My hunch is that the so-called easy problem of consciousness at a mechanistic level is equally as difficult as the so-called hard problem at the subjective level. They might even be the same problem. — Wheatley

The "easy" answer to the problem of Life, Consciousness, & Everything is Dualistic, hence too complex to be a final answer, a singular solution. All physical mechanical change requires are least two elements : Energy (causation) and Matter (malleable stuff). But the only answer to the "hard" problem is Monistic.

The absolute monistic answer goes all the way back to the beginning of everything. Some call that perfect singular solution "God". But I call it "BEING" : the power to be. All else stems from that indispensable root cause. Hence, the potential for emergence of Life & Consciousness must originate in the First Cause : BEING. You can't prove the existence of the power to exist, except as a Logical Necessity. It's that simple. :smile:

That a state of nothingness cannot be forces the existence of a state of absolute existence. — Daniel

That's why I have concluded that the explanation for the existence of our world, is not just eternal Energy or persistent Matter, or even creation ex nihilo, but the essential power or potential to exist --- which I call "BEING". So, my creation myth begins with Ontology. :smile:

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Isn't a "rule" necessarily formal though? That's the point, to talk about Innate, informal commonalities, as if they are rules, appears like a mistake to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Apparently, in your strict vocabulary of technical terms, that might be the case. Since I'm not a professional scientist, I tend to use such jargon more loosely. Besides, in psychology, formal "rules" or "laws" are hard to come by. Most behaviors that psychologists take-for-granted are more like rules-of-thumb than empirically-confirmed-natural-laws. That's why The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has to be regularly updated to weed-out definitions of disorders that turn-out to be too broad or too narrow or just plain wrong. :smile:

7 Psychological Rules That Can Make Your Life Shine Brighter :
https://brightside.me/inspiration-psychology/7-psychological-rules-that-can-make-your-life-shine-brighter-533910/

That might be the case, if we both see this "instinct" as an unknown concerning its true nature, then we have commonality here. — Metaphysician Undercover

The "language instinct" is a well-known effect, but its cause is a matter of debate. Stephen Pinker says that "A three-year-old toddler is "a grammatical genius"--master of most constructions, obeying adult rules of language." And he attributes those "rules" to a combination of Nature and Nurture. But he provides lots of observational evidence, so the mechanism behind the human talent for language is not exactly unknown. Some may claim it's a miracle, but Pinker thinks it's a Darwinian adaptation. :smile:

The Language Instinct : To Pinker, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology psycholinguist, the explanation for this miracle is that language is an instinct, an evolutionary adaptation that is partly "hard-wired" into the brain and partly learned.
https://www.amazon.com/Language-Instinct-Creates-Perennial-Classics-ebook/dp/B0049B1VOU

but we have no approach to the cause of that commonality. If we say that the person is following a rule, we create the illusion that we know why the person is acting in that particular way. — Metaphysician Undercover

All I can say to that is, Pinker is the reigning expert on psycholinguistics, and he thinks he knows why humans act like they have a special talent for language, that other animals don't. But his theory is based on evolutionary assumptions, that some other linguists, and theologians, disagree with. Yet again, the science of Psychology is inherently Philosophical & Meta-Physical, hence not empirical, and will always be subject to debate. But Pinker's explanation is close-enough for me . . . for now. :cool:

Is psychology a “real” science? : Does it really matter?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/is-psychology-a-e2809creale2809d-science-does-it-really-matter/

PS___Shannon's definition of passive carrier "Information" is on the reductive & empirical end of the Science spectrum. But my definition of active causal "EnFormAction" is more towards the holistic & philosophical end, along with Psychology and History. Does that lack of hard evidence invalidate the hypothesis that Enformation might be the driver of evolution --- including the Language Instinct? Maybe. What do you think?

Information/Enformation :
* 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".

The flaw was not in any of the possibilities, it was in denying the same possibilities to a non-being as I gave a being. Since the ratio is now equal, this leaves the chance of a Being as a first cause versus a First Cause that is not a being at 50%. Of course this still holds a God is possible, just not as possible as my first conclusion held. — Philosophim

Thanks for finally revealing the missing piece of the puzzle. Your reasoning is exactly why I defined my hypothetical "First Cause", not as an empirical physical "being". but as meta-physical "BEING per se" (the power to be, to exist). In Physics, all causation is attributed to the mysterious force we call "Energy". But, like all causes, we only know Energy by its effects.

For example, astronomers have tracked a continuous chain of physical events (mostly star creation & destruction) all the way back to a so-called Singularity at the beginning of Time. But where did the Singularity come from? Nobody knows, but we could continue the Cause & Effect sequence (turtles all the way down) back into eternity (Multiverse theory) with no satisfactory end on sight.

Or we could do like those astronomers, and just end the causal train at the furthest point we can calculate (Planck time or Asymptote). And, for convenience, we could call that mythical time-before-time and space-before-space : "the First Cause" or "Ultimate Potential". That's not a thing, or an object, it's merely a Trait of Existence. You can call it "God", if you like, but like the Singularity, it's undefined. We know nothing of its make-up, only its effects : the world we live in. The odds-of-god in that sense are 100%. :smile:


What is energy made of? : Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-is-energy-made-of

Trait : attribute ; feature ; quality (from French "tract" -- to draw out, to create

Singularity : a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined

Ontological Cause : Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone.

