the quality of informing, in the sense of con-forming and trans-forming an interpreter.
I cannot say that information is the form in a substance. Information as I conceive it is the [B]act[/B] of informing. That is, to cause significant effects on an interpreter.
Information is the form in a substance. Take a bulk of clay that does not have any specific form. An artist can give a shape to the bulk of clay to convey something meaningful to his/her audience.
Quoting JuanZu
All things that you conceive, so-called Qualia, are forms of a substance namely the object.
Quoting JuanZu
Of course, you need an interpreter to conceive the form and get informed from the information in the form of the object.
In that case, as I understand it, the bulk of clay is informed, but no longer in the sense of the result but in the sense of the act. The result is a system of signs with a form but it is not the act of informing, that is, the act of giving form. The audience is informed by the work of art in this case, that sign that is the work of art acts on people and then a new act of information appears. But before there was no information in the work of art. There were forms perhaps, but no information; information appears and is created in the relationship of the audience with the work of art. And appears as distinct effects on the audiencie, as interpretation.
Neither does a real written paper, it's basically just carbon atoms in different constellations. So is the entire universe. What we perceive as relevant information to us is that which we can interpret as relevant. Language invented to communicate creates the information as a means of our navigation of the world, but our writing on a wall is nothing but entropic forces creating a deterministic movement of matter.
To the universe, the information on the USB stick and its presentation to us remains the same. There's no difference between our perception of the computers interpretation of it based on how we designed it to follow the structure of something perceivable by us... and the very existence of that information.
To the universe, the state at which a paper is perceived on the screen and how it rests on the USB memory is only differentiated by two states of being of the same thing. But even so, the universe would not perceive it has being the same thing as that is to a creation from us.
When thinking about these things it's easy to fall into humanocentrism, in which we value our own relation to something as humans as being equal or more important than what a thing actually is. Seen from the perspective of "something" that does not operate or exist as us humans, the nature of the information on the screen (interpretable by us) and the electrical state of the memory on the USB card, is fundamentally the same thing, or rather a state of something seen from different angles of reality. An object in which one side of it is the screen with the text, and the other side of it is its shape and form of the electrical state on the USB stick.
How we humans relate to things is very specific, very narrow and very biased to our own perception of reality, influenced by many things making a true observation of something flawed.
I have in mind the USB stick. It appears as it is, but the information, that is the written document file, is in a sense encoded in the USB stick. That is what I mean by the information being other than it appears.
While information may be an act, not a substance, it would seem to rely on substance for its instantiation because there is something that is acted upon. In other words, for there to be an act of interpretation, what is there must be translated into what is meant. Does that sound right?
We have two things, namely the interpreter and the object. The object is a substance and has a specific form which informs the interpreter.
Correct!
I agree only if we take into account that the shape of the object is distinguished from the information that will be created later. Since nothing is transmitted. We simply have signs as causes in a work of art that provoke different things in us. Just as a USB stick provokes things in a computer. But there must be a relationship between interpreter and interpreted, between the human and the work of art.
Perhaps this is the right way of looking at it, but I would qualify this appraisal by affirming that the substance in itself is not doing any informing, and instead aver that the interpreter must first interpret, translate, transcribe the substance into a "form" that is understood by it as information. This I will call, tentatively, the communicative act. Interested in JuanZu's thoughts on this.
Yes, You are right.
I agree with the active role of the interpreter in communication. But I would also add an active role of the interpreted. Here it can be said that the substance also has an active role, as when we read a note on the refrigerator: the note informs and causes effects on us.
When we actually communicate what we do is to cause informational effects on the other person, without anything being transmitted. There is no ghost in the sound. We cause effects on their learned language, we shape it with our words. In communication the active and passive role varies from moment to moment, there is mutual transformation.
Quite a claim, that there is an illusion of transmission when we substantivizing information.
If a l wrote a letter to my friend providing information on directions to my house. I can say I have transmitted this information by means of a letter. What was transmitted to him if he arrived at my house? The incorporeal information or material letter? Sending just the paper does not ensure the visit but the information in the letter.
My love for my county was transmitted thru generations by my sacrifices on the battlefield. Do I need a theory to tell me that love cannot be transmitted thru history even though love may not be a substance? Your theory may be true but at the expense of limiting our use of language.
