Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms. — Gnomon

In my DIKW definition framework, I expect generating the Platonic Forms are more about knowledge than information, as they are generic (ideal) knowledge about how to structure and constrain and use a category of imperfect yet very similar objects. Thus, Platonic Forms are very much like ideal models and general templates of expected/experienced objects.

that is fine, and could be interesting to me if useful and applicable to human thought or reasoning. — Sir Philo Sophia

OK. Sorry for intruding on your thread. I suspect that you are more likely to get the kind of feedback you're interested-in on a science forum.

FWIW, one of my sources is Information and the Nature of Reality : From Physics to Metaphysics. It's written by almost 20 professional Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Neuroscientists, and Philosophers. But, apparently no Psychologists. Most of it is way over my head, but it also may be too metaphysical for your taste. :smile:

Note : This book may be more pertinent to your reductive definition of Information. And it does include Psychologists among the almost 40 scientist authors from around the world.
From Matter to Life Information & Causality :
Fresh insights from a broad and authoritative range of articulate and respected experts focus on the transition from matter to life, and hence reconcile the deep conceptual schism between the way we describe physical and biological systems. A unique cross-disciplinary perspective, drawing on expertise from philosophy, biology, chemistry, physics, and cognitive and social sciences, provides a new way to look at the deepest questions of our existence. This book addresses the role of information in life, and how it can make a difference to what we know about the world.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

I stil can't see how 'generic information' is a meaningful concept. In your schema, 'enformation' is just the name you give for the place in metaphysics formerly occupied by religious concepts, such as spirit, chi, pneuma, and so on - you say so yourself. — Wayfarer

Yes. That's why I give my own custom definition. The term "genetic information" would completely miss the point of my useage. So I adapted "generic" to my purposes, despite it's common meaning of "general, common, & non-specific. It's a couple of other synonyms that hit the target for me : "universal, all-inclusive & all-encompassing". https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/generic

I do accept that my use of "Information" applies to old religious and mystical concepts, such as "Spirit, Chi & Pneuma". But in my definition there is nothing mysterious or supernatural about it. Instead, Information is the fundamental element (essence) of Nature. For example, in place of the obsolete notion of a spooky Ghost, presumably consisting of pseudo-scientific "ectoplasm", I would substitute the information pattern that defines the essence of a person. By analogy, that's the data read & transmitted by the Star Trek Transporter. Scientists are currently working of something like that, so they take the possibility of decoding a complete human (body & soul) seriously. I don't think they are even close, but the idea is plausible.

I'm not personally religious, but I'm also not an Atheist. So I can relate to pre-scientific notions, without accepting their supernatural baggage. And I can go beyond the self-imposed limitations of reductive materialistic Science, to explore philosophical possibilities.

My use of "Information" and "Enformation" is much broader than just a replacement for obsolete religious names. It's also a substitute for some out-of-date scientific terms, such as "Energy", which is more properly EnFormAction : the act of changing form. :smile:

Don't know what Energy is? : I believe if we went back and re-defined the nature of energy, which is the intimate driving force of the universe, our theories would move out of this 40 year stagnation.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-no-one-knows-what-energy-is-and-energy-is-just-a-name-to-a-phenomenon-that-nobody-understands/answer/Laszlo-Petruska?ch=99&share=7bba0361&srid=ozk3M

Transporting Information : In the quantum world, teleportation involves the transportation of information, rather than the transportation of matter.
https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=300854&org=NSF&from=news

In my DIKW definition framework, I expect generating the Platonic Forms aremore about knowledge than information, as they are generic (ideal) knowledge about how to structure and constrain and use a category of imperfect yet very similar objects. Thus, Platonic Forms are very much like ideal models and general templates of expected/experienced objects. — Sir Philo Sophia

But "information" is "knowledge" . . . and much more.

Your narrow reductive definition of "Information" omits most of its overall "generic" meaning, just as Claude Shannon's engineering definition did. For example, the original meaning of the word was "knowledge in a mind". Shannon discovered that the concept of Information could also be applied to knowledge stored in machines. He noted that the Uncertainty of a piece of Knowledge is equivalent to physical Entropy. Since then, scientists have realized that even natural Energy is essentially a form of Causal Information.

But most of these scientific applications are only indirectly "applicable to human thought or reasoning". I originally got the impression that your theory was intended to be broadly applicable to Science in general, not just to the contents of minds. So, again, I apologize for diverting your thread. :cool:


Information : noun. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing. the act or fact of informing.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/information

Information : can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty; it is that which answers the question of "What an entity is" and thus defines both its essence and nature of its characteristics. The concept of information has different meanings in different contexts.[1] Thus the concept becomes related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, education, knowledge, meaning, understanding, mental stimuli, pattern, perception, representation, and entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

one measure of potential utility (a kind of practicality) would be if the information/knowledge is expected to be useful in creating, or bridging to, any wisdom the agent would expect to be valuable.

Why would the agents own expectations be a good indication of the practicality of knowledge? What guarantees that the agent isn’t misguided or simply deceived? If the expectations are unfounded and they are ultimately baseless what good do they do as a metric?

Wisdom level 'optimization' generally is the optimal balance of identifying and achieving a goal that is most aligned with the agent's areas of concerns, desired affordable costs/efforts, and desired gains in potential energy or getting closer to a truth.

Why would the agents areas of concerns be something significant? What if an agent is concerned with things that do not actually deserve to be called worthwhile or even slightly significant? Isn’t it possible that they have been deceived or have simply misunderstood the situation? If so how optimal can that outcome actually be called?

But "information" is "knowledge" . . . and much more. — Gnomon

I do not agree with those dictionary definitions. It, as with the interpretations you proffer, do not account for the logical Distinctions and Transformations, which must occur To get from one cognitive step to the next. In your framework everything is Information So you miss and lose what operations must be performed And what cognitive structures/dynamics/Algorithms are needed To make and use those transformations.

Thanks for your contributions here, yet we have to Agree to disagree on this one.

Happy holidays!

Why would the agents own expectations be a good indication of the practicality of knowledge? — Average

Because the agent must invest its energy and time into acquiring and transforming The information and knowledge in its own terms and in its personal Life path. So, if the agent does not have a good expectation that the knowledge would be practical then it would invest last effort/time in pursuing or integrating such knowledge. We do this all the time, so it is kind of obvious to me.

What guarantees that the agent isn’t misguided or simply deceived? — Average

There is no guarantee. Hence why it takes so much time to gain the wisdom to know the difference between a waste of time/energy And practical/Useful things worth acquiring and focusing on Which can better lead you somewhere worthwhile.

If the expectations are unfounded and they are ultimately baseless what good do they do as a metric? — Average

Correct! If you live a life without learning how to build realistic expectations then dead ends and waste of time, effort and resources will be all you know. And you live more in the world of trivia And logistical information than Gaining useful of knowledge and wisdom, which can enable you to rise up the food chain. Information is like food, no one can give you a metric of what food you should eat, as you are the ultimate judge of what you put in your mouth That you expect will give you the best anabolic results, or not.

Correct! If you live a life without learning how to build realistic expectations then dead ends and waste of time, effort and resources will be all you know.

I’m not sure what realistic is supposed to mean here because you seem to enjoy using unique and arcane definitions that the average person might struggle with. I hope you don’t interpret this as an unfair criticism btw. I really am curious and would like to know what qualifies.

I do not agree with those dictionary definitions. It, as with the interpretations you proffer, do not account for the logical Distinctions and Transformations, which must occur To get from one cognitive step to the next. In your framework everything is Information So you miss and lose what operations must be performed And what cognitive structures/dynamics/Algorithms are needed To make and use those transformations. — Sir Philo Sophia

So, you have your own private definitions. As do I. But I don't reject the common definitions. I just look at Information from a different supplementary perspective, which is more philosophical & metaphysical, than scientific & physical.
"As we know dictionary definitions on this are circular and useless, and current best scientific definitions are not in agreement, are very incomplete and very flawed at best." ___Sir Philo Sophia

But to separate Information from Knowledge seems to miss the original meaning of the term. As I said, in my thesis, Information is much more than just knowledge in a human mind -- it's also Energy & Matter, among other forms. As you quoted, in my view "everything is Information".

