"information" describes the present state* of a system which belongs to an interaction**. In other words, information is stored in the configuration that the physical matter of a system adopts when it interacts with something else. — Daniel

:smile: :up:

I do not agree with Pop on the statement that "everything is information" — Daniel

:sad:

This is what the Mass-energy-information equivalence principle tells us.

The question is. How is "anything" different to information?

How about : "Enformy is Energy with a purpose"?
Or, “Enformy : the motivating and guiding force behind the self-organizing process of Natural Evolution". — Gnomon

:up: Yes that would do it.

But, the philosophical notion of an intentional First Cause seems to be unavoidable. — Gnomon

Yes I agree. I also see the Anthropic principle as doing much the same thing. As you say it is a guess, but it fits so logically into the bigger picture I see.


I have built a model, assuming monism, and neural correlation, that describes reality as a progression of form. Rather abstract from a human perspective, but perhaps meaningful in terms of what the universe needs to exist. To exist it needs form. And then everything within it is an informing.

You are describing an order from disorder - correctly, however it is a "forming" that represents order. Increasingly more complex form is what is occurring, imo.

In this view matter is an informational body that grows and grows in complexity. And in this process emerges new function, rather than new properties as it is normally understood. It is a bit of a shake up of how it is normally understood, but this way it fits. A forming is going on, where formless quantum foam moves to form and develops in complexity through an increasingly more complex forming process.

Put this way information has a “definition” Information enables the interaction of form.
To me, this definition describes the need for form to interact with form. Form interacting with form captures everything, except the forces of the universe. They act to cause this. The integrated laws of the universe act to cause the interrelational self organization of form.

Ordinarily information lacks a definition, and has various definitions in different situations, but understood as something that enables forming, has a single definition that fits all those instances where it is variously defined. Shannon's information, as well as Pierces, is captured by information enables the interaction of form. Shannon information talks about a sender unit and a receiver unit. In the process of information, the sender unit changes the receiver unit, information enables the interaction of the two forms.

This is the singular thing information does. Enables the interaction of forms. This is the overriding process - rather dehumanizing :sad: . But how we relate to this, within the process, is how it is normally understood. Enactivism, as I understand it, paints a picture of a mind sitting behind a Shannon receiver unit. Receiving it's information from it's neurobiology. The mind is rather solipsistic in this setup, but is totally free to be what it understands itself to be. Whilst physically it is very much constrained and embedded in the informing process of a physical world, it is free to relate to its neurobiology as it sees fit! :lol: I love it, as this explains the freedom and variety and malleability of sanity that we see.

I am assuming neural correlates to all information
— Pop

is also mistaken.

The fallacy behind all of this, or the point that is not being seen, is that it relies on a mental image of being a subject in a world, and 'the world' being 'represented' in the brain/mind of the subject in terms of impressions. That comes straight from John Locke, whose representative realism is so deeply part of our day-to-day culture that we don't recognise its source. — Wayfarer

Well I would love to hear how it could work without neural correlates. And at the same time what is the purpose of all this energy zapping baggage between our ears?

Thanks for that. My question would be, If consciousness was possible in the quantum state, why the need for matter?

There is no evidence of an immaterial information anywhere?
— Pop
I assume you mean physical evidence. Yes, there is. Emotions are responses in the form of wavelengths (physical) produced by non-material information (e.g. thought). — Alkis Piskas

Sorry, I missed this. There is no agreement as to what emotions are. There are many theories. One thing that is generally agreed upon is that emotions are different to information in that they cannot be stored like information can.

In my understanding emotions are the force we feel that causes a system to integrate. The effect of forces can be described, but the forces themselves are invisible. So you got me there, forces may indeed be immaterial. :up: :smile: In QM they are mediated by Bosons, so maybe you haven't got me entirely?

and the information content would be represented by the amount of change in the neural state.
— Pop

I like this. Good point. I think you are saying input or a message sent may not be fully received. — Mark Nyquist

Yeah. Maybe so. In some sense a mind kind of sits behind a sensing / receiver unit, noting differences in its state. The differences are information. Normally the differences noticed or focused on are the unexpected differences.

