Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[psycho]

What is information?

Does the information exist without the presence of agents that acquire or produce it?

Is the information produced or collected?

Is the limitation of the medium in which the information is stored the same as the nature of the information itself?

Entropy dilutes information? Or does entropy dilute the fabric of reality from which we distill information?

Is there a difference between reality and the information that represents that reality?

Only some questions because I do not finish putting together a minimum concept of "information" that satisfies me.

[Pattern-chaser]

Information is a non-physical thing, so its 'existence' is, er, problematic. It exists just as Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes exist. This is an 'existence' quite different to the existence of, say, Mount Everest. Thus, your questions are difficult to answer, as the nature of information is largely subjective, or at least, our idea or concept of information is subjective.

The obvious approach here is to observe that information is a human concept, in the sense that it exists in our minds, not in the 4D spacetime universe. This is true enough, I think, in absolute terms, but not especially helpful to the questions you raise. I think there is more to such mental things than this simple observation. But discussing them is going to be hard going...

[psycho]

Information is a non-physical thing, so its 'existence' is, er, problematic. It exists just as Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes exist. This is an 'existence' quite different to the existence of, say, Mount Everest. Thus, your questions are difficult to answer, as the nature of information is largely subjective, or at least, our idea or concept of information is subjective.

The obvious approach here is to observe that information is a human concept, in the sense that it exists in our minds, not in the 4D spacetime universe. This is true enough, I think, in absolute terms, but not especially helpful to the questions you raise. I think there is more to such mental things than this simple observation. But discussing them is going to be hard going...

Obviously, one would suppose that information must be representation.

But the representation of aspects of reality is not limited to humans.

A bee makes a representation of reality when it encodes the location of nectar sources.

On the other hand, for example in the genetic code, information is not representation. This chemical structure is a biochemical vector that activates processes that build structures.

I do not agree with you that the information is non-physical. A neurological structure that corresponds to the concept "dog" is a physical entity. It is an electrochemical structure.

The concept "dog" contains some of the information of that animal. It is a synthesis of that entity, which we use as a factor of our agency.

Discussing difficult topics is the spice of life.

[Pattern-chaser]

I do not agree with you that the information is non-physical. A neurological structure that corresponds to the concept "dog" is a physical entity. It is an electrochemical structure.

That is a somewhat trivial, or superficial, objection, I think. Yes, all of our thoughts — as far as we know — are based on an electro-bio-chemical representation in our brains. But this doesn't rebut the informal-yet-valuable perspective I offered: information has no meaningful physicality.

Discussing difficult topics is the spice of life.

Indeed.

[psycho]

information has no meaningful physicality.

So, from your point of view, what is genetically encoded is not information?

Do bees handle abstractions?

[Sculptor1]

Information is a word that is currently suffering from a good deal of abuse ATM.
It was once something consciously given from person to person. Particularly from a teacher to a student. Or could be to report facts.
It was not something passive offered by natural processes.

These days food is information. Sugar informs the pancreas to secret insulin.

Worse still sunlight is now said to have information which can be "lost" to heat energy which is an end state, where the information is given away.

Now if we step back a moment and reflect on the widest interpretation of "information", re: the question. What chance is there that "reality" whatever that means can be deduced from a conceptualisation of a word that is not even static or that people have exact agreement about its definition?

So we have information in sugar as potential instructions to a part of the body, and through light which contains information about structures of 3D objects in the physical world. Then we have information which is "knowledge" from those in the know, or from media, verbal, visual, textural, tactile ad infinitem....

The answer lies within the structures of neural matter, particularly in the brain, how that is translated and processed. This is not only mechanical but interpretive, it involves the reconstruction of virtual images and sounds as well as conceptual and ideational. It never meets a completely blank canvas. The tabula is never rasa, as it were. Even as a new born we are keyed to find, to seek out large fleshy orbs to locate food from a fleshy nipple, and our brain is ready to accept the input of sounds and faces with intricately designed structures in the brain we all have with specific functions. Such as the Broca's area for language; another for faces..

Speech and face recognition are not objectively true in an absolute sense. They are mammal specific, perhaps to birds and reptiles too, but having this ability means that we can "SEE" faces where none exist such as in a cloud or the bark of a tree.

It is thus that we adjust reality to our purposes and can never see the thing-in-itself.

[psycho]

Information is a word that is currently suffering from a good deal of abuse ATM.
It was once something consciously given from person to person. Particularly from a teacher to a student. Or could be to report facts.
It was not something passive offered by natural processes.

These days food is information. Sugar informs the pancreas to secret insulin.

