by Ernst Senkowski

   back to TOC 

A-2     INFORMATION AND  COMMUNICATION                                                                    

The importance of a piece of information
is directly proportional to its improbability.

The term ‘information’, which derives from ‘form’ and was originally synonymous with ‘education’ (to inform = to form by instruction, to teach), was given its modern meaning by Norbert WIENER, the ‘father of cybernetics’, who defined it as the ‘science of the informational structures or technical information’. Since then, together with ‘communication’, derived from ‘mun/mei’ = ‘change, exchange, sharing something with one/some other(s), advice/intimation’, the term ‘information’ has gained increasing importance in all areas of life. It is estimated that in the United States, for example, far more than half the working population is employed in information processing. The key concepts ‘information explosion’ and ‘informed society’ mark (and caricature) this situation. 

This widespread activity rests on diversiform theoretical principles. According to WIENER, ‘information is information, neither matter nor energy’. According to C.F. von WEIZSAECKER, matter-energy may be considered as a specific form of the generic term ‘information’, which is related to the – equally hard to define – concepts of ‘chaos, order, structure, system, complexity, probability, chance, and negentropy’.  

C.F. v. WEIZSAECKER:  ‘In the sense of traditional physics, information is neither matter, nor energy. Instead, the idea of information brings up two older counter-poles of matter, namely form and consciousness. Probability and information have to be understood equally as objective and subjective concepts.’ 

TALBOT/BOHM:  ‘From mechanistic to holographic order.’ 

BRONOWSKI:  ‘Order is the deliberate selection of a group of phenomena. The question of order is the most difficult question in all of science.’ 

WIENER:  ‘Order is by nature a lack of chance, a state of lesser probability, and does not come about of itself.’ 

WIENER’s statement is in plain opposition to the descriptive notion ‘self-organization’ (PRIGOGINE, in the context of ‘dissipative structures’), which – at least linguistically – presupposes a ‘self’, and which perhaps was introduced to dodge the acceptance of  overriding ‘morphogenetic (shape-forming) fields’ (SHELDRAKE), ‘building/shaping forces’ (STEINER/G. UNGER), ‘activities’ (HEIM), or of  ‘an implicit world background’ (BOHM), concepts which – since in the strict scientific sense hypothetical – elude the direct physical grasp, but which could control the terrestrial space-time dynamic from spiritual dimensions (WEILER: ‘intercosmic anti-entropy system’). 

STEINBUCH:  ‘Information theory began with the limitation not to make any statements concerning the content and value of information, whereas it is there that the most interesting insights are to be found.’ 

HENTIG:  ‘In dealing with reduced information the information theory’s questions relate to the information’s density and to the processing speed of the ‘materialized mind’, and not to comprehension, reflection, imagination, assessment, perception, questioning, checking, and evaluation.’ 

All attempts to quantify information until now have dispensed with any consideration of its meaning or value. It is questionable whether E. von WEIZSAECKER’s approach ‘information as the numerical sum of the quantity of forms’ can be carried through, because selection procedures take place in the recipient. It is he who performs the essential work of perception and classification, and thus recognizes. In this manner  a change takes place in his internal structure (in relation to his environment); he gains information, i.e., a change in form. 

The definition ‘information is a structural change in the receiver brought about by signals, in which the receiver is the decisive factor’ contradicts the conception that information designates something akin to a transportable substance which can be assessed independently of the person who receives it. Structural changes in complex receivers are not foreseeable, since they can neither be transported, nor processed. This can only be done with signals, which may bring about such changes by (hopefully !) lowering entropy in the receiver by producing a greater degree of order. A given signal does not inform everyone who receives it; in different receivers the same signals may bring about different structural changes. Signals only inform when they encounter structures capable of receiving them. In order for the structural change caused in the receiver by signals to be of value (for him), there must exist (at least to some extent) a harmony of values (possibly goals). ‘Information’ flows from the one possessing more knowledge to the one possessing less knowledge (according to GITT; see SWEDENBORG, chapter A-4). SENKOWSKI: ‘Signals possess an information potential’.   

Mental or spiritual processes can be described as dynamic informational structures. SENKOWSKI:  ‘Mind is that what is structured, what recognizes structure, and what structures.’  HOFSTADTER:  ‘Geist ist eine Struktur, die von einem Geist wahrgenommen wird” (Mind is a structure which is perceived by a mind). MUTTER:  Geist ist die Kapazitaet, die alle Richtungen gleichzeitig uebersehen kann, nicht muss. (Mind is the capacity which is able, but not obliged, to get a full view on all directions simultaneously). 

