ONT Re: Information = Comprehension x Extension -- Discussion
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
ICE. Discussion Note 40
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
HT = Hugh Trenchard
Re: ICE Discussion 22. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05305.html
HT: Hello again. It's getting late here at my end of
the world and I'm not going to respond in detail
at this time. However, the more I see what you are
driving at, the more intrigued I become. I see that
you are not confining your endeavors to anything so
specific as the internet and are looking for broadly
applicable principles. Of course, if one is driven
in any way by monetary gain, one might think about
specific internet applications, but far be it for
me to suggest this be a focus for your attentions.
If I had to give names to the most distant horizons that I can see --
from where I stand there appear to be several overlapping horizons --
they would probably be terms like "semiotics" and "systems theory".
Logic sits within semiotics as its "formal" branch, this being the
word that Peirce used to connote its normative or "quasi-necessary"
character, but explaining that will take another whole story to do.
Systems theory, in the sense of mathematical systems theory, gives
us the most general framework I can think of for describing change,
or dynamics.
One of the trickiest pieces of work that I have had to work out over
the past fifteen years has been building an integrated framework for
talking about both the dynamic and the symbolic aspects of what I've
been calling "inquiry driven systems", in a single breath, as we say.
HT: You may have seen from previous posts of mine that
I am interested in identifying universal properties
of information that may describe neural processes as
well as they describe human socio-economic processes.
I suggest that it is at this fundamental informational
level that we may look for equivalencies in the complexity
of these respective systems. If it can be shown that there
are equivalencies, I think we have support for an argument
that a system such as the global human socio-economic network
is conscious in a manner similar to that of the human brain.
The word "conscious" is a tricky one. If I want to talk about consciousness
in the purest sense of the word, then I have to switch over to the language
of phenomenology, and that's a whole different ball of awareness than where
I currently have my focus of attention. But we also use "conscious" to mean
"cognizant" or even "intelligent", and there our operational definitions will
usually be such that we attribute cognizance or intelligence to critters only
if they do or say complex, interesting, or subtle enough things. In that case,
the resources that we can muster for describing complex, dynamic, law-governed
systematic conduct will be critical to our success in understanding the beast.
HT: My problem is of course a lack of a full appreciation of how
information is described and analyzed. So you can see my great
interest in what you are doing. I am appreciating the manner in
which you have reverted to some basics for us to start with, and
are moving toward the more complex aspects of your arguments.
I look forward to the next instalment!
One of the things that I am trying to stress on several of these threads is the
difference between "nominal" information, what we get if all we do is count the
bits in a string, and "real" information, what we get from considering the bits
in the midst of a choice process where they have the power to make a difference.
It's still something of a work in progress, though.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o