How does BBC pick their non sense "researchers" to be presented fpr the compusory licence fee paying people in England?

Not only is BBC a faking state propaganda media with a worldwide "British" imperial ambition to become the only true god of news/information, BBC is also a notoriously unreliable source of science news/info.

Today's examples includes Paul Davies who thinks information is separate from matter, and an other who thinks chimps/bonobos don't understand "complex" information.

These "researchers" would have gained tremendously if they had read Klevius theory/analysis of consciousness and the brain.

As already Wittgenstein pointed out, one has to distinguish between "things" and operations. And as Klevius has pointed out (published 1981, 1992, 2004):

The basis of existence is change (motion), and causality constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution may be seen as the consequence of causality's variables in time where complexity in existing structures are reinforced. This stands in opposition to thermodynamics which theoretically leads to maximal entropy (i.e. energy equilibrium) where time/change finally ends. Someone might then say that the products of evolution are just temporary components in causality's road towards uniformity (Klevius 1981, 1992:23).

Sorry about the poor translation from Swedish.

Information is hence reduction of uncertainty, i.e. awareness/consciousness. In other words, information is your adaptation to your environment. As is the abstraction of what's going on in a black hole.

And when it comes to "complex understanding", it's just a stupid and nearsighted human effort to glorify her/himself in a completely meaningless way.

This reminds me of Peter Gärdenfors, "one of Sweden's most notable philosophers" (Wikipedia),  who thought chimps/bonobos can't think about the future. These kind of statements reveal an ignorance beyond comprehension when considering this man got a professorship and awards for his philosophical incompetence.

Btw, the only "reward" Klevius has ever been awarded was 500 Finnish Marks back in 1981 when his first article about Demand for Resourdes was published. However, not even that would have been possible without George Henrik von Wright's (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) good word to the editor.

Doesn't this Klevius' cry for attention also contain something good for a general usage? What do you think.

Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources which is based on the 1981 article - which was written already in 1979 - will be translated in English on these blogs in the near future. Then you can evaluate Klevius - and perhaps read his much later analysis as well.