The qualitative aspects of information are still ignored in the expanded theory of MARKO; G. UNGER (1985), on the other hand, sees information as (in each case) a new mental-conceptual meaningful content of consciousness. He stresses the differences in communication between person to person, person to machine, and machine to machine. Regarding aspects on biological information systems see, e.g., KROY ‘Pragmatische Information’ (pragmatic information); chapter D-27. 

   back to TOP 

Increasingly complex systems are being developed and employed in the field of application of telecommunication engineering – transmission, storage, and processing of data/signals. Their quantifiable properties are described from a statistical viewpoint by means of specially developed mathematical theories on information (SHANNON). GITT has examined more precisely the many layers of meaning contained in the term ‘information’. According to him the gist of information is that it is emitted by someone and directed to someone. Whenever it takes the form of becoming conscious of non-material connexions outside space and time, it still involves a sender and a receiver. Every piece of information has five aspects: apobetic, pragmatic, semantic, syntactical, and statistical. What is crucial here is GITT’s introduction of the two additional ‘levels’ located ‘above’ the semantic level. The pragmatic level concerns the sender’s reflections on what mode of action will lead the receiver to the goal planned by the sender. Apobetic relates to the sender’s purpose, and corresponds to the result on the receiver’s side. (In this context ‘sender’ and ‘receiver’ designate the entire complexes and the special technical equipment !)



what for ?

intended result in the receiver


how ?

intended action by the receiver


what ?

conversion of thoughts into agreed associations


how ?

encoding into signals

concept realization:

by what means ?

sender-receiver principle, transmission rate/interferences



five steps by receiver correspond to five steps of the sender

receiving the signal – understanding the code – understanding the meaning action – result of action

statistics  à  syntax   à   semantic à  pragmatic  à   apobetic

full communication requires sender’s checking if goal has been accomplished


Communication takes place when the transfer of information from a sender to a receiver reaches the semantic level. However, we can only speak of genuine (two-way) communication, if an ‘information loop’ exists: the sender must receive an acknowledgement of receipt, or he must dispose of means enabling him to perceive the receiver’s reaction in order to know whether his message has arrived, has been understood, and has induced the intended structural change or action of the receiver. Such a process ‘bridges time’; for its realization it requires (multiple) intermediate storage of the information in a ‘memory’ allowing access and comparison.  

If, for example, the sender intends to transmit to the receiver the sign A1, he sends a corresponding signal, which (hopefully !) is received by the receiver and understood as A2 = A1. The recipient now has two courses of action : he may follow A2 without any checking, if, for example, it is an instruction. Or, to be on the safe side, he may send A2 back to the sender, who (hopefully, again) will receive this A2 as A3 = A2 = A1 and will compare with the still ‘on hand’ (remembered, or stored) A1. This procedure can be repeated any number of times, since the recipient still does not know if the sender has correctly received the acknowledgement, etc. Considerations of this kind are not at all superfluous: technological communication systems, which are expected to be of high reliability, work according to similar principles; in the last resort it is economic factors to determine the limits.

GITT points out that communication is the meeting of two separate consciousnesses or intelligent structures, the ‘transfer’ of non-material thoughts encased in, and limited by matter- and energy-based forms.

‘A communication is completed when the sender succeeds in making the full extent of the thoughts, which are present in non-material form, accessible to the receiver.’  Meant is the ‘transfer path’ from the sender’s consciousness to that of the receiver.

We may apply this basic conception as a first approximation to the field of instrumental transcommunication, even though ‘sources and channels of information’ cannot be evidenced in physical form. The existence of a code (languages are codes, as morse signals are) implies (also for the biological evolution) a sender. 

GITT:  ‘Even if the sender cannot be detected in all instances, we must not draw the false conclusion of the non-existence of a sender. Nobody would come and claim that the author of the Iliad never existed, simply because its author is unknown’,  or 

SENKOWSKI:  ‘the Iliad would have organized itself’. 

MUSES:  ‘Nothing encodes itself, only intelligence encodes or decodes.’ 

VOTs:  Always intelligent (entities) speak one to the other.

