Information, Certainty, and Behaviour

Gregory Bateson would say that information is the ‘difference that makes a difference.’ So we could say/see that judges in shows like Xfactor, Project fame, et al, receive information from the differences created by the contestants’ performances and some reference points. And there are differences between the differences so that they have information to receive and judge.

You have received something from every difference that makes a difference to you: information.

Practically, judgement is information processing information to produce information. And a lot (if not all) of the manifestations of self (behaviour) come from previous judgements. So that change is possible with the right information processed correctly.

A bit more technically, information is the reduction in uncertainty. This is easy to picture: how certain are you that what he meant to say by what he said, was what you interpreted from what you heard. The larger the reduction in uncertainty, the more information you received (as opposed to noise, or confusion), and the more correctly certain you (think you) are.

To have information is thus to have accepted certainty about a particular reality or perception.

There is a mantra that says something like, ‘get feedback to get clarity.’ Indeed, the main reason for feedback is to ensure the correctness of our eventual perception cum certainty. Fundamentally, we seek feedback for certainty. This is important because certainties are at the core of our psychology, hence, of our experience of reality, and behaviour.

To summarise: information gets transformed into our certainties, and our certainties result in our behaviour. Every movement is motivated by information, and produces information. And every action, tangible or otherwise, is a statement of certainties.

We are the result of information processing

So there was some information processing within and between a certain man and a certain woman: as a result, you were born. 

Hence, we are information embodied. 

Who we are;  
What we become;  
How we act;  
What we will do;  
All that is information,  
And the result of information processing.  

Choices And Consequences: The End Doesn’t Justify The Means

I think that it is mostly, if not always, wrong to say that the end justifies the means; what is more apt is to say that the means justify the end.

The end they got was a child.
The means was ‘in vitro fertilisation,’ (or adoption, or sex).
The end justified the means. That’s okay.

But a conclusion doesn’t live for its premises: it would not exist if they didn’t at first exist, because Premises define the possibility of the conclusion through a sound argument.

So, actually, it was the means that justified (led to) the child.

The end she wanted, and got, was marriage.
The means included a deception-cum-betrayal.
If the end justified the means, it would place focus on the nature and characteristics of the end. Therefore saying that that end justified the means would be unsound because the road to marriage, ideally, assumes certain truths and trust.

If the means justified the end, that would be sound because it is not about what marriage assumes, but the path that successfully led to it, questions of morality aside.

An end may have many means, thus a many-to-one mapping; a surjection. There are many ways to weave a basket or express appreciation. One way might be unsound. Regardless, the way that you chose led to the destination that you reached; the end you justified. This is the better perspective.

If we wanted a direct cause-effect relationship. We’d be wrong to think that the end justified the means where there is a many-to-one mapping. An injection, a one-to-one mapping, is more reasonable. And it says that the means justify the end.

So if one justifies his means by his end, he is likely looking from the wrong side of the binoculars. And the one who justifies his end by his means? He follows natural law.