I agree only if we take into account that the shape of the object is distinguished from the information that will be created later. — JuanZu

The type of Qualia that the subject conceives is due to the form of the object. To me, Qualia is not information so to me, the information is the form of the object.

Since nothing is transmitted. — JuanZu

What do you mean?

We simply have signs as causes in a work of art that provoke different things in us. — JuanZu

The signs I call information.

But there must be a relationship between interpreter and interpreted, between the human and the work of art. — JuanZu

What do you mean by interpreter here?

It is interesting because you said the substance informs the interpreter. — NotAristotle

Do you by interpreter mean the artist? I first consider it to be the audience that observes the work of art.

Perhaps this is the right way of looking at it, but I would qualify this appraisal by affirming that the substance in itself is not doing any informing, and instead aver that the interpreter must first interpret, translate, transcribe the substance into a "form" that is understood by it as information. This I will call, tentatively, the communicative act. — NotAristotle

We have three things here, the artist, the audience, and the work of art/object. The artist gives the object a form that conveys a message to the audience. Once, the work of art is complete, then it is informative for the audience. To me, the information is the form of the work of art. I distinguish the information from Qualia that the audience conceives.

I would not reduce the interpreter to a mind for all cases. A computer can in-form itself by acting as an interpreter as soon as there is a process leading to a transcription effect. That is to say, as soon as the sign system "USB memory" enters into a causal relationship with the computer and its language. — JuanZu

The keyword here in this thread seems to be "memory". Computers and brains have memories. What is memory? To me, memory is simply a stable arrangement of matter that represents prior states of affairs and can be accessed for interpreting the present and future, states of affairs.


With this said, every stable object can be said to be a form of memory. The object you observe now (like the apple on the table) contains information about how it was formed and how it got to be where it is now (on the table). Every object contains information about its causes bottled up in its form and structure. If the apple was bitten then the bite mark is essentially a memory of what has happened to it (that someone took a bite). The shape of the bite mark is also information about what type of animal took the bite of the apple.

If a l wrote a letter to my friend providing information on directions to my house. I can say I have transmitted this information by means of a letter. What was transmitted to him if he arrived at my house? — Richard B

From my point of view the signs contained in the letter did not contain information about your home address. What actually happened is that some signs, the signs in the letter have caused an effect on your friend. They have configured his language in such a way that he understands your home address. And this is evidently because you both share a language, a idiom, a context. But nothing has been transmitted since it is only ink on paper, or pixels on a screen.

MoK, you want to say the information just is the form, right? That's fine, but if you go that route then you seem to be implying that the information just is the form and is contained therein. But if this is the case, information would not appear to be an act that requires engagement between interpreter and interpreted, as JuanZu has suggested it is. For JuanZu, information is relational, not intrinsic to any substantial form. You might respond that the creation of the sculpture is relational, and I think that is correct, but without the audience there would appear to be something, let's say "incomplete," about the information.

Okay, now I think your trichotomy of object, audience, and artist is spot on and I also agree that the audience is the interpreter. Contrary to my initial thoughts, it is the interpreted who transcribes the substance into an informational content, that is, into a substantial form through which information can be had, that is, what I have called the communicative act.

And since the communicative act of informing is a two way street, we may add that just as the artist communicates to the audience (but where such communication is itself obscure to the artist because he knows not what his art means to the audience), so does the audience communicate to the artist and leave an impression on him -- "what a beautiful sculpture" or "I don't really get it."

The type of Qualia that the subject conceives is due to the form of the object. To me, Qualia is not information so to me, the information is the form of the object. — MoK

For me qualia is a configuration given an information process. For I understand information not as a substance but as the relationship. Information for me is in-forming, con-forming trans-forming. So you have to distinguish the process with respect to the result. The qualia is the result. But I cannot agree that information is in the form of the object. You can call it information if you want but I can't call that in-formation.

Every object contains information about its causes bottled up in its form and structure. — Harry Hindu

The thing is that what you call information is only given in the result of a process of interpretation. That is why I cannot call memory information. Memory are signs that are inscribed in a stable and perdurable way. But these are objects of any possible interpretation. Here interpretation is synonymous with in-formation. The signs of memory form something in the interpreter, they shape his language and his consciousness. they have an active role.

