Since you are being quite literal and rather unforgiving as to implied context, I will fill in some words that seemed obvious.
But to return to the topic, in his paper Warren does not advocate use of information theory. He cites literature that does refer to information theory, including Powers et al. 1960 referring to Shannon, “integrated information theory (IIT; Tononi, 2008; Tononi et al., 2016)”, and “control information (Corning 2007)”. Bringing these together, he says
«An alternative view of information sits in between the Shannon
definition that delegates the interpretation and use of information to
the observer, and that of intrinsic information within IIT that is self contained
and observer independent; it is control information
(Corning, 2007). Control information is “the capacity (know
how) to control the acquisition, disposition and utilization of
matter/energy in purposive (teleonomic) processes” (Corning,
2007, p. 302). It is the information used within a control system
while it is in the process of controlling.»
Powers et al. (1960) talks about this information. That seminal work says a variable is a combination of two bits of information or ‘percepts’, of two kinds. One kind of percept is information about the identity of the variable, and the other kind of percept is the quantity of the variable. The ‘identity’ bit they thenceforth ignore; in a (consensually in PCT) ‘objective’ sense the ‘identity’ bit is a function of the location of the perceptual input function and comparator for that variable within the hierarchy as specified by its connectivity to comparators for other variables, and in another sense the ‘identity’ bit is a qualium. (As far as I can tell, qualia remain enigmatic and intractably subjective primitives which, like consciousness, people keep hoping to derive from something ‘objective’.) About this distinction, Powers et al. say “we are concerned only with information flow, and not with the means by which the information is transmitted nor the physical form in which it is transmitted.” So the size (or as we say now, the value) of a variable is a measure of information flow within a control system.
Warren then talks about how perceptual input functions integrate information from lower levels. When a new perceptual input function is created, the integration of information obviously is new, it was not in the hierarchy before; whence, ‘novel integration of information’. (Warren connects both qualia and consciousness to the emergence of novel information, especially in a condition of conflict. I won’t follow that here as it is beside the present topic.) After introducing the reorganization system for his readers, Warren proposes that the rate of endogenous novel information is itself a controlled variable, likening this to how the performance of genetic algorithms drops off as they depart from an optimum mutation rate. In genetic algorithms, of course, the mutation rate is externally manipulated, suggesting a pretty direct analogy with no hint that the optimum mutation rate might be a necessary consequence of their operation or an emergent property.
With a little introspection, you might discover control of this variable operating within your own perceptual control hierarchy, and that could be the basis of a little more empathy for those who are slow at pledging allegiance to PCT, and possibly recognition of rhetorical strategies that could be more effective. This question from Bill in 2003 might help. (I’m using a link rather than the Discourse quoting mechanism because I’m not aiming to make that post a current topic.)
Bill Powers (2003.05.25.1310 MdT)
Rick, I’m getting a strong sense of foot-dragging from you, as though
you’re perfectly satisfied with everything the way it is and are resisting
any suggestion that something new might be added – even peripherally.
What’s the problem?