Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom

Sir Philo Sophia

I have a developed what I currently find as a best working Scientific Theoretical framework and Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom, and their interrelationships and how they are each ultimately grounded into physics and various levels of Sentience.

Upon which I'd like to see if others can either find problems with, or support for, it with well reasoned, constructive discourse.

These are intended to be scientific definitions, so holding up to serious philosophical scrutiny is a first step, as I tighten and adjust it as a best working scientific theory. Accordingly, I'm looking for, and will be most responsive to, high caliber (preferably technical) scrutiny and discourse on where my definition has realistic/practical problems.

Under my below definitions, for example, a virus has a kind of sensory intelligence when it detects certain environmental conditions/situation and occurrence of events, and transforms that data into information to guide appropriate actions towards its goal. So, if you do not regard a virus as a living being with free will that is doing an implicit type of primitive 'thinking' then you have to point out exactly where/how my logic or definition of such is flawed, and argue why a virus is inanimate matter, not making selective decisions based on information it has created, and acting out of a kind of primitive free will that requires information processing.

As we know dictionary definitions on this are circular and useless, and current best scientific definitions are not in agreement, are very incomplete and very flawed at best.

For example, Wiki cites common, most abstract, definitions from literature as:
says Information: "As an influence that leads to transformation- Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns"
However, is a hammer (a pattern) that smashes a glass, transforming it into a pattern of shards, really 'information' itself that destroyed the glass? Sounds good in the Matrix if all objects are virtual, but does not seem like a useful general scientific definition in our 'real' world, esp. not in the context of data processing. Moreover, something with zero information like a uniform random number generator could be corrupting a pattern of bits in a computer. So, in such approaches, how can some patterns with no information be information? Seems way to conflicted, very incomplete and very flawed at best.
Likewise, definitions like "the difference that makes a difference" are too vague and conflicted to be useful approach; e.g., randomness can make a difference to something, yet have no tangible information.

Similarly for "knowledge", says "Following this idea, "knowledge" has been reconstructed as a cluster concept that points out relevant features but that is not adequately captured by any definition", which is hopelessly vague.

Similarly for 'wisdom', says: "Wisdom is the capacity to have foreknowledge of something, to know the consequences (both positive and negative) of all the available course of actions, and to yield or take the options with the most advantage either for present or future implication.", which is hopelessly way too limiting; e.g., what of the wisdom in altruism?

For better background and context to better understand this post, and how I define terms "Action", "Living matter", and "Free Will", read my prior discussions posted in these pages:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9733/scientific-definition-of-living-vs-inanimate-matter/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9765/scientific-definition-of-an-action
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9772/towards-a-scientific-definition-of-free-will

One outcome intended by this my proposed Definitions is to ground the purpose and dynamics behind a sentient beings making and using Data, Information, Knowledge, and/or Wisdom to make an 'action' based on 'free will'.

=========================
Here are my proposed Scientific Theory and Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom:

Data: a representative value, possibly implicitly, assigned to have a correspondence to any observation, measurement, detected event, and/or mental/physical phenomena, wherein the values are used as inputs to molecular programs, computational state-machines, and to calculate and/or carry out, potential path(s) to carry out Primitive Free Will. When the data is produced by a sensor that transforms detected energy or certain phenomenal patterns/levels by projecting into a single dimensional scalar representative value there is always an irreversible loss of information, thus an increase in entropy must occur due to the irreversible destruction of energy/pattern information, which is dissipated, usually as heat. When the output scalar dimension of the sensor is known, possibly implicitly, along with the type of energy and/or patterns the sensor can detect and at least one detection context of the sensor then the sensor data is transformed into sensory information, and this transformation is performing an act of sensory intelligence, which would otherwise have required much more sophisticated sentient cognitive intelligence to have figured out and make the transformation.

Information: any transformation or interpretation of data and/or other information, including sensory information, which makes it useful to build knowledge.

Knowledge: any use of information and/or other knowledge to create a path from an initial state to some final state. Sentient beings use knowledge to build sentient paths and goals to carry out Sentient Free Will or otherwise find paths towards maximizing their internal potential energy or ability to control and transform other things into more useful or interesting things. Note that knowledge is also helpful in avoiding real-world implementation problems, which is equivalent to the agent using that knowledge, otherwise avoiding the waste of potential energy towards enacting less productive kinetic energy.

