|
Tim and all:
I can see that my attempted definition of my own (not my father's)
idea of what constitutes information is not quite well-enough articulated! Let's
see if I can tighten it up a bit...
My initial attempt was:
Anything that an organism percieves/senses/detects about itself or its
environment, by whatever means, and then uses to make something happen is
what I'm calling "information".
Tim asked "what does it
mean to use perceived phenomena rather than to react to
it?"
The difference is that the word "react" implies an automatic
cause/effect type of relationship, such as one would find in a simple system.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Chemical
reactions. Temperature reactions. Non-complexity. Environmental
phenomena would not be "information" in this case-- not by the definition I'm
trying to give to the word "information" here.
But the word "use", even if it's not done on a conscious level (in
the human sense of consciousness)... that implies function. That
implies a higher level of complexity than a random, automatic chemical reaction.
Sensory perception in natural systems is the province of organisms. Organisms
don't just react to environmental stimuli the way lesser complexity systems or
simple systems do. If it's cold, an organism will do something more than
molecules of water do... water reacts to cold temperatures.
Organisms respond in some way. To an organism, the temperature
would be one form of "information" about the environment. To a
snowflake, temperature is just an environmental phenomenon that causes
an automatic reaction.
Granted, this is semantic hair-splitting. But all communication is
based on some form of this kind of definition analysis. Does that make the
difference any clearer?
Judith
|