Have you ever considered that your subconscious mind has solved the problem of consciousness better than what you do in attempting to define it formally? Maybe your neural network is better at solving this problem through trial and error over time than you are at attempting a formal definition.

I think that's the case. And the natural solution is better than the contrived solution of a formal definition.

You lost creatures need to sit down at your kitchen table, write down your best philosophy on a sheet of paper, crumple it up and throw it in the garbage...about 10 or 20 times...as an exercise. Seriously. Which of you is really taking this seriously. Raise your hand and say you got it right.

The semicolon parentheses is a foot note so it's not part of the equivalence but gives an understanding of how specific mental content exists.

I'm not sure that I = EMM is an equation.

The relation between E, M and M isn't given.

For me:
I = brain state is an equation as I, information, is the equivalent of brain state.

An expansion gives I = physical brain; (mental content), still an equation as the mental content exists as the brains physical configuration. The parentheses mean specific mental content is supported by the physical brain state.

Also working on information and consciousness as one problem is reasonable as both are supported by brain state. Not separate at all.

I'm still on this information-consciousness relation.
Our brain specific information has complete access to our consciousness and vice versa.
So if you don't understand this of course understanding consciousness is going to be hard.

How can you propose information is everywhere when it's just a projection of your mind. Of course it's going to be a hard problem because you have set up the problem wrong.

Sorry, bad eyes and doing this on a smart phone.
I'll try to read more carefully.

I asked someone here a few weeks ago if they thought being aware of their own consciousness and thinking about specific information had anything in common. They said no and that surprised me but maybe I shouldn't be surprised. The words in use have very different meanings so we are conditioned to think they are very different things. All I can do is give the rest of you a heads up that the physical basis for both is the same. That would be your physical brain supporting both things.

I think you guessed I would have a problem with GI, genetic information, and I do. I see it as a mental projection only. It exists physically in your brain state and does not exist physically in genetic material.

So information and consciousness physically exists as:
Information = a physical brain;(specific mental content)
And
Consciousness = a physical brain;(the experience of consciousness)

Neither can be technically defined without including the physical brain as a necessary component.

I know what you mean. It's hard to get any consensus here. It's worth considering as opposed to not. I think it's a good mental habit to be aware of it.

I like seeing information/consciousness being placed side by side. Do you think, in a technical sense, they are closely related or even have the same physical basis? Words are defined by their common usage so if we use common definitions we may be building in confusion to the problem of consciousness.

Something else that may help in the problem of consciousness is to consider order of operations.
For example in mathematics the convention is parentheses, exponents, multiplication, division, addition and subtraction. In philosophy, we can also set for ourselves a sensible order of operations. I like starting with physical matter as the primary consideration first and stating that outright so if someone has an objection they can suggest an alternative. Then you could move on to information-consciousness being derived from physical matter and stating how that is physically supported. This eventually leads to the mental worlds that we inhabit. Someone like Wayfarer may object to this as reductionism and I'm sympathetic to that view, however the benefit is that by following an order of operations we might eliminate some physically unsupported mental content that we seem to be prone to.
An example of physical constraints in our mental content would be time perseption. We time travel in our minds in a way physical matter does not permit and there is a need for philosophy to address this.
So the problem of not having an order of operations is that you'll get stuck defending mental constructs without considering physical limits. Say like believing time travel is possible.

Well there may be variation from time to time in how active our brains are. For example sleeping you are less conscious than being awake.

Mostly I'm saying that information is internal to our brains and not external. Can you flip from being aware of your consciousness to some specific item of information? That's what I mean by being based on the same mode.

Ha... I'm Swedish descent. Don't know how to answer that. Hmmm. Don't speak swedish.
Far removed from Sweden. Family visits so still some connection.

One issue with information is that multiple definitions have developed. I think the brain state definition is the best one scientifically because it's singular, universal and has a physical basis.

The definitions of genetic information, Shannon information and physical information to me are mental projections we give to physical objects that don't have a physical basis. For example genetic information isn't anything functional in the structure of DNA. Its physical form alone is all that is required. Same with Shannon information...the physical signal is all that is required. And physical information, again, a mental projection. Not required for the physics to function.

Is your term 'intentional content' somehow different from what I call 'mental content'?
I wound say they are the same thing.

In the form of a true/false statement I could state my view as 'intentional content' is derived only from biological brain function. Do you claim that is false?

I know I have an unusual position on this. I've come to think consciousness and how we deal with 'information' are one in the same but our language and culture have confused the issue.
For example when I think of some specific item of information my brain is in the same functional mode as when I'm aware of my own consciousness.

So you are not liking this information is brain state idea. If I go from physical matter to human brains that hold mental content that is just setting the physical basis for information to exist in a physical world. So being at that point I don't put restrictions on mental content and your rules of logic are part of your mental content. They only exist as brain state, in my view.

So, given two choices:
1) information is an abstract concept.

Or

2). Information is brain state; neurons holding mental content.

Which do you prefer or are there alternatives?
I don't see how a stand alone abstract concept can exist non-physically and where abstract concepts show up a brain is always involved.
You've seen the range of information definitions that show up here. Two that seem to be scientific but are not are Shannon information and what physicists call physical information. Both of these reduce to abstract concepts that must be supported by brain state.
So if we need a singular, universal, physical definition of information then brain state is the answer.

If you are getting at something of a dualist nature I might understand. Brain state is neurons holding mental content. The neurons obey the laws of physics but the mental content does not.
For example mental content can go from nothing to something to nothing again. Does that help?