Ontology : the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

So this is a non-scientific, fictional ("create a myth") kind of discussion? Neat if so. — Outlander

The OP requested "philosophical" theories, not "fictional" stories. Unlike Physicists, philosophers can indulge in Meta-physical theorizing to illustrate possible scenarios, but not to the point of fantastic narratives. Even such fictional characters as Unicorns are not beyond belief : in the course of evolutionary mutations, a horse could conceivably grow a horn. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Like a Black Swan, it could happen. So, let's not get too crazy here. :joke:

Black Swan : The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalised after the fact with the benefit of hindsight

Panprotopsychism, by contrast, does not require matter to be intrinsically conscious, only that it be comprised of features equaling consciousness when combined. — Enrique

Yes. I don't use that particular term in my Enformationism thesis, but it's the same basic idea. The "fundamental entity" of my theory is Generic Information, which I also call EnFormAction. It's based on the revelations of Quantum science that the ultimate "particles" of reality are actually cloud-like Fields of mathematical potential. And that Potential is not a material object, but the information (e.g. DNA) necessary to construct a particle. This is similar to Plato's notion of potential Forms that serve as recipes, or definitions, or blueprints of possible things. Information alone is not "intrinsically conscious", but it has the potential to cause Consciousness to emerge from evolutionary processes. :smile:

Panprotopsychism : the doctrine that the fundamental entities described in abstract and structural terms by our physical theories possess unknown underlying natures that, while not mental themselves,
https://philarchive.org/archive/WISPPA-4v1

Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

Is this a valid foundation for hypothesizing that panprotopsychism resolves the hard problem of consciousness, — Enrique

Yes, I have reached that conclusion regarding the Enformationism thesis. But of course, I prefer my own custom terminology. And there are others out there who are proposing that the "seed" or "essence" or "potential" of Consciousness is a universal quality of the physical universe. I call that cosmic potential EnFormAction : the power to enform -- to create. :nerd:


Panqualia :
* The author, Dr. Sam Coleman, proposes a different kind of stuff (essence) that is “neither mental nor physical in itself, but which possesses properties capable of generating both the mental and the physical.” The “one fundamental stuff” he's referring to is Consciousness, but for technical purposes I think that the scientific term “Information” fits the description better.
* As Claude Shannon discovered in mid-20th century, Information is not just ideas in human minds, it is also the substance of physical objects; it's both physical and mental. Coleman also offers a novel term to replace Panpsychism : Panqualityism. He admits that name is a merely a placeholder for unspecified “neutral properties” (potentials) that are able to emerge into reality as either physical or metaphysical, depending on the context.
* Yet again, Information already has this monist/dualist BothAnd property, which could explain how metaphysical minds emerge from the functioning of material brains. It might also suggest how a physical universe could emerge from a mathematical Singularity consisting of nothing but the design information for constructing a universe from scratch : a program for creation.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page14.html

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:

I have nothing against "natural logical structure in communication". But we cannot conclude that natural logical structure implies rules, just because artificial, or formal logic consists of rules. In fact, that's what I see as the difference between formal logic, and natural logic, the former consists of rules, the latter does not. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I'm beginning to see your objection to the notion of "rules" in communication. Apparently you are thinking of imposed "explicit" formal rules, while I'm talking about innate "implicit" informal commonalities. As a rule (i.e. normally) humans are born with something like a mental template for language.

My position on inherent human behaviors (instincts) is basically that of cognitive psychologist Stephen Pinker in The Blank Slate. He calls it "the language instinct", which gives humans an advantage, over most animals, in social communication. Anyway, I doubt that our concepts of communication are very far apart. It's just another failure to "first define your terms". :joke:

Rules :
1.one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
1a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action. b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members. c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit.

As a Rule : usually, but not always.

The Blank Slate : arguing that human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

The Language Instinct : Pinker argues that humans are born with an innate capacity for language. . . . . but dissents from Chomsky's skepticism that evolutionary theory can explain the human language instinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_Instinct

Then, very clearly, your proposal that people must agree on rules in order for communication to be possible, is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is not what I was proposing. Sorry for the mis-communication. :smile:

I really do not see how you can portray learning how to talk as a matter of learning rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK. I'll try to avoid using the term "rules", since it seems to trigger your indignation. Instead, I'll use something like "norm". The human language instinct is not a "law of nature" or a "man-made rule", but it is common enough to view it as "the rule rather than the exception". :cool:

Rule : If something is the rule, it is the normal state of affairs.

Language structure : You're born with it
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140408122316.htm

Examples given include determinism, historicism, mechanism (the denial of the existence of empty space), its opposite - field theories, vitalism and its denial, various aspects of mind, and conservation doctrines of all sorts. — Banno

Yes. Most of those theories are meaningful, but non-empirical. That's why I say that Quantum Physics has inadvertently crossed the line into Meta-physics. Yet, by "meta-physics", I don't mean ghosts & gods, but merely those aspects of our world that are not directly accessible to the Scientific Method. That's why there is still some fertile territory for philosophical exploration.

Some of the pioneers of Quantum Physics saw its meta-physical implications, and used Eastern Philosophical terminology to express some counter-intuitive concepts. But they eventually lost-out to the hard empiricists, who rebuffed the "errant" theorists with "shut-up and calculate".

I have downloaded the PDF, and may have more to say later. That's because us meta-physical types often get booed off the stage in this forum, just because we go beyond the purview of empirical Physics. Apparently, some posters here have Physics Envy. :grin:

"Physics envy" refers to the envy (perceived or real) of scholars in other disciplines for the mathematical precision of fundamental concepts obtained by physicists. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

The appeal to authority is insufficient until you bring out the evidence presented by those authorities. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since I am not an authority on the subject of Semantics and Syntax, I was referring you to some authorities that do see evidence of commonalities, if not formal "rules", in human communication. If you are really interested in the evidence, you can click on the links. But, it seems that you have something against the idea of natural logical structure in communication. And I'm not quite sure what that objection is. :smile:

I don't see that people agree on rules before communicating with each other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, except for some picky-picky philosophers, most people don't have to establish formal rules before they communicate. Instead, most of us learn the rules informally at our mother's knee, and just by growing up in a particular culture, or may even inherit some mental structure biologically. That's what I referred to as "Intuition".