I think the important thing to understand is that we are not describing, nor can we describe the actual details of neurobiology, but we are conceptualizing what might be the case. IIT uses this approach. By contrasting differences in mental state, we can isolate the new information content. Hey - you did this in an earlier post. :smile:

That seems agreeable with the notion of logos and when you study the information that is in the form, you can be conscious of it, right? — Athena

Yes. without that form, there would be no information. It is the fact that something has form, that allows us to interact with it. The form changes the patterning of our brain somehow. This change that the form imposes on our brain patterning, at a subconscious level, embeds us in a meaningful exchange with the object. If mind is a state of integrated information, then a disturbance to that state is more information.

If we accept that information is fundamental, then this process of mutual change between systems ( objects, people ) is what happens in every transaction that can possibly happen in the universe at any scale. Information enables the interaction of form - says to me: because something has form it is able to interact with another something that has form. A change in that form is information.

If something has no form, then it has no information - so cannot effect a change in our neural patterning.

What you mean is, to put it in terms you can picture — Wayfarer

Yes, that is right. The process is Form > interaction > change > form > interaction > change..........on and on. I am assuming neural correlates to all information. Form would be a state of integrated information of mind, and the information content would be represented by the amount of change in the neural state.

This is similar to the Shannon model, where information content is measured as the difference of the normal state, as compared to the state containing information. We can also say information is the amount of change to the normal state. The white of this page is the normal state, punctuated by lettered disturbances to it that are information. But then, the patterning of the letters and grammar and concepts contained within also contains a normality punctuated by conceptual disturbances, as experienced in the recipient of the message.

This is an assumption, that a system is already recognised and distinguished prior to interaction (by whom?). It’s the interaction that exists prior, and these properties that interact consist of unattributed quality, taking on form only with interaction, by structuring different quality according to pre-existing logic. — Possibility

This is true, but we have to describe it somehow. There are certain attributes necessary before information can take place, such as form, interaction, and change. Of course we don't find ourselves at the beginning of any process, but in the midst of it.

How do we go from vagueness to form without an assumption of differentiated systems? — Possibility

The quantum foam has to develop to form. Without form there is no information, so no interaction is possible. Daniel posted a good video earlier in the thread.

Neural patterning is not static. Change for neural patterning is the norm, and therefore not informative in itself. When we look at a rock, any change in neural patterning that amounts to information is limited to variability in relation to what we expect from the experience. — Possibility

At it's simplest you can discern a difference, of neural patterning. Sure you have seen plenty of rocks so wont look too closely, but you need enough information ( neural change ) to predict a rock. It is very much a predictive process.

So we can look at a rock without experiencing any change in neural patterning that would amount to information at that level. — Possibility

No, I don't think so. Try shutting your eyes and opening them. Or turn your head to the side. Its quite different. Of course the environment is probably memorized and so you will not see anything new that can draw your focus.

So good to get some relevant engagement.

As I understand it, Information comes in many forms. — Gnomon

Exactly, everything is information ( something singular ) that has many forms.

You cited the mass-energy-information principle paper previously. Another way to state this principle is to say - everything is energy. I am saying everything is information, and then I'm trying to describe how it works. In the first person point of view, everything is information - there is no getting away from this!

I guess you missed this, it answers a lot of your questions, and where my thinking is at:

A lot of evidence has been provided that information is a fundamental quantity. That it is much more then what we normally understand information to be. That information is everything! The below tries to illustrate how information works as a fundamental quantity.

A system ( or any object / being ) has its properties, perturbations, characteristics, persona, etc without which it couldn't be recognized and distinguished from other systems. These properties are the things that interact, when interacting with another system ( or person or object or anything ).

These properties can all be reduced to the concept of form. So form is a precondition of interaction. Without form there could be no interaction. Without form a substance can not be! From there we have an interaction, and this interaction causes a change in form ( change in the properties of the system ) - when we look at a rock, we experience a change in our neural patterning.