I might be unsure what you mean by semiotics. To me that means signs and symbols external to brains that by convention or common use can transfer brain state (person) 1 to brain state (person) 2. So communication uses physical matter in an attempt to transfer brain state (information) but it doesn't always work. You are right. I don't quite understand your view.

I can add that once brain state is identified as the physical form of information then a mechanistic theory works for me and the loose ends have been taken care of.

As for the OP, I see a shortcoming in how a mechanistic view of science deals with the definition of information.

Thanks, I like it. First time I've come across it.
Hebbian theory. Information existing as neural networks. That works for me. It's a physical basis, has specific location and time frame and is dynamic and fits with how we experience information.

So did Donald Hebb or other neurologists, neuropsychologists identify information as brian state only?
I don't think they did or currently do, but they should.

Do you have an opinion of how information exists, mechanistically or otherwise, only an abstraction or something physical? I've noticed some physicalists use information as an abstraction without identifying a means for it to physically exist.

An observation would be that information has specific content so how would you bridge the mechanistic with specific information content?

I watched part of a Terrence Deacon video.
Just my perspective, but I think he is strong on brain anatomy and monkey to human comparisons but weak on his theory of information and theory of language.

I like defining information as brain state only (because that's how it can exist in physical reality) and language should be a subcategory of our ability to manipulate mental content, as I described it.

So I maybe have a habit of cherry picking what I like and don't like but I try learning new things.
Usually takes a couple times for me.

I looked.
Still think I'm on the right track.

Terrence Deacon. I'll go look.

I'm just thinking this through...
Maybe nested non-physicals, which do have a physical form in their neural correlates, proceed to new content.

So for me, the non-physical comes in at a secondary level. You have brains that have the ability to hold mental content and that content is what is non-physical. If you argue that mental content is only its neural correlates then you miss the important fact that the content itself precedes the form of the the neural solution. It really is that the non-physical drives the physical.

Your example shows how our minds can travel time and space in a way that is non-physical.

Your side of the planet, 12 noon, sun visible
Your side of the planet, 12 midnight, sun not visible.
The other side of the planet, your midnight, there 12 noon, sun visible.

So you have sorted out the physical using your brains non-physical abilities.

It still seems to me that there is a need to deal with non-physicals. Because we can't avoid using them.

Our brains don't even depend or the subject matter being physical or non-physical. Both are handled with the same physical process and biology.

The sun is in the sky... physical.

The sun is not in the sky... non-physical.

Physical and non-physical are embedded in our mental realities.

Sorry, typo...exclude, not excuse.
Still have a problem with it?

Here's my take on monism, physicalism vs. dualism... The people who are monists will eventually realize there is something emergent that is non-physical. At that point the people who are dualists will say I told you so. But I think the physicalist may have the better understanding.

It is a mistake for a physicalist to exclude the non-physical. The ones that include it will get it right.

Actually, I could say that if a physical chain of control is fundamental to the process. Sure, but not based on abstract concepts.

Okay, just rhetorical,
Here's the issue.
I'm giving the physicalist perspective that I have a problem with.
And sorry for the delayed response because I have other obligations..
I've written quite a bit on information theory in philosophy and the problem comes up of how to deal with anything non-physical, like zero or time outside the present moment. Since non-physical by definition doesn't exist, the rational alternative is that the non-physical exists as a physically contained non-physical. Basically, neurons have the ability to contain the non-physical. Sorry, running out of time but if you go back in the archives of my comments you will get the jist of the problem.

No errors on my part. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?? Get up to speed or I won't talk to you.

I was thinking that hidden dualism and ghost in the machine are the same problem.

For a physicalist, thoughts, ideas, concepts (and possibly qualia) would have their neural correlates. So they exist in a physical state of a dynamic neural configuration. Is that right?

The problem is how do ideas transfer person to person. That suggests some ghostly part that doesn't have a physical basis.

Gilbert Ryle...'ghost in the machine' seems relevant.. Just stumbled across it.. A physicalist might dismiss it but that might be a mistake..

His thinking is in reference to Descartes.
I'm just referencing it, not endorsing it.

I do like philosophy (as it is here) but I don't pick up books and spend hours. Maybe a short attention span but if you give references I'll usually spend a minute or two.

There is a lot to sort through on the time question. I think it's two problems. What is time physically? (If it exist at all) and what is time mentally?

There is still an issue I have with physicalism. Physical matter is restricted to the physical present. Our mental content can deal with past, present and future. Doesn't this stepping outside the physical present make mental content different in kind from physical matter? Without brains nature on it's own would have no mechanisms to know the past or affect the future.
So with brains something extra has been added to the mix that strict physicalism (as a philosophy) doesn't permit.

You're probably right. I made it sound like you were conceding something. My fault.

There is the non-physical which I agree is by definition physically non-existent. But what I meant is a brain supported concept of something, such as the past, that is understood to be non-physical.

I thought we agreed not so long ago.
Anyway, I was asking FrancisRay.
I need to go back to see who said what.
I forget. I'm regular here sometimes but there are gaps in what I follow. Non-dualism was new to me.

Sorry, it's the first I've heard about non-dualism, but that's not surprising because I just hate reading philosophy, so I never do.

As a test, does non-dualism have any insight into time perception? The materialist/physicalist view seems to have some difficulty with it and they may need to concede that the brain has an ability to deal with the non-physical. Dualism based on physical matter seems to do better. Does non-dualism have any insight on how we perceive time? I have a problem with metaphysics being more fundamental than physical matter.

Anyone who has been around here long knows we have beat information theories to death. And there is no consensus.

I like information as brain state because it's logically defensible in a philosophical debate and is a singular definition that doesn't separate brains from what information is.