So it seems you prefer to use the word "signs" where many other people are inclined to use the word "information". E.g. instead of someone saying that she is going to "gather information", you would prefer that she say she is going to "gather signs"?

I'm curious to hear, where you want to go with this?

I've only read the OP so far. Apologies if I'm repeating what's been said.

Does the information appear in our minds when we read our PC screen? Neither would be the case, is my theory. We function as another reader who transcribes and in which effects arise in our learned language and in our cognitive apparatus that in turn affect us as an organism. — JuanZu

I'm not sure how you mean all of this.

Elecktra's first appearance was in Daredevil #168.
I was born in 1963.
The V of V in the key of C is the D chord.
Richard the Lionheart died because a wound in his shoulder from a crossbow went gangrenous.
The US once had a 20 cent coin.

Surely there's something on that list you did not know a minute ago. The information is now in your mind, and it's there because you read your computer screen.

Because, information the way scientists tend to use it is an abstract, operationalized notion of information, Shannonian information. This is a measure of information which omits meaning and semantics, and also context - For Shannon information, it doesn't matter who sent the message, what they meant, how it was sent, and who receives it. All that matters is the intrinsic entropy of the signal, how much uncertainty there is in it and how many bit flips we need to reduce that uncertainty.

Information in its richest full blooded reality, is semiosis, meaning. Information really is informare, to "put form into" - what we encounter as conscious agents is signs, signs which mean something for us as interpreters, not some abstract notion of information.

RE: Information exists as substance-entity?
SUBTOPIC: What is information?
⁜→ Bodhy, et al,

(Alternative Opinion)

• Information is not a "substance" of any kind; no matter what you are.

• Information is not an "entity" either in reality or the supernatural.

Information the way scientists tend to use it is an abstract, — Bodhy

(COMMENT)

Scientists do not have a single way of using the term information:

In terms of "Cognitive Science," → information is used to convey that (whatever it may be) for processing in terms of a network of interconnected units operating.

Then there is "Communication Theory" the term is used to convey some measure of intelligence. This is not to be confused wth 'Information Science' in which various technologies are used to convey intelligence.

Information in its richest full blooded reality, is semiosis, meaning. Information really is informare, to "put form into" - what we encounter as conscious agents is signs, signs which mean something for us as interpreters, not some abstract notion of information. — Bodhy

(COMMENT)

I agree that the term "information" can be defined and used in this manner. In fact → I would go so far as to say it is a very common usage.

Most Respectfully,
R

Surely there's something on that list you did not know a minute ago. The information is now in your mind, and it's there because you read your computer screen. — Patterner

According to my theory, there is no information in that list, as if something passes from your mind to symbols on a screen. As I have tried to explain, the symbols on the screen have their own autonomy and cause effects in our learned language, generating meaning or information. In this sense, information never crosses anything but is constantly created. But we are under the illusion that something crossed from one mind to another, that we communicated something, when in reality what we have done is affect another person with the use of signs, causing meaning or information in that person.

In other words, information is always provoked but is never something that crosses things like a ghost contained in signs.

Information in its richest full blooded reality, is semiosis, meaning. Information really is informare, to "put form into" - what we encounter as conscious agents is signs, signs which mean something for us as interpreters, not some abstract notion of information. — Bodhy

Exactly.

The information exists in the relationship between the two devices, the interpreting reader and the USB device. But then we cannot say that the information was contained in the USB stick as a ghost in the device. — JuanZu

But then, what is the difference between the reader-usb where the reader reads your porn collection, and where the reader reads an empty USB? That difference would seem to lie solely on the USB, not the reader, or the reader-usb complex. But if the difference between the information and no information case depends only on the USB, it would seem the information "lives", or not, on the USB alone.

According to my theory, there is no information in that list, as if something passes from your mind to symbols on a screen. As I have tried to explain, the symbols on the screen have their own autonomy and cause effects in our learned language, generating meaning or information. In this sense, information never crosses anything but is constantly created. But we are under the illusion that something crossed from one mind to another, that we communicated something, when in reality what we have done is affect another person with the use of signs, causing meaning or information in that person. — JuanZu

We did communicate something. With the use of signs.

In other words, information is always provoked but is never something that crosses things like a ghost contained in signs. — JuanZu

Still, I had information in my mind, I wanted it in your mind, I took actions that I hoped would accomplish that goal, coding that information in the medium we are using to communicate, and that information is now in your mind. It's still the same information, but it changed form.

All the information in anybody's DNA can be written down in the book, or entered into a computer. Again, it's the same information, but in different form.

But you are right. There is no substance, not even ghost-like, that crosses over. I guess proof if that is when the receiver gets wrong information. Thinking I meant one thing when I meant another. That happens when you incorrectly interpret my signs. It wouldn't be possible if there was a substance going from my mind to yours. (A scenario that sounds like a fantasy/scifi story, and would lead to horrible manipulation.)

We did communicate something. With the use of signs. — Patterner

That depends on what we mean by "communicate". I claim that this communication consists solely of provoking significant effects from one person to another. In other words, through signs we provoke something in the other person's understanding. But nothing is transmitted. What we provoke is meaning, or information.

Still, I had information in my mind, I wanted it in your mind, I took actions that I hoped would accomplish that goal, coding that information in the medium we are using to communicate, and that information is now in your mind. It's still the same information, but it changed form.

All the information in anybody's DNA can be written down in the book, or entered into a computer. Again, it's the same information, but in different form. — Patterner

From my point of view, nothing is encoded as if we were locking a door with a key. What we call encoding is choosing a VERY SPECIFIC, unique series of signs that will have an effect on us or a machine. Signs that other people may not know, which is what makes encoding purpose. But the relationship is the same: one person utters signs and these have meaningful effects on another person. Here, meaning refers to the creation of something that did not exist before. A "Hello" appears in us as the creative effect of the series of signs we have heard.

But you are right. There is no substance, not even ghost-like, that crosses over. I guess proof if that is when the receiver gets wrong information. Thinking I meant one thing when I meant another. That happens when you incorrectly interpret my signs. It wouldn't be possible if there was a substance going from my mind to yours. (A scenario that sounds like a fantasy/scifi story, and would lead to horrible manipulation.) — Patterner

Exactly.

That depends on what we mean by "communicate". I claim that this communication consists solely of provoking significant effects from one person to another. In other words, through signs we provoke something in the other person's understanding. But nothing is transmitted. What we provoke is meaning, or information. — JuanZu

Yes. That's how we communicate.

Further still: information is not transmitted. Since there is nothing contained anywhere that passes from an interpreted to an interpreter, and since what we have are transcription effects (i.e. con-formation in-formation) there is no entity, no substance called information. — JuanZu

True. Information is a verb, not a noun, a process, not an object. It's what I like to call EnFormAction : the power to transform from Potential to Actual. Shannon's abstract Data has potential, but no actual meaning, until it is interpreted by a Mind. :smile:

First of all, I suspect you are a hacker, because I have never seen Gnomon post without footnotes. :rofl:

True. Information is a verb, not a noun, a process, not an object. It's what I like to call EnFormAction : the power to transform from Potential to Actual. Shannon's abstract Data has potential, but no actual meaning, until it is interpreted by a Mind. :smile: — Gnomon

I think I disagree. I believe DNA is information. The codons mean amino acids, and strings of codons mean proteins. (I know not everyone agrees with that, so you might consider my point incorrect already.) Processing that information is a verb. In its natural form, the information is processed.

There are times when it is not processed in its natural form, such as when the organism is dead, as well as when in other forms, such as written in books or modeled with Tinker Toys. Is it not still information? At these times, there is usually no mind interpreting it. Is it not still information even then?

I suppose this could be a philosophical question similar to the tree falling in the forest.

First of all, I suspect you are a hacker, because I have never seen Gnomon post without footnotes. :rofl: — Patterner

Ha! I'm not that clever with computer technology, but I can copy & paste. :nerd:

I think I disagree. I believe DNA is information. — Patterner

DNA is chemistry, and it is inert until it is read & implemented by a biological system. The information is encoded in the patterns of interrelationships.

Yes, it's like a tree falling in a forest : it doesn't make a protein unless there's RNA to read it, and ATP to power the change, and amino acids as raw material. So, the verbal Information (EnFormAction) of DNA is not static chemicals, but the active process of reading & implementing the code. :smile:

PS___ Look ma, no footnotes. :joke:

Ha! I'm not that clever with computer technology, but I can copy & paste. :nerd: — Gnomon

I meant someone hacked your account and is posing as you, but gave thself away by not doing the footnotes.

DNA is chemistry, and it is inert until it is read & implemented by a biological system. The information is encoded in the patterns of interrelationships.

Yes, it's like a tree falling in a forest : it doesn't make a protein unless there's RNA to read it, and ATP to power the change, and amino acids as raw material. So, the verbal Information (EnFormAction) of DNA is not static chemicals, but the active process of reading & implementing the code. :smile: — Gnomon

I don't understand what you're saying. Particularly "the verbal Information". I don't know if you're answering my question. Is the order of the bases in the DNA of a dead body, or written in a book that is sitting in a box in the basement, information?

I think it's always information. I don't think it only becomes information when it is being processed, or being interpreted by a mind.