o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o John, and All,
Yes. The problem is not (so much) with the standard definitions of things like information (or its evil twin, entropy) as with the attempt to apply these abstractions in decontextualized ways, or to use them in contexts that are too impoverished to support their minimal requirements for making sense. Pragmatic thinkers of the (requisite?) Peircean variety would say that the minimal context is an extended 3-adic "sign relation" -- think of it as a relational setting that consists of a sufficient wealth of <object, sign, sign'> or <object, sign, interpretant sign> triples -- a 2-adic relation is too flat to carry the volume of meaningfulness. The systematic process in question is called "interpretation" and the "to whom it may concern", if you wish to hypostatize an agent for the process, is called the "interpreter". Jon Awbrey o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o John BeVier wrote: > > Francis, > Your message to Seth strikes me as illuminating the effects > of "incomplete definitions." In order to have relevant communications > operationally defined, one must realize the operation exists and that the > word "relevant" means communications with respect to the operation. So, > we must define information in terms of the context in which it exists. > So, Shannon's model of receiver and transmitter is an insufficient context > within which to define the word "information." We must add the system within > which the receiver and transmitter exist. Bateson's definition is all the > more satisfying as well since it now answers the question "Makes a > difference to what?" The system process of interest is, of course, the > answer. And, the telephone book, if sent with respect to the system process > involving the Rx and Tx is relevant to the degree it relates to the process > under question. > Many "conundrums" evaporate in the light of additional information. > All definitions require a context. In this case, the Rx and Tx are related > to each other in a systems process sense and the definition of the process > will illuminate both and their messages as well. The key is "operationally." > > John L. BeVier > > John L. BeVier & Associates, LLC > 1350 Governor Bridge Road > Davidsonville, MD 21035 > 410-798-4055 > 410-279-0296 cell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Francis > Heylighen > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Principia Cybernetica Discussion List; Evolution, Complexity and > Cognition group; Cybernetics Discussion Group > Subject: [pcp-discuss:] Relational philosophy of information > > Seth: > >I was just thinking and came to somewhat of a conundrum. In the ever > >unsuccessful attempts to try to operationally define information, > >aside from Shannon and Weiner identification of it with entropy (I > >know its not exactly identical, but you know what I mean) the real > >problem occurs in trying to define it in terms of something else. > >What do we define information in terms of, matter? Energy? What does > >this mean? > > What about Bateson's famous definition of information as "a > difference that makes a difference"? The "difference" concepts refers > to Shannon's "syntactical" view which defines information in terms of > the possible number of states that a message could have (the more > states, the more differences, the more potential information). The > "making a difference" can be seen as referring to the "pragmatical" > dimension of information: the message should not only be > distinguishable, but relevant or meaningful, i.e. it should make a > difference for the receiver, helping the receiver to make this > decision rather than that one, and thus achieving a better or more > desirable situation. > > For example, if someone sends me the New York telephone book, but I > don't know anybody in New York and am not planning to go there, this > message contains a lot of information in the Shannon, syntactic > sense, but none in the Bateson, pragmatic sense. I might as well > have received several megabytes of random numbers and letters. On the > other hand, if I was desperately trying to trace a person of whom I > only know the name and the fact that she lives in New York, the > message may be a godsend, and make a huge difference to my life. > > >Do we go the route of Fredkin and just insist information is the > >fundamental in which everything else is defined by? > > The "difference that makes a difference" can also be interpreted in a > more metaphysical, ontological sense as describing the fundamentally > relational nature of reality: no phenomenon (difference) can exist on > its own , it must somehow be related (covary) with some other > phenomenon (another difference). This is actually the basis of my own > philosophy and its "bootstrapping axiom", which says that > distinctions (differences) are not given, but produce each other. It > builds further on Leibniz's principle of the "the identity of the > indistinguishables". See http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/IDENINDI.html > > In that sense, information (or rather relationality) is the > fundamental in terms of which everything else is defined (including > matter and energy). However, this is not the Shannon information > which consists of independent "bits", but the Bateson one that > consists of mutually dependent differences. > > > I'm not sure yet exactly how this ties in with a global brain, but > > you never know where inspiration will come from, you know? I just > > want to see what other people think? > > The relation with the GB is of course that the GB is one huge network > of relations along which information propagates, and as such merely a > more complex organization emerging out of the simpler relational > networks that have been existing all along... The intelligence of the > GB consists in recognizing which differences make the more important > differences, thus allowing it to filter out the meaning out of the > sea of data. > -- > > Francis Heylighen > Center "Leo Apostel" > Free University of Brussels > http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html > ======================================== o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
