Sorry, I wasn't thinking about metaphysics at all.
But if you get as far as our brains operating in an environment of non-physical content then metaphysics...or mental content without physical limits...is better understood.

My instincts are to avoid metaphysics so I just don't deal with it much unless someone brings it up.

There really is a problem of terms and definitions here to sort out:

Physicalism - only the physical exists
Or
Physicalism -the physical exists AND physical brains have the ability to deal with.the non-physical

Dualism - the physical and the non-physical exist
Or
Dualism - the physical exists AND physical brains have the ability to deal with the non-physical

So for me the second definitions are both the same and both correct.
Of course these are my own definitions based on our short discussion of the issue.

Actually I don't disagree. Great explanation of how a physicalists could deal with the non-physical. I think this secondary level gives the detail that can resolve physicalism vs dualism.

It's interesting you use the word hidebound to describe the...academics. Have you noticed the inconsistencies in their positions? They want everything to be physical but are alright with information being an abstract concept. Or claiming scientific understanding of information by referencing Claude Shannon. Or genetic information. Or physical information. The point being these are all incompatible as a whole and they don't see the problem in it....they are saying 'because science' without backing it up with a fundamental basis.

I'm saying physicalism or dualism should be logically consistent with your position on consciousness, information, time perception, physical matter...the whole list.

I looked at the survey you referenced and don't think I could get through all the questions without a dictionary of philosophy although the questions are rather simple.

On the mind question, physicalism or non-physicalism, I would be stuck picking 'other'.
For the majority picking physicalism how do they account for our endless mental content of non-physical subject matter? For example anything outside their present time and location. Of course it's done by physical means but shouldn't brains with the capability to deal with non-physicals be considered? And do the physicalists have any way of dealing with time outside the present? Past and future are non-physical to me.

So for a physicalists dealing with the past or future there really might be a hidden dualism.

So you have an issue with the big assumption and question begging. Going a little deeper, it's a yes no question and I leave it open to how you would like to answer it but the options are yes or no. A no answer tends to lead to abstractions which are a problem for me so I focus on the yes side of the answer. Another assumption is if the correct answer is singular. Or can both answers be correct. So my opinion, in short, is that everything is derived from physical matter and that excludes the no answer. Or is the original question flawed? How? So I'm saying everything is derived from physical matter but that alone doesn't explain our mental activities.

So the big picture is that we are looking for model that is singular and excludes other models.

The whole monism/dualism question leads to a category error. Is everything derived from physical matter? Assuming yes, then is that the end of it for philosophy? Definitely not. Our biology has developed this ability to manipulate the non-physical at a complex level that departs from physical limits. How would you contain zeros or infinities in physical form without the extra-physical abilities of the brain? Materialism just fails at the level of complexity of our common mental environments.

Good you point out any array. Encoded matter being a special case but all inputs to our brains can become information in the form of brain state.

There is a tendency to assign information to physical objects without regard for the workings of our brains.

Is information physical? If no, then it does not physically exist. And if information is physical then show what its physical form is. Is there more to it than that?

Is a message the sending of information or a coding and decoding of physical matter? A message containing information is an abstraction and doesn't physically exist. So it's best to use encoding and decoding of physical matter.

I observe information existing as brain state...being encoded to physical matter in a standardized form... transmitted as physical matter...and the person receiving will decode the physical signal, text and the information will then physically exist in his brain state. This will account for the physicality of the process without resorting to abstract concepts of information.

Going a little deeper on the relation of Shannon information to our brain information things get interesting when you consider computation. A basic premise in computing is that a Turing machine can mimic anything that can be computed. This would relate to AI becoming conscious.

As I mentioned, Shannon information can be considered entirely physical, but brain information seems to have the ability in it's physical form to hold non-physicals. Past time and future time being examples as well as many other things. Since it's ultimately a computation, I don't see any reason it couldn't be modeled by a Turing machine.

Computers might do it differently as far as addressing data and building networks but should be able to get the same results.

No doubt the Shannon theory has had a huge impact. The subject of information gets worked over a lot here. On the subject of information theory and what is being taught in course work at universities my view is it's subject specific but has limited use in philosophy, such as you mentioned...the hard problem.

Shannon information is a physical state.
Shannon information = [physical state]

Brain information ( what we experience) is much more. There is the ability to hold and manipulate non-physicals.
Brain information = [the physical brain; (non-physical content)]

This is probably the basic premise behind dualism and Shannon information doesn't address it.

A simple example would be time perception. The past and future do not physically exist but are part of our mental process. My observation is that Shannon information has no ability to step outside the physical present but brain information does.

So discuss Shannon information all you like but be aware of its limitations.

And if you are looking for a grand theory of things you should abandon Shannon information and go with brain information. Try an explanation of time perception using Shannon information and the problems become apparent.

Something I just came across are the returns coming in from the James Webb Space Telescope. There seems to be questions now that suggest the big bang theory needs revision. Something about distant galaxies appearing smaller that they should be with current theory.

