Information as a universal fundamental has to be a credible position to take at some level imo. Information is however 'labelled data,' so would 'data' not be the fundamental as opposed to information? Is that not a critical distinction? — universeness
I typically use the word "Information" in a more general sense than "Data". The original etymological usage of "Information" referred to the meanings stored in human Minds (ideas ; concepts)*1. But modern computer terminology has popularized the notion of
"Data", which is Information stripped of personal meaning*2. That abstraction makes it more narrowly specific for digital computers, but almost meaningless for human comprehension. That's why code compilers must be used to translate semantic human Information into computer Data.
In the book I'm currently reading,
The Ascent of Information by Caleb Scharf, he coins a new term "Dataome" (compare to biological Genome)to represent the kind of information that humans have off-loaded from brains to man-made inventions for external storage & processing. His usage may be closer to what you have in mind. But my philosophical concept of Information is coming from a completely different direction. Rather than modern science & technology,
my definition of "Information" goes back to Plato's notion of "Form" as the essence of all things, including ideas*3.
*1.
Etymology :
The English word "information" comes from Middle French enformacion/informacion/information . . . . Latin informatiō(n) 'conception, teaching, creation'. . . . Information is not knowledge itself, but the meaning that may be derived from a representation through interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Note -- Another definition of "meaning" is "
aboutness', mental reference to something relevant to the thinker.
*2.
Information is :
*** 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
Note --
Shannon Information (data) is Syntactic (rules), but traditional Information is Semantic (meaning)
*3.
What is Information ? :
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html
Why bring in a term such as 'Immaterial intelligence?' You would first have to convince me/others that such a term has any meaningful existent. What evidence do you have of immaterial intelligence? — universeness
I apologize if my word choice conjured up an image of Einstein's ghost. I was just thinking of the
Intelligence usually associated with "information" as an abstract quality instead of a physical thing or being. Perhaps I should ask if "
material intelligence" has any meaningful existence for you. Like many forms of Information, the existence of IQ must be inferred rationally, instead of proven empirically. Was Einstein's superior "intelligence" known by means of material evidence?
Anyway, as I said, Intelligence seems to be a function of material complexity. But
a "function" is also not a material object. Like many forms of Information, it's a relationship between variables, such as input & output. In the case of
intelligence, the function is a relationship between Brain complexity and Mental output : novelty of ideas, etc. But even "complexity" is a mental concept (evaluation), not a physical organ.
But how could a random process of matter mutation produce the technological & self-conscious minds that are imaginative enough to speculate that humanity could evolve its own artificial intelligent species of organism/mechanism? Logically, such positive progressive evolution (natural technology) must be non-random & possibly intentional. — Gnomon
I agree but why use an 'immaterial of the gaps' approach? — universeness
Again,
"intelligence" is an immaterial quality. So, why not use an "immaterial" concept to fill the gap in knowledge? Besides,
the kind of Information that my thesis is concerned with is more like immaterial Energy than material Matter*4. For example, a Photon is supposed to be the carrier of Energy, but its existence must be inferred from its effects on matter, because Energy itself (apart from matter) is invisible & intangible*5. The description of "energy" in the link below is essentially the same as that of Causal Information*6. Ironically, many intelligent people think of Energy and Information as forms of matter, when in reality it's just the opposite.
*4.
How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics
*5.
Energy is invisible yet it’s all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy
*6.
Information causality :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality
Koch's and Tononi's theories raise another question : if information is ubiquitous in the universe, why is the biological human mind its most powerful processor? — Gnomon
I can't answer such a 'why' question. . . . Do you think we are trying to gain the same ability as what you muse as 'the immaterial?' — universeness
I suppose the author of that quote was implying that the human mind was "designed" to be a powerful Information processor. Whether by God or by Nature, the ability to understand that "information is ubiquitous" allows us to control its manifold forms via Science and Philosophy. Chemistry manipulates its material physical forms (e.g. elements) , and Physics attempts to master nature's immaterial Forces (e.g. potential & kinetic energy),
while Philosophy deals with its immaterial mental forms (e.g ideas). Yes, all of those empirical & theoretical professions are trying to gain dominance over Nature, in all its forms & expressions : objects, processes, & meanings.
This is where we diverge. These are just too close to god of the gaps arguments for me, and take us nowhere. — universeness
If you would take the time to read the
Enformationism thesis, you'd discover that its "god" is more like the impersonal rational Logos of Plato, and the logically necessary First Cause of Aristotle, than the intervening deity of the Abrahamic religions. By interpreting those ancient non-religious philosophical concepts in terms of our modern understanding of Enforming & Causal power of Generic Information (both Syntactic &
Semantic),
we should indeed diverge from the outdated philosophies of Materialism & Spiritualism. Where that new vector leads ultimately, depends on the interpreter.
As an amateur philosopher, I prefer to focus on the semantic meaning of information, instead of the mechanical rules. If you are an empirical scientist, the syntax of information may be more important. Both Forms are logically contingent upon some ultimate Enformer : the cause or our world's "forms most beautiful" (Darwin).
PS__Back to the original post about an "information/technological" singularity. In
The Ascent of Information, by astrophysicists Caleb Scharf, he says : "
Anything that reduces the meaning of human information threatens the balance . . . between us and our future selves in a way no less profound than in biological evolution"
My thesis is about the emergent teleological aspects of Evolution, not biological, mechanical, or technological. So, that may be where our opinions diverge.