This is all that ever happens in this universe ( that information causes change to form ), and it is a precondition for the universe. The Universe, to exist, needs to have form, and needs to be interrelated and connected, acting upon itself and giving form to itself. Hence all of its component parts are in the same act, including ourselves. The definition : "Information enables the interaction of form", describes the role of information in the universe. It is a fundamental quality / quantity - connecting a formed universe that is interacting and evolving.

I'm trying to get at the fact that information is present in every transaction in the universe ( this being a result of it being fundamental ) but we are normally blind to it.

"Form" here can be any characteristic whatsoever - form is endlessly variable and open ended. Our consciousness is the form of our mind - it is often referred to as a state of "integrated information". Form is "integrated information", and information effects a change to it.

Any philosophy that is out of touch with this, is out of touch with fundamental reality, and sadly due to this being a fairly recent observation most philosophies are.


Your enformy is fine for your purpose. I need something simpler. Something in a few words.

I guess the easiest thing would be to find an instance where the definition doesn't work? I just work it out metaphysically and make a broad sweep on the basis of that.

If you could be bothered, I would be grateful, anybody? Information enables the interaction of form

Wow, this is a challenge. I still don't think I am getting your meaning. I looked for the meaning of "casual" and got this "not regular or permanent". Is that the correct meaning for the way you use that word? Information is not regular or permanent? — Athena

I must take blame. It is a challenge to follow the story given all of the irrelevant posts. Perhaps I'll start another thread. :lol:

A lot of evidence has been provided that information is a fundamental quantity. That it is much more then what we normally understand information to be. That information is everything! The below tries to illustrate how information works as a fundamental quantity.

A system ( or any object / being ) has its properties, perturbations, characteristics, persona, etc without which it couldn't be recognized and distinguished from other systems. These properties are the things that interact, when interacting with another system ( or person or object or anything ).

These properties can all be reduced to the concept of form. So form is a precondition of interaction. Without form there could be no interaction. Without form a substance can not be! From there we have an interaction, and this interaction causes a change in form ( change in the properties of the system ) - when we look at a rock, we experience a change in our neural patterning.

This is all that ever happens in this universe ( that information causes change to form ), and it is a precondition for the universe. The Universe, to exist, needs to have form, and needs to be interrelated and connected, acting upon itself and giving form to itself. Hence all of its component parts are in the same act, including ourselves. The definition : "Information enables the interaction of form", describes the role of information in the universe. It is a fundamental quality / quantity - connecting a formed universe that is interacting and evolving.

I'm trying to get at the fact that information is present in every transaction in the universe ( this being a result of it being fundamental ) but we are normally blind to it, and this thread largely remains blind to it :angry:

"Form" here can be any characteristic whatsoever - form is endlessly variable and open ended. Our consciousness is the form of our mind - it is often referred to as a state of "integrated information". Form is "integrated information", and information effects a change to it.

Any philosophy that is out of touch with this, is out of touch with fundamental reality, and sadly due to this being a fairly recent observation most are.

You mean the means by which information is transferred and in which it is stored, right? I am referring though to the content of the information. — Alkis Piskas

Information always exists embedded in a substance, as the perturbations of a substance. Thoughts have their neural correlates.

There is no evidence of an immaterial information anywhere?

What do you think of this as a definition of information?

"Information enables the interaction of form"

In cognitive science,
this means that we must call into question the idea that information exists ready-made in the world and
that it is extracted by a cognitive system, as the cognitivist notion of an informavore vividly implies.” — Joshs

The first thing we need is a definition of information, so we can all be certain we are talking about the same thing. I think we might just have one now - it requires lots of probing and poking to see if it can prevail: "Information enables the interaction of form"

If patterns act as controls , constraints, to effect changes in other entities or patterns such that they deserve the label ‘information’, then a sign and referent , subject and object , representer and represented are implied. — Joshs

No, the subject object relationship is not necessarily implied, provided meaning is understood as a construction / connection of form. Which I am attempting to do. Please see my post to Daniel above.

It is not an arbitrary relation. Form and the relationships of form are a logical precondition for the existence of the universe. No form, no universe, but then the form has to relate and interact with all other form - it has to evolve. Information enables this. Form is infinitely variable, but the underlying metaphysics is constant. Every post in this forum only varies in form!

