1. Introduction: Is “information” the Substitute for “Vis Vitalis”
2. Some Basics
2.1. The Extended View: Some Aspects
2.2. Semantic Correctness—as Simple as Possible but not too Simple
2.3. An “Ability to Deal with Information” in Complementarity to the “Ability to Deal with Energy”
2.4. What Do You Prefer: A Machine Model or “Symbol Intentions” of Actors?
3. Evolution with Regards to “Information”
3.1. Implicit Restrictions
3.1.1. Implicit Contents of Terms Change
3.1.2. Implicit Restrictions of the Empirically Experienced Energetical World
3.2. Evolution Thanks to an Interaction between “Dealing with Information” and “Energy”: Conclusive but Unpredictable
4. A “General Extended View” on Evolution with Focus on the Autopoiesis of More and More Complex Entities 
- There was a need to invent basic assumptions to deduce from them the oldest empirically observable entities according to the technique of Einstein (e.g., ).
- Photons/quanta act as “if they would have the mass hny” (Einstein). They carry their information and are observable observers for other quanta as “if information would have a localization in an “Euclid-analogue frame”. They cause the field of gravitation: Einstein calls it “ghost-field” and compared it with a sign on the road—not from energy or matter—just to guide the photons the way for the geodetic line—a field for information. However, a sign is helpful only if you can read it!
- Any mass, any atom is expressed on the level of physics as movement of quanta, but is observed by e.g., humans or a camera simplified as surface, form, structure: simplification as a natural principle we know from physiology !
- I focus your interest on (inorganic and organic) catalysts—for a better understanding of the increase of the level to deal with information: chemicals interact “usually” according to the law of mass action (Guldberg and Waage): any single reaction is just restricted by the laws of thermodynamics and the available molecules/ions in a solution but more or less probable. The probability is getting higher as the mass of the potential “partners” gets higher. You can interpret this in that way that the probability of an interaction depends on the mass and the distance: the closer and heavier the higher the relevance for the application of the allowed interaction! The probability for a special option can be influenced extremely just by the presence of a component but without the integration of this component within the related chemical or physical interaction. If we attribute to any actor the ability to observe the environment (only on the reached evolutionary level), to evaluate the observed and to be able to modify the evaluation then it would be conclusive “to see what everybody has seen but to recognize what nobody has recognized before”—but just on the reached evolutionary level: The recognition of the connection between the presence of an entity and the linkage to a special chemical/physical interaction would be compatible with the actually given evolutionary level. It would allow the creation emergent new options—just on the basis of the former given—thanks to the integration of the new experience: to influence the action of others thanks to the use of a catalyst. Such an entity could increase the relevance of the stimulation thanks to approaching the catalyst and could stop thanks to moving away. It would be a stimulation of other molecules to provide selected realizations. Therefore this emergent new system would consist of entities with two different levels to deal with information: it is sufficient to attribute to the acting entities the level to deal with information on the evolutionary old level. However, it would be necessary and sufficient to attribute to the “guiding” entities which use the “gained knowledge”, how to use catalysts on a new level, which allows not only to discriminate different processes but to organize activities of others to processes too.
- If such a “helmsman” is using this “knowledge”, then others act for the “helmsman” even without grasping the “hidden reason” for their stimulation—a basic for the understanding of life thanks to two different levels of the ability to deal with information. If the capacity to deal with information is restricted—which is a basic assumption within our model—then we have to expect with further progresses in the evolutionary process a situation in which the memory of the actors for the “recipes” for the organization of processes with catalysts will never be sufficient. Such actors need a stabile storage for information/carriers. Then the gained knowledge of the linkage of material structures with recallable information can be used again. There is a need for a persisting structure which can be modified. The crystal is stable and can be linked in consent with information. The determination of organic structures was used for the construction of organic catalysts (enzymes). The result of the combination of both we know: DNA. This proposal can be understood as answer to the problem which was presented by Nobel Laureate HJ. Muller to the scientific communities in classic papers in the 20s and 30s of the last century [15,16,17]. However, there is no conclusive or just plausible answer up to now: “Why is it possible that a chemical structure is determining the morphological structure of a totally different structure, e.g., the color of the eyes?” He assumed that there should be a special proper
- The use of genomics and proteomics (e.g., to recall the recipe of the enzyme for cAMP) remains identical to stimulate the autopoiesis of the information carrier for identical structures in single cellular (e.g., amoeba), as well as in temporary and permanent multicellular up to humans. However, with the progress from single cellular to multicellular an additional information system—different from enzymes—was needed. Systems of hormones and the complexity of genomic and proteomic interactions were differentiated throughout the evolutionary development of structures as basis, e.g., for taxia and phobia. Neurons allowed the organization information for more and more complex realizations for biological survival and persistence functions to realize, e.g., thanks to the linkage between the grid for movement and the grid for information.
- The fundamental break of symmetry as starting point for higher living beings. The former focus (physical and biological persistence) as prerequisite is used to set a new focus on being accepted and accepting subjective relationships—From the focus on uniqueness and non-interchangeability thanks to observable energetical/material realized options to individuality and personality thanks to information-related constructions on the basis of meaning and values which cannot be observed but concluded from behavior, wordings, etc.
- The new type of (information-related) relationship was the basis for the further differentiation of species (up to homo sapiens). K. Lorenz teaches us : such higher living beings can be classified into different types of species not only by their morphology (incl. genetics) but also on the basis of their behavior.
- With the discovery that the decision maker cannot be observed—just his outside body—new options for the next level of relationship with new types of terms, contents und values (information) were opened: to accept the existence of an unobservable cause, primarily of a deity and an immortal soul. Its oldest symbol: the soulbird in the cave of Lascaux, Dorgone, 15,000 B.C. This is the starting point of the creation of social structures (e.g., Durkheim ).
- Worldwide humans created within the cultural evolution more and more types of information and information carriers. Any term (symbol, law) is a free invention of the human mind to deal more appropriate with our world and from another nature than the subject for what it stands (as Einstein teaches us).
- I invite you to have a short view on the process of the storage of and dealing with information outside of the individual, e.g., books, libraries and in the World Wide Web. Here we are using fundamental agreements—the agreements between quanta/photons. We use their predictable persistence of modifications and attribute to them information we can select. We use their abilities to move themselves very quickly over long distances with the speed of light, make artificial interfaces to transform the language of the quanta via “younger” entities and their modifiability to produce effects which can be perceived by human sensory organs.
5. The Autopoetic Progess of “Dealing with Information”
5.2. The Problem of Interfaces between Languages
5.3. The Fundamental Break: From the Focus on Realization to the Focus on Constructions
5.4. Is There a Need for an Additional Type of Storage for Information?
- Information is a term covering qualitatively very different contents.
- Information” is the result of a process thanks to an ability depending on evolution.
- Information can be understood as an (unobservable) relationship between an existing actor and
- another existing actor on the basis of an attribution of information to an observed (existing) object (even between quanta, quarks);
- an attribution about priorities to an object (physics, chemistry, biochemistry, basic life);
- an assumption about the hoped for or assumed attribution of the observed object as subject of the „valuating actor” (emotion);
- an assumption about the relationship to an actor which is unobservable but assumed as existing (finality);
- effects within just theoretically assumed or to observations of “instruments” attributed interactions between existing entities (e.g., natural sciences).
- effects within processes “outside of the really given world” but within the assumption of a predictability of reactions of others (virtuality).
- The (evolutionary) level of the “observer” defines what kind of potential information can be observed and what can “never“ be observed because of the fact that the “observer” is too young to catch the information, or has a lower evolutionary level than needed to deal with such an information, etc.
- Identical information carriers can have different meanings on different evolutionary levels.
- We can use the predictable consequences of information on different evolutionary levels to create machines, including machines to deal with information, e.g., the telephone or the WWW.
- Systemic approaches (e.g., feedback) can be understood as “technical natural principles”. They can be used on different levels to produce (nearly) identical phenomena, but related to intentions, demands, etc. of different evolutionary levels.