So, apparently, you have some particular distinction in mind. Which may be valid. But doesn't necessarily invalidate the other applications of the term. It's possible that your "logical operations" may be over my head, since I have no formal training in philosophical Logic, beyond one basic Mathematics requirement. So, I haven't yet got the gist of your "Scientific Theoretical framework". And maybe it's none of my business, as an amateur philosopher and non-scientist.

However, I am interested in the Philosophy of Information, in general. I've been engaged in a dialog with on the Claude Shannon thread. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/483334 He is also concerned with the missing meaning of Modern Information Theory. While that discussion is partly scientific, it doesn't get into abstruse technical details of philosophical Logic. Nevertheless, if you can dumb it down for me, maybe I can follow the logic of your topic. If not, I'll bow out. :smile:

Information is like food, no one can give you a metric of what food you should eat, as you are the ultimate judge of what you put in your mouth That you expect will give you the best anabolic results, or not.

I disagree with the notion that no one can justifiably tell me what I should and should not eat. We don’t condone cannibalism and one can’t judge anything without a means of judging it. Without a criterion or metric that allows us to establish with certainty what is and isn’t good for us we will be taking shots in the dark at best.

And you live more in the world of trivia And logistical information than Gaining useful of knowledge and wisdom, which can enable you to rise up the food chain.

We really need a yardstick in order to do this successfully. Besides rising to the top of the food chain isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Just ask Julius Caesar or Alexander. Early death and assassination to name a few hazards. The people at the top of a food chain need wisdom too. So the simple fact of being at the top can’t serve as a good indication it could be attributed to something else.

We do this all the time, so it is kind of obvious to me.

Forgive me if it isn’t obvious to me. I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say most of the time to be honest. Hopefully we can find a way to communicate in spite of everything that seems to be conspiring against this. I don’t think it would be excessive if I asked for English.

There is no guarantee.

If there is no guarantee then why use the framework? Is it really superior to a more basic commonsensical concept? You never did comment on the suitability of paths. I don’t think a guarantee of efficacy is too much to ask for when it comes to something as significant as wisdom. Please be patient with me if it seems like I’m a bit slower.

Hence why it takes so much time to gain the wisdom to know the difference between a waste of time/energy And practical/Useful things worth acquiring and focusing on Which can better lead you somewhere worthwhile.

I hope this exchange is worthwhile in your estimation. If not please don’t hesitate to inform me because I don’t want to waste any of my time or yours for that matter.

Nevertheless, if you can dumb it down for me, maybe I can follow the logic of your topic. If not, I'll bow out — Gnomon

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I don't think it is a matter of "dumb it down" b/c I've come to realize that we have very different goals. So, there is science that supports your take, in that all matter is nothing more that quantum state configuration 'information', and that could be philosophically useful for you and them in the very abstract. It is just not useful (at least to me) in the realm of delineating and creating all the (mental/cognitive/algorithmic) transforms that go from measured scalar values to the transcendental wisdom achieved by metacognition. BTW, philo - sophia is the lover of 'knowledge' in the pursuit of 'wisdom', not lover of 'data' in pursuit of 'information'. So, I suspect the ancients, by implication, are telling your dictionary defs that everything is *not* Information.

best we leave it there!

I don’t think it would be excessive if I asked for English — Average

thanks for your ideas and questionings. I probably am not good enough at explaining it, so I'm hoping others in the forum who are better than me can chime in with their take on your questions, and hopefully answer you and/or correct me.

happy holidays!

Happy holidays

It is just not useful (at least to me) in the realm of delineating and creating all the (mental/cognitive/algorithmic) transforms that go from measured scalar values to the transcendental wisdom achieved bymetacognition. — Sir Philo Sophia

OK. I can see that this thread is way above my pay grade. Sorry for butting-in. :smile: