Certainly, definitions which unify some earlier concepts into one more general without trivialization or over-extension are of special interest, if we can find evidence that this unification is a reflection of the actual interdependence of denotations.
Thus, the issue is not which particular definition is right or wrong, but how to construct a concept which is logically sound (not many of the variety found in literature satisfy this necessary condition) and which gives us a concept of sufficient value for our comprehension of the world to be worth attention. Moreover, it is even not clear whether single concept of information can be used in all contexts in which this word appears. There is no single tradition in the use of this term. It suggests that the word “information” has some unique meaning waiting to be discovered, and our task is to find it. The question “What is information?” is misleading. The dual character of selective and structural manifestations opens the way between the orthodox information scientific description of the brain in terms of the former, and description of mind in terms of the latter. It is shown that the concept of information formulated this way together with the concept of information integration can be used to explain the unity of conscious experience, and furthermore to resolve several fundamental problems such as understanding the experiential aspect of consciousness without getting into homunculus fallacy, defending free will from mechanistic determinism, and explaining symbolic representation and aesthetical experience. This particular choice of the definition of information allows unification of the main two manifestations of information implicitly present in literature, the selective and the structural. The article is focused on the special role of the concept of information understood in terms of the one-many categorical opposition in building a bridge between mind and brain.
0 kommentar(er)