In cognitive science,
this means that we must call into question the idea that information exists ready-made in the world and
that it is extracted by a cognitive system, as the cognitivist notion of an informavore vividly implies.” — Joshs

- this statement implies a lack of understanding of what information is. Understandably so as it currently is a variable mental construct.

All of this changes once we have a definition of information, and we understand that what is going on is an evolution of form. Once one accepts that form is inherently meaningful, then much of what you have brought up is solved.

To be honest I do not understand quite well what you mean by form. I also don't understand when you say that information is causal. To me, information is not a requirement for anything; instead, the term describes a change in the configuration of a system, a change that results from an interaction. — Daniel

A system has its properties, perturbations, characteristics without which it couldn't be recognized and distinguished from other systems. These properties are the things that interact, when interacting with another system

These properties can all be reduced to the concept of form. So form is a precondition of interaction. Without form there could be no interaction. From there we have an interaction, and this interaction causes a change in form ( change in the properties of the system ).

This is all that can happen in this universe, and it is a precondition for the universe. The definition : "Information enables the interaction of form", describes the role of information in the universe. It is a fundamental quality / quantity - connecting a formed universe that is interacting and evolving.

We did it Dude!! :up: :strong: I think the definition is irreducible and universally applicable. It captures all information in every possible situation?? This is what we have to test now. Can form change without information? It makes no sense.... Would you mind probing and poking it for cracks?

"Enactivism" is a new term (to me) for an old concept : interaction, communion. And it seems to be relevant to Information Theory, in that it implies inter-relationship, which is the invisible pattern of links between things. It's that pattern of relationships (metaphysical structure) that constitutes Meaning in a mind. Ironically, our mental image of reality is built mainly from those invisible, immaterial connections between physical things. It's as-if, Reason can "see" intangible energy (information) exchanges between nodes (neurons) in a physical pattern (brain). So yes, I'll explore this further.. :nerd: — Gnomon

I'm glad to hear it. :up: It is intuitive to think of mind as something immaterial, but it can also be described as something electrical. This way we can think of it in a monistic manner. Then everything has regular properties which can be used to infer about processes that we cannot observe. This is roughly what those papers , previously linked, are calling for. We are inhibited by a Cartesian way of thinking, and to expand our thinking we need a slight shift in paradigm....... In Yogic Logic, a shift in paradigm is enlightenment :starstruck:

What do you think of the Definition? Information enables the interaction of form

because it is an interaction, such limit depends to some extent on the system itself. — Daniel

I think you are really talking form here. The form a system possesses interacts with the form of another system to effect a mutual change in form? But it needn't be mutual, as only when change is effected does information occur?

The requirements for interaction are form. That is what we recognize in something that we can interact with- HEY- from the first person point of view, that we recognize form means we can interact with it. When we do it causes a change in us ( neural correlates ).

So. Information enables the interaction of form.??

So, a concise definition would be, roughly, information is change in a system which amount (the amount of change) is bounded (dependent) to some extent by the effect of the system on its interacting partners. — Daniel

When we add the view that "everything is information", we can conclude that all that can happen in this universe is the interaction of form. Form is endlessly variable. What do you think?

"Everything is information because information enables the interaction of form".

I think we have captured all information?

Is it a quality or a quantity?

So, a concise definition would be, roughly, information is change in a system which amount (the amount of change) is bounded (dependent) to some extent by the effect of the system on its interacting partners.

Edit: Information is a limit to the amount of change a system can undergo which arises due to the system being part of an interaction; and because it is an interaction, such limit depends to some extent on the system itself. — Daniel

This is good. :up:
So, for information to occur, these are the requirements:

1. Form
2. Interaction
3. Change
4.

Can anybody add to this?

Ouch, I am not understanding what you said. Can you reword that?

From my perspective, the information is in the rock if we are conscious of it or not. — Athena

Sorry that must have been confusing. I'm trying to define information, and you said something that made me realize that information is causal. In monism, rocks have their neural correlates - the usual counter is that correlates are not causal, BUT information is!

So I realized from your comment that information causes neural correlates.....Thank you. :up:

Information in the third person point of view is an internal representation - which you are talking about.