Worse still sunlight is now said to have information which can be "lost" to heat energy which is an end state, where the information is given away.

Now if we step back a moment and reflect on the widest interpretation of "information", re: the question. What chance is there that "reality" whatever that means can be deduced from a conceptualisation of a word that is not even static or that people have exact agreement about its definition?

So we have information in sugar as potential instructions to a part of the body, and through light which contains information about structures of 3D objects in the physical world. Then we have information which is "knowledge" from those in the know, or from media, verbal, visual, textural, tactile ad infinitem....

The answer lies within the structures of neural matter, particularly in the brain, how that is translated and processed. This is not only mechanical but interpretive, it involves the reconstruction of virtual images and sounds as well as conceptual and ideational. It never meets a completely blank canvas. The tabula is never rasa, as it were. Even as a new born we are keyed to find, to seek out large fleshy orbs to locate food from a fleshy nipple, and our brain is ready to accept the input of sounds and faces with intricately designed structures in the brain we all have with specific functions. Such as the Broca's area for language; another for faces..

Speech and face recognition are not objectively true in an absolute sense. They are mammal specific, perhaps to birds and reptiles too, but having this ability means that we can "SEE" faces where none exist such as in a cloud or the bark of a tree.

It is thus that we adjust reality to our purposes and can never see the thing-in-itself.

Information in its most common sense is data that corresponds to an aspect of reality from which concepts can be built.

Reality is that from which our concepts are deduced.

Concept is what is deduced from reality.

But data is not the cog in the gear that moves the next wheel. The amount of sugar that triggers insulin is not information. In the classical sense.
The sentence "The dog bites a bone" is different from the beam of light rays that allows us to see that a dog bites a bone?

A baby does not use information to find the mother's nipple. He uses only gears at that stage.

What does "interpretive" and "ideational" mean to you?

That we prioritize the recognition of patterns corresponding to faces is just an evolutionary trait. Other animals pay attention to all kinds of patterns. Insects, fish, birds, etc.

Humans adjust reality to their purpose using actions. This is not related to the simplification of the concepts of reality. Simplification is not a misrepresentation of reality.

[Sculptor1]

Information is a word that is currently suffering from a good deal of abuse ATM.
It was once something consciously given from person to person. Particularly from a teacher to a student. Or could be to report facts.
It was not something passive offered by natural processes.

These days food is information. Sugar informs the pancreas to secret insulin.

Worse still sunlight is now said to have information which can be "lost" to heat energy which is an end state, where the information is given away.

Now if we step back a moment and reflect on the widest interpretation of "information", re: the question. What chance is there that "reality" whatever that means can be deduced from a conceptualisation of a word that is not even static or that people have exact agreement about its definition?

So we have information in sugar as potential instructions to a part of the body, and through light which contains information about structures of 3D objects in the physical world. Then we have information which is "knowledge" from those in the know, or from media, verbal, visual, textural, tactile ad infinitem....

The answer lies within the structures of neural matter, particularly in the brain, how that is translated and processed. This is not only mechanical but interpretive, it involves the reconstruction of virtual images and sounds as well as conceptual and ideational. It never meets a completely blank canvas. The tabula is never rasa, as it were. Even as a new born we are keyed to find, to seek out large fleshy orbs to locate food from a fleshy nipple, and our brain is ready to accept the input of sounds and faces with intricately designed structures in the brain we all have with specific functions. Such as the Broca's area for language; another for faces..

Speech and face recognition are not objectively true in an absolute sense. They are mammal specific, perhaps to birds and reptiles too, but having this ability means that we can "SEE" faces where none exist such as in a cloud or the bark of a tree.

It is thus that we adjust reality to our purposes and can never see the thing-in-itself.

Information in its most common sense is data that corresponds to an aspect of reality from which concepts can be built.

Reality is that from which our concepts are deduced.

Concept is what is deduced from reality.

But data is not the cog in the gear that moves the next wheel. The amount of sugar that triggers insulin is not information. In the classical sense.
The sentence "The dog bites a bone" is different from the beam of light rays that allows us to see that a dog bites a bone?

A baby does not use information to find the mother's nipple. He uses only gears at that stage.

What does "interpretive" and "ideational" mean to you?

That we prioritize the recognition of patterns corresponding to faces is just an evolutionary trait. Other animals pay attention to all kinds of patterns. Insects, fish, birds, etc.

Humans adjust reality to their purpose using actions. This is not related to the simplification of the concepts of reality. Simplification is not a misrepresentation of reality.

You are making special case pleading without justification.
You have just sundered information to suit your prejudice.
And THAT, my friend is the conclusion I made. That is why ou reality is not the thing in itself but a fictional account that fits the appearances.

[psycho]

Information is a word that is currently suffering from a good deal of abuse ATM.
It was once something consciously given from person to person. Particularly from a teacher to a student. Or could be to report facts.
It was not something passive offered by natural processes.

These days food is information. Sugar informs the pancreas to secret insulin.

Worse still sunlight is now said to have information which can be "lost" to heat energy which is an end state, where the information is given away.

Now if we step back a moment and reflect on the widest interpretation of "information", re: the question. What chance is there that "reality" whatever that means can be deduced from a conceptualisation of a word that is not even static or that people have exact agreement about its definition?

So we have information in sugar as potential instructions to a part of the body, and through light which contains information about structures of 3D objects in the physical world. Then we have information which is "knowledge" from those in the know, or from media, verbal, visual, textural, tactile ad infinitem....

The answer lies within the structures of neural matter, particularly in the brain, how that is translated and processed. This is not only mechanical but interpretive, it involves the reconstruction of virtual images and sounds as well as conceptual and ideational. It never meets a completely blank canvas. The tabula is never rasa, as it were. Even as a new born we are keyed to find, to seek out large fleshy orbs to locate food from a fleshy nipple, and our brain is ready to accept the input of sounds and faces with intricately designed structures in the brain we all have with specific functions. Such as the Broca's area for language; another for faces..

Speech and face recognition are not objectively true in an absolute sense. They are mammal specific, perhaps to birds and reptiles too, but having this ability means that we can "SEE" faces where none exist such as in a cloud or the bark of a tree.

It is thus that we adjust reality to our purposes and can never see the thing-in-itself.

Information in its most common sense is data that corresponds to an aspect of reality from which concepts can be built.

Reality is that from which our concepts are deduced.

Concept is what is deduced from reality.

But data is not the cog in the gear that moves the next wheel. The amount of sugar that triggers insulin is not information. In the classical sense.
The sentence "The dog bites a bone" is different from the beam of light rays that allows us to see that a dog bites a bone?

A baby does not use information to find the mother's nipple. He uses only gears at that stage.

What does "interpretive" and "ideational" mean to you?

That we prioritize the recognition of patterns corresponding to faces is just an evolutionary trait. Other animals pay attention to all kinds of patterns. Insects, fish, birds, etc.

Humans adjust reality to their purpose using actions. This is not related to the simplification of the concepts of reality. Simplification is not a misrepresentation of reality.

You are making special case pleading without justification.
You have just sundered information to suit your prejudice.
And THAT, my friend is the conclusion I made. That is why ou reality is not the thing in itself but a fictional account that fits the appearances.

I clarified that reality is the basis of concepts and not concepts the basis of reality.

It is a difficult position to hold one where concepts do not derive from reality.

It is not very serious to expect to have a direct contact with reality. But that does not prove that reality is not the basis of conceptualization. What would be a possible scenario where one could make direct contact with reality?

[Sculptor1]

Information is a word that is currently suffering from a good deal of abuse ATM.
It was once something consciously given from person to person. Particularly from a teacher to a student. Or could be to report facts.
It was not something passive offered by natural processes.

These days food is information. Sugar informs the pancreas to secret insulin.

Worse still sunlight is now said to have information which can be "lost" to heat energy which is an end state, where the information is given away.

Now if we step back a moment and reflect on the widest interpretation of "information", re: the question. What chance is there that "reality" whatever that means can be deduced from a conceptualisation of a word that is not even static or that people have exact agreement about its definition?

So we have information in sugar as potential instructions to a part of the body, and through light which contains information about structures of 3D objects in the physical world. Then we have information which is "knowledge" from those in the know, or from media, verbal, visual, textural, tactile ad infinitem....

The answer lies within the structures of neural matter, particularly in the brain, how that is translated and processed. This is not only mechanical but interpretive, it involves the reconstruction of virtual images and sounds as well as conceptual and ideational. It never meets a completely blank canvas. The tabula is never rasa, as it were. Even as a new born we are keyed to find, to seek out large fleshy orbs to locate food from a fleshy nipple, and our brain is ready to accept the input of sounds and faces with intricately designed structures in the brain we all have with specific functions. Such as the Broca's area for language; another for faces..

Speech and face recognition are not objectively true in an absolute sense. They are mammal specific, perhaps to birds and reptiles too, but having this ability means that we can "SEE" faces where none exist such as in a cloud or the bark of a tree.

