Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Fundamental Problem of the Science of Information

  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of information has been extensively studied and written about, yet no consensus on a unified definition of information has to date been reached. This paper seeks to establish the basis for a unified definition of information. We claim a biosemiotics perspective, based on Gregory Bateson’s definition of information, provides a footing on which to build because the frame this provides has applicability to both the sciences and humanities.

A key issue in reaching a unified definition of information is the fundamental problem of identifying how a human organism, in a self-referential process, develops from a state in which its knowledge of the human-organism-in-its-environment is almost non-existent to a state in which the human organism not only recognizes the existence of the environment but also sees itself as part of the human-organism-in-its-environment system. This allows a human organism not only to self-referentially engage with the environment and navigate through it, but also to transform it in its own image and likeness. In other words, the Fundamental Problem of the Science of Information concerns the phylogenetic development process, as well as the ontogenetic development process of Homo sapiens sapiens from a single cell to our current multicellular selves, all in a changing long-term and short-term environment, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Quote generally attributed to Albert Einstein, see for example: https://www.colorado.edu/physics/EducationIssues/ Electrodynamics/documents/homework_FA11/Relativity_review.pdf (Accessed: August 18, 2018)

  2. The word “organism(s)” is used mostly in reference to human-organism(s). If there is consideration of other organisms, it will be made explicit in each particular instance.

  3. Entry “Personal” [Def. 1] in Dictionary.com.

  4. Entry “Subjective” [Def. 2] in Dictionary.com.

  5. Entry “Relative” [Def. 3] in Dictionary.com.

  6. Entry “Impersonal” [Def. 4] in Dictionary.com.

  7. Entry “Objective” [Def. 5] in Dictionary.com.

  8. Entry “Absolute” [Def. 6] in Dictionary.com. The use of “absolute” is made without losing sight of the term “relative”, i.e., to emphasize the dynamic nature of the world around us. What is true today might not be true tomorrow. So, what we know today is relative to what we knew yesterday, but on an absolute scale we note that progress is being made. There is certainly an updating that is taking place. So, this progress might be viewed as relative and absolute at the same time, since both instances are concurrently present.

  9. The subscripts i and i + 1 refers to two different organisms: i.e. if i = 1 (organism 1) then i + 1 = 2 (organism 2).

  10. The subscript j is used to refer to the Shared Universe (or Intersubjective Space j) between organism 1 and organism 2.

  11. The subscript j + 1 is used to refer to the Shared Universe (or Intersubjective Space j + 1) between two different organisms, whose shared universe does not match that of organism 1 and 2.

  12. See for example: http://www.deeplearningbook.org/ (Accessed: April 5, 2016)

References

  • Auletta, G. (2016). From Peirce’s semiotics to information-sign-symbol. Biosemiotics, 9(3), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-016-9275-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2012). What is information? Biosemiotics, 5(2), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9142-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2013). The paradigms of biology. Biosemiotics, 6(1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9149-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Northvale: Jason Aronson Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2009). Applying semiotics and information theory to biology: A critical comparison. Biosemiotics, 2(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-009-9062-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2013). Biology needs information theory. Biosemiotics, 6(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9152-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., & Pullberg, S. (1965). Reification and the sociological critique of consciousness. History and Theory, 4(2), 196–211.

  • Boole, G. (1854). An investigation of the laws of thought. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brier, S. (1999). Biosemiotics and the foundation of cybersemiotics: Reconceptualizing the insights of ethology, second-order cybernetics, and Peirce’s semiotics in biosemiotics to create a non-Cartesian information science. Semiotica, 127(1–4), 169–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brier, S. (2008). Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brier, S., & Joslyn, C. (2013). Information in biosemiotics: Introduction to the special issue. Biosemiotics, 6(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9151-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgin, M. (2010). Theory of information - fundamentality, diversity and unification. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bynum, T. W. (2006). Flourishing ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(4), 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannizzaro, S. (2013). Where did information go? Reflections on the logical status of information in a cybernetic and semiotic perspective. Biosemiotics, 6(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9154-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capurro, R., & Hjørland, B. (2003). The concept of information. In B. Cronin (Ed.). Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 343–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cárdenas-García, J. F. (2013). Distributed cognition: An ectoderm-centric perspective. Biosemiotics, 6(3), 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cárdenas-García, J. F. (2018). Information ethics in the information age. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 14(3), 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cárdenas-García, J. F., & Ireland, T. (2017). Human distributed cognition from an organism-in-its-environment perspective. Biosemiotics, 10(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-017-9293-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cárdenas-García, J. F., Romero Castro, D., & Soria de Mesa, B. (2018). Object discernment by “a difference which makes a difference”. Biosemiotics, 11(1), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9315-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crick, F. H. C. (1958). On Protein Synthesis. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol., The Biological Replication of Macromolecules, XII, 138–163.

  • Dictionary.com - definitions. (n.d.) Online dictionary in http://www.dictionary.com/. Accessed August 18, 2018.

  • Dretske, F. I. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmeche, C. (1999). The Sarkar challenge to biosemiotics: Is there any information in a cell? Semiotica, 127(1/4), 273–293. Cf. text online: http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/99c.Sarkar3c.html. Accessed 15 Apr 2015

  • Favareau, D. (2007). Fundaments of Animal Knowing: Establishing Relations Between Sensations, Actions and the World. In Biosemiotics in Transdisciplinary Contexts (ed. G. Witzany), p. 61–69. Helsinki: Umweb Press.

  • Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. London: Oliver and Boyd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gabor, D. (1946). Theory of communication. Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 93, 429–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, J. (2011). The information - a history, a theory, a flood. New York: Pantheon Books, a division of Random House, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: a neuropsychological theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Heras-Escribano, M., & de Jesus, P. (2018). Biosemiotics, the extended synthesis, and ecological information: Making sense of the organism-environment relation at the cognitive level. Biosemiotics, 11(2), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9322-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidalgo, C. A. (2015). Why information grows: The evolution of order, from atoms to economies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2008a). Biosemiotics. An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2008b). A legacy for living systems. Gregory Bateson as precursor to biosemiotics. Netherlands: Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (2010). A biosemiotic approach to the question of meaning. Zygon, 45(2), 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2016). The great chain of semiosis. Investigating the steps in the evolution of semiotic competence. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9247-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofkirchner, W. (2008). How to achieve a unified theory of information. Spain: Leon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofkirchner, W. (2013a). Chapter 1: The dawn of a science of information. In W. Hofkirchner (Ed.), Emergent information — A unified theory of information framework (pp. 3–34). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hofkirchner, W. (2013b). Emergent information. When a difference makes a difference… tripleC, 11(1), 6–12.

  • Kirsh, D. (1995). The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence, 73(1–2), 31–68.

  • Korzybski, A. (1994). Science and sanity; an introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics (5th ed., International non-Aristotelian library). Lakeville, Conn.,: International Non-Aristotelian Library Pub. Co.; distributed by Institute of General Semantics.

  • Kull, K., Deacon, T., Emmeche, C., Hoffmeyer, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (2009). Theses on biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a theoretical biology. Biological Theory, 4(2), 167–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, R. (1991). Information is physical. Physics Today, 44(5), 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, S. (2006). Programming the universe. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKay, D. M. (1969). Information, mechanism and meaning. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Markoš, A., & Cvrčková, F. (2013). The meaning(s) of information, code … and meaning. Biosemiotics, 6(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9155-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Conde, S., Macknik, S. L., & Hubel, D. H. (2004). The role of fixational eye movements in visual perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1348.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K. (2013). Toward accomodating biosemiotics with experimental sciences. Biosemiotics, 6(1), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9156-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. (2002). Autopoieis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 9, 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordretcht. Reidel.

  • Maturana, H., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattee. (2013). Epistemic, evolutionary, and physical conditions for biological information. Biosemiotics, 6(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-012-9150-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qvortrup, L. (1993). The controversy over the concept of information. An overview and a selected and annotated bibliography. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 1(4), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roederer, J. G. (2003). On the concept of information and its role in nature. Entropy, 5, 3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roederer, J. G. (2005). Information and its role in nature. Berlin Heidelberg. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roederer, J. G. (2016). Pragmatic information in biology and physics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374, 20150152.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rohr, D. (2014). A theory of life as information-based interpretation of selecting environments. Biosemiotics, 7(3), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9201-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, S. S. (2017). From the cellular standpoint: Is DNA sequence genetic ‘information’? Biosemiotics, 10(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-017-9303-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seelig, C. (1956). Albert Einstein, a documentary biography. London: Staples Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E. (1938). A symbolic analysis of relay and switching circuits. Transactions American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 57, 713–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(379–423), 623–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A. (2010). Functional information: Towards synthesis of biosemiotics and cybernetics. Entropy., 12, 1050–1070. https://doi.org/10.3390/e12051050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A. (2016). Evolution of natural agents: Preservation, advance, and emergence of functional information. Biosemiotics, 9(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-015-9250-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, S. (2013). Reification and fetishism: processes of transformation. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(1), 79–98.

  • Spencer-Brown, G. (1969). The laws of form. London: George Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stonier, T. (1997). Information and meaning - an evolutionary perspective. Berlin Heidelberg. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnessen, M. (2009). Umwelt transitions: Uexküll and environmental change. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umpleby, S. A. (2007). Physical relationships among matter, energy and information. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(3), 369–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. (1975). A calculus for self-reference. International Journal of General Systems, 2(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. (1991). Organism: A meshwork of sefless selves. In A. I. Tauber (Ed.), Organism and the origins of self (pp. 79–107). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vedral, V. (2010). Decoding reality - the universe as quantum information. New York: Oxford University Press Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitti-Rodrigues, M., & Emmeche, C. (2017). Abduction: Can non-human animals make discoveries? Biosemiotics, 10(2), 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (1928). Theoretische biologie (Second ed.). Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer.

  • von Uexküll, J. (1957). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. Instinctive behavior: The development of a modern concept, Claire H. Schiller (ed. and trans.). New York: International Universities Press, 5–80.

  • Wheeler, J. A. (1991). ‘Sakharov revisited: “It from Bit”’, in M Man’ko, Proceedings of the First International A D Sakharov Memorial Conference on Physics, May 27–31, Moscow, USSR. Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

  • Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N. (1954). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society (2nd ed.). New York: Doubleday Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, J. (1694). Mercury: Or the secret and swift messenger. Shewing, how a man may with privacy and speed communicate his thoughts to a friend at any distance. London: Richard Baldwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yockey, H. P. (2005). Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zukerfeld, M. (2017). Knowledge in the age of digital capitalism. London: University of Westminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the editors for their helpful suggestions and the reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which have helped to significantly improve the content of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland – Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD, 21250, USA

    Jaime F. Cárdenas-García

  2. Kent School of Architecture, University of Kent, Marlowe Building, Canterbury, CT2 7NR, UK

    Timothy Ireland

Authors
  1. Jaime F. Cárdenas-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy Ireland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaime F. Cárdenas-García.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cárdenas-García, J.F., Ireland, T. The Fundamental Problem of the Science of Information. Biosemiotics 12, 213–244 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09350-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09350-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation