Great attitude! I can see this is sinking in. Whether you accept it or not is completely up to you. Though I’m only sharing the science I know, it is you who control your own eyes.
We walk upon a razors edge, where language fails miserably to describe the precipice before us. It pleases me greatly to… ummm, errr, no… I am pleased to know of your thoughtful consideration to these principles of information. Did you get that? IT, doesn’t please me. I please myself. And I please myself by decoding your comments, and defining what they mean to me. Since our method of communication, in this situation, is simple, with terms such as “fun”, “awesome!!”, “appreciate”, it is safe for me to assume that our agreed upon convention of symbols and words is unified enough to propose a positive accord. But without getting into further definitions of what “fun”, “awesome!!”, “appreciate”, actually represent to each of us, we can never really know. You may define fun as “challenging”, whereas I may define fun as “relaxing”. We may only use this level of words as labels for greater categorical reference. Though meaning is described at the word level, intentions are not related until the sentence level. So in this context, I must obviously consider the entire sentence beyond the words, and thereby receive your actual meaningful intentions in context, beyond the simple categorical references of the words alone.
Pardon my tardy reply. Recent work has been challenging and frustrating to say the least. And here we have a situation where you’ll just have to take my word for it. Since you haven’t actually witnessed my work load, you have no capacity to make a qualified statement upon direct observation. All you may decode, is that I feel that my workload has been challenging to me (which you may find fun). You may however consider my work load comments in contrast to what you have observed of me. 1.) My reply was not instant, and took a few days. 2.) I have not been known, at this point, to lie, to you. 3.) My comments are thorough, and may have required a level of thoughtful consideration beyond a simple immediate response.
In this manner, through our codified sharing of thoughtful comments, and your limited observations about me, you have a reasonable capacity to determine how much trust you can place upon the Shannon protocols that allow us to converse intelligently with one another. There are many sources of noise clinging to our communication channel. Some are obvious, such as electricity, hackers, software… But these are easily overcome by the redundancy and noise reduction properties of the protocols. Some entropy is not so obvious. We must also consider our individual experiences, backgrounds, education, and just how unified we are when tossing about the meaning of words. Let’s be careful not to sling dogma at one another, for that is a source of entropy that no protocol can overcome.
quote="illativemindindeed
Essentially, the description is a coded form of the source, which we can now refer to as the information, and information (the coded state of the object), is conveyed (or transmited), by the means above, correct? It does not convey itself, but through the protocol, it is conveyed.
Let us consider the Norbert Weiner quote:
“Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present”.
Cybernetics, p147
So, when you say, “the description is a coded form of the source”, we need to dissect that statement. A coded form… what is that? Code consists of energy and matter. Code is a material object located at a specific space/time coordinate. And since Information is not energy and not matter, then we may not “now refer to (it) as the information”. And we may not claim that “information (is) (the coded state of the object)”.
And we may not claim that Information is “conveyed” until our codified description is transmitted to a receiver which utilizes our agreed upon convention of symbols. That may be a human, or a computer. If human, then meaning is “conveyed”. If a computer, or private note, or reminder tag, then meaning has been “encoded” and not necessarily “conveyed”.
Remember that Prince symbol? He replaced his name with some crazy icon. We would have no idea what that symbol meant unless someone had prior defined it as “the Artist formerly known as Prince”. Before that, it was only encoded with meaning by the one who encoded it. And though it may have been fully transmitting, there was no receiver capable of fulfilling the protocols.
The symbol was not the Information. The symbol only referenced the Info. The Info was in the realm of Mind. And Mind, like Info, is “Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present”.
Let me be clear. I do not know if Info is IN the realm of Mind, or IN a realm that only Mind has access to. As I said before, our language fails miserably to describe these concepts. I do not suppose that a realm bereft of energy/matter space/time should be held accountable to notions of IN or OUT. I have further speculation upon this, but nothing which concerns us at this point.
As humans, with less than 50 years to consider our digital age of Information, we are slowly discovering that our first observations of this phenomenon are not capable of being accurately depicted by the conventional terminologies of hard Marxist Dialectic Materialism. We need new words to fully describe Information, and what it actually is. And whether it be Norbert Weiner, or Dawkins Meme, or the Sphota of Bhartrihari, or Plato’s Forms, or the Greek Quintessence and/or Noumena, or even the typically misunderstood Biblical principles of The Word… humanity has struggled to define the very nature of that which we speak of currently. That being, what we currently call, Information.
So when you say, “Essentially, the description is a coded form of the source”, I must differ. Essence-tially, I see where you are coming from. But actually, no. The “source” of the coded form, is not the object of observable phenomenon. The “source” of the coded form is the THOUGHT about the observable phenomenon. IN-FORM-ATION… The process of manifesting thought in-to-form.