It is thus that we adjust reality to our purposes and can never see the thing-in-itself.

Information in its most common sense is data that corresponds to an aspect of reality from which concepts can be built.

Reality is that from which our concepts are deduced.

Concept is what is deduced from reality.

But data is not the cog in the gear that moves the next wheel. The amount of sugar that triggers insulin is not information. In the classical sense.
The sentence "The dog bites a bone" is different from the beam of light rays that allows us to see that a dog bites a bone?

A baby does not use information to find the mother's nipple. He uses only gears at that stage.

What does "interpretive" and "ideational" mean to you?

That we prioritize the recognition of patterns corresponding to faces is just an evolutionary trait. Other animals pay attention to all kinds of patterns. Insects, fish, birds, etc.

Humans adjust reality to their purpose using actions. This is not related to the simplification of the concepts of reality. Simplification is not a misrepresentation of reality.

You are making special case pleading without justification.
You have just sundered information to suit your prejudice.
And THAT, my friend is the conclusion I made. That is why ou reality is not the thing in itself but a fictional account that fits the appearances.

I clarified that reality is the basis of concepts and not concepts the basis of reality.

It is a difficult position to hold one where concepts do not derive from reality.

This is a circular argument since reality is founded on out conceptions; and conceptions founded on reality.
Chew it over for a bit.

It is not very serious to expect to have a direct contact with reality. But that does not prove that reality is not the basis of conceptualization. What would be a possible scenario where one could make direct contact with reality?

Reality is only what we, as humans, are capable of conceiving.

[psycho]

Information in its most common sense is data that corresponds to an aspect of reality from which concepts can be built.

Reality is that from which our concepts are deduced.

Concept is what is deduced from reality.

But data is not the cog in the gear that moves the next wheel. The amount of sugar that triggers insulin is not information. In the classical sense.
The sentence "The dog bites a bone" is different from the beam of light rays that allows us to see that a dog bites a bone?

A baby does not use information to find the mother's nipple. He uses only gears at that stage.

What does "interpretive" and "ideational" mean to you?

That we prioritize the recognition of patterns corresponding to faces is just an evolutionary trait. Other animals pay attention to all kinds of patterns. Insects, fish, birds, etc.

Humans adjust reality to their purpose using actions. This is not related to the simplification of the concepts of reality. Simplification is not a misrepresentation of reality.

You are making special case pleading without justification.
You have just sundered information to suit your prejudice.
And THAT, my friend is the conclusion I made. That is why ou reality is not the thing in itself but a fictional account that fits the appearances.

I clarified that reality is the basis of concepts and not concepts the basis of reality.

It is a difficult position to hold one where concepts do not derive from reality.

This is a circular argument since reality is founded on out conceptions; and conceptions founded on reality.
Chew it over for a bit.

It is not very serious to expect to have a direct contact with reality. But that does not prove that reality is not the basis of conceptualization. What would be a possible scenario where one could make direct contact with reality?

Reality is only what we, as humans, are capable of conceiving.

The two of us don't agree on what reality is.

For me, reality is the physical world of which I am a constituent part.

I do not hold that reality is the basis of concepts and concepts are the basis of reality. I only maintain that reality is the basis of concepts. I do not understand that reality results from something more basic.

You maintain that there is a possibility that concepts are the basis of reality.

From my point of view that is untenable within logic.

---

I don't share your idea that reality is what humans are capable of conceiving.

If "conceiving" is used in the sense of being what results from certain rational considerations, that is only a process after the construction of basic concepts that are produced by reality, in our brain.

I suppose that you have some way of justifying how it is possible that concepts (that do not come from reality in your interpretation) form reality and what is their origin.

[Sculptor1]

You are making special case pleading without justification.
You have just sundered information to suit your prejudice.
And THAT, my friend is the conclusion I made. That is why ou reality is not the thing in itself but a fictional account that fits the appearances.

I clarified that reality is the basis of concepts and not concepts the basis of reality.

It is a difficult position to hold one where concepts do not derive from reality.

This is a circular argument since reality is founded on out conceptions; and conceptions founded on reality.
Chew it over for a bit.

It is not very serious to expect to have a direct contact with reality. But that does not prove that reality is not the basis of conceptualization. What would be a possible scenario where one could make direct contact with reality?

Reality is only what we, as humans, are capable of conceiving.

The two of us don't agree on what reality is.

Yes, correct. And with that thought you prove me point.
Thanks for playing.

[Pattern-chaser]

information has no meaningful physicality.

So, from your point of view, what is genetically encoded is not information?

Do bees handle abstractions?

You've changed the question!

You started off by saying this:

I do not agree with you that the information is non-physical. A neurological structure that corresponds to the concept "dog" is a physical entity. It is an electrochemical structure.

That is a somewhat trivial, or superficial, objection, I think. Yes, all of our thoughts — as far as we know — are based on an electro-bio-chemical representation in our brains. But this doesn't rebut the informal-yet-valuable perspective I offered: information has no meaningful physicality.

So you are talking about the physical representation of thoughts and concepts in our brains. Every thought that we entertain changes our brain chemistry, in the sense that something is recorded and retained. I consider this akin to claiming that Harry and Sherlock have physical existence because of the (physical) books they appear in. It seems somewhat trivial.

Then you change the question, as I have commented, by assigning my comments to genetic information stored in DNA, which is rather different, IMO. Even then, I still think it's a bit superficial to claim that information is physical only because it is stored in a physical manner. I might suggest that information could be considered separate from the means by which it is retained? The former seems non-physical to me, and the latter a trivial distraction, in the context of our little exchange, here.

[psycho]

information has no meaningful physicality.

So, from your point of view, what is genetically encoded is not information?

Do bees handle abstractions?

You've changed the question!

You started off by saying this:

I do not agree with you that the information is non-physical. A neurological structure that corresponds to the concept "dog" is a physical entity. It is an electrochemical structure.

That is a somewhat trivial, or superficial, objection, I think. Yes, all of our thoughts — as far as we know — are based on an electro-bio-chemical representation in our brains. But this doesn't rebut the informal-yet-valuable perspective I offered: information has no meaningful physicality.

So you are talking about the physical representation of thoughts and concepts in our brains. Every thought that we entertain changes our brain chemistry, in the sense that something is recorded and retained. I consider this akin to claiming that Harry and Sherlock have physical existence because of the (physical) books they appear in. It seems somewhat trivial.

Then you change the question, as I have commented, by assigning my comments to genetic information stored in DNA, which is rather different, IMO. Even then, I still think it's a bit superficial to claim that information is physical only because it is stored in a physical manner. I might suggest that information could be considered separate from the means by which it is retained? The former seems non-physical to me, and the latter a trivial distraction, in the context of our little exchange, here.

Oh! Maybe I misunderstood your comment. Sorry for the confusion!

What do you mean by "information has no meaningful physicality"?

I understood that you interpreted that the information was just something abstract.

For me, the physical representation of concepts in our brain IS the reality of a concept. It is the concept itself.

I interpret it inversely. Our thoughts do not change the electrochemical state of the brain. The electrochemical state of the brain ARE our thoughts.

Harry and Sherlock are conceptual constructs made up of matter and energy, in your brain.

The question change was not intentional but an attempt to understand something that I am not clear about. What does "information has no meaningful physicality" mean to you?

I don't see how information could be stored in a non-physical way and I don't see how information could be anything other than physical. What would be non-physical information (matter and energy)?

(I suppose it is unnecessary to clarify that I do not think that idealism is a good model of reality)

[Pattern-chaser]

I understood that you interpreted that the information was just something abstract.

For me, the physical representation of concepts in our brain IS the reality of a concept. It is the concept itself.

I interpret it inversely. Our thoughts do not change the electrochemical state of the brain. The electrochemical state of the brain ARE our thoughts.

Harry and Sherlock are conceptual constructs made up of matter and energy, in your brain.

The question change was not intentional but an attempt to understand something that I am not clear about. What does "information has no meaningful physicality" mean to you?

I don't see how information could be stored in a non-physical way and I don't see how information could be anything other than physical. What would be non-physical information (matter and energy)?

(I suppose it is unnecessary to clarify that I do not think that idealism is a good model of reality)

I do not disagree with what you say here. But I do wonder about its usefulness?

You seem to take a physicalist (small "p") view on things. You view information in terms of its (physical) storage, which I do not challenge or doubt. But I think that — practically and usefully — it is easier to think of information as a mental (non-physical) thing with which my mind juggles. This is what I mean by "information has no meaningful physicality".

I see Harry and Sherlock as characters that we access ('meet'? — 'get to know'?) by reading the books, or watching the films and TV.

It's not the storage of the information that matters all that much, IMO. Information is static (stored; remembered), and it is dynamic too, when we review what information we have, and examine how it interacts with other information we also have stored. In other words, information is dynamic in our thoughts; when we think about it, and when we use it. Perhaps this dynamism is the most significant attribute of information?