You're welcome, mate. Glad you liked it

It's a great topic and I would also be snug as a bug in a rug if more fellows could play the ballgame with us

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

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

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

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

I will stick with a version that combines what is expressed below:

There are of course many versions of the story. Some with a vessel full of good and bad things. One, where once all the bad has been released hope remains in the box. — Benj96

To try and find a good analogous to this version of Pandora's myth Pandora's box (or vessel), I will attempt to identify one that fulfills the following:

I - Its unveil was done by a member of humankind;
II - There was exploration of an object that arose beyond humankind's control;
III - Both good and bad things, of considerable impact, might come out of what was found;
IV - We can still hope for the best

I choose the foundation of molecular genetics.

Its unveil was done by Ronald Fisher, a member of humankind, just as Pandora is said to be;
Like Pandora's investigation towards an object crafted by the gods, Fisher was trying to investigate a thing carved by nature;
Diseases might be forever cured, eugenics might find a perverse approach and unpredictable good and bad outcomes might emerge from what follows the discovery of DNA's nucleotide sequence's evolutionary impacts;
For the good and for the bad, we hope that mankind is able to make its choices wisely

"How did consciousness evolve?"

I believe it's correct to state that this question could be fairly answered if the propper philosophical thoughts were combined with refined empirical investigation. I also believe that things would be made easier if we could take the steps to this enquiry in the order that they were stated.

I propose that firstly, we would need to have an agreement on (1) what consciousness is, (2) what are the characteristics that a thing should present in order for we to safely infer that the thing holds consciousness and (3) if it is true that there are levels of consciousness between species (like what Aristotle proposed on his book "De Anima").

Having an agreement upon the forementioned, we could start an empirical investigation on what living things posses the simplest form of consciousness. The next step could be something like finding where those living things are in the evolutional map. From that point on, I believe we would have to undergo a similar process to refine the empirical investigation.

It's a herculean task, but not an impossible one.

For those who believe that it is possible to discuss these ideas without falling into some sort of unescapable mind maze: what can we objectively state about consciousness? What things are able to impact consciousness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics

and Batman

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

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