Agree with the drift, but that is a misleading metaphor. Its true that information does not exist as a substance, in the same way that mind or metabolic processes dont exist as substances. But if you are given a cleanly-formatted USB stick it is still correct to say that it contains no information or that the information you had been told was on it does not exist.
I once wrote a user guide for an information recovery utility. It could retrieve information from drives that had been accidentally formatted or the files over-written. I wonder if you could call such supposedly-deleted information that are not visible to the user but can be retrieved with specialised software ghost files?
The type of Qualia that the subject conceives is due to the form of the object. To me, Qualia is not information so to me, the information is the form of the object.
Quoting JuanZu
What do you mean?
Quoting JuanZu
The signs I call information.
Quoting JuanZu
What do you mean by interpreter here?
Do you by interpreter mean the artist? I first consider it to be the audience that observes the work of art.
Quoting NotAristotle
We have three things here, the artist, the audience, and the work of art/object. The artist gives the object a form that conveys a message to the audience. Once, the work of art is complete, then it is informative for the audience. To me, the information is the form of the work of art. I distinguish the information from Qualia that the audience conceives.
The keyword here in this thread seems to be "memory". Computers and brains have memories. What is memory? To me, memory is simply a stable arrangement of matter that represents prior states of affairs and can be accessed for interpreting the present and future, states of affairs.
With this said, every stable object can be said to be a form of memory. The object you observe now (like the apple on the table) contains information about how it was formed and how it got to be where it is now (on the table). Every object contains information about its causes bottled up in its form and structure. If the apple was bitten then the bite mark is essentially a memory of what has happened to it (that someone took a bite). The shape of the bite mark is also information about what type of animal took the bite of the apple.
From my point of view the signs contained in the letter did not contain information about your home address. What actually happened is that some signs, the signs in the letter have caused an effect on your friend. They have configured his language in such a way that he understands your home address. And this is evidently because you both share a language, a idiom, a context. But nothing has been transmitted since it is only ink on paper, or pixels on a screen.
Okay, now I think your trichotomy of object, audience, and artist is spot on and I also agree that the audience is the interpreter. Contrary to my initial thoughts, it is the interpreted who transcribes the substance into an informational content, that is, into a substantial form through which information can be had, that is, what I have called the communicative act.
And since the communicative act of informing is a two way street, we may add that just as the artist communicates to the audience (but where such communication is itself obscure to the artist because he knows not what his art means to the audience), so does the audience communicate to the artist and leave an impression on him -- "what a beautiful sculpture" or "I don't really get it."
For me qualia is a configuration given an information process. For I understand information not as a substance but as the relationship. Information for me is in-forming, con-forming trans-forming. So you have to distinguish the process with respect to the result. The qualia is the result. But I cannot agree that information is in the form of the object. You can call it information if you want but I can't call that in-formation.
The thing is that what you call information is only given in the result of a process of interpretation. That is why I cannot call memory information. Memory are signs that are inscribed in a stable and perdurable way. But these are objects of any possible interpretation. Here interpretation is synonymous with in-formation. The signs of memory form something in the interpreter, they shape his language and his consciousness. they have an active role.
I would say: you have no possible information. There is no possible in-formation/interpretation process due to the absence of signs. Or the absence of that of a specific configuration that can relate to an interpreter.
They are not objects of any possible interpretation. Everything happens for a reason. There is a cause for every effect, and the effect logically follows from the cause.
The tree rings in a tree stump carry information about the age of the tree, not because some interpreter happens to look at the tree rings and projects the age of the tree into the rings, but because of how the tree grows throughout the year - a causal process. A botanist comes along and interprets the number of rings as the age because they have learned how trees grow throughout the year, not because they looked at the rings and pulled that conclusion out of nowhere.
The interpretation is separate from the information as causal relations that exist. The information is there and it is your observation integrating with your prior knowledge (prior observations) that is the essence of interpretation.
