Is all information encoded?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Information abounds in nature. Every object contains information. If it did not, I could not gain knowledge by studying the object. Yet it is clear that I do not gain the knowledge of the number of legs of a table by cramming the actual table into my brain. So information is somehow transmitted from the table to my senses and then to my brain.

Is it reasonable to say that this information is "encoded," since it is not the actual table entering my brain? If not, then what does it mean to transmit information that is not encoded? Note that I am not using a particular definition of code such as Hamming code, but a more general definition.

~~ Paul

P.S.: I have no interest in starting another Interesting Ianesque thread on the ontology of the table.

 

[c0rbin]

I would say, totally from the hip, yes.

Nothing is a tree except for a tree. So any concept we have of it is coded for our understanding.

The light that bounces off of it's surface is decoded by our optive nerves and brain. It's textures, smells, sounds of its leaves in the wind.

When we share our expirinces with words, write to another about it, draw a picture of it.

All not the tree, all carrying the same information.

 

[drkitten]

Is it reasonable to say that this information is "encoded," since it is not the actual table entering my brain? If not, then what does it mean to transmit information that is not encoded? Note that I am not using a particular definition of code such as Hamming code, but a more general definition.

Absent a working definition of what you mean by "code," I'm afraid that your question is meaningless.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The dictionary definition is:

3 a : a system of signals or symbols for communication b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings

Let's start there. Better yet, let's start with a definition from the communication field, since that's what we're talking about:

In communications, a code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, or phrase) into another form or representation, not necessarily of the same sort. In communications and information processing, encoding is the process by which a source (object) performs this conversion of information into data, which is then sent to a receiver (observer), such as a data processing system. Decoding is the reverse process of converting data, which has been sent by a source.

~~ Paul

 

[Mouthfire]

I do not believe it is possible to "know" an object without the information being encoded. The means by which we "know" objects is by our senses, be it through images, sound, smell, taste, or touch. In other words, through "encoded" information....

To intrinsically "know" an object without encoded information would be to not use our senses... in other words, extrasensory perception, aka ESP or psychic ability....

EDIT: Actually, the one set of unencoded information that we do "know" that is that of oneself, or self-knowledge... but that is another philosophical point....

 

[CFLarsen]

Information abounds in nature. Every object contains information. If it did not, I could not gain knowledge by studying the object. Yet it is clear that I do not gain the knowledge of the number of legs of a table by cramming the actual table into my brain. So information is somehow transmitted from the table to my senses and then to my brain.

Is it reasonable to say that this information is "encoded," since it is not the actual table entering my brain? If not, then what does it mean to transmit information that is not encoded? Note that I am not using a particular definition of code such as Hamming code, but a more general definition.

Aren't you talking about memes?

P.S.: I have no interest in starting another Interesting Ianesque thread on the ontology of the table.

For which we are eternally grateful to you!!!

 

[chance]

Information abounds in nature. Every object contains information. If it did not, I could not gain knowledge by studying the object. Yet it is clear that I do not gain the knowledge of the number of legs of a table by cramming the actual table into my brain. So information is somehow transmitted from the table to my senses and then to my brain.

Is it reasonable to say that this information is "encoded," since it is not the actual table entering my brain? If not, then what does it mean to transmit information that is not encoded? Note that I am not using a particular definition of code such as Hamming code, but a more general definition.

~~ Paul

P.S.: I have no interest in starting another Interesting Ianesque thread on the ontology of the table.

I don’t think the objects contain information, rather it is the brain that has built up a repository of experiences that recognise, then codes, sensory input. To a new born infant the image of a tree is meaningless, yet the sensory information is the same.

 

[kk2796]

This all seems to come down to the question of what information is, and whether it actually exists beyond the realm of conscious thought. For example: "The table over there has four legs" is a piece of information. However, if the table was never observed, does this information exist? I'd argue, no.

Consider the 4-legged table, viewed by an observer from a perspective whereby one of the legs is obscurred. This unfortunate observer might well infer that the table has only 3 legs. It would be hard to refute the fact that "The table has only 3 legs" is information... albeit information based on an invalid inference.

If information about an object is encoded in an object, where is the incorrect information "The table has only 3 legs" encoded?

 

[Suggestologist]

Information abounds in nature. Every object contains information.

Please notice that you have used a material (container-contained) frame (or metaphor), for an immaterial concept. Objects contain matter, and interact with other matter and energy which may eventually interact with some of the sense-perception cells of your body which relay information about their contact to your brain, where it is matched to a frame and reprocessed. Knowledge comes from further analysis or framing.

If it did not, I could not gain knowledge by studying the object. Yet it is clear that I do not gain the knowledge of the number of legs of a table by cramming the actual table into my brain. So information is somehow transmitted from the table to my senses and then to my brain.

No, matter interacts and your brain processes the interactions of your body with other matter and energy to produce information, symbols you can use to model, predict, and control your environment.

Is it reasonable to say that this information is "encoded," since it is not the actual table entering my brain? If not, then what does it mean to transmit information that is not encoded? Note that I am not using a particular definition of code such as Hamming code, but a more general definition.

It is not encoded until it reaches your brain and turned into symbols and/or feelings.

 

[Suggestologist]

This all seems to come down to the question of what information is, and whether it actually exists beyond the realm of conscious thought. For example: "The table over there has four legs" is a piece of information. However, if the table was never observed, does this information exist? I'd argue, no.

Consider the 4-legged table, viewed by an observer from a perspective whereby one of the legs is obscurred. This unfortunate observer might well infer that the table has only 3 legs. It would be hard to refute the fact that "The table has only 3 legs" is information... albeit information based on an invalid inference.

An experienced observer would frame such a table possibly as rectangular and then a leg per corner would be an automatic assumption (a presupposition).

If information about an object is encoded in an object, where is the incorrect information "The table has only 3 legs" encoded?

Three legs are visible would be the appropriate "information" to process further.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Claus said:
Aren't you talking about memes?

I don't think so.

kk2796 said:
If information about an object is encoded in an object, where is the incorrect information "The table has only 3 legs" encoded?

I'm not suggesting that information is encoded in an object, although I'm not really sure how to think about it. In the scenario you describe, the receiver did not receive all the information about the table.

Suggestologist said:
Please notice that you have used a material (container-contained) frame (or metaphor), for an immaterial concept. Objects contain matter, and interact with other matter and energy which may eventually interact with some of the sense-perception cells of your body which relay information about their contact to your brain, where it is matched to a frame and reprocessed. Knowledge comes from further analysis or framing.

I don't mean to suggest that objects contain information in any physical sense. However, I do not understand how my senses can derive information from the light reflected off the table if the light doesn't transmit information about the table to begin with. This is like saying there is no information in the electromagnetic energy that my car radio just picked up, isn't it?

It is not encoded until it reaches your brain and turned into symbols and/or feelings.

Then how do my senses derive information from the table?

~~ Paul

 

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos:

Then how do my senses derive information from the table?

~~ Paul [/B]

A sequence of matter-energy interactions that eventually impinge upon the sense-perception cells of your body, then connected through nerves to your brain. Where it is eventually matched to the frame called "table" and processed further.

 

[H3LL]

I understand that you do not have 'table' stored in one's memory (other than the word).

'Table' consists of a collection of previous simple experiences/observations/guesses/supositions etc. all interconnected.

You may see:

Flat. Large. Wooden. Oak. Rectangular. Polished. Furniture. Not chair. Old. Legs. Four. Not animal. Brown. Eaten off.....etc

From many simple characteristics you will surmise 'table' and may be correct. Each characteristic will have its own, personal to you, set of characteristics as well:

Flat = Horizontal. Not irregular. Similar to smooth. Safe for cups of coffee....etc.

No two people will "see" a table the same. One person may see "An old table" another will see "like grandfather's table", another "A Queen Anne desk in poor condition" another will see "fire wood".

Each using different sets of previous knowledge.

This is demonstrated well with the interesting exercise of trying to identify an unusual object or a common object revealed only in part or close-up as used in puzzles. The difficulty being finding enough characteristics to match with previous knowledge.

It also explains many hallucinations and misconceptions. I see weather balloon, another sees a flying saucer.

As we mature there is a constant stream of new information and new connections, such as when the collection of knowledge changes a thing from 'dog' to 'poodle'.

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But how does this result in new knowledge about the table if there is no information in the transmitted energy? Or are you saying there is information, but it is not encoded?

~~ Paul

 

[Suggestologist]

But how does this result in new knowledge about the table if there is no information in the transmitted energy? Or are you saying there is information, but it is not encoded?

~~ Paul

Regularities in impinging energies eventually become associated with words or a "vague idea of something", if they cannot be satisfactorily matched to a pre-existing frame.

A frame adds experiential information to current information. And basically any sense-perception has to travel through frames, and is distorted by them. Frames make some invisible aspects visible, and some visible aspects invisible, they emphasize parts and de-emphasize others. And framing feeds-back into sense-perceptor control functions; for example, moving your head so that you can see something coming from another direction, or focusing-in on something with your eyes; or moving your hand so that you can touch or avoid the touch of something.