We cannot rightfully claim that the observable phenomenon is the source of the Thought either. Humans (sentient beings) are the source of Thought, not the object of observation. For your thoughts claim the Sun as warm and refreshing. But my thoughts claim it as bright and painful to see. Does the Sun lie to me and befriend you? I should think not. I should think, and describe, by codifying my thoughts about observable phenomenon into a physical manifestation. That process is what we call Information.
Try this little experiment. Pick an object, any object. Just stare at it. Do not attempt to describe it. Just stare at it. Move your eyes around rapidly whilst observing it. I’m doing the same currently as I type. I’m staring at an object on my desk. Without realizing, I’ve already begun the process of description, for even the terms “THAT” and “IT” and “object” and “on my desk” are descriptive terms. Thus far, I have CREATED a very limited (quantity?) of Information. Info created (by me) and revealed (to you) by way of describing observable phenomenon and communicating my description with the Shannon protocols.
Currently you know, and I know, that there is an IT on my desk. We share a thought. We, but for an instant, share a single thought together. This is NOT two separate thoughts yet. It is one single thought shared between two human beings. But where is our shared thought? It is certainly not reducible to the words and letters on our screens. I could have shared (conveyed) it with/to you in so many different ways. I hope to have picked one that “conveys” it accurately enough for it to be “revealed” to you as fully as possible. Perhaps my chosen method is only capable of revealing it partially to you, and others who read this. But at this point, we use the Shannon protocols and Code to REFERENCE and ACCESS the SAME thought. It is not two separate (quantities?) of Information. It is one source of Information that we share. A metaphorical pool of thought to which we both may drink of. I fear however, that I cannot reveal it to you in full. There are not enough words I can type to describe IT. You are forced to drink from a small portion of the thought pool that I created.
Here, let me make it bigger for you. In addition to “THAT” and “IT” and “object” and “on my desk”, let me create more Information with descriptions such as black, silver, input tray, output tray, on light, eject feed button, 6"x12"x14", 9lbs… I’ve shared more Info with you from greater descriptions. Do you know what IT IS yet? Well luckily, in this case, IT has already been described by others to me. They’ve described beyond the physical appearance and further illustrate the purpose and functionality. Others who actually created it have even greater descriptions that I’m not privy to, as they are only attainable by service technicians as service manuals not meant for my eyes. They have no incentive to share the entire metaphorical pool of Information with me. Do you know what it is yet?
Remember, that codified descriptions are not only expandable, but they are also reducible. What started out as “THAT”, may be described a million different ways with physical appearance and functionality. Yet it is ultimately reduced to Canon Pixma iP4500… my trusty little ink jet printer. And “trusty little ink jet printer” will not be found in any of the manuals. I have thus added to the pool of information, yet only reveal it to those who read this thread.
Soon, the human propensity to describe will be upon you. You will begin thinking about our one single shared thought, and thus begin forming your own thoughts. You are CREATING Information… but not about the IT. You are CREATING Information about our shared thought of IT. And through these descriptions, our human consciousness is expanded. We become more aware than we once were before.
Let me put it another way. Bono writes Sunday Bloody Sunday. It is his thought and his alone. It is about observable and theoretical phenomenon. It took some time to work out this thought. During this process, he codifies the thought of mind, to brain. He encodes the the immaterial thought into the material brain. Bono, like all others, accomplishes this task with the tool of language. Every thought must have a codified language structure to think that thought upon. The cognitive studies department of Washington University uses no less than 70 different language tests to determine a patients cognitive abilities.
So Bono encodes his thought into brain. He has utilized alphabet A (the English in his head). He will map that code to alphabet B upon sheet music, notes on his hand, scribbles in the sand, and screaming vocals in the air. Once he has it worked out, it is shared with others in the band. Then it is shared again with you and I. We use many different physical mediums to share this thought OF Bono. You MP3, me grooved vinyl, and others prefer CD collections. These many different mediums are physical material tools that we all utilize to drink from the pool of immaterial thought initially created from the mind of Bono.
It is not millions of separate pieces of Information. It is one source of Information that we all have access to depending upon the types of tools we use.
Soon, the human propensity to describe will be upon us. We will begin thinking about our one single shared thought with Bono, and thus begin forming your own thoughts. We are CREATING Information… but not about the the CD, MP3, Vinyl, or Youtube. We are CREATING additional Information about our shared thoughts. And through these descriptions, our human consciousness is expanded. We become more aware than we once were before.
quote=“illativemindindeed”
I find it interesting that this figure describes the source tape as being a message itself. It is the “Message in DNA alphabet”,
It is unfortunate that we use terms such as “IN” when describing Information. We would do well to coin new terms that denote an immaterial faculties, sans mis-in-formed notions of “IN” “OUT” “Greater” “Lesser”, etc… We must determine better solutions for describing immaterial concepts. As brilliant of a scientist that Hubert Yockey is, and as much as I admire the man and his research, I observe that he, along with others, typical resort to conventional terms when attempting to define the unconventional. This is extremely misleading.
quote=“illativemindindeed”
which is merely converted into another message (the mRNA alphabet which is more easily translated to a protein alphabet) .
I’m pleased you pointed that out. It’s a much more sorted affair than most give credit to. I don’t know what your stance is on Athiesm/Theism/Agnostic… whatever. I don’t care. But I cannot disregard what the science has to say. Again, allow me to share with you some of the profound implications of your described observations.
The process you describe is called Transcription. The “meaningful message” is encoded from DNA alphabet A to mRNA alphabet B. Meaning has been communicated. Specific instructions have been given and received.
What this process doesn’t reveal, is how the “meaningful message” was encoded into the DNA alphabet to begin with. We’re picking up half way through the picture. This is not a “meaning-less message” such as: “**^%puk)puk(frakkklep=++”… I could assign meaning to that scribble, but I haven’t. There is no possible way that you could receive meaning from my random scribbles. That would be like receiving meaning from the wind. You may be capable of creating meaning, and assigning it yourself. But there was never any intended originally.
But DNA is different. It has already been encoded with a meaningful message before it even gets to the Yockey protocols. mRNA has already agreed to accept the convention of symbols and translate again into a physically new manifestation of protein. The process that Yockey describes is more akin to workers assembling bricks to fulfill architectural plans. The DNA is the architectural plans. The mRNA is the constructions workers. The protein is the bricks. But WHO wrote the architectural plans from the beginning?
We can describe the process and materials used to create those plans. Homologous Recombination occurs during the reductional division of Meiosis. That demonstrates the creation of the physical medium, no different than the construction of a pen and paper to an author. But where is the author? Meaningful messages do not spring forth from the mindless energy/matter of the cosmos, no more than architectural plans spring forth from a mindless pen and paper.
Computer science teaches us that programs may created that sense and act upon stimuli, and then re-author themselves accordingly to suit their environments. The next routine auto exec maintenance program you run will confirm that in spades. Yet those faculties are always programmed into the functionality to begin with by a sentient author. I do not claim that all DNA must have a sentient author behind its programming. But it does beg the question nonetheless… Who wrote the DNA auto exec of Meiosis? Who wrote the program that allows the meaningful message of the DNA alphabet to be split between parents and reassembled as yet another meaningful message for the zygote DNA?
There has never once been a demonstrated mechanism from chaos that could author meaningful messages. Suggesting such is paramount to suggesting that Chaos can author meaningful messages. That is rife with paradox, for it is Chaos that destroys meaningful messages. Meaningful messages arise from mind. And let me assure you, for those who reject the premise that DNA represents a meaningful message, forensics may differ after your next crime spree. The meaningful message in DNA is ultimately expressed in extremely specific word genes made of proteins that say “fat” or “blue eyes” or “Asian”. Chaos doesn’t say things like that.
quote=“illativemindindeed”
Of course, this is only a “description” of the process right? The only way to understand it is to code it ourselves, so we’re not viewing the source, we’re viewing the code.
BINGO! We cannot view the ultimate source any more than we can view the Mind of Bono. But one thing we know, is that Information is always a process of encoding Thought into Code. And ALL Thoughts require Mind. And ALL Codes require Authors.
I propose, that shortly, we will see this statement as the foundation for the first LAW of Information. You heard it here first! 
quote=“illativemindindeed”
In the case of our everyday reality, this calls into question whether or not the pure source or process actually exists, because we never perceive it. We can only view code. If something is being experienced, it is coded correct?
We can infer that ALL Codes have Authors for that is the only demonstrable mechanism since the beginning of spoken language 40-80 thousand years ago. And we have trillions of precedent every single day. What do you think SETI is looking for? They certainly aren’t looking for life. They’re looking for a genuine codified signal. They fully understand that where there be code, there must be an Author, and that code represents the Thoughts from a Mind. SETI would be out of business very quickly if the entire universe was information, or even a codified representation. We clearly understand the differences between Info and Noise.
quote=“illativemindindeed”
If this is so, then this idea of information must call into question the existence of any “source” process, because they are not seen. More importantly, we must note that if the source is only hypothetical (as all we have to work with is the code of any assumed process or object), then the source is itself only an intuitive notion.
Anonymous Authorship has never been a problem either. It could be a lost manuscript, a note in the dirt, or a book with the cover ripped away. We NEVER assume those codes wrote themselves somehow. We always infer attributes of Mind and Authorship based upon proven, predictable, repeatable science and precedent.
On observable phenomenon and the Laws of Physics quote=“illativemindindeed”
Maybe this is why our pursuit is seemingly endless. We are observing, describing, analyzing, theorizing, and debating code. We are literally only working with “information” as it is defined within the parameters you’ve provided, not any source material. This is why I mentioned that the “interpretation” is second hand. The word might have been incorrect, but the point stands. The code is not the source; it is the description of an assumed source (I feel the need to reiterate, the source cannot be directly observable through human means), and in this way, it is “second-hand”.
Sure I get it. I understand why you can view it that way. In one sense you are correct. But consider this position against the notion of sharing the same thought/info and expanding upon the original meme with further description, thereby (increasing?) the same metaphorical pool that we all may partake of with our material code tools of choice.
Code is a material straw that allows us to drink from the immaterial pool of sentient authored Information.
Code is a material lens that allows us to magnify the immaterial realm of sentient authored Information.
quote=“illativemindindeed”
To our eyes, and to our minds; the tree, or the cosmos, or the tornado, may not have a code, but code is all we can observe and see. So, if we are using this definition of information across the board, and we understand these protocols to be the proper conveyance of that information, then all things in existence as we know and perceive them, are code.
It’s not so much that “they are” code… rather than we have observed and codified them. We can observe and see the random forces of Chaos. But they are absolutely meaningless until be embody them with meaning through the codification of our thoughts about them. I think you’re getting this, though it is very difficult to isolate the precise usage of words. I still get mixed up after a decade of research on this topic. It’s so tempting to attribute physical properties to non physical agents.
There is a story about the Botany Bay. It was landing upon an Aboriginal cove to destroy a village. The ship sailed into the cove and the crew reported their surprise as to why the Natives didn’t seem to notice them. A huge ship was upon them, easily within their view. Why didn’t they run in horror? The Natives didn’t notice the sailors until they were in their small boats firing at them as they approached the shore. It is theorized that the Natives did not see the Botany Bay because they had no reference point to pull from their lexicon of language. They had never encoded such an observation into their thought pool before, and so, they were literally incapable of being consciously aware of such a phenomenon. It must have been nothing more than a black cloud to them, at most, and nothing to concern them until it was too late.
quote=“illativemindindeed”
I can see why this was so murky before, its difficult to grasp. I don’t disagree with many of the points presented with the “Discipline Independent Definition of Information”. It could very well be that an object or process, is without information. In fact, that makes a lot of sense. Essentially then, we are describing, analyzing, theorizing, and debating our own projections (the encoding, which if true, coincides with the ideas I presented before about personification). All we get to work with is the destination message at any given time, and as such, it is filled with our noise. Do you agree?
Yes, absolutely. And again your described observation deserves principle consideration. As Philosophers, it is our duty to relate this notion to the physical reality as we know it. I don’t really want to get into the heavy lifting here, but consider the following for your amusement.
God = Truth = Thought = Information
Satan = Deception = Chaos = Entropy
None of my comparative interdisciplinary studies have suggested any different. The questions are…
Which one with have us?
Are they sentient?
Do we create them?
Or do we invite them into the physical realm?
quote=“illativemindindeed”
If so, the question for me still remains, what is the source actually? We can refer to it, but our understandings of it are filled with noise. We can never really “know” what it is in pure form, but I’m curious if you have any thoughts on the subject.
Good questions. And yes, I suppose I do have a thought or two on the subject. I suppose you will as well. I suppose we might share those thoughts, and expand our access to the larger Information pool available to all who read this thread.
quote=“illativemindindeed”
In light of my revelations above, could we now say that from stimulus, “phenomena” is inducted, observed, and described?
Sounds good to me! =D>
quote=“illativemindindeed”
What seems to happen is: I experience a stimulus, and because I am stimulated, I assume something exist (the presumed source), and encode my assumption of the presumed existence into something I can utilize or “work with”, which essentially fills it with my noise.
I’m not willing to claim that personal perspective is synonymous with noise. Your perspective and opinions are just as valid as anyone’s. Your math can accurately describe a phenomenon, and my poetry can accurately describe how I feel about that very same phenomenon. One is no more or less accurate or valuable than another. Noise arises when we attempt to communicate our codified thoughtful info to others. It does not occur during observation, for the object didn’t communicate anything to us in the first place.
quote=“illativemindindeed”
I then observe my coded and noisy information (as it’s reached its destination, me), and I describe that.
Perhaps after reviewing your initial description, you still have the capacity to compare your written notes with the mindful thoughts. That comparison can have the effect of increasing or decreasing entropy. The only time you are the destination, is when you are receiving Information. You can get this from others, or you can get this when reviewing your own notes. But the original description is not rife with noise. There was no communication. That was just an observation. Even if you call a 
a “fire truck”, it is your right to do so. But to effectively communicate the essence of the original information to others, you must define your new lexicon to the receiver, so that your original meaning is transmitted accurately.