One of the essential prerequisites for communication to occur is a mutual agreement on contents and coordinates of meaning. The ‘semantic problem’, well-known from the difficulties accompanying the ‘translating’ of earthly languages, seems at first to be insoluble when the attempt is made to establish communication with ‘extraterrestrials’. As WATZLAWICK (1984) asks, how can one agree on a specific ‘frequency’, when there is as yet no possibility of communication, possibility which can be realized only when knowing exactly this frequency ? This applies analogously for the methodology as portrayed in many science-fiction novels (e.g., HOYLE, SAGAN; as well as LILLY and ST. JOHN: communication between man-dolphin). 

   back to TOP 

Our communication partners in the Beyond are well aware of this. As regards the initial frequency selection, a very simple solution would be available: in order to increase the likelihood of being discovered, the messages are sent using all possible frequencies. Apparently exactly this has been – and is – the case with ITC. Regarding methodology we were told: We cannot demand (a) procedure if you even don’t do it; and in respect of decoding: It will be for future science to develop receiving devices, above all, codes for translation into your language; and referring to the semantic problem: We must speak children’s language. In general we have to assume  that more complex systems have a greater ability to adapt and can more easily adjust to less complex ones whose consciousness can only be expanded in very small and gradual learning increments.  

Scientists ‘lacking spirit’ substantiate their rejection of paranormal phenomena, and of transcommunication in particular, with the statement that information would always have to be tied to matter- and/or energy-based carriers. We agree with this to the extent that human beings living in this world are indispensable as communication partners. But these scientists seem to be still unaware   

‘that the further development of the ‘classical’ model of action (up to approx. 1930) and the ‘interwoven’ interaction model (up to 1950) – by means of the application of concepts from the general systems theory to the area of interpersonal communication – has ultimately led to a long-awaited breakthrough, (namely) the discovery of a fundamental communicative unity. The theorists developed this concept into a system and discovered that the fundamental unit of a transaction system is to be understood simply as a transaction’ (BYERS and Le SHAN).

action model  

transaction model

S  à   R  

It is not possible to distinguish between sender S and receiver R, because during communication they form a unitary, holomorphic system. – Cause-effect linkages, i.e., causality are not valid in timelessness.

interaction model  
S  à   R
R  ß   S


Communication science has abandoned SHANNON’s (reductional) concept of sender à  message  à  receiver as being of limited usefulness only. Communication is now described as the ‘behaviour and experience of organisms involved in constructing a context of meaning, within which they act in a common rhythm’. 

BIRDSWHISTELL:  ‘Nonverbal communication is not a case of events with causes and effects (according to the NEWTONian paradigm), but rather of dynamic relationships which exceed the speed of physiological ‘reaction times’. A person does not notify something to another person, but rather enters into communication with that person. Within this pattern of action, the partners form a unified figure and then separate again into two individuals who are each now different to what they were before’ (acc. to LeSHAN 1986, page 131 and followings). 

Various attempts to describe paranormal phenomena correspond to these physiological and psychological issues. According to MURPHY, psi incidents should not be examined on the basis of the old communication model (A possesses information, encodes it, transmits it to B, B decodes it); they should instead be seen as events within a dynamic ‘interpersonal field’ (ROLL). 

If one frees oneself from the conception of mind as being localizable in space (AYER: ‘mind declaredly occupies no fixed position in space’); and: for us there is no fix location), then an acceptable explanation is offered, for example, by WUERINGER’s model. According to this, free information without any material carrier exists, outside our space-time-matter-energy system, within an ‘information carrier system’  as a physical reality of a higher order which is capable of interacting (pls. see BOHM: implicit order). Every piece of information is present everywhere at all times, and the flow of information from sender to receiver is not restricted by the speed of light. ‘Consciousness’ is identical with information flow, and individual consciousness is part of the total consciousness. The control of the vital functions passes as a reciprocal action between biosystems and information carrier system. In view of the infinite mass of information and the brain’s limited processing capacity, a selective decoding - by means of semantic filtering programs - in the field of terms and meanings is associatively effected as a sifting according to  valuableness (NALIMOV). Program adaptation changes as a result of exercising and learning are principally possible at any time, though they are limited by the power of inertia inherent to every relatively stable system.  

With the conception of an at least five-dimensional, non-material informational hyperembedding space, in which human beings live interactively, NASITTA approaches the theory of HEIM (see chapter D-22; COBARG, GUT, HASSENSTEIN, KULI, ROTHSTEIN). Let me close this chapter with a comment made by MUSES: 

‘Upholding the significance (the sense) of life for the individual in a conscious afterlife following the dissolution of the physical body is one aspect of the theme of communication-as-consciousness which concerns us all. Assistance in making this communicative bridge comprehensible for those of us who are here, is one of its supports. The examination of the evidence is a necessity.’

  back to TOP          September 2004

 You are visiting our website:  Wrld       To reach our homepage click here please.