Information in the first person point of view is a causal process - the qualities the rock possesses travel via light waves to effect a change in our neural state. Thus informing us physically.

What do you think? — Joshs

I think you have been very tactful and kind. Thank you. On reading back on my comments I can see I led @Possibility astray a little in not emphasizing that the interaction is two way, and that a self is an artifact of this interaction, rather then something standing outside looking on. I am foaming at the bit to explain the self, and the third and first person point of view in enactivism. This is the most brilliant piece of theory that I have every come across. It gave me such joy to understand it.

I think constructivism is firmly embedded in enactivism, but it is not really a brick like knowledge building, so much as an organic informational body that interacts with incoming information to construct a world view from which emerges a self concept and direction. All the while there exists an informational physical forming as neuroplasticity - that is never static, but a building onto of already established form, whilst at the same time we can introspect on our expandng understanding - it doesn't make sense not to equate the two.

What this forming is precisely, how it becomes meaningful - we can never reach it's essence, just like we can never reach the essence of anything - we can only ever be informed about it! This needs to be considered?

Because we can not reach anything's essence we have to conceptualize what is going on at some level.
I think the approach by IIT is good in many ways. Of course here we are talking about an internal language. An internal interaction. Integrated information is an artefact of the system, but it is all we have to work with. :smile: I'm still trying to understand the finer details of enactivism. A lot of it I like, but some of it does not fit established understanding. :lol:

The thread is making some progress in equating formed structure and meaning generally. We have found form and information are fundamental, so this might be relevant to the picture of why neuroplasticity is meaningful?

The rough impression is that new form has to fit old form in order to be meaningful, If it does not then it is meaningless, and lost - this is similar to Shannon entropy. I think the concept of information is relevant to enactivism, and I can not see that anybody has explored it from this perspective specifically? Does enactivism have a definition of information?

↪Pop
Red Pill moment
— Pop
I had to Google this. It's a reference to the 1999 film "the Matrix". — Mark Nyquist

:up:

Again, concise, basic, original definitions... that would be fun. — Daniel

I'm glad your back. Yes, I have tried to encourage something of the sort, but these threads are "self organizing" it seems. :lol:

I would like to define information in general, but now I'm particularly interested in information in the Enactive world. I don't believe the Enactive world has been explored from the perspective of information? So it might be fun, and also we might discover something new - who knows?

if information depends on interaction, it would be interesting to discuss what in the interaction leads to the emergence of information so that we can say that information is the result of this type of change or that type of change. Discussing the dynamics of change (rates of change) that produce information would certainly help us find general characteristic of information. — Daniel

Sounds good to me. Would you mind kicking it off and I'll follow up and try to encourage others to.

You have my views from previous posts. Roughly speaking.......information - the forming of a substance is what is going on from metaphysical base all the way to the top. Information forms us vertically up, and then also laterally. Interaction and information are inseparable. We are describing Platonic form interacting and giving form to the world through infomation.

Your thoughts?


ps. I will try to summarize the "informational" aspect of the thread once its momentum fizzles out, so don't think its all a waste of time. I'm determined to get somewhere though it may take some time.

Information is merely relations between physical entities viewed from our modeling perspective, a distinctly human formal causality.
— Pop

Do you mean that there's no non-physical information? What about abstract elements, like numbers, concepts, etc. They cannot be used as information? — Alkis Piskas

That was one of a variety of definitions presented in the OP. I believe you are quoting @Enrique there.

I believe information always has a physical basis, either as frequency or vibration, or the patterning of something.

I think that you assign to ‘information’ the role that is assigned to ‘citta’ in Indian religions. It’s like you’ve had an ‘aha!’ experience - not saying it’s not real - and that you’re translating that into the jargon of information science, or trying to. That’s what I think is going on here. — Wayfarer

Thanks for that. I'll look into it. This is the view of enactivism, which I appropriate in my understanding.
There are parallels between yogic understanding and enactivism. The way Enactivism understands the self is particularly beautiful in regard to the concept of enlightenment. In Eastern religion / philosophy as you would know, the self is destroyed and rebuilt, in a process that takes years. Enactivism can do this in five minutes, and hand you back your self fully intact, but with far greater possibility.

It is a Red Pill moment for those who buy into enactivism.

Yes. But this isn't metaphysics exactly. It's that conservation of information has turned out to be the crux of a problem with the way we understand black holes.

As what's his name said: reality is the stuff we can't do without. I think a lot of the preoccupation with trying to sort that out in terms of substances comes from emotional problems with religion and a desire to thwart it on all fronts no matter the cost in terms of making sense. On the other hand there are those eager to push metaphysics into the forefront because they want to license some sort of spirituality. — frank

People interpret metaphysics differently. For me, it is the underlying logic that enables subsequent construction. Wave theory, QM, etc are metaphysical to me. And yes, as you suggest, there is talk of a substance, normally matter, as being fundamental in the Empirical view, but what we are seeing broadly is a kickback against that view, as being an impediment to understanding, particuarly in biology, but also in physics ( zeilinger ).

So this is philosophy of science, not science per se. Biology mostly gets its money from the powerful pharmaceutical industry. Biologists are free to use whatever paradigms work for them. They don't answer to anyone but industry executives who couldn't care less about philosophy. Biologists are in charge of the conversation, not physicists, and certainly not philosophers. — frank

Yeah, there are all sorts of political, social, economic, etc vested interests at play. In recent years technology has provided insights into what is occurring at the deep cellular level , and as that knowledge spreads it is hard to ignore the sophistication of the "mind" at work at that level. The chemical mechanical paradigm just can not cut it, so there is a push to extricate from it - which would have far reaching consequences, imo, for the better. The originators of enactivism are almost all biologists come philosophers. They started the embodied movement in the late 70s early 80s , and now their view is being largely validated through the latest findings, which are being distributed widely through Youtube, etc. So there is some momentum for a change in paradigm. Of course it is not something we will see any time soon.

Not in a reductionist sense, though. We are not one with the exchange, but only with a part of it. The question is, which part? — Possibility

No, consciousness is whole. It is integrated whole information. We cannot slice that in half. Note, the external world is represented by neural patterning somehow. Information of the external world acts upon us to cause a patterning of brain matter - this patterning is identical to the external world. It is a nonsense to think we can extricate ourselves from our neurological state.

This is the issue - Information becomes you - in a physical way. Which also means you inform the world just as it informs you.

Enactive in this context simply means that we are part of any interaction, and cannot objectively talk about ‘information’ without including ourselves — Possibility

:up: We cannot extract ourselves. The exchange and ourselves, to some extent, become one.

Information is that which gives us form, and our most recent form is consciousness?

I mentioned before that metaphysics isnt my bag. I don't really have a lot of philosophical baggage. :razz: No metaphysics, no theory of meaning. — frank

That information has to be in the mix is well recognized in Zeilingers quantum randomness and information: abstract: ,

"in 1999, one of us (A.Z.) has put forward an idea which connects the concept of information with the notion of elementary systems. For the subsequent line of thought, we first have to make ourselves awareof the fact that our description of the physical world is represented by propositions, i.e. by logical statements about it. These propositions concern classical measurement results. Therefore, the measurement results must be irreducible primitives of any interpretation. And second, that we have knowledge or information about an objectonly through observations, i.e. by interrogating nature through yes-no questions.It does not make any sense to
talk about reality without the INFORMATION about it[/b"] - - my bold and Caps.

This is quite similar to

"We need therefore a paradigm that goes beyond the two present paradigms of biology. A paradigm that fully accepts the implications of the existence of the genetic code. The implication that life is based on copying and coding, that both biological sequences (organic information) and biological coding rules (organic meaning) are fundamental observables that are as essential to life as the fundamental quantities of physics. This is the code paradigm, the idea that ‘life is chemistry plus information plus codes’." - Barbieri 2016.

In short, they are both roughly proposing, as do the other 20 papers, that information is a fundamental quantity in its own right. The Empirical world assumes a fundamental substance ( matter ) and information about it. The enactive world says the substance and observer are enacted in their interaction.


