[Sigia-l] Serious Discussion of IA Research?

[Conal Tuohy]

Boniface wrote:

> > From: Conal Tuohy
> > 
> > But my point isn't really grammatical but philosophical. In saying
> > that it's "really" a verb what I mean is that it is a PHILOSOPHICAL
> > error to treat it as a SUBSTANCE simply because it is grammatically
> > a noun. 
> 
> Ah, ok... thank you for the clarification. 
> 
> However, information is in fact a substance. Neuroscientists have long
> demonstrated that information is stored as memory in various parts of
> people's brain. For example, hippocampus is involved for storing newly
> acquired information. As time goes on, those information are moved to
> other parts such as the cerebral cortext for long term storage. Over
> time, as more information stored in the cerebral cortext, more folds
> are observed on its surface.

Well ... we have these two concepts "information" and "data". I think we have a consensus on what "data" means (low-level stuff, bits and bytes, patterns), but what "information" really means is problematic. Your original question was about the difference between the concepts.

It seems to me that it is quite correct to try to elucidate 2 distinct concepts, but I also think that it's wrong to ask what is the difference between them. As I said before, my view is that they are different CATEGORIES of things that cannot be compared like "apples" and "oranges" can; they're more like "eating" and "apples". The question "what is the difference between 'eating' and 'apples'?" doesn't make sense, despite the fact that "eating" and "apples" are both nouns, and also clearly related in some way. The question itself is a mistake.

When you say "information is a substance..." I believe you are oscillating back to a view which equates information with data (i.e. patterns stored in an electronic database or an organic brain), whereas you are really trying to draw a distinction. To me, it's precisely the ACQUISITION and STORAGE of that data which constitutes "information". Not the data themselves. See what I mean? I'm sure you do; and I'm sure you actually have a concept which is much the same as the concept I call "information", but you don't feel it's right to label it with the word "information", which you think must mean something else ... some kind of substance, because that's the way the word is USED; as if it were a substance. Linguistic philosophers like Ryle would tell you that the word is actually MISUSED and that the English language has led you astray philosophically. :-)

Anyway ... I think I've said all I can say on the subject, especially since it's a hard thing to express in words, because it's all about challenging the face value of words. 

Cheers

Con