But if you are given a cleanly-formatted USB stick it is still correct to say that it contains no information — Wayfarer

I would say: you have no possible information. There is no possible in-formation/interpretation process due to the absence of signs. Or the absence of that of a specific configuration that can relate to an interpreter.

The thing is that what you call information is only given in the result of a process of interpretation. That is why I cannot call memory information. Memory are signs that are inscribed in a stable and perdurable way. But these are objects of any possible interpretation. Here interpretation is synonymous with in-formation. The signs of memory form something in the interpreter, they shape his language and his consciousness. they have an active role. — JuanZu

They are not objects of any possible interpretation. Everything happens for a reason. There is a cause for every effect, and the effect logically follows from the cause.

The tree rings in a tree stump carry information about the age of the tree, not because some interpreter happens to look at the tree rings and projects the age of the tree into the rings, but because of how the tree grows throughout the year - a causal process. A botanist comes along and interprets the number of rings as the age because they have learned how trees grow throughout the year, not because they looked at the rings and pulled that conclusion out of nowhere.

The interpretation is separate from the information as causal relations that exist. The information is there and it is your observation integrating with your prior knowledge (prior observations) that is the essence of interpretation.

In the case of the tree each ring is nothing more than a property of the tree. But in no case is it information because what you get from those rings you only get a posteriori as knowledge. That is, when we see the rings in general we ask "What information is here?" But in reality there are only signs that refer to other things, in this case the age of the tree. But those signs by themselves mean nothing. Necessarily there must be a process of interpretation to access knowledge like that, since it is never evident from looking at the rings that we are talking about age. That only goes a posteriori after a process of in-formation. The age itself is not contained in the tree, it is a ghost in the wood.

Necessarily there must be a process of interpretation to access knowledge like that, since it is never evident from looking at the rings that we are talking about age. That only goes a posteriori after a process of in-formation. The age itself is not contained in the tree, it is a ghost in the wood. — JuanZu

When you say, " to access knowledge" that is the same as saying "to access information". You access information via your senses. The causal relationship between the object, the visible light being reflected off it into your eyes and interpreted by your subconscious visual system, is itself information about the state of your visual system and the amount and type of light in the environment.

I already stated that the botanist needs to know how trees grow throughout the year to interpret the number of rings and the number of years the tree has been alive. So yes, it is not evident just by looking at the rings that they are indicative the the tree's age. You have to have already observed how trees grow throughout the year (another set of information), to interpret the rings as the age of the tree.

Interpretation is the act of integrating sensory information (the current number of rings in the tree) with information in memory (how the tree grows throughout the year).

Interpretation is the act of integrating sensory information (the current number of rings in the tree) with information in memory (how the tree grows throughout the year). — Harry Hindu

I cannot call that information. Because in reality these rings are signs that refer precisely to the age of the tree. But this, the age of the tree, is given a posteriori. Then we can call it the result of the information process. Remember that I avoid substantivizing the word information, and I speak rather of in-formation as the act of giving form, as interpretation. In this case the signs give form to our cognitive apparatus and the idea of an age of the tree appears in us. That, that idea, is perhaps information as a sustantive, as a result of in-formation. But I prefer to avoid calling it this way so that there is no confusion. But what is clear to me is that the rings are neither information (the result of the process of interpretation) nor in-formation, they are signs.

I’d say information exists as energy fundamentally. Any patterns of information could be transcribed on energy based systems. Since matter is energy then it could be said that information is also physical.

Since the information, this is my theory, does not exist inside the USB stick. Nor does it exist in the USB reader.
The information exists in the relationship between the two devices, the interpreting reader and the USB device. But then we cannot say that the information was contained in the USB stick as a ghost in the device. — JuanZu

I agree that the USB stick contains no substantial Information in Material form, However, I could say that it does contain Information in Potential form (as a ghost in the machine). It's like a battery, that contains no Electricity (only chemistry), until a circuit is completed. For the “interpreter” (receiver) Information is Meaning, and there is no meaning in the memory stick until a connection (relationship) is made to the Sending mind. In that sense, the information is not a material substance. But meaning can be transmitted by physical means in conventional codes (a la Morse code or ASCII). The code must be meaningful to both parties in order for the Information to be transmitted. And we call that inter-relationship (the circuit) “communication”.

