The informational self is not only the ensemble of information that makes up a person’s identity. It also constitutes the information that is stored and processed in the body of a person, (mostly it’s brain). It enables the person to be conscious, think, react and be in it’s environment.
Not spirit but information
Idée d’article
À la fin de ce podcast, Dawkins suggère que l’identité et le soi informationnel sont beaucoup plus important que ce que la population le comprend….
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/sean-carrolls-mindscape-science-society-philosophy/id1406534739?i=1000559344259
**Original Sentence:**
“The informational self, the coded and processing of information on our DNA and the information created by what we have learned, is better than what we understand as spirit.”
**Revised Sentence:**
“The informational self, which includes the computational processes of our DNA and brain, offers a better understanding than the traditional concept of spirit.”
**Pros and Cons:**
**Original Sentence:**
**Pros:**
– Attempts to explain the concept of the informational self by mentioning DNA and learned information.
– Suggests a comparison with the concept of spirit.
**Cons:**
– The phrase “the coded and processing of information on our DNA” is awkward and unclear.
– Separating “information created by what we have learned” from DNA might confuse the integrated nature of the informational self.
– The comparison with the spirit is vague and lacks clarity.
**Revised Sentence:**
**Pros:**
– Clearly integrates the computational processes of both DNA and the brain.
– Simplifies the structure for better readability and understanding.
– Explicitly states that this concept offers a better understanding than the traditional idea of spirit.
**Cons:**
– Slightly less detail about the nature of information processing.
– Might seem less descriptive about the types of information (e.g., DNA vs. learned information).
Overall, the revised sentence is more concise and clearer, making it easier to understand the intended meaning. The original sentence, while attempting to be descriptive, suffers from awkward phrasing and a lack of integration between the concepts of DNA and learned information.
At its deepest level, the foundation of information is a distinction — a difference that can be recognized and recorded.
Claude Shannon formalized this in 1948 as the bit, the smallest possible distinction: two alternatives, like 0 or 1, true or false, yes or no. Without a difference, there’s nothing to encode, transmit, or interpret — no information exists.
From there:
• Mathematically: Information is about reducing uncertainty. A message is “informative” if it narrows down the set of possibilities.
• Physically: Landauer’s principle tells us information is not purely abstract — erasing a bit has a minimum energy cost, tying information to physical reality.
• Semantically: Raw bits become meaningful only when interpreted by a system that has context (e.g., DNA in a cell, or words in a brain).
Confidence: High — this is consistent across information theory, physics, and cognitive science.
If you want, I can diagram the relationship between difference → bit → encoded message → interpreted meaning. That makes the “foundation” visually clear.