Enactivism
"Enactivism is a position in cognitive science that argues that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. ... "Organisms do not passively receive information from their environments, which they then translate into internal representations."

Sorry bout the bold, editor has gone haywire.

I think meaning is supposed to be a constituent of semantic information. So how can it create meaning? — frank

Semantic information is already a constructed meaningful informational structure. Further information has to fit this established structure in order to be meaningful. If it cannot fit, then it is meaningless - Shannon entropy describes something like this, I believe.

I doubt QM contains information. Think double slit experiment. It only becomes meaningful at the point of measurement / observation. prior to that it is probabilistic. I'm thinking Feynman and his proposal that the bucky ball goes everywhere in the universe. Most of what we know of QM is top down theory.
I am hardly an authority in this area - just a punter.

From the perspective of the Standard Model and CERN, and Quantum Field Theory I cannot see any problems. Wave theory is where this understanding started.

I guess consciousness is in the background of this line of thought because we're talking stuff that's knowable in principle, but the information discussed there isn't associated with any conscious being. — frank

That information has to be in the mix is well recognized in Zeilingers quantum randomness and information

This is due to the mind dependent nature of the world. At metaphysical base - no matter how deep we may dig, what we will find is a "substance" and its "information". But the question is - How are these things different?

Do I get a tax break for adopting it? — frank

I'm sure you could find a way :lol:

Information creates meaning, through a construction of form - Lego brick by Lego brick.

The only context "information" and "meaning" have is consciousness! imo. Integrated Information

Perhaps a theory of meaning can be your baby?

This sounds like a theory of meaning. — frank

Information and meaning are kind of similar. Meaning occurs when information fits already established ( informational) structure. And all structures are informational in this view.

Meanwhile I know what meaning and meaningless are. I see the potential for progress in the development of a testable theory of consciousness. — frank

I don't think this is entirely new thinking. It is largely constructivism, and enactivism mixed in with a few bits of my thinking here and there. I'm hoping to reduce it to a heuristic.

Data plus meaning equals information. — frank

- excellent!

Meaning in this sense occurs when the information fits already existing information?

** Sorry, I think you have already answered this.

This construction could be used universally - it describes the human process, I believe. But could also describe all processes that are a build up of form, which they all are!

For me, this diagram solves or (at least keeps straight in my mind) the problem of identifying the nature of ‘information’ in any discussion, in relation to any assumptions made regarding the observer and the observed. — Possibility

The diagram is excellent, thank you. The intersection is the relationship of two systems exchanging information. The systems are mutually changed in his exchange.

Please see my post above regarding enactive world. I would love a comment?

Information literally changes our form ( neural correlates ) . But we have to understand this in terms of constructivism, so it is a build up of form............... The change in form is memorized.

Does the above assertion make sense?

It's just not related to ITT or physics. As long as you recognize that, you're good. — frank

It simplifies things enormously. It does not violate either, as far as I can see?

Ok, but that isn't related to IIT, or the way physicists think about information. — frank

Pragmatic information theory is far simplar and intuitive, I think. We can always trackback and see if we violate Shannon theory later?

Philosophically, I tend to think of Information, because of its ubiquity and universality, in terms of Aristotle's essential "Substance" -- which is not physical, but meta-physical. Moreover, the core concept of the term "information" recalls Plato's Forms, which were abstract definitions of real things.
— Gnomon

Yep. But the shift is from thinking that form in-forms stable matter to thinking of how form acts to regulate material instability, or pure potentiality. — apokrisis

The way information works in the Enactive world

To some extent the "self" readingtheseFUNNYwordsbecomes identical to them, in the moment of reading them.

There are neural correlates of substances and they arise due to information. Make sense?

Information is mutually causal, when there is a change in a system? Capra -" cognition is a disturbance in a state". Information disturbs a state !!!

An event that has only one possible outcome has no associated information. — frank

This is Shannon. In Pragmatic information theory only the information that gets cognized is information.
I think this will be more useful for describing an enactive world.

The pragmatic information measures the information received, not the information contained in the message. Pragmatic information theory requires not only a model of the sender and how it encodes information, but also a model of the receiver and how it acts on the information received.