In this analysis both aspects of information - its structure or syntax - and its more common usage as - meaningful data, which can be communicated as a message - need to be considered.  The first is formal information as governed by the math of the Mathematical Theory of Communication and the second as governed by the rules and laws of logic.  I see these two aspects acting holistically - as does matter/energy in physics.

Many deny that non-physical events can be causes, unless they are identical with their physical realizations.  Non-philosophers either avoid the issues by adopting various forms of reductionism (if they are scientists) or talk about levels of explanation, or emergence, without being able to give a precise account of how that is possible. I shall try to show how recent solutions to
engineering problems produce a kind of emergence that can be called “mechanism supervenience”, and conjecture that biological evolution produced similar solutions. -- Aaron Sloman

Blu - stop the cr_p.  Look up what Shannon's equations are and what they explain. (aspect 1)  Read the the artical by Luciano Floridi on Semantic Information in the Standford E. of Philosophy (aspect 2).  These links have been provided time and time again.

Your lack of knowledge is not my problem.

Oct 5, 2011 -- 9:32AM, Blü wrote:

How do you define 'information' here?

"Information" could be understood in Terms of Aristotle's "Formal" Causation ... and perhaps also, "Final" Causation ...

Amcolph,

I have never said anthing about either formal information as a measurement of negentropy or as meaningful data and logic operators being "autonomous".  This is just another misrepresentation and reflects what you want to argue against and nothing of what I have written.

My statement  - that it is incorrect to to think of material circumstances as "wearing information like a hat" - is my direct argument that information is NOT autonomous and that it is adjunct and connected to real world events, both manifest and logically probable.  Likewise, declaring math as semi-empirical keeps it connected to real world results.

On your second point -

Yes - of course - There is NO defintive conclusive reason in the links to accept the tenets of a philosophical stance of IR, as per Sayre and Floridi, whereby information is seen as fundamental. That it is a part and parcel of what is the ontological underpinings of reality. However, accepting the clear evidence that there is non-physical casuation; is one first step on the road.  Anyone who has not studied their positions should not embraced the thesis.  I would like to argue my position and humble understanding of IR - but, as mindis1 and Adelphe have pointed out - we can't get past some real aspects of science and logic which I think are empirically proved and are dismissed by some here.

Neither mindis1 or Adelphe embrace IR - yet I don't seem to experince this bitterness about my personal beliefs from them.

My reasons for considering IR - gets nowhere when the science that supports it is misunderstood, twisted into word games or is not accepted for what it is.

Again the question at hand - is the non-physical entity POVERTY seen as casual in the social sciences.  And is there an information science supporting analysis, as to why this is a solid model of reality. (Sloman on virtual machnes)

Oct 5, 2011 -- 11:18AM, amcolph wrote:

Oct 5, 2011 -- 9:47AM, newchurchguy wrote:

Once again you provide links which do not bolster or explain your notion that "information" is an autonomous objective entity.

It is possible to agree with everything in those articles without being an Informational Realist.

 

Oct 5, 2011 -- 11:47AM, newchurchguy wrote:

Amcolph,

I have never said anthing about either formal information as a measurement of negentropy or as meaningful data and logic operators being "autonomous".  This is just another misrepresentation and reflects what you want to argue against and nothing of what I have written.

My statement  - that it is incorrect to to think of material circumstances as "wearing information like a hat" - is my direct argument that information is NOT autonomous and that it is adjunct and connected to real world events, both manifest and logically probable.  Likewise, declaring math as semi-empirical keeps it connected to real world results.

 

In that case--once again--I don't understand you at all.

Consider energy.  It is impossible for me imagine of 'energy' without connecting it to something energetic--a photon, for instance.

Or mass.  It is impossible for me to imagine 'mass' without connecting it to something massive.

Yet you clearly deny that any such objective referent  is necessary for 'information.'

'...it is incorrect to to think of material circumstances as "wearing information like a hat."'

Then, you proceed to an apparent contradiction of yourself by saying,

"...information is NOT autonomous and that it is adjunct and connected to real world events."

Whereapon you resolve this contradiction by accusing me of 'misrepresentation.'

At this point I'm not even sure of what it is I'm supposed to be misrepresenting, but since I generally agree with most of the citations you post and you still denounce my opinions, I am able to come to no other conclusion than that you believe  'information' can exist independently of human minds and without an objective referent.