That would be my best guess on how this origins problem will ultimately be solved. Or AI could solve it just by looking at more combinations than we are inclined to. It might not be that far off.

It might be an area where philosophy has limits and astronomers, physicists and mathematicians have the advantage.

I read your references and I still have trouble even having an opinion. All I see is problems when we propose materialism or monism especially when it comes to a first cause. Your reference mentioned the void might not really be nothing. I'm still considering that. Sorry it takes days for me to have a response but I run through various possibilities and I don't see any that don't have philosophical problems.

I like the phrase 'giving form to the formless' because that's how I understand information.
It's our brains that give form to the formless. What we see of human activity is a demonstration of its effect. However, as a force of nature I don't see evidence of this in things beyond our reach. So on a small scale our brains give form to the formless and can direct matter and energy, but I don't see it at cosmic scales or pre big bang. I'm looking at a number of things.but mostly just having a difficult attempt at getting a handle on it.

Harry Nyquist comes up here occasionally.
I'm not related.

Harry Nyquist worked in the same areas as Chaude Shannon. Their work was with electronic communication. Seems unfortunate to me that it is viewed by many as the science of information. Their work should be viewed as electronics engineering and mathematics.

I try to follow your arguments the best I can. I still don't see how nothing can become the physical universe based on formless potential.

I don't have an answer to that.
Nothing...big bang...physical universe, seems something is logically missing in that simple model.

Can you give reasons formless potential in the non-physical could lead to physical matter?

There is quantum theory, so maybe it's in the math, but I don't understand it that way either.

Just trying to sort through the issues.

I think you have mentioned giving form to the formless, and that could be the issue (or part) of what the monism/dualism question is about.

We deal with the formless but not without our physical brains.

I have to be sceptical of your idea that the formless could be a first cause because the only way we see it at work is in our brains. So how could the formless exist pre DNA, pre biological brains? DNA is a special case of something that controls it's own environment but not anything close to information as it exists in our brains.

Since Monism, as it exists on this forum, has failed to provide any coherent theory of information, a test of functionality should by applied.

Something like the ability to derive pi could be used.

Human brains can derive pi and I consider that a demonstration of the ability to hold, process and apply information.

So if deriving pi is the litmus test, then human brains pass.

Shannon information fails.

DNA information fails.

Quantum information fails.

Information as energy fails.

This actually makes things easier for the Monism model to deal with. No longer do you have multiple definitions of information but only one.
At this point, Monism only has the single problem of how brains do it.

I mentioned a couple days ago about the irrational number pi being an example of something immaterial that we encounter.

So pi doesn't physically exist but there is a history of mathematicians finding it's value to more and more decimal points (accuracy, fractional value). To me it seems like a good example of were physical brains and the immaterial meet. Of course the immaterial does not exist but also pi is not dependent on some preexisting state of brains either. It has to be discovered.

My guess to find pi was to use isosceles triangles but then I looked it up and it's not so easy. The first to do this used polygons but no trig or calculus. They made slow progress. And just to remind ourselves, trig values and pi are fixed relative to each other so you need to know one or the other first. You can't just calculate pi if you don't have the trig values.

Isaac Newton made the most progress on pi but you need to check that yourself. I've just read it for the first time. Of course, calculus methods and a few original tricks, I think.

Anyway. I'm critical of Monism that only goes so far and doesn't get into the environment that brains operate in, such as advanced maths.

You seem to be pressing some point of logic that I don't see as relevant.

Maybe explaining my method would help. For some problems you can start with initial conditions and work all the way through to the end point. In philosophy we have this problem where we know something about our physical world but we inhabit a mental world. I think my best effort is placed in starting at the ends and working to the middle to find a solution.

Monism could be a dead end. Our mental worlds are very much about manipulating the immaterial. I said before Dualists might have better instincts about this.
Ultimately it's all done by physical means. I don't know all the details but you will function better if you know you have the ability to process non-physical content.

Wayfarer was asking about a one to one correspondence yesterday.

I can give an analogy of something easy to understand that might point to how brains work.
Take the example of a contour gauge in carpentry. It has plates or sliders that will take the shape of irregular shapes like crown moldings. When you apply the tool to the shape it will take that shape and you can transfer that shape to a work piece. Moving to the non-physical, if you would like to create a new shape you could invent a shape by moving the sliders.
This would physically instantiated the shape to your tool and you could then transfer that shape to a work piece same as before.

In the case of physicals brains, the brain state will be the configuration required to instantiate non-physical mental content. It's reasonable to say the non-physical content does not physically exist and cannot be physically detected.

I don't think I said brain states are the same as the content of thought.

I would say brain state can have the ability (not always) to contain non-physical content. This non-physical content may have properties independent of any existing knowledge or brain state.

I used the example of the number pi. If you did not know it you would have to start from scratch to find the first second third ......digits. I think you use isosceles triangles but I've never done it. You could make mistakes. You couldn't use trig tables as they have limited decimals. Don't know how. Anyway the point is mental content is independent of preexisting brain state. I'm trying to explain the environment of brain/mental content as it exists.
.