Are you arguing against Chomsky's theory of innate language structure? I generally agree with the notion, but I've never studied the theory in detail. So he may have over-stated his case. But what does that have to do with Shannon's theory of Parsimonious Transmission of Information? :grin:

Born Ready for Language : Chomsky based his theory on the idea that all languages contain similar structures and rules (a universal grammar), and the fact that children everywhere acquire language the same way, and without much effort, seems to indicate that we're born wired with the basics already present in our brains.
https://www.healthline.com/health/childrens-health/chomsky-theory

For and against Chomsky : https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/forandagainstchomsky

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:

The point remains the same, even if you express it in this way. All that meaning between 1 and 0 cannot be expressed in the digital system. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but the digital system is just one facet of the whole system -- the Universe. Our world is a two-sided coin. You can't see both sides at the same time. But you can choose which side to look at. In the communication of Information, Shannon chose not to look at the intentional Meaning of its contents, but to focus on the Container, which is neutral toward Meaning. The point being, that the invisible side of the cosmic coin is still there, like the dark side of the moon. See image below. :smile:

Right, that's why all that meaning (information) ends up being contradictory and "un-knowable". — Metaphysician Undercover

Quantum information that is in superposition is indeed "un-knowable" until a measurement is taken. The measurement is a Choice of what to look at. Quantum theorists have argued about the significance of a Delayed Choice experiment. But don't ask me to make sense of it in this context --- it's just an analogy. Superposition may be confusing, but not necessarily contradictory. :grin:

Delayed Choice : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

That's why the Shannon use of "information" is distinct from most common usage. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But it's the Distinction-that-made-a-Difference in causing a Phase Change in history from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. By changing how we think of Information, he was able to gain power over it. For example, the Bit is a distinction -- a difference (1) that makes a difference (2). The first difference is physical (an empirical observation), and the latter difference is personal -- meaning (a theory or feeling). That's why some people feel that Shannon's indirect creation (Robots) are like Frankenstein's soulless monsters.

Information Age : This surprising result is a cornerstone of the modern digital information age, where the bit reigns supreme as the universal currency of information.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-claude-shannons-information-theory-invented-the-future-20201222/

The point being that I don't see any evidence of rules of semantics, and the rules of syntax need to be interpreted. — Metaphysician Undercover

The rules of Syntax (structure) are partly objective, and can be applied to any language or culture. But the "rules" of Semantics (meaning) are partly subjective & personal, yet may also be embedded in Jung's Collective Consciousness, or in Freud's Unconscious, or Chomsky's Deep Structure. Don't take those metaphors literally. They merely indicate that part of what-we-know-intuitively, and the rules-of-behavior we follow, are inherited with the human body. Hence, such standards, while important, are not inherently formal or rational. :nerd:

Rules of Semantics : Semantic rules make communication possible. They are rules that people have agreed on to give meaning to certain symbols and words. Semantic misunderstandings arise when people give different meanings to the same words or phrases
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/jackendoff69.pdf

Both Sides Now

Harry Hindu is speaking of this as a matter of following rules, but I don't see any evidence of any such rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps he is referring to the rules of Syntax, which are conventional, and the rules of Semantics, which are mostly intuitive. :smile:

If that is your view, and belief, how do you account for all that meaning which is excluded as not meaningful, by that position, as I explained above? Do you believe that it is acceptable to exclude any meaning which cannot fit into the digital representation, as not meaningful? Isn't that contradictory? — Metaphysician Undercover

I assume that by "excluded", you are referring to "discarding, all that meaning which falls in between, as neither 0 nor 1". But that's not how I understand the digital compression process. Instead, it's similar to Quantum Superposition, in that all values between 0 and 1 are possible, but not actual, until the superposition is "collapsed" by a measurement. The original Intention is still in-there, but un-knowable until the meaning is "measured" by a mind that "resonates" with the intent. In other words, the receiver must already know something about the significance of the communication.

I'm not into all the technical details, but some Information theorists view the secret to compression as, not either/or, but as all-of-the-above. However, exactly what triggers the decompression is just as unclear as in Quantum Theory. It seems to have something to do with a Conscious Mind extracting Information as a Measurement of Meaning. That notion fits into my Enformationism thesis, even though I can't spell-out the exact mechanics of it. I simply liken it to a physical Phase Change, such as water to ice.

Besides there is no actual Meaning transmitted in a Shannon communication --- only abstract mathematical symbols, that can be used to define conventional relationships, which the receiving mind interprets as Meaning. Anything deeper than that vague summary is way over my pointy head. :cool:

Superposition of meaning : Shannon's theory of information was built on the assumption that the information carriers were classical systems. Its quantum counterpart, quantum Shannon theory, explores the new possibilities arising when the information carriers are quantum systems.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2018.0903

Phase Transition : Phase transitions occur when the thermodynamic free energy of a system is non-analytic for some choice of thermodynamic variables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition
Note : I interpret "non-analytic" to mean that nobody knows what the intermediate steps are, between before & after the change. It's like magic. :joke:

Meaning Communication :In the philosophy of language, metaphysics, and metasemantics, meaning "is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they intend, express, or signify"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(philosophy)
Note : it takes two to tango : sender & receiver must have something in common -- they must be on the same wavelength.

Digital information is conveyed in the abstract language of binary numbers that have the potential to encode any meaning. — Gnomon
But do they? Or, do you really believe this? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not just me. See the link to Universal Language in the previous post. I'm making a broad general statement, that you may be interpreting in a narrow sense. I'm merely repeating the opinions of serious scientists -- Wheeler, Tegmark, Fredkin, Lloyd, etc -- that the physical reality of our universe may be viewed as our sensory interpretation of abstract mathematical Information --- see Interface Reality below.

Of course, this is not a mainstream view, but I'm using it for personal philosophical purposes, not an academic technical thesis. These mathematical-minded scientists are implying that we are living in the Matrix, running a digital program. I don't take that metaphor too literally, but as a metaphor, it fits neatly into my Enformationism worldview. So, yes, I believe it --- provisionally. :joke:

Digital Physics : In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is describable by information. It is a form of digital ontology about the physical reality. According to this theory, the universe can be conceived of as either the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program, a vast, digital computation device, or a mathematical Isomorphism to such a device.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

Interface Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

In Spinoza's philosophy, which I'll take to be paradigmatic for philosophy generally in this case, the only real substance ('substance' being nearer in meaning to 'subject' or to 'being' than the current conception of 'substance') is self-caused, it exists in itself and through itself. In other words, it is not derived from anything, whereas everything else is derived from that. (This is Spinoza's doctrine of God as nature.) — Wayfarer

Yes. My Enformationism thesis can be viewed as an update of Spinoza's worldview, in light of Quantum Physics, bottom-up Evolution, and Information Theory. :smile:

Spinoza's Universal Substance : Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Raw Energy is first transformed into active Life, and then into sensing Mind, and ultimately into knowing Consciousness. — Gnomon
Transformed by what, and how? — Wayfarer

The world-creating Potential of the Big Bang Singularity was transformed (enformed) into Life, the Universe, and Everything by the power of EnFormAction. This is a novel notion, perhaps even radical. But it is being studied by serious scientists -- some of whom even entertain the taboo concept of Deity, or Panpsychism. I have simply translated that unconventional interpretation of Generic Information into a new myth of creation, that I call Enformationism. This is based on Einstein's theory of E = MC^2, and the current understanding of physicists that Information transforms into Energy, which transforms into Matter, and vice versa. See the Hypothesis below for the "how". :nerd:

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility -- the Platonic Forms.
https://enformationism.info/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&p=837#p837

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

I think that what happens is that at each distinct level there is an inversion of importance, from the particular to the general, and then back again when you cross the next level. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah! That's the ticket : "Inversion" -- a mental flip of the coin. When I said that Shannon's Information substituted "generality" for "specificity", I was referring to the meaning of communication. Shannon's technique was to eliminate the specific intended meaning of Words for enigmatic numerical Bytes. Digital information is conveyed in the abstract language of binary numbers that have the potential to encode any meaning. It's a sort of universal language. But Mathematics is divorced from concrete Reality, in that it is universal instead of specific. That's why String Theory makes sense to mathematicians, and not to laymen, but cannot be empirically tested in the real world.

Therefore, in order to be meaningful to non-computers, that general (one size fits all) language must be translated (inverted) back into a single human language with a narrowly-defined (specified) range of meanings for each word. In its encoded form, the message is scrambled into apparently random noise, that could mean anything (1) or nothing (0). Ironically though, even chaotic randomness contains some orderly potential. And Shannon found the key to unlock that hidden Meaning in Boolean Algebra, which boils Significance down to its essence : 1 = True (meaningful) or 0 = False (meaningless).

So, as you said, Shannon "inverted the importance" of Meaning in order to compress it down to its minimum volume. But the communication is not complete until it is converted back into verbose messy, often ambiguous, human language. Individually, the ones & zeros mean nothing more complex than the simple dichotomy of Either/Or. And that is also the ultimate goal of objective reductive physical Science. But subjective holistic metaphysical Philosophy's goal is to restore the personal meaning of knowledge.

Shannon's reductive method : By focusing relentlessly on the essential feature of a problem while ignoring all other aspects.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-claude-shannons-information-theory-invented-the-future-20201222/

Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Universal Language : https://www.bhp.com/sustainability/community/community-news/2017/07/learning-the-universal-language/

I don't see how you can describe that as a matter of reducing specificity for an increase in generality. It's the very opposite of that. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry for the confusion. As an amateur philosopher, I'm in over my head. But, if you have any interest in a deeper discussion of what I'm talking about, I can direct you to several books by physicist Paul Davies, and associates, who are exploring the concept of Information far beyond Shannon's novel use of the old word for personal-Knowledge-encoded-in-a-physical-brain to a new application of abstract-Values-encoded-in-the-meaningless-mathematics-of-Probability. :brow:

Paul Davies : https://www.amazon.com/s?k=paul+davies&link_code=qs&sourceid=Mozilla-search&tag=mozilla-20

Thinking that this is an accurate representation of "information", is the problem of representation, or narrative, which Plato warned us about. We have three layers, the real natural thing, the artificial thing which goes by the same name, but is just a shallow reflection of the thing — Metaphysician Undercover

Apparently, I haven't clearly conveyed that my intention is to understand "the real natural thing" instead of "the artificial thing which goes by the same name". Don't worry about the "specificity" and "generality" of information. That's a tricky technical distinction for information specialists to gnaw on. For the rest of us, the important distinction is between statistical Probability and meaningful Aboutness. :cool:



Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

You might be interested in this academic. He sounds a bit fringe to me, but I have to admit, his electromagnetic theory of consciousness seems plausible (although I must confess to scepticism about anything authored by someone who calls themselves 'Johnjoe'. :worry: ) — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, that's his real name. And he is fringey, in the sense of revolutionary. I have read a Kindle copy of his book, Quantum Evolution, because it seemed have some parallels to my own edgey Enformationism thesis of how evolution works. He concluded that there seemed to a "force of will" behind biological evolution. And I have concluded that the Generic Form of Information -- that I call EnFormAction -- is poetically analogous to the Will-of-God in religious myths of creation. So, I find his combination of Quantum Theory and Biology to be interesting -- and provocative, if not provable. But of course, it doesn't fit neatly into the dominant scientific worldview of Materialism.

MeFadden's new theory of Electromagnetic Consciousness may also parallel some of my ideas of how Consciousness emerges from a biological brain. He "posits that consciousness is in fact the brain’s energy field". But I would go a step farther, to posit that Consciousness is an emergent quality of universal Information : a MindField, if you will. Physical Energy is merely a causal form of Generic Information. And the human Mind is a metaphysical effect, a Function, of information processing in the brain. By that, I mean Raw Energy is first transformed into active Life, and then into sensing Mind, and ultimately into knowing Consciousness. :smile:

Quantum Evolution presents a revolutionary new scientific theory by asking: is there a force of will behind evolution?
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Evolution-Multiverse-Johnjoe-McFadden/dp/0006551289/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=quantum+evolution&link_code=qs&qid=1609092555&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-1&tag=mozilla-20

Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility -- the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note -- this use of "Generic" is not based on the common dictionary definition, but on the root meaning : "to generate novelty" or "to produce offspring".

Shannon might have coined the term 'bit' for 'binary digit' - and transmitting them through a medium. Why it is now taken to have a profound meaning about the nature of reality baffles me a little. — Wayfarer

The profundity of Information Theory is only partly due to it's opening the door to the Information Age. But we have, since Shannon's re-definition of Mind Stuff, begun to go far beyond mere artificial computer brains, to glimpse an answer to the "hard question" of natural Consciousness. Shannon's narrow definition of "Information" is blossoming into a whole new worldview. :wink:


We live in the information age, which according to Wikipedia is a period in human history characterized by the shift from industrial production to one based on information and computerization. . . . So it is not entirely crazy to speculate about what might lie beyond the information age.
https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/06/beyond-information-age/

I would say that you might have this backward. The computer can't handle uncertainty, that's why there must be a built-in code-key to eliminate any uncertainty. People, having free will choice have no such built-in code-key, and that capacity to choose regardless of uncertainty, allows them to live with and cope with ambiguity. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with your version, but what I said was that "by reducing specificity" -- which increases generality -- Shannon's definition of Information "maximizes the Potential" carrying capacity (bandwidth) of a transmission. That was the point of his research. By using only an austere two digit code, instead of noisy redundant human languages, he was able to compress more information into the same pipes. Just as with Morse code though, the specific meaning is restored by translating the abstract code back into a concrete language. Only then, does it become Actual Information -- meaning in a mind; actionable knowledge.

In the shipping analogy, Shannon didn't make the ships bigger, he made the cargo smaller -- by reducing redundancy, as noted by TMF. Thus, increasing the carrying capacity at no extra cost to the shippers. But, in this thread, that's a minor point. What really matters is that by using an abstract code -- stripped of meaning -- he overcame a major technical hurdle : bandwidth. But in order for the code to be meaningful to humans, it must be decompressed and converted back into noisy redundant "natural" language. Unfortunately, his new terminology. equating "Information" with destructive Entropy, diverted attention away from the original constructive essence of Information : aboutness -- the relation between subject & object. :smile:

Natural Language : In neuropsychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of language, a natural language or ordinary language is any language that has evolved naturally in humans through use and repetition without conscious planning or premeditation. Natural languages can take different forms, such as speech or signing.

Aboutness : https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691144955/aboutness

What is this "common usage" of "information" that you speak of? — TheMadFool

See my reply to above. :smile:

Information : For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathe-matical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

If the accepted "information theory" represents information in a way other than the way that we normally use the word "information", and cannot account for the existence of information, according to how we normally use the word, as that which is transmitted in a message, then surely we are justified in "raising philosophical objections to it". — Metaphysician Undercover

Charged with maximizing the flow of communication, Shannon was interested in measuring the carrying capacity of the system, not the meaningful content of each message. That's like a shipping company, which is more interested in the potential (carrying capacity) of its empty vessels, while the shippers are interested in the cash-value (meaning) of the actual cargo.

Toward that end, Shannon focused on the Syntax of Information (structure ; volume) instead of its Semantics (meaning ; content). Ironically, he measured Information capacity in terms of emptiness & negation (Entropy), instead of its fullness & positive aspects (Energy). Even more ironically, scientists have referred to those purposeful features as "negentropy" (negative negation). Likewise, scientists focus on the "uncertainty" of information, rather than its "novelty". But it's the unexpected that is most meaningful to humans. So, I agree that philosophers have good reasons to "raise objections".

"Information", as Shannon defined it, is akin to Fuzzy Logic, which is ambiguous & uncertain, but -- like the Enigma code -- capable of carrying almost infinite values : between 0 and 100%. By reducing Specificity, it maximizes Potential. Hence, each bit/byte, instead of carrying meaning, is an empty container capable of carrying multiple meanings. That kind of communication is good for computers -- where the translation code-key is built in -- but not for people, who can't handle uncertainty & ambiguity.

That's why neuroscientist & anthropologist Terrence Deacon said, "this is evidence that we are both woefully ignorant of a fundamental causal principle in the universe and in desperate need of such a theory". The Enformationism thesis is my contribution toward that end. :smile:


Negentropy : Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos.
Note -- I give it a more positive name : "Enformy" -- meaning the power to enform, to create novelty.