Conflicts of Interest
- Bertalanffy, L.V. General System Theory: Foundations, Developments, Applications; Braziller: New York, NY, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
- Engel, G.L. The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine bio-psychos-social model in medicine. Science 1977, 196, 129–136. [Google Scholar]
- Tress, W.; Junkert, B. Psychosomatic medicine between natural science and psychological science—tertium non datur? Psychother. Phychosom. Med. Psychol. 1992, 42, 400–407. [Google Scholar]
- Kofler, W. Extended View of a Bio-Psycho-Socio-Eco-Cultural Model and the Self-Understanding of Western Medicine and New Public Health. In Health Wellbeing, Competence and Aging: Annals of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Leung, P.C., Woo, J., Kofler, K., Eds.; World Scientific: Singapore, Singapore, 2013; pp. 17–35. [Google Scholar]
- Bertalanffy, L.V. The History and Status of General System Theory. Acad. Manag. J. 1972, 16, 407–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schilpp, P.A.; Einstein, A. Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientists; Library of Living Philosophers, Volume VII; Evanston Publishing: Louisville, KY, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar]
- Einstein, A. Letter to Maurice Solvine, with comments in Holton G.: Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978; pp. 5–10. [Google Scholar]
- Kofler, W. Theories of Medicine and their Implications on Ethically Responsible Actions. In Faculty of Medicine Chiang Mai: Highlights of the Intern, Proceedings of Conference on Medical Ethics. Chiang Mai, Thailand, 25–27 July 2002; pp. 1–8.
- Kofler, W.P.; Lercher, M. Puritscher: The need for sufficiently taking into account unspecific effects in the understanding of health risk: Part 1: Unexplained phenomena; Part 2: Epistemological limitations and offers for solution; Part 3: Prove of the proposed solution by an experimentum crucis. IUAPPA and Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment: Seoul, F 0245a,b,c (on CD-Rom).
- Kofler, W. The Relevance of Sechenov for the development of the theory of an “Extended View” of a human persons as a social being. Available online: https://www.i-med.ac.at/sozialmedizin/documents/applications/sechenov_lecture_2004_final_version.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2014).
- Bertalanffy, L.V. Gesetz oder Zufall: Systemtheorie und Selektion. In Das neue Menschenbild—Die Revolutionierung der Wissenschaften vom Leben, Molden; Koestler, A., Smythies, J.R., Eds.; Verlag Fritz Molden: Vienna, Austria, 1970; pp. 71–95. (in German) [Google Scholar]
- Darwin, C. The formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms; John Murray: London, UK, 1881. [Google Scholar]
- Kofler, W. Think Fundamental—Act Problem Oriented: A Challenge for Physiology and Public Health in the 21st Century. Presented as Inauguration Lecture of 1st Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia, 25 January 2013.
- Kofler, W. The evolution of Brain, Mind and Information from the Extended View. In Presented at the 1st Moscow International Congress and Interactive Exhibition “Brain Ecology”, Moscow, Russia, 16 May 2013.
- Muller, H.J. The Gene as the basis of Life. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Plant Sciences, New York, NY, USA, 16–23 August 1926; Duggar, B.M., Ed.; George Banta Publishing: Menasha, WI, USA, 1929; pp. 897–921. [Google Scholar]
- Muller, H.J. Physics in the attack of the fundamental problem of genetics. Sci. Month. 1937, 11, 210–214. [Google Scholar]
- Muller, H.J. Variation due to change in the individual genes. Am. Nat. 1922, 56, 32–50. [Google Scholar]
- Lorenz, K. Analogy as a source of knowledge. Nobel Lecture at the Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, 12 December 1973.
- Durkheim, E. Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse; Félix Alcan: Paris, France, 1912. (in French) [Google Scholar]
- Schlager, M.A.; Hoogenraad, C.C. Basic mechanisms for recognition and transport of synaptic cargos. Mol. Brain 2009, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Frisch, K. Decoding the Language of the Bee. Nobel Lecture at the Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, 12 December 1973.
- Krebs, E. Protein Phyosphorylation and Cellular Regulation I. Nobel Lecture at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, 8 December 1992.
- Ahmed, T.; Frey, J.U.; Korz, V. Long-term effects of brief acute stress on cellular signaling and hippocampal LTP. J. Neurosci. 2006, 26, 3951–3958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frey, J.U. Long-Lasting Hippocampal Plasticity: Cellular Model for Memory Consolidation? In Cell Polarity and Subcellular RNA Localization; Richter, D., Ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; pp. 27–40. [Google Scholar]
- Fenker, D.B.; Frey, J.U.; Schuetze, H.; Heipertz, D.; Heinze, H.J.; Duzel, E. Novel scenes improve recollection and recall of words. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2008, 20, 1250–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajikumar, S.; Frey, J.U. Late-associativity, synaptic tagging, and the role of dopamine during LTP and LTD. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 2004, 82, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).