However, in recent years, scientists have come to equate Information with Energy (negentropy), instead of Shannon's meaningless Entropy. And, Einstein equated Energy with Mass (matter). So, one physicist in particular, Melvin Vopson, now calls Information : “the fifth state of matter”*1. Hence, other scientists have been able to transmit abstract information from one place to another, where it is converted into matter. So, in that sense, you could say that the information existed as a substance : in the USB as electronic components and their code states. But this new way of thinking about Information is not well known. So some posters may take issue with the title of your post.

The new understanding of the role of Information in the world has philosophical implications, as you suggest. I have gone so far as to coin a neologism, EnFormAction, to convey the idea that Information has causal effects in the material world, in addition to the meaningful effects in an immaterial mind*2. So, I'm open to both sides of your post : that Information consists of both metaphysical relationships, and physical substances. :nerd:



*1. information the fifth state of matter? :
If Vopson's proposed experiment turns out the way he expects, it would prove the existence of information as the fifth state of matter in the universe, along with gas, plasma, liquid, and solid states.Mar 30, 2022
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a39588076/information-could-be-the-fifth-state-of-matter/

*2. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause  or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15896/information-exist-as-substance-entity/p1

MoK, you want to say the information just is the form, right? That's fine, but if you go that route then you seem to be implying that the information just is the form and is contained therein. But if this is the case, information would not appear to be an act that requires engagement between interpreter and interpreted, as JuanZu has suggested it is. — NotAristotle

Yes, to me the information is a specific form of the object. We become aware of it only when we perceive the object.

For JuanZu, information is relational, not intrinsic to any substantial form. You might respond that the creation of the sculpture is relational, and I think that is correct, but without the audience there would appear to be something, let's say "incomplete," about the information. — NotAristotle

What do you mean by relational here?

Okay, now I think your trichotomy of object, audience, and artist is spot on and I also agree that the audience is the interpreter. Contrary to my initial thoughts, it is the interpreted who transcribes the substance into an informational content, that is, into a substantial form through which information can be had, that is, what I have called the communicative act. — NotAristotle

Do you mean interpreter (bold part)? If yes I agree with what you said.

And since the communicative act of informing is a two way street, we may add that just as the artist communicates to the audience (but where such communication is itself obscure to the artist because he knows not what his art means to the audience), so does the audience communicate to the artist and leave an impression on him -- "what a beautiful sculpture" or "I don't really get it." — NotAristotle

Communication in the case of a work of art is a one-way street. The artist creates his work with his intention, what he wants to communicate. The audience perceives the work and gets the message that the artist wanted to communicate.

For I understand information not as a substance but as the relationship. — JuanZu

I didn't say that information is a substance but information is a form of a substance.

I would say: you have no possible information. There is no possible in-formation/interpretation process due to the absence of signs. Or the absence of that of a specific configuration that can relate to an interpreter. — JuanZu

Possibility and probability are mental constructs. Either the USB has information or it doesn't. If the USB never gets information written to it then there was never any possibility that it would contain information in the first place. In a deterministic universe there is no randomness, possibilities or probabilities. Those are mental constructs that stem from our ignorance about the facts.

I cannot call that information. Because in reality these rings are signs that refer precisely to the age of the tree. But this, the age of the tree, is given a posteriori. Then we can call it the result of the information process. Remember that I avoid substantivizing the word information, and I speak rather of in-formation as the act of giving form, as interpretation. In this case the signs give form to our cognitive apparatus and the idea of an age of the tree appears in us. That, that idea, is perhaps information as a sustantive, as a result of in-formation. But I prefer to avoid calling it this way so that there is no confusion. But what is clear to me is that the rings are neither information (the result of the process of interpretation) nor in-formation, they are signs. — JuanZu

You are confusing information with acts on, or with, information. Being informed is being fed information. Information processing is integrating different types of information (inputs, or what you were fed) to produce new information (output). When the output becomes the input to subsequent processing, you have a sensory information feedback loop.

For I understand information not as a substance but as the relationship. — JuanZu

...and there is a relationship between the sign and what it refers to - information.

It's information/relationships all the way down.

Either the USB has information or it doesn't. If the USB never gets information written to it then there was never any possibility that it would contain information in the first place. — Harry Hindu

Information is never in the first place. In the first place there are always signs arranged in one way or another. The difference is that there is an arrangement of signs that may enter into a meaningful (in-formative) relation or there may be no such arrangement such that the interpreter understands nothing or no relation is possible. I claim that what you call information processing is not processing of anything except signs and their arrangement. Whereby I cannot say that there is information being processed in the first place.

You are confusing information with acts on, or with, information. Being informed is being fed information. Information processing is integrating different types of information (inputs, or what you were fed) to produce new information (output). When the output becomes the input to subsequent processing, you have a sensory information feedback loop. — Harry Hindu

I cannot be confused because I do not believe that there is information about which there are acts, since the information if it is possible to substantiate it is in the result of a process of interpretation or in-formation. So there are no types of information in the first place. What there is is signs arranged in one way or another introduced as inputs as you say. But that input is not information. Because it's always the result of the processing of the signs that we confuse as being at the beginning of the process. For example, if you had a Paper (the information) in a USB memory, when you see and read the Paper in your PC you say "this was (passed) in the USB memory" when in fact it was not.

and there is a relationship between the sign and what it refers to - information. — Harry Hindu

The sign refers. But not to the information but to its process in which it will be included.

In what sense?

Like the form of a sculpture.

But if the shape of the sculpture is beautiful, was it beautiful before anyone looked at it?

The beauty of sculpture is its intrinsic property. We are however informed about its beauty by looking at it and having a subjective experience of beautiful sculpture.

By relational, I mean that information depends on engagement with the substance, otherwise the substance is not a vehicle of informing. There is no information in the substantial form itself because information is always for another, or said another way, information does not fulfill its purpose apart from being for another.

By relational, I mean that information depends on engagement with the substance, otherwise the substance is not a vehicle of informing. — NotAristotle

We have two things here, information and getting informed. The object is a vehicle of information. Getting informed, however, requires an agent to conceive the information through perceiving the object.

The beauty of the object, however, is only given as an external property in relation to a subject that interprets the sculpture. In this case the information, "the beauty" of the sculpture is given in the relationship. This is easy to prove in art, art is beautiful only in relation to us who interpret it.

RE: Information exist as substance-entity?
SUBTOPIC: Short Note Answer to OP
⁜→ et al,

(PREFACE)

How! Did this conversation /discussion scramble my understanding? The original discussion was posed as an Information Science and Technology (IST) context pertaining to a "USB memory stick." [Meaning a Universal Serial Bus (USB)]

An off-the-shelf USB is seldom without a format. When information is stored, it is indexed in a memory device that has a structure to facilitate an interrogation and reply sequence. The device is generally a 'read-write' structure designed for retrieval.


(COMMENT)

First: "Knowledge" and "Information" are not the same. The concept of "Knowledge" is extremely complex, but can be either explicit or tacit. However, the intent of the Original Posting (OP) pertains to "substance":

• "Explicit knowledge is self-conscious in that the knower is aware of the relevant state of knowledge, whereas tacit knowledge is implicit, hidden from self-consciousness."
• Memory is used for storing data and program code, and that can be directly accessed by the processor (

random access memory).


(TO THE QUESTIONS)

• Does a blank USB Memory Device exist? YES
• Does this same USB Memory Device contain information? YES
• Does this same USB Memory Device have substance? YES
• Does the Information on this same USB Memory Device have "existence?" YES
• Does the Information on this same USB Memory Device cease to exist if the device is destroyed? NO

Information, once established, is never destroyed (never lost).



References
____________________
• Dictionary of information science and technology / Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, editor Copyright © 2007 Idea Group Reference (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.)701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200 Hershey PA 17033

• CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, 2ed, ROBERT AUDI © Cambridge University Press 1995, 1999. Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York eBook (Gale)

Most Respectfully,
R

When information is stored, it is indexed in a memory device that has a structure to facilitate an interrogation and reply sequence. The device is generally a 'read-write' structure designed for retrieval. — Rocco Rosano

I claim that nothing is stored. Actually what happens is that it is physically configured in loaded and unloaded cells. We can associate between charge and discharge as a 0 and 1 (thus forming binary language). But a binary language by itself does not mean anything (except if we understand it, just like a pc processes it) and this is my point, it needs a translation or transcription into our language so that something like what we call information appears. Information appears and is created in the relationship, but it is never stored. Because what there is, literally are cells loaded and unloaded, then there are 0 and 1, and then there is the language that we understand. All this is a process of information, of in-forming, con-forming, trans-forming. The fiction is to believe that our language, the information that is created at an end point, is at a beginning. In reality it is a process where information is constantly created. But never stored.

