Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[psycho]

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?

The utility of such an approach is that it kills the idea of transcendent entities.

Nope. I don't see the information in terms of storage. I see it in the form of structures that represent other realities.

What I try to see is what is the difference between the structure of what is represented and the structure of what represents it.

The advantage of considering the information to be non-physical is not really apparent to me. What is that advantage?

From your point of view, what is information?

I assume that by dynamic you mean the continual refinement that humans make to their concepts.

I don't see the utility of information dynamics. Given a circumstance from which information is extracted, while the circumstance is stable, the information will be static. Any change in the information does not present a benefit if it does not correspond to what it represents. The change does not give an advantage. Fidelity gives an advantage.

[Pattern-chaser]

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?

Nope. I don't see the information in terms of storage. I see it in the form of structures that represent other realities.

...structures that are stored, as you have previously described, I think?

The advantage of considering the information to be non-physical is not really apparent to me. What is that advantage?

Its advantage, as I see it, is that I can consider thoughts and thinking in terms of the mind, not the brain. This is a much more intuitive avenue into this area of understanding, IMO. It's not that I think you are wrong, but only that I believe there are easier and more convenient ways of looking at things than attempting to bridge the vast (abstract) chasm between the brain and the mind.

I have always compared this with WinWord.exe, a Windows™ executable that implements a word-processor when operating. At one level — analogous to the brain — we have a stream of bytes. At the more abstract level — analogous to the mind — we have a program offering grammar-checking, and so forth. It is difficult for most of us to bridge this gap, between a sequence of bytes and a word-processor. But that is nothing compared to the leap from brain to mind.

From your point of view, what is information?

Simply, information is facts.

I assume that by dynamic you mean the continual refinement that humans make to their concepts.

No, I refer to change, flow, and movement, as opposed to stasis.

I don't see the utility of information dynamics. Given a circumstance from which information is extracted, while the circumstance is stable, the information will be static.

But no set of circumstances is stable. The spacetime universe is continually changing, and the context of any event that takes place within the spacetime universe is ... the whole spacetime universe; all of it. So there is no stasis. Ever.

So this is the advantage, and "utility", of information dynamics, that it deals with reality as we find it. Static information has "utility" only in theory, not in practice. For, in practice, there is no such thing as static information.

...maybe there is static information, but the thing(s) the information describes and refers to, in context, is never static. Information that is static is almost certainly out-of-date, as the things it describes have changed.

The change does not give an advantage. Fidelity gives an advantage.

Change is simply present, everywhere and everywhen. Fidelity is useful, and therefore has value, but fidelity to what?

[psycho]

...structures that are stored, as you have previously described, I think?

The important part is "structures" and not "stored".

The critique is appropriate since it allows me to clarify that I actually consider the information in the brain to be structures built within our neurological systems. I do not believe that the information is "stored in" but that it is a structure in that same system.

Its advantage, as I see it, is that I can consider thoughts and thinking in terms of the mind, not the brain. This is a much more intuitive avenue into this area of understanding, IMO. It's not that I think you are wrong, but only that I believe there are easier and more convenient ways of looking at things than attempting to bridge the vast (abstract) chasm between the brain and the mind.

I have always compared this with WinWord.exe, a Windows™ executable that implements a word-processor when operating. At one level — analogous to the brain — we have a stream of bytes. At the more abstract level — analogous to the mind — we have a program offering grammar-checking, and so forth. It is difficult for most of us to bridge this gap, between a sequence of bytes and a word-processor. But that is nothing compared to the leap from brain to mind.

For me, mind is brain at work. A crude analogy would be to consider the movement involved in walking without paying attention to the mechanical system that executes such movement. There is no walking without bones, muscles and nervous system.

In the case of the "information" contained in the brain and its processing, what is the advantage of ignoring that this information is a real physical structure?

Simply, information is facts.

I understand by "facts" that the activity that we notice in reality. What happens. This with which we interact. What it is.

But "information" is a representation of those "facts". Which is a new "fact".

So, for you, "facts" and "information" are the same. If everything is "facts" then everything is "information". So, there is no difference between "facts" and "information"?

No, I refer to change, flow, and movement, as opposed to stasis.

But the information in our brains doesn't change all the time.

Part of the grace of our nervous system is that it is able to prevent our information from being diluted, to a large extent. Enough for us to be able to be effective.

But no set of circumstances is stable. The spacetime universe is continually changing, and the context of any event that takes place within the spacetime universe is ... the whole spacetime universe; all of it. So there is no stasis. Ever.

So this is the advantage, and "utility", of information dynamics, that it deals with reality as we find it. Static information has "utility" only in theory, not in practice. For, in practice, there is no such thing as static information.

...maybe there is static information, but the thing(s) the information describes and refers to, in context, is never static. Information that is static is almost certainly out-of-date, as the things it describes have changed.

Reality changes all the time but we look for the model behind that reality.

As in your username. We are pursuing the definitive pattern that represents reality and that is glimpsed through its changes.

It is useful for us that reality changes continuously because that allows us to refine a model that represents it.

But the model does not change all the time. It does so only when some of the changes we notice contradict our model.

Change is simply present, everywhere and everywhen. Fidelity is useful, and therefore has value, but fidelity to what?

Fidelity between conceptual model and reality.

[Gertie]

What is information?

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

Accepting our everyday physicalist view of the world, I view information as an abstract description of things in themselves, rather than being a thing in itself. Things in themselves can exist without being described, but descriptions of those things in themselves need a describer. The information's existence is in the form of the describer's mental processes. (You can eg write information down using words (symbols) on paper, but the ink and paper aren't information, it's the mental meaningful understanding of the word symbols which is informative).

Is the information produced or collected?

Experiencing subjects create information as we describe or represent things. Information itself isn't something 'out there' to be collected, except as information communicated by one describer-subject to another (eg reading a book).

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

I don't believe so, see above.

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

I'd say the latter. I think the relationship between entropy and information is based on how many ways, and what types of ways, there are of describing the actual existing state of affairs. In a simpler, homogenous universe there are fewer ways of describing that universe than in a more complex one. So to say the simpler universe ''contains less information'' is just a metaphorical way of saying there are fewer ways of describing a simpler universe.

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

Yes, see above. A description isn't the thing in itself.

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

These are good questions . ''Information'' and information processing has come to be talked about as if it's something which exists independently in it's own right. But if you think of it as a meaningful abstract description there's a clear distinction. Brains exist as physical parts in motion, like computers, and we can talk about them as 'processing information'. But there's a difference. Without an experiencing subject finding mental meaning in the symbols, descriptions and representations there's no informing going on. The output from a computer which has never been seen and given meaning is just pixels of different light intensity. (Searle in his Chinese Room thought experiment talks of the computer's processes as synctactical, you need a human who understands the symbols produced for them to convey semantically meaningful information. It's a bit tangential, but it's worth a google if you don't know it - I'm not allowed to post a link).

[psycho]

Accepting our everyday physicalist view of the world, I view information as an abstract description of things in themselves, rather than being a thing in itself. Things in themselves can exist without being described, but descriptions of those things in themselves need a describer. The information's existence is in the form of the describer's mental processes. (You can eg write information down using words (symbols) on paper, but the ink and paper aren't information, it's the mental meaningful understanding of the word symbols which is informative).

Only within an idealistic interpretation of reality, something can only be abstract.

The information is just description? Particular patterns in data, are they somewhat descriptive?

Genetic information can be described and at the same time it describes something.

So, the information does not exist until the agent includes the data in a description?

I don't think that when you write something, you are including information in that construction. You refer to information (A para-model). That is clearly different. The reference is to information already contained in the receiver. That is the reason why lost languages cannot be deciphered until some shared reference appears.

Experiencing subjects create information as we describe or represent things. Information itself isn't something 'out there' to be collected, except as information communicated by one describer-subject to another (eg reading a book).

For you, information and data are two different things?

I don't believe so, see above.

Any structure of reality can be used to contain information or data. But the characteristics of the structure put a limit to the amount that each one can contain.

Given that information is something that must be contained, how come the limit of the container does not limit the content?

I'd say the latter. I think the relationship between entropy and information is based on how many ways, and what types of ways, there are of describing the actual existing state of affairs. In a simpler, homogenous universe there are fewer ways of describing that universe than in a more complex one. So to say the simpler universe ''contains less information'' is just a metaphorical way of saying there are fewer ways of describing a simpler universe.

The problem is that the information is always contained in the structure of reality. If the structure is degraded (entropy) then the information contained is also degraded.

Do you suppose that there is a way to preserve the information of the effect of entropy?

Yes, see above. A description isn't the thing in itself.

Yeah. I think they are two different things. One results from the process of representing some aspect of reality. An interesting question is what kind of entities are capable of making representations.

These are good questions . ''Information'' and information processing has come to be talked about as if it's something which exists independently in it's own right. But if you think of it as a meaningful abstract description there's a clear distinction. Brains exist as physical parts in motion, like computers, and we can talk about them as 'processing information'. But there's a difference. Without an experiencing subject finding mental meaning in the symbols, descriptions and representations there's no informing going on. The output from a computer which has never been seen and given meaning is just pixels of different light intensity. (Searle in his Chinese Room thought experiment talks of the computer's processes as synctactical, you need a human who understands the symbols produced for them to convey semantically meaningful information. It's a bit tangential, but it's worth a google if you don't know it - I'm not allowed to post a link).

I do not find that the Chinese Room scenario sheds light on the problem of the difference between a consciousness and a computer. I think that this confuses things because it is not analogous in any way to the way humans find meaning in things or to how current systems process information.

[Pattern-chaser]

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

Yes. Reality is what it is; information about that reality is like an observation or a measurement, in the sense of scientific investigation and exploration.

Reality is the thing; information is observations of that thing.

Is there really more to it than this, when we look closely and carefully?

[psycho]

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

Yes. Reality is what it is; information about that reality is like an observation or a measurement, in the sense of scientific investigation and exploration.

Reality is the thing; information is observations of that thing.

Is there really more to it than this, when we look closely and carefully?

Information is something in reality. Information is reality.

In your mind is an observation of reality and its measurements?

So, information and observation are the same?

[Pattern-chaser]

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

Yes. Reality is what it is; information about that reality is like an observation or a measurement, in the sense of scientific investigation and exploration.

Reality is the thing; information is observations of that thing.

Is there really more to it than this, when we look closely and carefully?

Information is something in reality. Information is reality.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying with your final sentence (above). Information *is* reality?

In your mind is an observation of reality and its measurements?

Sorry, I think this must be mistyped, or some words have been missed out?

So, information and observation are the same?

No. Information is — among other things — the result or outcome of observation.

[psycho]

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

Yes. Reality is what it is; information about that reality is like an observation or a measurement, in the sense of scientific investigation and exploration.

Reality is the thing; information is observations of that thing.

Is there really more to it than this, when we look closely and carefully?

Information is something in reality. Information is reality.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying with your final sentence (above). Information *is* reality?

In your mind is an observation of reality and its measurements?

Sorry, I think this must be mistyped, or some words have been missed out?

So, information and observation are the same?

No. Information is — among other things — the result or outcome of observation.

Reality is everything that exists. The information exists. Information is real. An element that makes up reality. Like the chair.

Since information is undoubtedly part of reality, I ask what is the difference between it and the rest of reality, which is not information. What divides the waters?

You said "information is observations of that thing." Is information is the observation of something?

But now you clarify that "information" also is the result of that observation.

What is information counted all the things that it is?

[Gertie]

Accepting our everyday physicalist view of the world, I view information as an abstract description of things in themselves, rather than being a thing in itself. Things in themselves can exist without being described, but descriptions of those things in themselves need a describer. The information's existence is in the form of the describer's mental processes. (You can eg write information down using words (symbols) on paper, but the ink and paper aren't information, it's the mental meaningful understanding of the word symbols which is informative).

Only within an idealistic interpretation of reality, something can only be abstract.

The information is just description? Particular patterns in data, are they somewhat descriptive?

Genetic information can be described and at the same time it describes something.

So, the information does not exist until the agent includes the data in a description?

I don't think that when you write something, you are including information in that construction. You refer to information (A para-model). That is clearly different. The reference is to information already contained in the receiver. That is the reason why lost languages cannot be deciphered until some shared reference appears.

Experiencing subjects create information as we describe or represent things. Information itself isn't something 'out there' to be collected, except as information communicated by one describer-subject to another (eg reading a book).

For you, information and data are two different things?

I don't believe so, see above.

Any structure of reality can be used to contain information or data. But the characteristics of the structure put a limit to the amount that each one can contain.

Given that information is something that must be contained, how come the limit of the container does not limit the content?

I'd say the latter. I think the relationship between entropy and information is based on how many ways, and what types of ways, there are of describing the actual existing state of affairs. In a simpler, homogenous universe there are fewer ways of describing that universe than in a more complex one. So to say the simpler universe ''contains less information'' is just a metaphorical way of saying there are fewer ways of describing a simpler universe.

The problem is that the information is always contained in the structure of reality. If the structure is degraded (entropy) then the information contained is also degraded.

Do you suppose that there is a way to preserve the information of the effect of entropy?

Yes, see above. A description isn't the thing in itself.

Yeah. I think they are two different things. One results from the process of representing some aspect of reality. An interesting question is what kind of entities are capable of making representations.

These are good questions . ''Information'' and information processing has come to be talked about as if it's something which exists independently in it's own right. But if you think of it as a meaningful abstract description there's a clear distinction. Brains exist as physical parts in motion, like computers, and we can talk about them as 'processing information'. But there's a difference. Without an experiencing subject finding mental meaning in the symbols, descriptions and representations there's no informing going on. The output from a computer which has never been seen and given meaning is just pixels of different light intensity. (Searle in his Chinese Room thought experiment talks of the computer's processes as synctactical, you need a human who understands the symbols produced for them to convey semantically meaningful information. It's a bit tangential, but it's worth a google if you don't know it - I'm not allowed to post a link).

I do not find that the Chinese Room scenario sheds light on the problem of the difference between a consciousness and a computer. I think that this confuses things because it is not analogous in any way to the way humans find meaning in things or to how current systems process information.

To clarify, as I said, this isn't an Idealist case I'm making, I'm accepting physicalism here - that the universe comprises physical stuff interacting with other stuff according to the physical forces of nature. That's it.

Information or data points are descriptions of parts of that stuff of the universe interacting in accordance with natural forces. The stuff and forces are the things in themselves. Descriptions aren't the things they describe, they're abstract mental constructions. Descriptions/information exists therefore in the form of mental states, not the things the information is about.

It's a simple idea. I can describe a tree in a zillion different ways, maybe even every possible way, and I'll know every bit of information about that tree, but it's not the tree. I haven't 'collected' anything from the tree, the tree is still the same, it's not missing its information now I've collected it. Because it doesn't 'contain' information I can 'collect', that's a metaphor, the tree is simply describable. And the descriptive information exists only in my mind. If I forget all that information, the information is gone, but the tree is still the same.

To treat information as an independently existing thing in itself is therefore an error imo. Similarly to treat information as if it has causal properties is an error. It's the stuff of the universe interacting according to natural forces which is 'causative' and creates patterns and systems, whether there's anyone around to describe it or not.

According to physicalism at least, as I understand it.

DNA is presumably the same, when you break it down it's cell stuff acting according to physical forces, like everything else. That cell stuff presumably has no understanding of what it's doing, isn't 'reading a code' and following the instructions which it understands. It's just doing what that particular configuration of cell stuff does. The same as billiard balls don't understand an instruction to collide and refract at certain angles.

If information is a thing in itself which exists independently of subjects like humans who mentally create descriptions, models and representations, if it's a thing in itself 'out there' with causative powers or somesuch, then we live in a very different type of universe than the one described by the physicalist model.

(Sorry you didn't find The Chinese Room helpful, it was tangential but I hoped it might bring out the difference between the physical processes, the stuff in itself, and the meaningful nature of information which can only exist mentally).

[psycho]

Accepting our everyday physicalist view of the world, I view information as an abstract description of things in themselves, rather than being a thing in itself. Things in themselves can exist without being described, but descriptions of those things in themselves need a describer. The information's existence is in the form of the describer's mental processes. (You can eg write information down using words (symbols) on paper, but the ink and paper aren't information, it's the mental meaningful understanding of the word symbols which is informative).

Only within an idealistic interpretation of reality, something can only be abstract.

The information is just description? Particular patterns in data, are they somewhat descriptive?

Genetic information can be described and at the same time it describes something.

So, the information does not exist until the agent includes the data in a description?

I don't think that when you write something, you are including information in that construction. You refer to information (A para-model). That is clearly different. The reference is to information already contained in the receiver. That is the reason why lost languages cannot be deciphered until some shared reference appears.

Experiencing subjects create information as we describe or represent things. Information itself isn't something 'out there' to be collected, except as information communicated by one describer-subject to another (eg reading a book).

For you, information and data are two different things?

I don't believe so, see above.

Any structure of reality can be used to contain information or data. But the characteristics of the structure put a limit to the amount that each one can contain.

Given that information is something that must be contained, how come the limit of the container does not limit the content?

I'd say the latter. I think the relationship between entropy and information is based on how many ways, and what types of ways, there are of describing the actual existing state of affairs. In a simpler, homogenous universe there are fewer ways of describing that universe than in a more complex one. So to say the simpler universe ''contains less information'' is just a metaphorical way of saying there are fewer ways of describing a simpler universe.

The problem is that the information is always contained in the structure of reality. If the structure is degraded (entropy) then the information contained is also degraded.

Do you suppose that there is a way to preserve the information of the effect of entropy?

Yes, see above. A description isn't the thing in itself.

Yeah. I think they are two different things. One results from the process of representing some aspect of reality. An interesting question is what kind of entities are capable of making representations.

These are good questions . ''Information'' and information processing has come to be talked about as if it's something which exists independently in it's own right. But if you think of it as a meaningful abstract description there's a clear distinction. Brains exist as physical parts in motion, like computers, and we can talk about them as 'processing information'. But there's a difference. Without an experiencing subject finding mental meaning in the symbols, descriptions and representations there's no informing going on. The output from a computer which has never been seen and given meaning is just pixels of different light intensity. (Searle in his Chinese Room thought experiment talks of the computer's processes as synctactical, you need a human who understands the symbols produced for them to convey semantically meaningful information. It's a bit tangential, but it's worth a google if you don't know it - I'm not allowed to post a link).

I do not find that the Chinese Room scenario sheds light on the problem of the difference between a consciousness and a computer. I think that this confuses things because it is not analogous in any way to the way humans find meaning in things or to how current systems process information.

To clarify, as I said, this isn't an Idealist case I'm making, I'm accepting physicalism here - that the universe comprises physical stuff interacting with other stuff according to the physical forces of nature. That's it.

Information or data points are descriptions of parts of that stuff of the universe interacting in accordance with natural forces. The stuff and forces are the things in themselves. Descriptions aren't the things they describe, they're abstract mental constructions. Descriptions/information exists therefore in the form of mental states, not the things the information is about.

It's a simple idea. I can describe a tree in a zillion different ways, maybe even every possible way, and I'll know every bit of information about that tree, but it's not the tree. I haven't 'collected' anything from the tree, the tree is still the same, it's not missing its information now I've collected it. Because it doesn't 'contain' information I can 'collect', that's a metaphor, the tree is simply describable. And the descriptive information exists only in my mind. If I forget all that information, the information is gone, but the tree is still the same.

To treat information as an independently existing thing in itself is therefore an error imo. Similarly to treat information as if it has causal properties is an error. It's the stuff of the universe interacting according to natural forces which is 'causative' and creates patterns and systems, whether there's anyone around to describe it or not.

According to physicalism at least, as I understand it.

DNA is presumably the same, when you break it down it's cell stuff acting according to physical forces, like everything else. That cell stuff presumably has no understanding of what it's doing, isn't 'reading a code' and following the instructions which it understands. It's just doing what that particular configuration of cell stuff does. The same as billiard balls don't understand an instruction to collide and refract at certain angles.

If information is a thing in itself which exists independently of subjects like humans who mentally create descriptions, models and representations, if it's a thing in itself 'out there' with causative powers or somesuch, then we live in a very different type of universe than the one described by the physicalist model.

(Sorry you didn't find The Chinese Room helpful, it was tangential but I hoped it might bring out the difference between the physical processes, the stuff in itself, and the meaningful nature of information which can only exist mentally).

So, what is contained in a chromosome is not information. (not a description).

A digital file is not information either. It's just a structure magnetically formed on a metal surface. In the case of a hard drive. Or distributed electronically in the case of a screen.

For it to be information, would it need human interpretation?

In other words, is information a human construction?

One can imagine circumstances in which other natural processes (not dependent on humans) can build information (structures that describe something)? Would a human notice that one description came from a human and the other didn't?

If those processes existed, would their product be information?

[Gertie]

So, what is contained in a chromosome is not information. (not a description).

A digital file is not information either. It's just a structure magnetically formed on a metal surface. In the case of a hard drive. Or distributed electronically in the case of a screen.

For it to be information, would it need human interpretation?

In other words, is information a human construction?

Yes that's how I see it.  The physical stuff and physical processes of a chromosone and a computer per physicalism are what's going on, independently of if there's a mind to observe or describe it.   But  we minded subjects can conceptualise abstractly about what's going on too, and metaphorically say the chromosone or computer 'contains encoded information which makes two legs grow' or whatever.  But it's a mistake to think of information as a thing in itself with its own causal power, it's the physical processes which are mind independent and doing the causal work.  

However information  can be causal in the sense that minded subjects communicate and act on information, or manipulate it to extrapolate, note patterns and create predictive theories  and so on, if it's a meaningful conceptualisation about whatever it represents.  Information is still always about something else tho, it doesn't exist if it's stripped of what it describes. There's no such thing as contentless information, and I'm saying the content is  description.

One can imagine circumstances in which other natural processes (not dependent on humans) can build information (structures that describe something)? Would a human notice that one description came from a human and the other didn't?

If those processes existed, would their product be information?

Sorry I can't envisage what you're getting at? 

[psycho]

So, what is contained in a chromosome is not information. (not a description).

A digital file is not information either. It's just a structure magnetically formed on a metal surface. In the case of a hard drive. Or distributed electronically in the case of a screen.

For it to be information, would it need human interpretation?

In other words, is information a human construction?

Yes that's how I see it.  The physical stuff and physical processes of a chromosone and a computer per physicalism are what's going on, independently of if there's a mind to observe or describe it.   But  we minded subjects can conceptualise abstractly about what's going on too, and metaphorically say the chromosone or computer 'contains encoded information which makes two legs grow' or whatever.  But it's a mistake to think of information as a thing in itself with its own causal power, it's the physical processes which are mind independent and doing the causal work.  

However information  can be causal in the sense that minded subjects communicate and act on information, or manipulate it to extrapolate, note patterns and create predictive theories  and so on, if it's a meaningful conceptualisation about whatever it represents.  Information is still always about something else tho, it doesn't exist if it's stripped of what it describes. There's no such thing as contentless information, and I'm saying the content is  description.

One can imagine circumstances in which other natural processes (not dependent on humans) can build information (structures that describe something)? Would a human notice that one description came from a human and the other didn't?

If those processes existed, would their product be information?

Sorry I can't envisage what you're getting at? 

Does a photograph describe some aspect of reality?

Is a photograph information?

Is a photograph only interpretable by human beings?

If an animal interprets what is shown by a photograph, does that mean that the information is not only interpreted by humans? (Research shows sheep selectively reacting to photos of their herders when they are among a group of photos of people the sheep don't know.)

---

On the other hand, when I build a physical three-dimensional model of something real, do I create information? That model is information?
Is this model only interpretable by humans? Could something alive interpret what is represented in the model?

If I create a model of a car (life-size) and place it where an autonomous vehicle travels, when the autonomous vehicle processes data from that item and uses it as a factor to change its route, the model or the data digitized by the vehicle autonomous are information?

[Gertie]

Does a photograph describe some aspect of reality?
Is a photograph information?
Is a photograph only interpretable by human beings?
If an animal interprets what is shown by a photograph, does that mean that the information is not only interpreted by humans? (Research shows sheep selectively reacting to photos of their herders when they are among a group of photos of people the sheep don't know.)

The photos are physical things in themselves, I'd say the information isn't the material configuration of the photographic paper or screen, that's just the physical properties of the stuff. But that configuration has informational meaning to the minded subjects (human and sheep) who look at them. And in the mind of the photographer, not the camera.

Otherwise information is 'out there' as a thing in itself independant of any meaning it has to us, and we are literally observing physical information, not literal physical trees and photographic paper. But per physicalism at least, that's not what's 'out there', what's out there is a universe of literal physical stuff and processes (there's no column in the Standard Model for information). Maybe there's an argument which demonstrates my physicalist interpretation is mistaken, but that's how I see it. So what would such an argument be?

On the other hand, when I build a physical three-dimensional model of something real, do I create information? That model is information?
Is this model only interpretable by humans? Could something alive interpret what is represented in the model?

It's informational to any living minded subject who gains some meaning from the photo or model. It's not information to the ground it's placed on (as far as we know), it just interacts physically with the table or road. Because information is a conceptualised description or representaion of things in themselves, which only exists in minds imo.

If I create a model of a car (life-size) and place it where an autonomous vehicle travels, when the autonomous vehicle processes data from that item and uses it as a factor to change its route, the model or the data digitized by the vehicle autonomous are information?

Not for the car or model, but the minded designer of the autonomous car was using encoded information (a mental understanding of the properties and processes of the materials) to avoid collisions, and you were similarly using information to design your model. The car and the model have no concept of information, they're just following the laws of nature in ways minded designers manipulate to achieve particular results.

That's a common way we use information - we experientially note how the physical world works, develop abstract theories from patterns which predictively hold (until they don't and we adjust the theory), and use the theories to design novel artefacts which don't occur in nature. The artefact itself is just stuff doing what stuff does, we haven't added an invisible ingredient called information to the parts, we've only arranged those parts based on how we see the world works, to cause a desired result.

I'm moving the location of information from a something 'out there' existing independently in the world which we observe, to something which experiencing subjects do as we descriptively and meaningfully represent that world. From being located in Searle's syntactical physical processes, to the mind's creative conceptualisation of the semantic meaning of the symbols. From the location of the physical properties of a tree, to the meaning of experientially seeing a tree's shape and colour, tasting the apple, understanding how tree DNA works, how I feel about having to learn about tree DNA for an exam, forgetting some bits, and so on. All that experiential informationy stuff is going on in my mind, not the tree.

It might be that the underlying reality is that something different is actually going on, but this is a physicalist interpretation of information. Which talks about seeing the shape and colour of a tree as physical photons hitting eyeballs, causing physical interactions of neurons and somehow a descriptive representation of the tree emerging as mental experience. That is the informational process of the physical tree becoming known to me. As far as we know, photographic paper and computerised cars have no mental representations or knowledge of their processes, they just behave like they do because we design the parts that way.

My question to you would be, per physicalism - if information exists as a thing in itself out in the physical world independent of mind, what does information exist as, which isn't physical stuff, properties and processes?

[Pattern-chaser]

So, information and observation are the same?

No. Information is — among other things — the result or outcome of observation.

You said "information is observations of that thing." Is information is the observation of something?

But now you clarify that "information" also is the result of that observation.

No, not "also". I clarified my original meaning, when it became clear that my meaning was unclear.

Reality is everything that exists. The information exists. Information is real. An element that makes up reality. Like the chair.

Yes. But not like the chair. The view you offer is an unusual one. I would agree with it, to some extent, but many do not. I think that things like 'information' have actual existence; Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes have actual existence too, but this is another kind of existence.

Perhaps we can say that the 'base level' of our understanding of existence is physical existence, if only because physical existence is what we first think of when 'existence' comes up in conversation. This is where some philosophers stop, but we continue a little way further. Concepts like information, knowledge, or gravity have existence too, but their existence is clearly not physical or tangible. Fictional characters from stories and myths also exist, but again, not physically or tangibly.

One obvious difference between physical existence and non-physical existence is that the former may be mind-independent, whereas the latter is clearly not. If all the minds disappeared, the non-physical things we have considered cease to exist. They are mind-dependent.

I think it would be a mistake to consider these mind-dependent things to have a lesser existence, but it would also be a mistake not to note and accept the obvious difference(s), IMO. Some will say, I'm sure, that these things do not 'exist', and I would not argue with them. There would be no point or gain. But if we don't use the word "existence" to describe these things, what word would/should we use instead?