Wisdom: experiential optimization and/or expectations guidance and/or principles which make knowledge more practical or in better context to a perceived reality frame of reference, enough to help enable building suitable paths and goals that satisfy the needs of Conscious Free Will.

=========================

So, one aspect of this approach is to provide a frame work for Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom and how they tie into "Sentience", "Free Will" and "Actions", which are related to energy and certain types of work and Sentient states of being that may result. This will support a much broader theory and other definitions to come.

NOTE: everyone commenting here should make sure that any analysis/critique considers the fact that viruses employ data and information to make decisions and selective (free will?) 'actions' too. So, you have to be very careful to not limit your self/mind only to intentional, higher order free will, acts/goals of Conscious beings.

I'm Look forward to high caliber, preferably technical, scrutiny and discourse on this...

Sir Philo Sophia

To me free will is the claimed ability to take a decision without this decision being the result of the interactions between the fundamental constituents the brain is made of or whatever makes the thought possible. — Rotorblade

to clarify my prior point on the 'free will' thread, I should also point out that call conscious decisions must be based on data and information, which according to my above definitions necessarily must be "the result of the interactions between the fundamental constituents the brain is made of or whatever makes the thought possible", which contradicts your definition approach. So, my proposed definitions would seem to perform better than yours.

Rotorblade

o clarify my prior point on the 'free will' thread, I should also point out that call conscious decisions must be based on data and information, which according to my above definitions necessarily must be "the result of the interactions between the fundamental constituents the brain is made of or whatever makes the thought possible", which contradicts your definition approach. So, my proposed definitions would seem to perform better than yours.

So you mean the brain as a machine creates the thoughts but then these thoughts can cause nature to veer off it’s normal course?
It seems a better definition. At least mine doesn’t make room for free will. Yours lives more room for interpretation in the sense you define something that may be possible although I don’t see how it could do it, I can’t exclude it with certainty.

Gnomon

Scientific Theoretical framework and Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom, — Sir Philo Sophia

If you have any interest in a Philosophical framework & definition of "Information", the linked thread below discusses the Epistemological & Ontological status of that traditional & technical term.

Information Philosophy : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/481620

Average

Wisdom: experiential optimization and/or expectations guidance and/or principles which make knowledge more practical or in better context to a perceived reality frame of reference, enough to help enable building suitable paths and goals that satisfy the needs of Conscious Free Will.

This definition strikes me as impractical. Maybe it’s just the way it was worded but it’s not clear what optimization actually means in this context. How do we measure the practicality of knowledge or the suitability of pathways?

Sir Philo Sophia

If you have any interest in a Philosophical framework & definition of "Information", the linked thread below discusses the Epistemological & Ontological status of that traditional & technical term. — Gnomon

that was a great discussion you had w/ @Wayfarer. thanks for pointing me to it. I will respond with a more philosophical version to align with your sensibilities. BTW, what I'm proposing is much more what you are wanting than what Shannon is providing. I will explain soon.

Sir Philo Sophia

Since these "energies" have not been found by Physical Science, the names must refer to some Meta-physical power. In the Frankenstein novel, even the raw power of lightening was imagined as the vitalizing force. But nobody knows exactly how the "mechanism of organism" works. It seems to be related to the phase change from a collection of parts, to a single unified organic biological Whole.

I can't specify all the transitional steps from Matter to Life to Mind, but it seems to be merely a highly-evolved kind of Phase Transition --- like liquid to gas to solid. — Gnomon

towards answering your question above, please review my proposed "Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter" here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9733/towards-a-scientific-definition-of-living-vs-inanimate-matter/p1

and let me know what you think. It identifies the initial phase changes you are looking for. then look into pg2 of comments and search for my comments re "virus", at:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9733/towards-a-scientific-definition-of-living-vs-inanimate-matter/p2

esp., read my comment with the "gliding plane" example.

then read my comments re 'prion'. I'm pretty sure that prions are the earliest phase change from dead to living matter, per my definition there.

I look forward to learn what you think of my proposal and comments there.

thx.

Sir Philo Sophia

So you mean the brain as a machine creates the thoughts but then these thoughts can cause nature to veer off it’s normal course? — Rotorblade

no. not "cause nature to veer off it’s normal course", which may happen under acts of free will to modify the environment as a way to locally violate the PLA, but primarily free will causes the matter under the living ("thinking") agent's control to "act" in ways that veers the agent's matter off it’s normal course that nature would otherwise prescribe (e.g., per the PLA).