RE: Information exists as substance-entity?
SUBTOPIC: Again, in the context of "context pertaining to a USB Memory Stick" in the OP
⁜→ JaunZu, et al,

(PREFACE)

A USB Memory Stick is a portable storage drive that is a very popular storage device. It is easy to operate through a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port and works on the principle of Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM).

I claim that nothing is stored. — JuanZu

(COMMENT)

Generally speaking, this is not correct. If you create an EEPROM Device, it has a format. It can form an index. And, even if you fill it with unknown characters of an unknown language, it still contains information. Even a completely blank EEPROM Device will communicate to the computer USB Port to make it aware in Programming languages can be classified in the three categories. They are
as follows:

◈ Machine Language
◈ Assembly/Low Level Language (LLL)
◈ High-Level Languages (HLL)

The binary digits (0s and 1s) of which you speak are a form of Machine Language.

REFERENCES
_______________________

• Information Security, Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection — Information Security Management Systems — Requirements © ISO/IEC 2022 Published in CH

• Computer Concepts and Management Information Systems by C. P. Gupta, PhD & K.K. Goyal, PhD Copyright © 2020 by Mercury Learning and Information LLC. © 2019 by University Science Press Boston, Massachusetts


Most Respectfully,
R

In both cases the information is presupposed on the side of the interpreted. A correct expression according to my theory would be, "In-form me!" In the sense of causing something in the interpreter. — JuanZu

I think you are on the right track. The noun "information" refers to the act of informing*1, which is typically construed as imparting knowledge to a mind. As a verb, it takes the form of "to inform"*2. In a conventional context, the word "form" typically refers to the shape or configuration of something that is perceived by the senses as a physical object, and is stored in memory as an image.

But sometimes it refers to the logical structure or design that can only be inferred & conceived by a functioning human mind. Architects and Artists refer to the conceived Form as the "design intent"*3 or meaning of the art. In which case you (interpreter) can read the mind of the artist (the enformer).

In my personal worldview, I have made Information an integral element of How and Why the world works as it does (evolution). Since enforming (transforming) is a causal act, I view it as a form of Energy. With that in mind, I coined the term : EnFormAction : the power to cause change in Matter & MInd. Does that make sense to you? :smile:


*1. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest historical meaning of the word information in English was the act of informing, or giving form or shape to the mind, as in education, instruction, or training. The English word was apparently derived by adding the common "noun of action" ending "-ation" [Hence, En-Form-Action] ___ Wikipedia
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

*2. The suffix "-ation" is a common way to form nouns in English, typically indicating an action, process, state, or condition. It often transforms a verb into a noun, for example, "create" becomes "creation".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22-ation%22+suffix

*3. In design, "form" refers to the visual and aesthetic qualities of a design, encompassing elements like shape, color, texture, and overall appearance. It's the aspect of a design that people visually perceive first, and it plays a crucial role in conveying emotions, communicating messages, and establishing brand identity. Form can be a 3-dimensional representation in graphic design, created through illusions like shadows, shading, and highlights
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22form%22+as+design

. If you create an EEPROM Device, it has a format. It can form an index. And, even if you fill it with unknown characters of an unknown language, — Rocco Rosano

This is wrong once you understand the physics of a USB flash drive. That is why I have specifically referred to the cells and the charge they hold by setting up a binary language that the computer can read. But the problem is not the signs that the USB flash drive may or may not have (the cells and the charge) you have to distinguish between the language and the information. A binary language by itself does not mean anything until it is transcribed into a computer that can work with it and make us see something totally different than some 1's and 0's. That is, if you use a USB flash drive to get a Paper you have written when you understand the Paper you are reading something totally different from 1's and 0's. This implies that the information as a process jumps from language to language. But it does not jump as a preferred language, which makes it impossible to confuse our language with another language such as binary. In this sense, information is not deposited in the memory, signs are deposited that will be available for the human practice of information creation.