Re: Information basics 1 (revisited)

Chris Lofting (
Sun, 18 Apr 1999 16:10:34 +1000

From: "Chris Lofting" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: Information basics 1 (revisited)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 16:10:34 +1000

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Faichney <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Date: Sunday, 18 April 1999 2:19
Subject: Information basics 1

>Here's the "test message" I threatened, on info basics. No mention of
>memes whatsoever (except there), but I hope the possibility of building
>up to memetics from this base will be fairly obvious.
>The concept of information is used in physics, for instance in
>connection with entropy, but that often seems, to me at least, to
>conflict somewhat with the more common sorts of use of the concept, for
>instance in "management information systems". Having had some success
>with the technique in other (but related) areas, I decided to analyse
>information (the concept(s)) in terms of subjectivity and objectivity.

Ah.. so you wish to use a dichotomy. Most do but this method has properties
that can sneak-up on you and you will confuse the properties of the method
with properties of the things under analysis. Do you realise that the the
apparent 1:1 nature of the dichotomy is in fact a 1:many?

>I now seem to be making real progress, having divided information into
>two categories.

but incorrect. You need to go deeper into the neurology what you have
written is a little to 'lite'. The fundamental distinction is that of
objects (the 1) from relationships (the many).

Objects are then categorised into wholes and parts (this reflects the SAME
pattern, 1:many at all scales)

Relationships are categorised into static and dynamic (here static has a
quality that is like '1' as compared to the 'many' for dynamics)

With these fundamentals you have FOUR ways of categorising anything. NOW
comes the objective/subjective since these are assertions about CONTEXT.
Objective can be seen as 'out there' whereas subjective is 'in here'. I put
these in single quotes since a culture can be subjective and I can be
objective about 'in here' concepts.

other -- 8-64-4096 etc The devlopment path is complexity-biased and so we
get 'emergence' but all that emerges the SAME general characteristics such
that the same object/relationships categorisations take place. All that you
do find is 'novel' categorisations that have emerged as a result of the
refined context that can support them.

What we are seeing is the seed process. ANY 'object' (and this includes
relationships being seen as 'wholes')when analysed will be broken down into
elements made of the above fundamentals. The process of analysis follows the
process of seed development where the act of making the distinction of this
from that is the act of mental fertilisation and from this things grow but
with a 'base' of powers of 2. Analysis is recursive.

Our mind reflects RNA/DNA processes and both asexual/androgynous and sexual
processes. Asexual is where we see fractal-like processes. Sexual is where
we see 'variations on theme' other than just scale.

When you analyse, the interesting area is when the structuring, based on
oppositions as you have started with, cross the border into cooperative
processes. You have to be careful here in that you can, from this position,
look back and see things with 'sexual' eyes and so cloud things. Not that
this also works in reverse where you start with 'asexual' eyes and look
ahead into 'sexual' areas and so see opposition where there is in fact

> Objective information is what physicists deal with.

They deal with information that is asexual/androgynous. They deal with
symmetry which is linked to oppositions. They thus deal with light vs dark.
Note that there is an emphasis on 'purity' here, all photons are 'the same',
all electrons are 'the same' etc etc

The 'mutation' is where the opposites formed into a circle and the light and
dark are now next to each other and become cooperative; light/dark changes
into male/female. This is a skewing of the symmetry and allows for sexual
development and so variations on a theme.

With sexual development comes subjectivity in that CONTEXT starts to play a
VERY important part in things. You could say that Einstein's Relativity
concepts 'sexualised' physics (or 'contextualised' it) in that we introduce
context dependencies and so no more 'purity', more 'entanglements'. This
whole area gets into emotional expressions and this includes bluff and so
illusions. (in the objective frame of reference we can see delusions)

>While this is not central to my interests, and I'm not entirely clear
>about it, I believe it is equivalent to "negentropy". But objective
>information is not esoteric: it is, in fact, just the form of physical
>reality. Every physical thing can be considered to carry the
>information that is its own description.

