Hello, FISers I have general comment. I read almost every post on this forum, and I admire the quality of these contributions. (Pedro runs a fine shop!). I’d contribute more if I actually had something important to say that hasn’t already been said. However, something continues to bug me about what exactly “information” is, what it means exactly to living systems, and how exactly to interpret it. Last year’s exquisite fight that broke out over the various definitions of information was a feast to my eyes. But it also left me confused. One thing that bothered me was the lack of emphasis on differences between analog and digital information, such as that embodied in a protein verses that encoded in a gene. With this in mind, along with numerous other concerns about exactly how to define “information,” I am wondering if anyone here has attempted to build a taxonomic key to the “species of information.” I think we need some kind of a classification system. Ideally, it would be a dichotomous key that would differentiate hierarchically among “domains,” “kingdoms,” “phyla,” “classes,” “orders,” etc. of information. (And hierarchy does seem to be a favored paradigm here on this forum). This key would effectively become a cladistic tool, requiring a formalized approach to the problem of defining information. Is such notion of "informational systematics" reasonable? The FIS archives left behind from the “Information War of 2005” should be very rich in concepts useful for developing such a taxonomic key. I am not well-enough informed about the particulars of information to build this key, and few of us have the time to devote to it. But perhaps one of our graduate students would like to take this on. A thesis title might be something like “A hierarchical system for classifying the relative and specific meanings of information.” Could be fun project, and useful. My best to all, Richard Emery |
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
