On information ... I may deeply regret this but ...

[Jorge]

Yeah, you might, but it'll probably be so buried in histrionics (which is all this post is, after all) that most people will miss it. Have you considered changing your approach?

And that makes TWO useless posts!

Oh, your suggestion about "changing my approach" -- your feeble memory seems to forget that I've been here for well over a decade (13 years?) and in that time I've learned that "changing the approach" yields NOTHING!!!

Jorge

[Cow Poke]

Google is your friend

Thank you so very much, Mrs. Crappleton!

Mrs C: "Today, class, we're going to learn what an onomatopoeia is."
Rogue: "Ummm.. how do you even spell that?"
Mrs C: "Look it up!!!!"

Oh, if we had only had Google back then!

[Roy]

You ARE at the top of the list since you were the FIRST critter to write a totally useless post. Congratulations on being the first.

He was second.

[Jorge]

Hello Jorge

What is the relationship between biological information, which is always found in living organisms in the individual and intellective information which is always found in the universal?

JM

If I understand your question correctly -- making it an excellent question -- the key is to view 'information' the right way. For instance, if as many do we view 'information' in the Shannon sense in all things - biological, intellectual, physical, etc. - then many paradoxes and conundrums will naturally emerge (and they do). That's because Shannon Information wasn't defined to handle all manifestations of 'information'.

What I have been (and continue) doing is constructing the theoretical infrastructure to handle 'information' properly in *any* sense, not just Shannon, Algorithmic, physical, or any other.

The short answer to your question is this: biological 'information' is the physicalization of abstract 'information'.

Jorge

[Jorge]

If we have a question, do we need to genuflect, or is tugging our forelock sufficient?

That makes THREE confirmations of my prediction. Man I'm good!!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge, I'd recommend Randy Isaac, who has been thinking about this issue for quite awhile. He points out that "information" in a Shannon communications theory sense is not the same as "functional information" in a biological sense. Most people who come from an engineering background tend to equate the two. I think Randy makes some good points.

Here are links to some of his talks and slides:
From the 2012 ASA annual meeting: http://network.asa3.org/?2012Audio
From the 2014 ASA annual meeting: http://network.asa3.org/?page=2014Audio
(Also note that your buddy Robert Marks II gave a talk on information at the 2014 meeting.)
From the 2015 ASA annual meeting: http://resources.asa3.org/FMPro?-db=...d=36186&-find=

And an essay by Randy from 2011: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2011/PSCF12-11Isaac.pdf

Appreciate the info. I'm going beyond works such as those. I'm working on generalizing 'information' to where all types and manifestations of 'information' are covered by one theoretical infrastructure.

And you're right - most people do "tend to equate the two" which leads to all sorts of problems.

Jorge

[Jorge]

The WHAT days?

That makes FOUR.
Well, maybe three-and-a-half.
Can't really blame CP for being confused by R06's nonsense.

Jorge

[Jorge]

You're so sweet.

Yes, I am indeed ... and you're so USELESS!

Jorge

[Jorge]

The saying is a stopped clock is right twice a day. A broken clock may never be right.

Agreed. Now that you've made that earth-shaking contribution, GO AWAY!!

Jorge

[shunyadragon]

.
.
I'm getting closer to completing a treatise on 'information' - something that I've been working on since ... forever. I attempt to untangle, resolve, clarify, etc. many errors and misconceptions involving 'information' with a new 'information' theory. Concepts of language, intelligence and communication are crucial, of course.

While I sincerely doubt (I'm sorry to say**) that anything useful will come out of the people here, I will make the request nonetheless: If there's a question or point on 'information' that you would like to bring up then please post it.

Very astute observation. Self-imposed ignorance and nonsense is not useful nor productive.

'What we have here is a failure to communicate' - Cool Hand Luke.

**BTW, my expectation is founded on over a decade being here and reading the stuff posted by critters like Beagle Boy, Roy, R06, Roland, Wally, ... and a host of others. IOW, what I am expecting is anything BUT useful input. But then again ...

... who knows? Even a broken clock is right twice a day and so maybe someone here will post something truly worthwhile. In any event, here's your chance (don't later say that I did not provide that chance).

Jorge

A clock without hands is never right even though it runs all the time.

[One Bad Pig]

And that makes TWO useless posts!

Oh, your suggestion about "changing my approach" -- your feeble memory seems to forget that I've been here for well over a decade (13 years?) and in that time I've learned that "changing the approach" yields NOTHING!!!

Jorge

So, having learned that there's no resulting difference between a sober recitation of the facts and content-free defensive jackassery, you'll roll with the latter? Nice.

[rogue06]

Halcyon, I think it's a sleeping pill.

That would be Halcyon Doze, not days -- or daze.

[rogue06]

... provided you can distinguish between authoritative sites and unreliable ones.

To look up that I think even a singular naughty swine would have trouble screwing up.

[Carrikature]

Google is your friend

... provided you can distinguish between authoritative sites and unreliable ones.

With friends like these, who knows which link will turn out to be a rickroll?

[JonathanL]

With friends like these, who knows which link will turn out to be a rickroll?

This is a rickroll.