Sir Philo Sophia

It seems a better definition. At least mine doesn’t make room for free will./quote]

not sure what you mean. why are you apparently arguing that free will does not exist in the brain? My definitions are completely based on "free will" and enacting it in a way that is consistent with and predicts all known observations. — Rotorblade

Sir Philo Sophia

Yours lives more room for interpretation in the sense you define something that may be possible although I don’t see how it could do it, I can’t exclude it with certainty. — Rotorblade

While top level, conceptual, definitions have to be broad to cover all means of implementation of the key distinguishing principles, I do give functional limits, dynamics, and outputs that 'free will' must achieve. For example, for 'data', see where I define it as serving a type of free will, in re "wherein the values are used as inputs to molecular programs, computational state-machines, and to calculate and/or carry out, potential path(s) to carry out Primitive Free Will"

in my 'free will' thread I define how to implement calculating suitable path(s) that carry out Primitive Free Will (in re locally violating PLA).

Sir Philo Sophia

This definition strikes me as impractical. Maybe it’s just the way it was worded but it’s not clear what optimization actually means in this context. — Average

optimization is typically done to do the classic "smaller, faster, better, cheaper" , or less errors, more efficient/effective, less harm to others, more morally pure, etc. Wisdom level 'optimization' generally is the optimal balance of identifying and achieving a goal that is most aligned with the agent's areas of concerns, desired affordable costs/efforts, and desired gains in potential energy or getting closer to a truth.

Sir Philo Sophia

How do we measure the practicality of knowledge or the suitability of pathways? — Average

one measure of potential utility (a kind of practicality) would be if the information/knowledge is expected to be useful in creating, or bridging to, any wisdom the agent would expect to be valuable. A measure of 'practicality' might be the degree that the information increases the agent's (expected or actual) negentropy or total potential energy, maybe after working out obvious/monotonic implementation/contextual problems.

Gnomon

towards answering your question above, please review my proposed "Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter" here: — Sir Philo Sophia

I assume the referenced question is about "how the mechanism of organism works". And your "definition" makes the most obvious distinction between Mechanism and Organism : Mechanisms are passive media through which energy passes, while Organisms are active agents that turn some of that energy to their own personal purposes. As you noted above, that redirection of energy seems to be a "primitive form of Free Will". Of course, in the simplest organisms, like viruses, the self-directed "choice" may not be a conscious decision. :smile:

My definitions are based on the physics "principle of least action (PLA)". — Sir Philo Sophia

I would refer to the PLA more colloquially as the "Path of Least Resistance". Mechanisms tend to efficient in in passing energy along pre-defined channels to outputs, that have nothing to do with the mechanism itself. By contrast, a living organism uses some of the channeled energy internally & selfishly, for metabolism & reproduction. The energy "lost" due to internal resistance, is turned into Life. Plus, the output of energy is expressed in self-directed behavior (animation) that we interpret as a sign of Life. :blush:

wherein the means or goal to Self-replicate or gain potential energy (PE) is not programmed or directed by an external consciousness or entity. — Sir Philo Sophia

That's what I mean by "self-directed" energy usage. :nerd:

self-determined, unpredictable, path . . . an act of living primitive free will — Sir Philo Sophia

Freewill allows the organism to "choose" how to allocate its internal energy, rather than passively moved by external inputs. :nerd:

preserving the most potential energy or negentropy possible — Sir Philo Sophia

I give a more positive name to "negentropy". I call it "Enformy". :cool:

Enformy :
Entropy is a quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That "glitch" is what I call Enformy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Dissipation-Driven Adaptive Organization :
A new theory in Physics “that life exists because the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page77.html

Dissipative structures :
Refers to steady-state systems that are mechanisms for channeling energy in order to maintain their form. They re-direct the raw power of creative potential.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page76.html

Sir Philo Sophia

If you have any interest in a Philosophical framework & definition of "Information", the linked thread below discusses the Epistemological & Ontological status of that traditional & technical term. — Gnomon

A Philosophical framework & definition of "Information" would be fine, but I read your comments in that thread and could not find any clearly stated definition of "Information" at all, just allot of arm waving about Enformationism, Teleological Attractors, etc. So, I tend to agree w/ @Wayfarer where he responded to you:

Well, all due respect, I don't think you've really clarified it. — Wayfarer

So, please clearly state your Philosophical definition of "Information" in functional terms that is consistent with and predicts all known observations, and point out how it performs that better than my proposal. Thx.

Sir Philo Sophia

this is an example of what I mean, as being way too vague and not even Philosophically well defined, to be helpful a more exact definition:

Yes. I was led by my exploration of the Enformationism thesis to conclude that something like a Divine Creator -- or First Cause of our space-time sequence of secondary causes -- is reasonable to assume; perhaps even necessary to believe. But the very generality & universality of Information in the real world, does not specify any particular traditional deity concept. Nor does it imply any humanoid characteristics, such as motherly love or fatherly commandments. — Gnomon

So, to reiterate: please clearly state your Philosophical definition of "Information" in functional terms that is consistent with and predicts all known observations, and point out how it performs that better than my proposal. Thx.

Sir Philo Sophia

I assume the referenced question is about "how the mechanism of organism works". And your "definition" makes the most obvious distinction between Mechanism and Organism : Mechanisms are passive media through which energy passes, while Organisms are active agents that turn some of that energy to their own personal purposes. — Gnomon

no. my definition of 'living' is not based on, thus does not assume, an Organism is present, as that would be a circular (dictionary like) definition. Instead, all my definitions are based on concreate, observable behaviors or measurable configurations/transformations which the matter must follow/perform to fit within my category as defined . So, please specifically read the definition you question and specifically point out where it is flawed in achieving the goals of an ideal definition (be it scientific or Philosophical).

Wayfarer

please clearly state your Philosophical definition of "Information" — Sir Philo Sophia

As I said, I believe information is always specific. It's meaningless to talk about 'generic information', and I'm sceptical of the effort to make 'information' a fundamental or foundational category.

Sir Philo Sophia

It's meaningless to talk about 'generic information' — Wayfarer

How is my DIKW framework, as defined, "meaningless" when it specifies exact structures, metes and bounds, inputs and outputs, and functions that a phenomenon must satisfy to be considered to be "Information".

I would posit that anything that is useful in at least one context/situation is accordingly meaningful.

So, what exactly is not useful about my proposed 'generic information' definition?:
Information: any transformation or interpretation of data and/or other information, including sensory information, which makes it useful to build knowledge.

Wayfarer

↪Sir Philo Sophia

That’s a definition of information. The term ‘generic information’ doesn’t appear in the definition you give in the OP. Of course information is real, but the question is, whether it is fundamental or derivative, the result of other processes. I’m inclined to think of it as derivative and specific, meaning that ‘generic information’ is an incoherent concept.

Sir Philo Sophia

As I said, I believe information is always specific..., and I'm sceptical of the effort to make 'information' a fundamental or foundational category. — Wayfarer

seems like an unreasonable position to take. For example, your line of thinking would say that there is no meaningful generic definition of 'food', instead every molecule in the universe has to be specifically defined as food or not. whereas, we all know that a generic definition of 'food' as "anything consumed by an organism which may be digested to produce components and fuel needed to build anabolic structures and power metabolic processes of the organism", or such is very useful. So, if we observed an organism consuming a rock and it did not result in producing any fuel/energy or anabolic components then we could say that a 'rock' is not 'food' to that organism. I do not see a similar generic definition of 'information' as being any less useful as to categorizing the types of data that may be considered as 'information' to a specific organism or process.

Sir Philo Sophia

Again, ‘generic information’ is an incoherent concept. — Wayfarer

maybe I misunderstood what you intend to mean by 'generic'. See my above re generic 'food' at let me know if I got you right or wrong on that.

Sir Philo Sophia

Of course information is real, but the question is, whether it is fundamental or derivative, the result of other processes. I’m inclined to think of it as derivative and specific. — Wayfarer

in my above DIKW framework it is generally derivative, yet some data (e.g., sensory data) in my definition structure might be fundamentally 'information' without having to derive/transform it further.

Wayfarer

your line of thinking would say that there is no meaningful generic definition of 'food', instead every molecule in the universe has to be specifically defined as food or not. — Sir Philo Sophia

There is no 'generic food' either. What would it be, other than 'something that can be consumed by humans (or other creatures)'? But that 'something', whatever it might be, must always take some kind of form. Even if it were lab-produced protein and carbohydrates, then it would be 'lab-produced food'.

Where does the term 'generic' originate? It's a taxonomic category. It's been adopted in the computer industry in the form of 'generic products', like white-boxed personal computers. (I thnk its from that source that it has leaked into the discourse.) It means 'of a type'. So, again, 'generic information' can't be a meaningful concept.

If you say 'I have some information', the first question I'm going to ask is 'what information?' or 'what about?' 'Oh, nothing. It's just information.' Makes no sense.

Sir Philo Sophia

If you say 'I have some information', the first question I'm going to ask is 'what information?' or 'what about?' 'Oh, nothing. It's just information.' Makes no sense. — Wayfarer

I disagree with your way of thinking; however, that is not a meaningful discussion (or rabbit hole) that interests me to debate as it is off topic here, and science disagrees with your personal philosophical view on that. "generic" is another way of saying a "high level of abstraction that is still distinguished and representative of the category in question.

And, as I said, anything that is useful in at least one context/situation is accordingly meaningful; hence, generic definitions are very useful and meaningful to abstract reasoning.

On the 'generic' subject, I suspect you are stuck in the (philosophical) weeds for some reason...

However, if you have constructive contributions/critiques to my definitions then I'm all ears...

Wayfarer

[deleted]

Gnomon

So, please clearly state your Philosophical definition of "Information" in functional terms that is consistent with and predicts all known observations, and point out how it performs that better than my proposal. Thx. — Sir Philo Sophia

Since my understanding of the universal role of Information in the universe diverges radically from most particular & reductive mainstream concepts, I've had to create dozens of definitions to suit a variety of contexts.

We are not in competition here. Your proposed definition may suit your "scientific theoretical" purposes, but my understanding of Information is "philosophical theoretical", with no pretensions to be empirical or mathematical. But FWIW, here's one definition that is somewhat technical, but includes psychological and sociological applications. :smile:

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".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Gnomon

So, please specifically read the definition you question and specifically point out where it is flawed in achieving the goals of an ideal definition (be it scientific or Philosophical). — Sir Philo Sophia

No need to get defensive. I wasn't critiquing flaws in your definition of Information, etc, but merely offering my observations from a different perspective. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. For your scientific purposes, your definition may be spot-on. But I have a more general & pragmatic usage in mind. The concept of "Generic Information" can be applied to just about any philosophical question. But it's not formulated for use in chemistry or physics experiments. :smile:

Generic Information : Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility -- the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

↪Wayfarer

-- this use of "Generic" is not based on the common dictionary definition, but on the root meaning : "to generate novelty" or "to produce offspring".

Origin of generic
1670–80; <Latin gener- (see gender1) + -ic
also *gen-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "give birth, beget,"

Sir Philo Sophia

You invite criticism then insult anyone who dares criticize. — Wayfarer

I did not insult you. I think you have a 'thin skin' here. I just said that your "generic is meaningless" criticisms was an off-topic, not a useful, criticism for my practical definition goals, and I explained in detail why/how I reasoned your point was not useful. Not all criticisms are constructive... right?

Sir Philo Sophia

"the difference that makes a difference". — Gnomon

that is too vague and conflicted to be useful approach. e.g., randomness can make a difference to something, yet have no tangible information.

Sir Philo Sophia

But I have a more general & pragmatic usage in mind. The concept of "Generic Information" can be applied to just about any philosophical question. But it's not formulated for use in chemistry or physics experiments. — Gnomon

that is fine, and could be interesting to me if useful and applicable to human thought or reasoning.

Wayfarer

this use of "Generic" is not based on the common dictionary definition, but on the root meaning : "to generate novelty" or "to produce offspring".

Origin of generic
1670–80; <Latin gener- (see gender1) + -ic
also *gen-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "give birth, beget," — Gnomon

What I get from the etymological dictionary is:

Generic, adj: 1670s, "belonging to a large group of objects," formed in English from Latin gener-, stem of genus "race, kind" (from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups) + -ic. Hence "of a general kind, not special. In reference to manufactured products, "not special; not brand-name; in plain, cheap packaging," is from 1953 of drugs; of groceries, etc., from 1977. Related: Generically.

Which is precisely the definition I gave above, only to be told that I had it wrong.

The gen- root is common to both 'genetic' and 'generic'. But your usage is much nearer 'genetic' or 'genesis' in the sense of 'originating'. Now if you said 'genetic information', instead of 'generic information' then you'd be talking about something, because 'genetic information' is central to molecular biology. But in respect of inorganic chemistry and physics, I stil can't see how 'generic information' is a meaningful concept. In your schema, 'enformation' is just the name you give for the place in metaphysics formerly occupied by religious concepts, such as spirit, chi, pneuma, and so on - you say so yourself.

Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions