[Fis] [External Email] Re: defining information.Joseph comment on Loet

[jose luis perez velazquez]

   I don't see any problem in giving up trying to find a strict, general
one-sentence definition of information that will satisfy all. It is like
defining life or consciousness, after so many centuries there is no general
definition that satisfies everybody, hence this is already telling us
something...  Still, one can define their properties, features in each
specific circumstance, so the same can be done with information and thus we
abort the problem of finding a general definition. This is what I mentioned
in a publication that just came out ('On the emergence of cognition: from
catalytic closure to neuroglial closure'
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10867-020-09543-8), where I
took the liberty to have a small section about what information means in
nervous system research and wrote the following... which still may not
satisfy everybody!!:   “The concept of information has several connotations
and in general is somewhat relative: ‘Information is a relative concept
that assumes meaning only when related to the cognitive structure of the
observer of this utterance —the recipient’ [von Foerster, H.. In *Understanding
Understanding*: *essays on cybernetics and cognition*, Springer].
[....]  Nonetheless,
the various concepts of information are very useful to address questions in
each specific field, *the main thing needed is to specify what kind of
information one studies or talks about.*  [...] trying to precisely define
information in a most general manner becomes like trying to define other
fundamental properties like energy: the definitions are inherently
circular"

  JL


On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 12:14 PM Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
wrote:

> The alternative is to give up looking for a unifying definition of
> information *qua *static content and look for, instead of a mathematical
> theory, a concept of information as a common dynamic process, by definition
> multi-dimensional.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Loet
> Leydesdorff
> *Sent:* vendredi, 6 mars 2020 07:48
> *To:* João Alvaro Carvalho; fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] [External Email] Re: defining information
>
>
>
> I gave up looking for an unifying definition of information.
>
> As soon I switch to another context (for example, moving from the context
> of organisational work to  the human mind or to the cell) the key features
> are different.
>
>
>
> This problem is precisely a reason to stick to a content-free, i.e.,
> mathematical definition of information.  Information can then further be
> made relevant in any special theory. The application is not dimension-free.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200306/bec4ac95/attachment.html>