I don't see matter-energy as information until it interacts with something that can turn it into symbols (or feelings) that can be used to model, predict, and influence the future. Does your television send information to your couch? I don't think so.

 

[chance]

This all seems to come down to the question of what information is, and whether it actually exists beyond the realm of conscious thought. For example: "The table over there has four legs" is a piece of information. However, if the table was never observed, does this information exist? I'd argue, no.

Consider the 4-legged table, viewed by an observer from a perspective whereby one of the legs is obscurred. This unfortunate observer might well infer that the table has only 3 legs. It would be hard to refute the fact that "The table has only 3 legs" is information... albeit information based on an invalid inference.

If information about an object is encoded in an object, where is the incorrect information "The table has only 3 legs" encoded?

Indeed, and the brain goes one step further and makes things up, the view of the 3 legged table would not normally prevent someone ‘assuming’ (internal information not through the sensory input) it has 4 legs, and thus place some heavy object upon it.
Mind you would feel a bit of a fool if it did actually have 3 legs and it all crashed to the floor.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm mildly surprised Interesting Ian hasn't materialised in this thread yet.

"Information", rather ironically, seems to mean different things in diffferent contexts. I suspect the concept obstructs thinking as often as it helps.

Structured process like the assembly of an organism requires a control process. Mostly that's controlled by DNA / RNA .
We choose to see that process as embodying "information". By a chance aspect of the process, the information is retained in a structured organism, letting us reverse engineer it to some extent. So we are AWARE of the information. Interestingly, it appears there is a lot less control information than we might have expected.

A rock flake is also a complex object, but the process which creates it does not encode it's history in the flake. There is no design code, merely a series of contingent events. Yet a rock flake might require as much, or more information in Shannon's sense, to specify as a shard of bone.

Whether a biologist means the same thing by the word that Claude Shannon did is debatable. Sometimes the two definitions seem to me to be almost opposites.

The information we use to communicate a description of an object is again different. Actually we routinely discard most, or all of the information required to construct the table, either at the cellular level as wood, or the carpentry level. We give it a label, attach that label to a visual or verbal memory (sometimes a meme, but not in this case , I think) and we manipulate that mental model for our own purposes.

In general we discard information in mental modelling. We create nothing new.

But obviously, not always. If we study the tabletop in detail, we acquire information "unknown" to the tree's DNA or to the carpenter. (It has chewing gum under the edge).

Increasingly , I am troubled by the whole concept of "information" in its many guises.

I wonder if, like "Phlogiston", information is a concept which is misleading us, rather than enlightening us?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Suggestologist said:
I don't see matter-energy as information until it interacts with something that can turn it into symbols (or feelings) that can be used to model, predict, and influence the future. Does your television send information to your couch? I don't think so.

But this is just a quibble about whether "data" is "information" or some such thing. There is clearly data in the light from the TV, because we can stick a measuring device in front of the couch and there it is. Let's use the word data instead. Is the data in my table encoded?

Soapy said:
Whether a biologist means the same thing by the word that Claude Shannon did is debatable. Sometimes the two definitions seem to me to be almost opposites.

Biologists appear to be adopting Shannon as the model for biological information. Check out Tom Schneider's site:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/

I'm currently working on a Java implementation of his Ev program. It's full of calculations of the Shannon information of genetic sequences.

~~ Paul

 

[Soapy Sam]

Biologists appear to be adopting Shannon as the model for biological information. Check out Tom Schneider's siteCA

You're right.I picked the worst example I could have. Let me put it this way- I think the meaning of information as used by Shannon is radically different from what most people generally mean by information.

If we are using the same word to conflate several different concepts, then we have a semantic problem as well as (potentially) a conceptual one.

I also get a feeling that recently the word is taking on an almost mystical overtone - as in the way Arthur C.Clarke and Stephen Baxter seemed to use it in "The Light of Other Days"- as if matter / energy plus "information" = life is some sort of equation.

 

[Darat]

[...snip...

If we are using the same word to conflate several different concepts, then we have a semantic problem as well as (potentially) a conceptual one.

I also get a feeling that recently the word is taking on an almost mystical overtone - as in the way Arthur C.Clarke and Stephen Baxter seemed to use it in "The Light of Other Days"- as if matter / energy plus "information" = life is some sort of equation.

I think the same applies to “entropy” and its two uses.