In a nutshell, I think of "information" as a name that points to a concept, which reffers to a property that objetcs might have. That being said, a given object may or may not carry it. It is similar to the concept of "size". If I point to the outer world, I can say that a horse has a size, but an unicorn does not, as it is not an object of the senses. At a glance, the concept of information, although not a thing, has more capilarity than the concept of size. It is interesting to notice that once brought up, the concept of information cannot rule out the concept of size, as well. If I start my thoughts from a rational standpoint, and I turn myself to the field of geometry, I will find possible to state that the "point" has no dimensions. But the "point" is something different than the rest of the space that lies around it, so it carries distinct information. But, if it is true that it carries information, the information, by what we know of it, might have its size measured.

Not sure if there are good philosophical puzzles about the name, the concept or the property that "information" has. If there are, I would be glad to try them out

Information seems like it may or may not have any intrinsic value unless there is something to perceive or interpret it. DNA has information. Morse code has information. So does a text in a foreign language. But if we have no familiarity or understanding in how to interpret or process it, it's just a bunch of nonsense.

Information seems to have something in common with art that thing being it generally involves some conscious input. Back to perception. A bird (hopefully several) can crap on a windshield in a way that happens to resemble "2 + 2 = 4". It has no more or less information than if an esteemed math professor wrote it on a chalkboard.

Neat topic.

Yes, from a cognitive standpoint, it is possible to extract information from where it actually lies, from a mere coincidential occasion or to not extract it at all. Information can also be delivered in the form of a code. Sometimes, it seems that one of the hardest tasks about extracting information is precisely breaking the code. That being the case, it might be useful to look at it as the honeypot inside the enigma box

What are the differences and similarities between information and communication? Intent?

Differences: communication is a vehicle capable of transporting something that carries information. Information is not a vehicle. Information might be stored, communication cannot.

Similarities: They both might be inappropriate. In an environment that requires silence, communication that is conveyed through sound will likely be regarded as inappropriate. In an environment that requires discreetness, blossoming information about one's life will also likely be regarded as inappropriate. It also seems to me that they are similar, in a sense that both of them need to have a certain "shape" to work as the key that is gonna open the lock.

To think about intent: if it is the case that communication is the phenomenon of receiving/sending things that carry information, it might be stated that machines, that have no intention at all, also communicate. That being the case, intent would not account as a substantial trait of communication. If much, it would be an accidental trait.

Our communication is transporting some good chunks of information, right mate?

It just occurred to me: if it is the case that there may or may not be intention behind communication, but it is not the case that information, by itself, has intention behind it, then, although not a, lets say, "full" difference between them both (they might be the same in respect to this matter), the fact that there might be intention behind communication, accounts as a distinctive trait between communication and information, even if accidental. In other words, there is a chance for this accident to happen with regard to communication, and no chance to happen with regard to information (as I think of it as a property that objects might have)

So - I'm totally open to the notion that 'information is fundamental', but it seems to me to leave an awful lot of very large, open questions, about what 'information' is or means or where it originates. — Wayfarer

Information is my thing. It's the subject of my thesis website Enformationism. The thesis touches on all of your questions, and the BothAnd Blog goes into more detail on specific applications of the Information concept beyond computers. :nerd:

Information is : the Universal Substance of Spinoza. It's both physical (material, Quanta) and metaphysical (mental, Qualia). It's abstract meaningless Shannon data, and Bayesian statistical truth, and Bateson's meaningful "difference that makes a difference". It's Ideal Platonic Forms, and Real enformed Things.

Information means : According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest historical meaning of the word information in English was the act of informing, or giving form or shape to the mind, as in education, instruction, or training.
The English word was apparently derived by adding the common "noun of action" ending "-ation" [Hence, En-Form-Action]

Information originates : in the creative power to be, and to become (BEING). In our universe, Information is the power to enform matter & mind. You can think of its ultimate origin as The Enformer, The Creator, or The Programmer. If those names don't work for you, perhaps Einstein's "pantheistic god of Spinoza". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Information -- Shannon vs Deacon : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

BothAnd Blog : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

I have been reading and enjoying Paul Davies' recent book, Demon in the Machine. — Wayfarer

The Program in the Machine : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page6.html

Everything essentially is information and it more or less fizzles on deaf ears unless it manages to find another to recieve some aspect or many aspects of itself. To what degree and how many angles that information translates determines the level of actual understanding

I'm still convinced that information is a property that things may or may not have and it's not actually a thing. But the standpoints from which I'm considering it need to be presented. I will try to exemplify.

Let's say that in a room lies a body that is completely inertial to itself and its surroundings. On the other hand, the things that compose its surroundings, react to one another. To its surroundings, in what concerns possible reactions that might occur between distinct bodies, the inertial body does not carry any kind of information. An observer, otherwise, might find information on the inertial body, by taking into account that it is a completely inertial thing.

If I'm able to think on a good definition of information, I'll share it here and try to develop something

edit: with a good definition, I might be able to find the kind of information that, from a given standpoint, will necessarily be attached to all of those things that strike our senses... Until then, I follow with this inquietude in mind