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

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.

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.

Scientific Theoretical framework and Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom,

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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

self-determined, unpredictable, path . . . an act of living primitive free will

preserving the most potential energy or negentropy possible

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.

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

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.

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.

please clearly state your Philosophical definition of "Information"

It's meaningless to talk about 'generic information'

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

Again, ‘generic information’ is an incoherent concept.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

You invite criticism then insult anyone who dares criticize.

"the difference that makes a difference".

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.

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; also *gen-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "give birth, beget,"

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.

Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.

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

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.

In my DIKW definition framework, I expect generating the Platonic Forms aremore about knowledge than information, as they are generic (ideal) knowledge about how to structure and constrain and use a category of imperfect yet very similar objects. Thus, Platonic Forms are very much like ideal models and general templates of expected/experienced objects.

But "information" is "knowledge" . . . and much more.

Why would the agents own expectations be a good indication of the practicality of knowledge?

What guarantees that the agent isn’t misguided or simply deceived?

If the expectations are unfounded and they are ultimately baseless what good do they do as a metric?

I do not agree with those dictionary definitions. It, as with the interpretations you proffer, do not account for the logical Distinctions and Transformations, which must occur To get from one cognitive step to the next. In your framework everything is Information So you miss and lose what operations must be performed And what cognitive structures/dynamics/Algorithms are needed To make and use those transformations.

Nevertheless, if you can dumb it down for me, maybe I can follow the logic of your topic. If not, I'll bow out

I don’t think it would be excessive if I asked for English

It is just not useful (at least to me) in the realm of delineating and creating all the (mental/cognitive/algorithmic) transforms that go from measured scalar values to the transcendental wisdom achieved bymetacognition.