In the case of the tree each ring is nothing more than a property of the tree. But in no case is it information because what you get from those rings you only get a posteriori as knowledge. That is, when we see the rings in general we ask "What information is here?" But in reality there are only signs that refer to other things, in this case the age of the tree. But those signs by themselves mean nothing. Necessarily there must be a process of interpretation to access knowledge like that, since it is never evident from looking at the rings that we are talking about age. That only goes a posteriori after a process of in-formation. The age itself is not contained in the tree, it is a ghost in the wood.
When you say, " to access knowledge" that is the same as saying "to access information". You access information via your senses. The causal relationship between the object, the visible light being reflected off it into your eyes and interpreted by your subconscious visual system, is itself information about the state of your visual system and the amount and type of light in the environment.
I already stated that the botanist needs to know how trees grow throughout the year to interpret the number of rings and the number of years the tree has been alive. So yes, it is not evident just by looking at the rings that they are indicative the the tree's age. You have to have already observed how trees grow throughout the year (another set of information), to interpret the rings as the age of the tree.
Interpretation is the act of integrating sensory information (the current number of rings in the tree) with information in memory (how the tree grows throughout the year).
I cannot call that information. Because in reality these rings are signs that refer precisely to the age of the tree. But this, the age of the tree, is given a posteriori. Then we can call it the result of the information process. Remember that I avoid substantivizing the word information, and I speak rather of in-formation as the act of giving form, as interpretation. In this case the signs give form to our cognitive apparatus and the idea of an age of the tree appears in us. That, that idea, is perhaps information as a sustantive, as a result of in-formation. But I prefer to avoid calling it this way so that there is no confusion. But what is clear to me is that the rings are neither information (the result of the process of interpretation) nor in-formation, they are signs.
I agree that the USB stick contains no substantial Information in Material form, However, I could say that it does contain Information in Potential form (as a ghost in the machine). It's like a battery, that contains no Electricity (only chemistry), until a circuit is completed. For the interpreter (receiver) Information is Meaning, and there is no meaning in the memory stick until a connection (relationship) is made to the Sending mind. In that sense, the information is not a material substance. But meaning can be transmitted by physical means in conventional codes (a la Morse code or ASCII). The code must be meaningful to both parties in order for the Information to be transmitted. And we call that inter-relationship (the circuit) communication.
However, in recent years, scientists have come to equate Information with Energy (negentropy), instead of Shannon's meaningless Entropy. And, Einstein equated Energy with Mass (matter). So, one physicist in particular, Melvin Vopson, now calls Information : the fifth state of matter*1. Hence, other scientists have been able to transmit abstract information from one place to another, where it is converted into matter. So, in that sense, you could say that the information existed as a substance : in the USB as electronic components and their code states. But this new way of thinking about Information is not well known. So some posters may take issue with the title of your post.
The new understanding of the role of Information in the world has philosophical implications, as you suggest. I have gone so far as to coin a neologism, EnFormAction, to convey the idea that Information has causal effects in the material world, in addition to the meaningful effects in an immaterial mind*2. So, I'm open to both sides of your post : that Information consists of both metaphysical relationships, and physical substances. :nerd:
*1. information the fifth state of matter? :
If Vopson's proposed experiment turns out the way he expects, it would prove the existence of information as the fifth state of matter in the universe, along with gas, plasma, liquid, and solid states.Mar 30, 2022
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a39588076/information-could-be-the-fifth-state-of-matter/
*2. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics its called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology its called "Conflict".
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15896/information-exist-as-substance-entity/p1
Yes, to me the information is a specific form of the object. We become aware of it only when we perceive the object.
Quoting NotAristotle
What do you mean by relational here?
Quoting NotAristotle
Do you mean interpreter (bold part)? If yes I agree with what you said.
Quoting NotAristotle
Communication in the case of a work of art is a one-way street. The artist creates his work with his intention, what he wants to communicate. The audience perceives the work and gets the message that the artist wanted to communicate.
I didn't say that information is a substance but information is a form of a substance.
Possibility and probability are mental constructs. Either the USB has information or it doesn't. If the USB never gets information written to it then there was never any possibility that it would contain information in the first place. In a deterministic universe there is no randomness, possibilities or probabilities. Those are mental constructs that stem from our ignorance about the facts.
Quoting JuanZu
You are confusing information with acts on, or with, information. Being informed is being fed information. Information processing is integrating different types of information (inputs, or what you were fed) to produce new information (output). When the output becomes the input to subsequent processing, you have a sensory information feedback loop.
Quoting JuanZu
...and there is a relationship between the sign and what it refers to - information.
It's information/relationships all the way down.
Information is never in the first place. In the first place there are always signs arranged in one way or another. The difference is that there is an arrangement of signs that may enter into a meaningful (in-formative) relation or there may be no such arrangement such that the interpreter understands nothing or no relation is possible. I claim that what you call information processing is not processing of anything except signs and their arrangement. Whereby I cannot say that there is information being processed in the first place.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I cannot be confused because I do not believe that there is information about which there are acts, since the information if it is possible to substantiate it is in the result of a process of interpretation or in-formation. So there are no types of information in the first place. What there is is signs arranged in one way or another introduced as inputs as you say. But that input is not information. Because it's always the result of the processing of the signs that we confuse as being at the beginning of the process. For example, if you had a Paper (the information) in a USB memory, when you see and read the Paper in your PC you say "this was (passed) in the USB memory" when in fact it was not.
Quoting Harry Hindu
The sign refers. But not to the information but to its process in which it will be included.
In what sense?
Like the form of a sculpture.
But if the shape of the sculpture is beautiful, was it beautiful before anyone looked at it?
The beauty of sculpture is its intrinsic property. We are however informed about its beauty by looking at it and having a subjective experience of beautiful sculpture.
We have two things here, information and getting informed. The object is a vehicle of information. Getting informed, however, requires an agent to conceive the information through perceiving the object.
The beauty of the object, however, is only given as an external property in relation to a subject that interprets the sculpture. In this case the information, "the beauty" of the sculpture is given in the relationship. This is easy to prove in art, art is beautiful only in relation to us who interpret it.
SUBTOPIC: Short Note Answer to OP
?? et al,
(PREFACE)
How! Did this conversation /discussion scramble my understanding? The original discussion was posed as an Information Science and Technology (IST) context pertaining to a "USB memory stick." [Meaning a Universal Serial Bus (USB)]
An off-the-shelf USB is seldom without a format. When information is stored, it is indexed in a memory device that has a structure to facilitate an interrogation and reply sequence. The device is generally a 'read-write' structure designed for retrieval.
(COMMENT)
First: "Knowledge" and "Information" are not the same. The concept of "Knowledge" is extremely complex, but can be either explicit or tacit. However, the intent of the Original Posting (OP) pertains to "substance":
(TO THE QUESTIONS)
Information, once established, is never destroyed (never lost).
References
____________________
Dictionary of information science and technology / Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, editor Copyright © 2007 Idea Group Reference (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.)701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200 Hershey PA 17033
CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, 2ed, ROBERT AUDI © Cambridge University Press 1995, 1999. Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York eBook (Gale)
Most Respectfully,
R
I claim that nothing is stored. Actually what happens is that it is physically configured in loaded and unloaded cells. We can associate between charge and discharge as a 0 and 1 (thus forming binary language). But a binary language by itself does not mean anything (except if we understand it, just like a pc processes it) and this is my point, it needs a translation or transcription into our language so that something like what we call information appears. Information appears and is created in the relationship, but it is never stored. Because what there is, literally are cells loaded and unloaded, then there are 0 and 1, and then there is the language that we understand. All this is a process of information, of in-forming, con-forming, trans-forming. The fiction is to believe that our language, the information that is created at an end point, is at a beginning. In reality it is a process where information is constantly created. But never stored.
SUBTOPIC: Again, in the context of "context pertaining to a USB Memory Stick" in the OP
?? JaunZu, et al,
(PREFACE)
A USB Memory Stick is a portable storage drive that is a very popular storage device. It is easy to operate through a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port and works on the principle of Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM).
Quoting JuanZu
(COMMENT)
Generally speaking, this is not correct. If you create an EEPROM Device, it has a format. It can form an index. And, even if you fill it with unknown characters of an unknown language, it still contains information. Even a completely blank EEPROM Device will communicate to the computer USB Port to make it aware in Programming languages can be classified in the three categories. They are
as follows:
The binary digits (0s and 1s) of which you speak are a form of Machine Language.
REFERENCES
_______________________
Information Security, Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection Information Security Management Systems Requirements © ISO/IEC 2022 Published in CH
Computer Concepts and Management Information Systems by C. P. Gupta, PhD & K.K. Goyal, PhD Copyright © 2020 by Mercury Learning and Information LLC. © 2019 by University Science Press Boston, Massachusetts
Most Respectfully,
R
I think you are on the right track. The noun "information" refers to the act of informing*1, which is typically construed as imparting knowledge to a mind. As a verb, it takes the form of "to inform"*2. In a conventional context, the word "form" typically refers to the shape or configuration of something that is perceived by the senses as a physical object, and is stored in memory as an image.
But sometimes it refers to the logical structure or design that can only be inferred & conceived by a functioning human mind. Architects and Artists refer to the conceived Form as the "design intent"*3 or meaning of the art. In which case you (interpreter) can read the mind of the artist (the enformer).
In my personal worldview, I have made Information an integral element of How and Why the world works as it does (evolution). Since enforming (transforming) is a causal act, I view it as a form of Energy. With that in mind, I coined the term : EnFormAction : the power to cause change in Matter & MInd. Does that make sense to you? :smile:
*1. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest historical meaning of the word information in English was the act of informing, or giving form or shape to the mind, as in education, instruction, or training. The English word was apparently derived by adding the common "noun of action" ending "-ation" [Hence, En-Form-Action] ___ Wikipedia
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
*2. The suffix "-ation" is a common way to form nouns in English, typically indicating an action, process, state, or condition. It often transforms a verb into a noun, for example, "create" becomes "creation".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22-ation%22+suffix
*3. In design, "form" refers to the visual and aesthetic qualities of a design, encompassing elements like shape, color, texture, and overall appearance. It's the aspect of a design that people visually perceive first, and it plays a crucial role in conveying emotions, communicating messages, and establishing brand identity. Form can be a 3-dimensional representation in graphic design, created through illusions like shadows, shading, and highlights
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22form%22+as+design
This is wrong once you understand the physics of a USB flash drive. That is why I have specifically referred to the cells and the charge they hold by setting up a binary language that the computer can read. But the problem is not the signs that the USB flash drive may or may not have (the cells and the charge) you have to distinguish between the language and the information. A binary language by itself does not mean anything until it is transcribed into a computer that can work with it and make us see something totally different than some 1's and 0's. That is, if you use a USB flash drive to get a Paper you have written when you understand the Paper you are reading something totally different from 1's and 0's. This implies that the information as a process jumps from language to language. But it does not jump as a preferred language, which makes it impossible to confuse our language with another language such as binary. In this sense, information is not deposited in the memory, signs are deposited that will be available for the human practice of information creation.
So it seems you prefer to use the word "signs" where many other people are inclined to use the word "information". E.g. instead of someone saying that she is going to "gather information", you would prefer that she say she is going to "gather signs"?
I'm curious to hear, where you want to go with this?
Elecktra's first appearance was in Daredevil #168.
I was born in 1963.
The V of V in the key of C is the D chord.
Richard the Lionheart died because a wound in his shoulder from a crossbow went gangrenous.
The US once had a 20 cent coin.
Surely there's something on that list you did not know a minute ago. The information is now in your mind, and it's there because you read your computer screen.
Because, information the way scientists tend to use it is an abstract, operationalized notion of information, Shannonian information. This is a measure of information which omits meaning and semantics, and also context - For Shannon information, it doesn't matter who sent the message, what they meant, how it was sent, and who receives it. All that matters is the intrinsic entropy of the signal, how much uncertainty there is in it and how many bit flips we need to reduce that uncertainty.
Information in its richest full blooded reality, is semiosis, meaning. Information really is informare, to "put form into" - what we encounter as conscious agents is signs, signs which mean something for us as interpreters, not some abstract notion of information.
SUBTOPIC: What is information?
?? Bodhy, et al,
(Alternative Opinion)
Information is not a "substance" of any kind; no matter what you are.
Information is not an "entity" either in reality or the supernatural.
Quoting Bodhy
(COMMENT)
Scientists do not have a single way of using the term information:
In terms of "Cognitive Science," ? information is used to convey that (whatever it may be) for processing in terms of a network of interconnected units operating.
Then there is "Communication Theory" the term is used to convey some measure of intelligence. This is not to be confused wth 'Information Science' in which various technologies are used to convey intelligence.
Quoting Bodhy
(COMMENT)
I agree that the term "information" can be defined and used in this manner. In fact ? I would go so far as to say it is a very common usage.
Most Respectfully,
R
According to my theory, there is no information in that list, as if something passes from your mind to symbols on a screen. As I have tried to explain, the symbols on the screen have their own autonomy and cause effects in our learned language, generating meaning or information. In this sense, information never crosses anything but is constantly created. But we are under the illusion that something crossed from one mind to another, that we communicated something, when in reality what we have done is affect another person with the use of signs, causing meaning or information in that person.
In other words, information is always provoked but is never something that crosses things like a ghost contained in signs.
Exactly.
Quoting JuanZu
But then, what is the difference between the reader-usb where the reader reads your porn collection, and where the reader reads an empty USB? That difference would seem to lie solely on the USB, not the reader, or the reader-usb complex. But if the difference between the information and no information case depends only on the USB, it would seem the information "lives", or not, on the USB alone.
Quoting JuanZuStill, I had information in my mind, I wanted it in your mind, I took actions that I hoped would accomplish that goal, coding that information in the medium we are using to communicate, and that information is now in your mind. It's still the same information, but it changed form.
All the information in anybody's DNA can be written down in the book, or entered into a computer. Again, it's the same information, but in different form.
But you are right. There is no substance, not even ghost-like, that crosses over. I guess proof if that is when the receiver gets [I]wrong[/I] information. Thinking I meant one thing when I meant another. That happens when you incorrectly interpret my signs. It wouldn't be possible if there was a substance going from my mind to yours. (A scenario that sounds like a fantasy/scifi story, and would lead to horrible manipulation.)
That depends on what we mean by "communicate". I claim that this communication consists solely of provoking significant effects from one person to another. In other words, through signs we provoke something in the other person's understanding. But nothing is transmitted. What we provoke is meaning, or information.
Quoting Patterner
From my point of view, nothing is encoded as if we were locking a door with a key. What we call encoding is choosing a VERY SPECIFIC, unique series of signs that will have an effect on us or a machine. Signs that other people may not know, which is what makes encoding purpose. But the relationship is the same: one person utters signs and these have meaningful effects on another person. Here, meaning refers to the creation of something that did not exist before. A "Hello" appears in us as the creative effect of the series of signs we have heard.
Quoting Patterner
Exactly.
True. Information is a verb, not a noun, a process, not an object. It's what I like to call EnFormAction : the power to transform from Potential to Actual. Shannon's abstract Data has potential, but no actual meaning, until it is interpreted by a Mind. :smile:
First of all, I suspect you are a hacker, because I have never seen Gnomon post without footnotes. :rofl:
Quoting GnomonI think I disagree. I believe DNA is information. The codons [I]mean[/I] amino acids, and strings of codons [I]mean[/I] proteins. (I know not everyone agrees with that, so you might consider my point incorrect already.) Processing that information is a verb. In its natural form, the information is processed.
There are times when it is not processed in its natural form, such as when the organism is dead, as well as when in other forms, such as written in books or modeled with Tinker Toys. Is it not still information? At these times, there is usually no mind interpreting it. Is it not still information even then?
I suppose this could be a philosophical question similar to the tree falling in the forest.
Ha! I'm not that clever with computer technology, but I can copy & paste. :nerd:
Quoting Patterner
DNA is chemistry, and it is inert until it is read & implemented by a biological system. The information is encoded in the patterns of interrelationships.
Yes, it's like a tree falling in a forest : it doesn't make a protein unless there's RNA to read it, and ATP to power the change, and amino acids as raw material. So, the verbal Information (EnFormAction) of DNA is not static chemicals, but the active process of reading & implementing the code. :smile:
PS___ Look ma, no footnotes. :joke:
I think it's always information. I don't think it only becomes information when it is being processed, or being interpreted by a mind.
Yes, it's always Information, but it comes in different Forms. Just as Energy manifests as Chemical, Electrical, Kinetic, Thermal, Potential, etc. The form of "Information" most familiar before Shannon was metaphysical Meaning in a Mind. But, he stripped away the meaning, leaving only abstract 1s & 0s, that can be mechanically represented by electric valences (+/-).
By calling it a "Verb"*1, I was making a distinction between Shannon's Noun Information (data) and Whitehead's Process Information. Most people are only familiar with Shannon's engineering definition, equating meaningless Information with Entropy. But in the subsequent century, meaningful Information has been equated with Energy (negentropy).
This is cutting-edge information, that is not generally known, except among specialists, such as the Complexity scientists at Santa Fe Institute. But it's the key to my philosophical Enformationism thesis. :nerd:
PS___ Oooops! The footnotes are back. :wink:
*1. Information is :
[i]Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
# For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
# When spelled with an I, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an E, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*2. Alfred North Whitehead did not develop a distinct field called "information theory" as it is understood today, but his philosophy of organism, with its emphasis on process, prehension, and interrelationship, can be understood as an alternative model for understanding information. He viewed reality as dynamic processes rather than static objects and proposed that information gains meaning through subjective experience and context, particularly through the recursive process of prehension, or feeling the past into the present occasion. This fundamentally differs from current information theory, which often focuses on discrete bits of data.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=a.n.+whitehead+information+theory
*3. Information is Energy :
An objective, dynamic and physically justified concept of information is elaborated starting from Shannon's concept of entropy and applied to information technology, artificial intelligence (consciousness) and thermodynamics. The justification of an information conservation theorem acquires practical significance in information technology, especially as it moves into the quantum realm (photonics/quantum computing).
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6
Those are good questions, in that they indicate ignorance of what Information is, essentially*1. Which could be a learning opportunity. Prior to Shannon, the definition of Information referred to "knowledge" (meaning ; facts) in a mind. Information is always a reference to some thing or event : Aboutness*2.
But since the 20th century that term has acquired much broader significance for Philosophy and Science. For example, astrobiologist Caleb Scharf's 2021 book is entitled The Ascent of Information. He asks "whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe". And he coined the term "dataome" (from genome) : "the dataome is all of the non-genetic data we carry externally and internally". A related term is : "extended mind".
Besides the meaning-in-a-mind kind of Information, we now use the term Data in certain contexts. Scharf says "in that sense data corresponds to pieces of information. But real information is that data organized and assembled, and structured to provide meaning and context". And that's what Minds do. I'll cut to the meat here, and reveal that conscious mental Information is a recent innovation of evolution. Prior to the advent of Life & Mind, the power to transform was mainly what we now call Energy.
With that piece of information in mind, I'll answer your questions : A> Information in a dead organism has been transformed into Entropy (dissipated Energy). B> Information in a book is equivalent to Potential energy in a battery. It requires a conscious mind to complete the circuit of Meaning. Plato's transcendent Forms, are manifested in the immanent world as various Forms of Energy. And human Consciousness is one of those innumerable Patterns (forms) of In-Form-Action. :smile:
*1. Information is an abstract concept that refers to something which has the power to inform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Note --- The term "power" has taken on a new significance since Information has recently been associated with causal Energy. A broader sense of Information is "the power to transform", to cause change, in both matter and mind.
*2. In philosophy, aboutness refers to the feature of mental states, linguistic expressions, or other meaningful items to be on, of, or concerning some subject matter, event, or state of affairs. This property, often used interchangeably with intentionality, is fundamental to distinguishing the mental from the physical and is a core concept in the philosophy of mind and language.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aboutness+meaning+in+philosophy
PS___ Just as Energy is found in various forms --- chemical, electrical, kinetic, potential, etc --- Information is manifested in many forms : books, databases, conceptual, procedural, etc.
Oh yes. Just like fossilized bones, ancient DNA can provide clues to modern forms. But the cavemen are still dead and dissipated. Whatever information remains is in the fossilized patterns of preserved tissues. For example, paleontologists can estimate the size & shape of an absent Neander brain, by measuring the empty skull. As I said before, Information, like languages, comes in many forms. But the meaning must be interpreted by a living functioning brain. :smile:
PS___ In Neander DNA, the actual information is long gone, but some potential information remains. Like information in a book, the source of enforming (author) is absent, but those who can read the inert squiggles are able to extract meaning from patterns of non-living ink on paper.
For example, a AAA battery on a shelf has Potential for electrical current, but until a circuit is provided there is no Actual current. However, a scientist could analyze the chemistry of the battery, and estimate how much voltage is possible for future use. And that is useful information, despite being only Potential.
Something like that. When Shannon produced his definition of Information as computer Data, I assume he had no idea that his novel equation of Information and math (1s & 0s ; relations ; ratios) or Information and Entropy (active ; passive) would eventually lead scientists to view Energy from a similar perspective. They are not the same thing*1, but different forms of a more fundamental causal force that I call EnFormAction*2.
So, I would rephrase to say, when information of a system is not being actively processed, its form or state is Potential instead of Actual. For example, there is lots of information in your brain, that you are not currently aware of or thinking of. But it's available to activate, when needed. How it's stored is not completely understood.
I see a lot of Philosophical Potential in this novel notion of Information. But some on this forum think I'm talking about ghosts & spirits & spooky stuff. This new concept of Information is not a material substance (hyle ; wood), but more like Aristotle's essential substance (morph ; form ; pattern). :smile:
*1. [i]No, energy and information are not the same thing, though they are deeply connected. Information requires energy to be stored in a physical system, and the process of changing information requires energy and increases entropy, according to the Landauer limit. While information cannot exist without energy to form a physical medium, energy itself can exist without any information.
Energy is Physical, Information is Abstract:
Energy is a physical quantity that represents the capacity to do work. Information, on the other hand, is an abstract concept representing data or concepts transmitted through a medium.[/i]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+and+information
Note --- Energy is still the power to cause physical change. But information is the power to cause metaphysical change : to convey ideas from one mind to another.
*2. Active Information, Meaning & Form :
Information is Physical and Metaphysical
[i]"Elevate information to the level of a new physical concept, one that can be placed alongside Matter and Energy" . . . .
Peat says I suggest that Information is the final element in a triadinformation is that which gives form to energy.[/i]
*3.Information is stored in the brain by changing and strengthening connections, or synapses, between neurons.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+in+brain+how+stored
Note --- Information is essentially patterns of relationships (interconnections) between loci
Argh! My last word was a mistake. I meant to say:
Are you saying [I]actual[/I] information is information that is being processed? If it is not being processed, it is [I]potential[/I] information?
Quoting GnomonIt is complicated. Photon hits retina, it's converted, a signal is sent to the brain, where it's represented in a certain way. Assuming no malfunction in the pathway, that [I]will[/I] happen. Information about light [I]will[/I] be in the brain, in non-light form. But that information might never be acted upon at all. It's possibe that acting upon it is impossible, like if I have locked-in syndrome, even if I interpret it.
But I might not interpret it. We don't interpret everything that comes in through our retinas. So information that [I]had[/I] to be created (as opposed to the information in a book) is never even interpreted.
Yes. For example, if a message-in-a-bottle is sent but never read, the information remains potential, not actual. This works just like Energy. If a bullet is fired, but never hits its target, the Kinetic energy is "stored" in the form of Momentum. So the energy remains in limbo as Potential, in the sense that it is never Actualized as impact transfer of energy to a target. Of course, this is an imperfect analogy, since a bullet in motion almost always hits some object to which it transfers its inertial energy, causing material change . . . . except perhaps in outer space. :wink:
Quoting Patterner
Like the bullet in outer space, un-interpreted Information remains in its Potential state, in the form of "raw data". You can think of data as meaningless mathematical information, until someone interprets the code into human meaning. :smile:
PS___ Energy can be temporarily stored in matter, like a battery, as Potential Energy. In which case, you could say that the Energy/Information exists as a "Substance". More properly though, as ratios between positive & negative ions.
"Uninterpreted" Information is raw data or primary source material that has not yet been analyzed, explained, or given meaning; it remains in its original, unaltered form before any analysis, commentary, or added understanding has been applied. Examples include eyewitness testimony, original documents like letters and manuscripts, raw research data, and direct quotes before a researcher or person explains them
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+uninterpreted