Fuzzy Logic :
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend, opposite to that of Entropy & Randomness, to produce Complexity & Progress. It is the mysterious tendency for aimless energy to occasionally create the stable, but temporary, patterns we call Matter, Life, and MInd.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page18.html

"Information" Is an ambiguous term which allows the modern materialist, or physicalist, through the use of illusion, to escape the need for God in metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Like Pierre Simon Laplace, Claude Shannon had "no need for that [God] hypothesis" in his definition of Information. In both cases the researcher was following the principles of Methodological Naturalism. As the quote below indicates, by eliminating supernatural causes from consideration, scientists could avoid getting entangled in insoluble perennial philosophical / theological wrangling over intangible & non-empirical Metaphysical concepts.

Ironically though, as the 20th century progressed in its understanding of Quantum foundations of the natural world, the less physical and more metaphysical it seemed. Now, instead of hard little atoms of matter, Physicists talk about cloud-like "Fields" composed of intangible "Virtual" particles. So, the term 'virtual" is another smokescreen "to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind" [Orwell on political speech]. Such terminology is only illusory if taken to refer to Actual existence, when they only point to Potential existence. They seem to be potential in the same sense as Plato's Forms : the general potential to enform particular things.

Now, the 21st century descriptions of Nature are technically Meta-beyond-Physical, and are literally ambiguous : "wave-particle". So, it's not surprising that most physicists prefer not to consider philosophical questions about the mushy foundations of Physics. But not all. Paul Davies is a highly credentialed physicist with a philosophical inclination, who does not shy away from the "hard problems". So, he uses the "G" word openly in his books. And he is not alone. Many of his fellows have come around to see that Information is not just ideas in a mind, or just data in a computer, but also the creative power of Energy. Still, he is careful to avoid committing to any traditional god-myth. Specifically, his notion of God is not the supernatural bible-god, but a natural information-god : The Enformer/Creator of everything in this world, both Matter & Mind. :smile:

Methodological Naturalism : Methodological naturalism, as a definition of the scientific method, is rather ill defined except for its main idea, namely that science, explicitly, by fiat, and with malice a-fore-thought, rejects God, gods, and the supernatural from all its considerations. . . . But Laplace gave the real reason for God’s absence: parsimony—there is no need of that hypothesis
https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/16/there-is-no-need-for-god-as-a-hypothesis/

Potential vs Actual : Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

The Mind of God : The Scientific Basis for a Rational World
https://www.amazon.com/Mind-God-Scientific-Basis-Rational/dp/0671797182/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=paul+davies&link_code=qs&qid=1608860627&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-2&tag=mozilla-20

God and the New Physics :
https://www.amazon.com/God-New-Physics-Paul-Davies/dp/0671528068/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=paul+davies&link_code=qs&qid=1608860774&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-3&tag=mozilla-20

I think science majors are for researching the laws of the world, so I think philosophy should be the science of general laws, but to understand the general law, we can't just thinking about it purely but we should understand and learning other majors as a specific knowledge for understanding the world asthe whole big picture. — Anh

Yes, The focus of exploratory Science is on the reductive details . . . piece by piece; pixel by pixel. Since the modern analytical materialist sciences have the bits & pieces covered, what's left for philosophers to understand is a holistic synthetic overview of the "big picture", in order to learn, or relearn, the general or universal principles that hold the parts together. :smile:

Yes, causality = information = meaning. However, I don't understand your aversion to synonyms. Do you not use some words interchangeably? Also, I think "information" provides that sense of aboutness that "causality" does not seem to imply. — Harry Hindu

Good point! That is why I say that Energy is Information (the power to enform), but Information is not just mechanical Energy. Information also causes Meaning in a mind. :smile:

Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

I have concluded that our world is not a random accident, but a product of Intention. — Gnomon
This is still a Mind as being First, aka 'God'. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Most scientists ignore the clear signs of Intention in the evolution of our world. For example, "Natural Selection" was the analogy used by Darwin to describe the process of weeding out un-favored stock from those that met the requirements of the breeder's intention. Unfortunately, before we learned about genetics, selective breeding often had unintended consequences. So, we might wonder if Natural "breeding" also results in occasional monstrocities. But, that should never happen with a biblical God in charge.

In any case, if sheep breeders intend to produce sheep with thicker or finer wool, and pigeon breeders intend to produce certain homing traits or color patterns, then I must infer that evolution was programmed to produce creatures with special characteristics. There seems to be some mysterious intention behind its "selection" of hardy breeds from among the weak & monstrous results of random mutations. Randomness alone is aimless; but AI computers also use random heuristic searches to find forms that meet the intended criteria specified by the programmer.

So yes, that notion does sound a lot like a god-like breeder, with the intention of producing intelligent creatures from raw matter. Ironically, some of those imaginative creatures have learned to create artificial intelligences, that could turn-out to be Frankenstein monsters. :joke:

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

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

At one point my friend said the universe unfolds as it should. Does that and your comment on Intention suggest Determism? — Brett

No. Not in the usual sense of top-down determinism. Based on my Enformationism worldview, the top-down design theory doesn't fit the facts on the ground. It has all of the problems that Atheists have pointed-out in Biblical creation stories.

So, instead of miraculous creation in seven days, I see ongoing natural creation in roughly 14 billion years. The creative process is similar to a computer program starting with a kernel (Singularity) of encoded Information and initial conditions, then calculating toward a final solution to some Programmer's question. This is a bottom-up construction from a "Genetic Code", to simple elements, on up to more complex things, and eventually to living & thinking things.

However, since I don't know the kernel code, I can't predict where this evolutionary process is going. But that doesn't stop me from speculating. Anyway, I'm somewhat optimistic about the "destiny" of the universe. So I could agree with your friend, that in the words of the poem Desiderata :

And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.
___ Max Ehrmann © 1927

Bottom-up Creation : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page16.html

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

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

So, please specifically read the definition you question and specifically point out where it is flawed in achieving the goals of an ideal definition (be it scientific or Philosophical). — Sir Philo Sophia

No need to get defensive. I wasn't critiquing flaws in your definition of Information, etc, but merely offering my observations from a different perspective. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. For your scientific purposes, your definition may be spot-on. But I have a more general & pragmatic usage in mind. The concept of "Generic Information" can be applied to just about any philosophical question. But it's not formulated for use in chemistry or physics experiments. :smile:

Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility -- the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

-- this use of "Generic" is not based on the common dictionary definition, but on the root meaning : "to generate novelty" or "to produce offspring".

Origin of generic
1670–80; <Latin gener- (see gender1) + -ic
also *gen-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "give birth, beget,"

So, please clearly state your Philosophical definition of "Information" in functional terms that is consistent with and predicts all known observations, and point out how it performs that better than my proposal. Thx. — Sir Philo Sophia

Since my understanding of the universal role of Information in the universe diverges radically from most particular & reductive mainstream concepts, I've had to create dozens of definitions to suit a variety of contexts.

We are not in competition here. Your proposed definition may suit your "scientific theoretical" purposes, but my understanding of Information is "philosophical theoretical", with no pretensions to be empirical or mathematical. But FWIW, here's one definition that is somewhat technical, but includes psychological and sociological applications. :smile:

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

All is field. The excitations are what we call 'particles'. From them, the, born of simplicity, the complex universe. — PoeticUniverse

Ah . . . I remember the joys of the simple-minded particular faith of Reductionism! Sadly, I have abandoned the simplicity of near nothingness, for the integrity of Unity and Holism --- which includes everything and excludes nothing. :joke:

No election?
No direction?
Only reduction
to the simplest element of all :
Nothingness.

My friend was raised in a very religious family. At some stage he broke away from their beliefs and declared he was an atheist. My feeling is that he isn’t, that he has moved sideways to this theory he has, unconsciously or not, that requires an intender, which he cannot admit to. — Brett

I can relate to that story. I never claimed to be an convinced Atheist, but did call myself an open-minded Agnostic for years. Yet, late in life, I also made a side-ways move. As an agnostic, my self-education consisted mostly of scientific topics and skeptical periodicals. But eventually, my philosophically-motivated exploration of Quantum Physics and Information Theory led me down a side-road back to the ancient G*D solution to insoluble philosophical and scientific conundrums. This is not the God of religion, or the Faith that is anathema to Science. But it is a personal Theory of Everything, that satisfies my curiosity, except for my eternal destiny. Which I don't worry about anymore.

I have concluded that our world is not a random accident, but a product of Intention. My current position may be what science writer John Horgan called "Negative Theology" or "Rational Mysticism". But it serves my philosophical needs, and does not require unquestioning faith in the transient truths of Science, or the sectarian Truth of Religion. Of course, my non-mainstream position doesn't permit the emotional benefits of social bonding with fellow believers or both kinds. :smile:

Negative Theology : Arguments about which interpretation is “true” cannot be resolved, because our preferences are matters of taste, not truth.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-mechanics-the-mind-body-problem-and-negative-theology/

towards answering your question above, please review my proposed "Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter" here: — Sir Philo Sophia

I assume the referenced question is about "how the mechanism of organism works". And your "definition" makes the most obvious distinction between Mechanism and Organism : Mechanisms are passive media through which energy passes, while Organisms are active agents that turn some of that energy to their own personal purposes. As you noted above, that redirection of energy seems to be a "primitive form of Free Will". Of course, in the simplest organisms, like viruses, the self-directed "choice" may not be a conscious decision. :smile:

My definitions are based on the physics "principle of least action (PLA)". — Sir Philo Sophia

I would refer to the PLA more colloquially as the "Path of Least Resistance". Mechanisms tend to efficient in in passing energy along pre-defined channels to outputs, that have nothing to do with the mechanism itself. By contrast, a living organism uses some of the channeled energy internally & selfishly, for metabolism & reproduction. The energy "lost" due to internal resistance, is turned into Life. Plus, the output of energy is expressed in self-directed behavior (animation) that we interpret as a sign of Life. :blush:

wherein the means or goal to Self-replicate or gain potential energy (PE) is not programmed or directed by an external consciousness or entity. — Sir Philo Sophia

That's what I mean by "self-directed" energy usage. :nerd:

self-determined, unpredictable, path . . . an act of living primitive free will — Sir Philo Sophia

Freewill allows the organism to "choose" how to allocate its internal energy, rather than passively moved by external inputs. :nerd:

preserving the most potential energy or negentropy possible — Sir Philo Sophia

I give a more positive name to "negentropy". I call it "Enformy". :cool:

Enformy :
Entropy is a quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That "glitch" is what I call Enformy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Dissipation-Driven Adaptive Organization :
A new theory in Physics “that life exists because the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page77.html

Dissipative structures :
Refers to steady-state systems that are mechanisms for channeling energy in order to maintain their form. They re-direct the raw power of creative potential.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page76.html

Gnomon
Neutrinos are things that travel through my vacuum
Their existence is recognized by their effect
Much like human interaction
One doesn't have to be visible to have an impact — Rxspence

Yes. Both energy and matter can propagate through empty space. But a Neutrino is like a Photon, in that it can indeed "travel through a vacuum". So it is imagined as a tiny bullet (a particle of mass). But the wave nature of a Photon, and presumably of a Neutrino, was a puzzle for early physicists. How can a wave propagate without some physical medium to compress & release?

One proposal was the Luminiferous Aether, which was hypothesized to be almost as close to nothing (i.e. mass) as a Neutron. When researchers found no evidence (measurable effects) for aether, the theory dropped out of favor. But Einstein, while abandoning that discredited term, attributed aether-like properties to his hypothetical Gravity Field. In that theory, empty space was treated metaphorically as a physical substance (e.g. fabric of space). Unfortunately, to this day, the "fabric of space" is undetectable by physical means. So, it remains a metaphysical concept, defined in abstract ethereal mathematical terms. Hence, the vacuum of space is still as close to nothing as ever. :smile:

Luminiferous Aether :
Albert Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support. We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

This “fluctuation”, I think he regards this as when things become unbalanced. But I can’t get a clear understanding of what causes the imbalance, because surely we have to maintain this on a physics level and not suddenly switch to “something”? — Brett

What scientists call a Quantum Fluctuation is "temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space". The key concepts here are "random", meaning Un-caused, and "change", meaning Causation. So, there seems to be an inherent contradiction between the presumption of acausal randomness and the unbroken Chain of Causation, which is a common assumption of philosophers & scientists, but implies Determinism.

So, I would say the "fluctuation" may appear Random, because there is no evident specific prior cause. But, in order to make sense, there must always be some cause for every effect. And the most general cause in the physical world is Energy. Thermodynamic Energy is literally an "imbalance", an unequal ratio of Hot vs Cold, so to speak. So, when nothing is changing we must assume that the situation is balanced. But what causes that imbalance of Potential (un-actualized power)? I won't go into the gory details here, but one answer to that question is Intention, which is a disposition or inclination in one direction or another. But then, who or what is the Intender????? :chin:

Chain of Causation : And they nearly always assume that physical causes are the only kind of causes that could really matter in a scientific explanation of anything. But how can this be, when talk of causes only rarely arises in physics, and talk of "causal chains" is practically nonexistent? Won't this imprecision inevitably lead to confusion?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/70930/is-the-idea-of-a-causal-chain-physical-or-even-scientific

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter. Likewise, all we know of God is what it does : create. That's why I think of Energy as the “power” aspect of the willpower of G*D, which is guided by the intentional (lawlike) “will” aspect. Together I call them : EnFormAction.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Intention : In order for anything to happen, there must be a slight imbalance, an inclination, an intention, a choice.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page76.html

“The vacuum contains an infinity of virtual particles embedded in a foamy space time matrix.” — Brett

I could rephrase that assertion as : the vacuum is spacetime with no material extension or physical change, but only the un-actualized Potential for containing things. Virtual Particles are not real things but the statistical mathematical property of potentiality to become something. A "foamy space-time matrix" sounds like a good gimmick for a Science Fiction story : "I took a bubble bath in empty space". :grin:

Newton's conception of Space, the existence of space, or extension, follows from that of anything whatsoever; but extension does not require a subject in which it "inheres", as a property; and it can be conceived as existent without presupposing any particular thing, God included.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_(metaphysics)
Note : Newton rejected the eternal "extension" hypothesis as atheistic.

“Nothing contains the power to make everything.” — Brett

No-thing comes from nothing. The Vacuum is nothing-but empty Potential. It is Zero Point energy with zero power -- until nothingness accidentally or mysteriously "fluctuates". :wink:

Potential : Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.

Vacuum Energy : Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. Its behavior is codified in Heisenberg's energy–time uncertainty principle. Still, the exact effect of such fleeting bits of energy is difficult to quantify.

Implicate Order : Bohm believed that there was a deeper reality beneath the quantum level, a subquantum field he called the quantum potential.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

“A vacuum is not empty, it contains space time.” — Brett

The Vacuum is an empty container, which contains empty space-time. :razz:

The container theory of space is a metaphysical theory according to which space is a background against which objects rest and move, with the implication that it can continue to exist in the absence of matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_space

In relation to your post this seems to be my friend’s position. — Brett

So far, his "position" on Nothing is nowhere. He's trying to define "Nothing" in terms of "Something". He needs to explain the "deeper reality" that is "uncertain" and "difficult to quantify". Bohm was accused of taking a mystical metaphysical stance on physical reality. The uncertainty of Quantum theory has forced Materialistic Scientists to think in terms of philosophical Metaphysical concepts. :cool:

So the premise that information is fundamental, implies that God is even more fundamental. But this implication is simply ignored or denied by the informationist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I was led by my exploration of the Enformationism thesis to conclude that something like a Divine Creator -- or First Cause of our space-time sequence of secondary causes -- is reasonable to assume; perhaps even necessary to believe. But the very generality & universality of Information in the real world, does not specify any particular traditional deity concept. Nor does it imply any humanoid characteristics, such as motherly love or fatherly commandments.

That's why, in my thesis and blog, I refer to the Enformer by many names, including the deliberately non-specific term "G*D". I take the necessary existence of The Programmer as an axiom in my worldview. But even more fundamental than a creative Prime Cause is the eternal power to exist, which I call BEING. Yet I don't have any reason to expect the Designer of Evolution (The Lawgiver) to make an exception to the universal rules of Nature, for poor little me. I also don't see any evidence of a revelation, apart from that which Science uncovers, to any particular tribe of humans.

So all those Metaphysical roles affect me in a philosophical way, but not in any particular physical difference or emotional charge. Like the Supreme Being of Deism, my G*D does not not intervene in the implacable automatic execution of the Evolutionary Program. Hence, while I am sympathetic to traditional notions of Supernatural Gods, I don't have any motive to worship or pray-to that Universal Agency. Enformationism is a philosophical worldview, not a romantic religion. :cool:

PS___I assume the "informationist" you refer to is restricted to the technical mechanical Shannon interpretation, and omits the Bayesian criterion, which includes a parameter for personal beliefs and opinions.