To: Graham, Marco, Bo, Ross and the information thread gang
From: Ramblin' Rog
GRAHAM:
My Oxford English Dictionary provides four distinct definitions for the word
"information", including the one that Mr Roszak is
complaining about in the quotation. I don't really have a problem with any of
them, but none of them say that:
> INFORMATION is a measure of the ability to influence reality.
>From what I could see, Zeilinger's starting point was to try to relate
quantum theory with information theory to provide it with
some kind of conceptual handle. That's ok, but now that the discussion has
moved on we seem to be intent on finding a new meaning
for the word information, so that it will fit in with an abstract idea that I
am finding a little hard to grasp. The conceptual
handle is begining to come off in my hand.
My feeling is that the poor word is a little overworked. Rather than add a
fifth definition, it might be better to coin a completely
new word for the thing you are talking about. This might improve the
quality of the discussion, and also my chances of
understanding what this thread is about.
ROG:
And take the fun out of the discussion? Gosh, if Pirsig had listened to you
instead of the silly quest into that "quality" thing, he coulda saved us all
a lot of trouble. Seriously though, your point is appreciated and your
warning is sound. So sound in fact, that it led me to look more into current
definitions as well as more into why it is that I seem to need to get a
handle on the issue.
To answer the second point first, I would say that I need to learn how
information coheres with a quality worldview. I find value in this.
Furthermore, I find it different than Shannon's twisting of a word to mean
something different. I am trying to RECONCILE the concept with a distinct
Quality focused worldview. Make sense?
Now, to the point on current definitions. Going to the Principia Cybernetica
site, I found the following definitions for INFORMATION:
1) That which reduces uncertainty,
2) That which changes us, and
3) The capacity to perform organizational work
Hmmm.... I would suggest that my initial "measure of the ability to
influence reality" could be confusing "information" and "knowledge." To see
if this might be the case, I looked up "knowledge." The Principia offers that
an organized system:
"makes predictions in order to achieve certain goal, ultimately -- survival
and proliferation....True knowledge is an instrument of survival. Knowledge
is power."
Now this, is almost exactly what I was trying to get at! (Though using as you
suggested a different word)
Further searches led me to a new (to me) link on Evolutionary Epistimology,
which is D. T. Cambell's theory that knowledge is constructed via an
evolutionary approach in order to adapt to an environment. Here, knowledge is
defined as:
"That which allows a control system to select the actions that will make its
survival and replication more likely in a given environment."
The article is first class, explaining not only what knowledge and
information are, but also how they originate (all in a manner easily
'convertible' -- with appropriate decoder ring of course -- into a quality
perspective.) It can be found at:
ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/Papers_Heylighen/Knowle
dge_Selection_Criteria.txt
I think this is a great explanation of knowledge/information. Further, it
seems that this definition draws serious questions into Hume's division of
facts and values and G. E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy. If knowledge is a
measure of survival/replication value, then the divide between facts and
values never in fact existed -- it was a measure of Hume's SOM
misunderstanding of the terms. Right?
Rog,
(Who still may be rambling...we never KNOW!)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:43 BST