That may be true but only a few graduates will agree on this point.

Moreover there is undeniable progress in knowledge at least in specific fields. It is expressed in the ability to make more accurate forecasts. Meteorology comes to mind.
Another could be the increase in life expectancy. Given that the majority of us wants to postpone theire demise, longevity is an advance due to an increase in knowledge.

If I can get smarter in specific areas, won´t my overall knowledge increase too?

Briefly an explanation of terms: Under objective reality I understand the material outside world including the material components of the body. In short, all thet science can measure or make measurable. If it is true that the picture we make of this reality comes closer and closer to this reality, these conditions must be met:

We would have to preserve knowledge unchanged once we achieved it. I don´t mean written down in a file. I mean: kept in mind so that we can always approach what we have achieved in the same way. In my opinion this is impossible. Whatever we know is subject to constant ( perhaps even unconsciously ) reassessment. I don`t mean scientific re-evaluation, rather the constant shifts that our imaginations are subjected to throughout life. Evem math formulas or numbers as nothing is ever really completely abstract.

Reality on the other hand should have something unchangeable, from which we can derive a set of rules. Since it is undisputed that the material expression of reality is in a constant flow, what should we compare our picture of reality with if not with predictions we make of future conditions using these rules.
But here, too, I am not surewhether these ruleshold forever and everywhereand not only in partial areas.

If there was no reality, or if reality is only constructed, then any gain in knowledge would be nothing but the deepening of a fiction. In everyday life nobody behaves according to such a believe.
The reality of, say, the walls of my room are more than an agreement.

One problem with correspondence. Take this statement: The universe is 13.5 billion years old. This statement is regarded true in the astronomical sense if it is confirmed by a series of measurements, no contrary observations are made and if the statement fits the canon of astronomical knowledge.
But "time" as used in this statement is only a useful product of the human mind, a tool for ordering empirical impressions. It is not something that belongs to the assumed objective real universe. Or lets say, it makes no sense for the assumed object called "Universe".

It may be that what we perceive as reality is only a preliminary correspondence always in a certain respect. that could proof unfortunate for these guys looking for the "formula for everything".

The question is how accurate predictions of what we observe can ever become.
We tend to imagine our cognitive faculties divided into different areas. The area where impressions are first received, the processing area where the reasoning is done, the area to store memory.
But what if all we do, when we are thinking is nothing but a constant recombining of memory engrams.
What if these engrams change every time we call them up.
To strain an analogy: Let`s imagine a computer the hardware design of which depends on the content of what data are in storage and changes with them. Each operation changes the way how futur operations will be executed.
If our cognitive faculties cannot be used to perform exactly the same operation twice, how should we be able to approach reality?
Under these circumstances,reality would become a jigsaw with multiple possible solutions.

Do not be amazed at your existence. Because it is the condition for there to be questions at all.

Why aren`t I anybody else? That`s the much more interesting question. Leading to:

What must I do to be someone else? Now useful and less useful advice can be given.

If we regard reality "as that part of our conscious experience that no amount of mental manipulation will alter" as TheMadFool stated then a lot of mental states generated in our central nervous system belong to that reality, i.e. depressions, nightmares or stressful memories. None of these we can alter at will.

Another question is whether an object belongs to the outside world and why it is so difficult to draw a line between mental objects and "objects in reality".
A purely speculative thought: As the nervous system arose from simple sensory cells that responded directly to specific stimuli from theire enviroment, perhaps that is why consciousness attributes everything that is supposed to trigger a reaction to something different than itself. Our brains may be a million times more sophisticated than those first sensory cells, but on cell level the old electrochemical switches still work.

It would be easier to understand the Enactivist view if you could give sort of a practical example.
Let´s say, for Information taken from a warning that a cable is carrying current or the Information taken from the perception that the car in front is braking. Situations that are solved now by applying plain vanilla logic.

One Effect of Light energy is Color, but color is not intrinsic to photons.
Gnomon

That is at least debatable.
Light has a wavelength, which subject A and subject B perceive as color. For subject A the information taken is: Red. For subject B ( hence color blind) the information taken is green. Its the same wavelength.
One can say: Having always a certain wavlength is propertie of Light.

Ad Enactivist view: This means, the perception of the structure of an object and the resulting information for the subject causes in some way the structure of the perceived object?

A lot of adjustments on the field of inference will be necessary. i.e. What about causality?

I fear this requires a logic which is either so complicated (full of exceptions) that it is useless in everyday life, or so trivial that it is useless too.

When I said: I have no problem with the equivalence of matter and information I meant that I have no problem to call it information, the structure or form we perceive in an object. I would not recommend it, as it leads to confusion.

So let´s call distinctions of whatever kind we make on objects structure or form.

If this structure is recorded directly or indirectly (e.g. because of a detour via measuring instruments) by sensory cells, I suggest the term perception.

For all the processes that perception goes through on its way, before it is integrated into a complex image with which it occures on the surface of our conciousness, I suggest the trem information.
Thus what is meant with my term is the position, perhaps the number or sequence of neurons that have to be activated in order to create a conciously perceptible image of (supposed) reality.

For the concious state I suggest the word knowledge.

When you see and recognize somebody or something, the information of this process exists only in the position , number and sequence of neurons activated. Is the network damaged or its cells become ill, the information disappears. But that doesn´t mean that the object itselfe had lost its structure.

What I have not understood yet: Do you believe that we influence (In what way ever) the structure of an object when we perceive it and process this perception as information in the way mentioned above?

"A dynamic brain state", as I understand, is work in progress.
When you say information exists as brain state is this a conscious state?

I would prefer to reserve the term "information" for the process that precedes the conscious state.
Because in the moment we become conscious of something, we are already separated from the content.
But here we enter the realm of transcendental philosophy, even phenomenology, the realm of the "Schelling" and "Heidegger" fans with theire strange and misleading vocabulary.

Let´s try this example:

Peter says: Company XYZ goes broke. It´s stocks will soon be worthless!
Tom says: How do you know?
Peter says: Ruth gave me the information.

From Peters perspective the imminent bankruptcy is no longer information. As Tom put it, it is, what Peter knows. Ruth´s information was, what got Peter to the point where he activated all necessary brain regions to a point to paint a picture of his future where his XYZ shares are worthless.

Or let´s try this anaology: To cause a certain brain state it is necessary to contact a lot of neurons. Let´s assume they all have numbers like phone numbers. Sort of conference call. The information is now in the numbers dialed, not in the outcome at the end. The outcome is the consious state. That´s what we know about. And what we know is what we immediately make subject of the next conference call.

By the way: Each call changes the network at least slightly! So no impression can ever hit twice in the same way.

If you mean by "Dynamic brain states" the ever changing network of synapses and the traffic that travels over this network, I agree with you. Somewhere here where amounts of simple sensory data are put together to form first complex packets, which are than distributed over the system, the effect appears which we call information (if and when we become conscious of it at all).

I suspect that the process that we perceive as an effect of information takes place high up in the ranking of all mental processes.

From the point of neurophysiology the term "information" probably belongs to a certain processing, or even many steps of processing. As far as the processing of messages is concerned, information has to do with the fact that one proposition can verify other propositions. (Perhaps the "Home" of the transitivity of truth is somewhere here)
By this way "Information" guides the mental process in a certain direction, although itself a product of the process.
Perhaps this is even to be taken literally as certain "information" may activate certain areas of the brain, or as Nyquist may say, causes certain brain states.

High Pop

I have no problem with the equivalence of matter and information. However I see no advantage in this assumption. What is the practical consequence?
So information = matter = structure = form.
Then you say information is interaction. Then you say logic is equal to informational structure found in the external world.
Beside the fact that we now have a new notion: informational structure to deal with, I would say: NO!
Form or what we perceive as form has no logic and needs none. We need logic to deal with forms.
There is no place in the outside world where we could break down logical rules.
The problem is that till now you have´t defined the term "Information".
This cretes a mess of terms , so part of what you say is lost.

To define the term "information" I suggest to with "Information" contained in propositions. Because most complex "information" travels via the network of language. As Wittgenstein said: Konwledge and language need not be the same, but what knowledge is it, that can not be expressed verbally.

As far as I understand your thoughts move in an area between questions of quantum mechanics and neuro physiology, between structuralism and neo positivism. Even in a more modest area a clarification of the terms would be necessary.

I thought the aime was to put together a meaningful definition of the term "information" (if possible?)

I assume that the aime should be to define the term as far as possible in such a way that it covers the vague meaning that the word "Information" has in everyday`s language. We think, we know what is meant by statements like: I need more information.
Regardless wether there is a monism of energy, matter and Information or not, it makes no sense to call everything information we may be able to find out about a given object. We may call this complexity or even potential information.
In the same way it makes no sense to refer to everything we already know as information. There are already terms for this: Let´s call it memory or knowledge.
The term "Information" has two aspects, that have not been considered enough so far.
1) The aspect of novelty: A propostion only contains information for us, if we draw new conclusions from it. This is to seperate the term "Information" from the Term "knowledge". But at the same time it does not prevent us from calling "Information" what arises in the moment we become aware of a new idea.
2)The aspect of comprehensibility: A proposition contains information for us, only if we are able to understand it. To do so, it´s semantic elements (what ever this is) must match a part of what we know about the world (or let´s say it´s hypothetical linguistic expression).

I think, there is no sense in trying to determine the amount of potential information contained in a given object in advance. Because the amount of "Information" we may draw from dealing with an object (or a proposition) depends on the way we look at it. Let´s remeber the saying: For the one who´s only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

PS: During the interwar period there was an attempt by members of the "Wiener Kreis" to quantify the semantic content of a message by means of the complexity of it´s syntactical structure. This attempt failed as did theire attempt to find only one of Wittgenstein´s elementary propositions.

If matter was somehow equivalent to information, what is meant by the common saying: wrong information?

That shows, that even if it was true that the world is made up of information, the subject adds something to make information out of this mere perception.

Pop, this may be of interest for you: The German Carl F. von Weizsaeker and his students attempted to establish a theory called the "Quantum Theory of Ur-Objects" back in the 80´s. (Ur is the german prefix for most basic like in "Ursprung" - origin). With theire theory they attempted to establish information as basic for matter to appeare. The term "Ure" was introduced, which corresponded to the simplest yes / no distinction. A concrete object, I assume some sort of elemantary particle, required the information corresponding to 4 "Ur distinctions".
The theory was packed with advanced math, far to complicated at least for me. But as far as I understood, the theory postulated a dependence of the material world on its information content. I guess all efforts to establish the theory have been given up, after v. Weizsaeckers death.
There is a summary in English of the so called Ur Theory by Holger Lyre, a former student of v. Weizsaecker, today a prof. for philosphy at the university of Magdeburg.

Reasoning presupposes some kind of rational thought ...

The aliens of our thought experiment could well be ahead of us as logic is concerned. That could mean that some basic parts of theire logic is similar to ours, but that theire logic is far more extensive.
In analogy to mathematics, it could be that we are at a level, like the romans at which we are missing a notion and sign for zero and the negative numbers. Okay the range of the positive intergers remains the same. But as positive integers could be seen as a special case of complex numbers (with i = 0); our logic could represent only a special case of an otherwise far more complex reality. A reality where theire may never be complete accordance or non accordance and bivalence therefore makes no sense

Anyone who denies the aw of contradiction ...
180 Proof

I do not deny that the axiom of cintradiction is a very useful tool.

But given human logic depends on experience, it means that it depends on the functionality and range of our senses. This range is limited, but can be extended using tools like glasses, telescops or radiation detectors. Using such tools made it possible to prove Einsteins theories of relativety of space and time.
After all two pillars of Kants "transzendentaler Idealität". I`m sure he considered rather solid parts of what he thought he knew.
What if physics succeed in shifting not only subatomic parts into a superposition state? Maybe a whole atom once? That will not affect the way we make decisions in everyday life, but how justified is it to approach this part of reality, in which certain logical axioms no longer correspond to experience, with a logic that still presupposes these axioms?

"different creatures, different ways of experiences, different logic"

Do these creatures see the whole world different? Or is a circle still a circle even for them?

Personally I agree with Kolakowski ..

If Kolakowski is right, the quetion arises as to how (and if at all) progress in the field of epistemology is possible. Because then we would never know when nor why our ideas of the outside world coincide with this outside world.

What`s so completely dirfferent?

Perhaps completely differnt is the wrong notion. What I mean: Given all nerve cells have developed from first primitive sensory cells, it probably makes a differnce to which stimulus these first cells had to react. Even the structure of the nerve cells of our hypothetical aliens could be different. Then it would be obvious that the rest of the nervous system would also build up differently.

PS: I once heard a lecture on the philosophy of space that mentioned a thought experiment, I believe it was by P.F. Strawson, which was about Hypothetical creatures with only one sense (a type of hearing) and they are living in a world dominated by acustic beacons. The quetion was how such beings would perceive space. Unfortunately never found this essay again.