That is right -- objective bias emphasises self-containment, independence.
The opposition maintains structural elements such that symmetry is

You get the same elements involved in the eternal war. Observed
relationships are more 'chance' interactions in that every participant tries
to do its own 'thing' and the interference patterns create reality. there is
no feedback here. The hostile environment prohibits this other than the
rigid dichotomy of 'live'/'die'.

When we first thought of genes they seemed to work this way. It is
inductive. very Darwinian. very EITHER/OR. Eternal and so no concept of 'the
individual', development is over centuries. (note I said 'first thought' --
our thinking forces this perspective when we view the 'new', it is a
property of the method of analysis)

The subjective emerges when we get feedback processes and we head towards
development that can seem to be Lamarckian. Here you get variations on a
theme and so 'individuals' that are *different* within a generation. When
you zoom-in on these areas, as the individidual interacts with the
environment (local context) we shift from opposition to cooperation, we
become entangled; we find a niche. As this cooperation increases so you
cannot determine 'what came first', the high trees or the giraffees neck!
The feedback processes are so strong that development moves from a reactive
bias to a proactive bias (another dichotomy :-)) (we seem to see this highly
proactive feedback processing in the immune system as well as social

To summarise, you have:

(1) objects [whole/parts]
(2) relationships [static/dynamic]
(3) context [foreground/background also positive/negative, expand/contract
etc etc]
(4) development path from reactive (Darwin like) to proactive (Lamarck like)
(5) Complexity principles, thus the over-feedback at the proactive level can
cause 'emergence' and so a 'novel' form to start all over again. (the
emphasis is on a 1:many process where the many is the source of
(6) Asexual-Androgyne/Sexual processes and so symmetry/skewed-broken

Note that these are ALL properties of the METHOD of analysis -- the use of
dichotomies. Asexual favours 1:1, sexual favours 1:many.

ALL information is processed this way. This is information chemistry. See my
website for more (a bit 'obscure' but if you work at it you may benefit from
it :-) This is how we see meaning in so much)

And this is equally true on
>all levels of description/explanation, the difference between levels
>being that of the scale of the patterns we're interested in.

fractal emphasis is based on the method of analysis where we see the same
patterns at different scales. That pattern means you are dealing with
fundamentals, symmetry is maintained. BUT your brain actually does this. ANY
attempt to identify precisely forces a left-hemisphere bias in processing
and that hemisphere works in *jumps*, it is object oriented and maps using
way-point techniques. Meaning is EITHER/OR based, emotion is limited to
'correct/incorrect' and so a little 'extreme', child-like, at times.

When you get into subjective analysis you are looking at relationships, the
spaces in between the 'dots'.

>Subjective information is the more commonly thought-of sort. It is
>carried by telephone lines, radio waves, hard and floppy discs, etc. It
>is always "about something"

and so relational, harmonic rather than tonic. Your RIGHT hemisphere deals
better with this. It also deals with approximations rather than precise
results. It is this 'wave' oriented.

I have stopped here as the above may cause you to reflect on what you have
said, and be wary of being too undiscerning in analysis, note for example
the asexual/sexual boundary.

But.. one comment though...
>Of course, the concepts of subjective and objective information are
>already in common use, but the difference is that there, they are
>relative, while my usage is absolute. Say we have two descriptions of a
>building, one made by an artist, and the other by a construction
>engineer. It's quite likely that the former will be relatively
>subjective, and the latter relatively objective, but both are, in my,
>absolute terminology, subjective.

The emphasis is on foreground/background differences. The artist is
attracted to the expression (foreground), the engineer to the algorithm
(background); the artist finds value in the rainbow, the scientist in the
laws of nature that create it; that are 'behind' it,

In art the emphasis on uniqueness favours 'many methods' or 'no observable
method' in the process of creation. In science the emphasis is on algorithms
that allow for repeatability and so 'one method' to cover MANY expressions.
note the patterns 1:many and many:1.

'reality' is the unification of BOTH.



This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)