The way I break it down is neurons in large numbers holding mental content. Mental content would include everything. Language, math skills, your education, memory, your environment or mental maps on and on, so the affect of just language gets diluted.

By your comment I would guess your are weighting language higher than you should.

We have big brains that are very adaptive.

I read a little from John Archibald Wheeler and from what I got out of it the "it from bit" notion of information applies only to the very special class of matter found in electronics devices that can produce a reliable physical quantity (binary) that can be interpreted as a yes or no. This excludes most matter. This should also be identified as a mental projection on a physical system to be of use. Don't read more into it that there is just because the word information is being used.

I agree that information has specific content. Good point. And generic information is oxymoronic. I agree again. I am saying the polysemic use of the word information is a problem. Of course it's use can be found in context or also cause confusion.

By making a list I was pointing out that we have a tendency to over assign the word information to things.

I missed the point, in my list, of information being only in the physical present (or not).

I'm thinking the best approach is brain state, a singular definition, existence in the present moment only, and physically based on neurons holding specific content. There is the difficulty of how the brain has the ability of manipulating non-physicals but there is no alternative. It's how math is done, to give an example.

I think I read John Wheeler worked with yes/no questions. But that also can lead to different results...everyone has their biases built in. John Wheeler, interesting guy.

Also, genetics works just fine as physical matter only. These are processed of molecules interacting with other molecules. Just chemistry.

Physicists use the term physical information.
Very confusing. Does it exist or not?

• information is brain state.
• Information DNA genetic information.
• Information Shannon information.
• Information quantum information.
• Information is non-physical.
• Information is physical.
• Information is an abstract concept only.
• Information is energy.
• Information has mass.
• Information is mass-less.
• Information has diverse definitions.
• Information can (or cannot) be explained by Monism.
• Information has been defined (or not) by science.
• Information has a singular state in its physical form.
• Information is the Mind part of Mind/Body.
• Information is inseparable (or is separable) from brain state.
• Information can (or cannot) be reduced to simpler physical components.
• Information is (or is not) more fundamental than physical matter.

So, in the context of Monism, the question of information is very messy. Going point by point there is little consistency and little consensus.
This list is just a hodge podge of what's been put up here. It should be a red flag that we are not doing well at all.

Feel free to add items to this list of what you think information is in regards to Physical Monism or Dualism if you like. Do a quote.and add ons if you like. It's not supposed to be a good list, just anything that is out there.

So we deal with non-physicals. I think monism can handle that but it is worth a closer look or you will end up arguing for Dualism. Physical and non-physical.

I remember writing last week that all mental content is in the form of contained non-physicals.
That is probably not right. If you are in the presence of some object you will have the benefit of your direct physical senses. Sight, sound, touch. So then you have both active. Like at your job, there might be no substitute for putting eyes and hands on a problem.

Of course, we are always in our physical environment but our minds can be elsewhere.

it seems that you are giving information multiple definitions for different things. Mind, Shannon, genetic, quantum.

You discount the most useful functions of brains if you rule out the ability to process non-physicals.

Pi for example is a non-physical... It does not physically exist. A ratio of circle circumference to diameter. Basic math, and it's a manipulations of brain states like this that are what information is about. Compare that to DNA molecules that are physically fixed and obviously they are not the same thing.

We agree that non-physicals do not exist, but what about brain contained non-physicals. I say that does exist and we use it all the time.

Something to consider about Monism is if it explains everything. There seems to be the principal of simple to complex and complex to simple...the full spectrum of things that work together.

One problem I see is if brains handle non-physical content then when you scale down there is no physically simple mechanism that exists to do that.

Just some observation might give some understanding though. This containing of non-physicals occurs in masses of neurons in neural networks that are connected to our senses and muscles through our central nervous system. This brings things to the physical scale we deal with.

If you want to propose information at the quantum level, then there is the problem of chain of control all the way from quantum events to our physical scale. The biological solution seems much more plausible.

I think the Dualist view might have better instincts about what mind is and the Monist view puts things off limits that should be part of philosophy.

Have you or anyone come across Feynman diagrams showing forward and backward flowing time. My interpretation is physical existence has some duration relative to clock time. It's worth mentioning in a discussion of Monism.

I don't get to deep into the quantum stuff because you should understand the math first before you even have an opinion and, beware, a lot of the people writing about this for mass audiences are clueless.

Maybe just check backgrounds, but even some of the scientists seem a little off.

As Art48 started by pointing out, Monism is reductionist, or you can derive the complex from the simple.

I would question your idea that information is the most fundamental thing but since you gave your references I'll check that out if I can get to it.

My view is information (not the abstract consept definition but as it physically exists as brain state) is on the derived complex end of the spectrum... existing in emergent and well developed biological brains.

I don't mind hearing about one or the other or any alternatives. There will be physical scales associated with any model and all the details need to be addressed like chain of control from the micro to the macro worlds.

I like that you brought up design. Some may not agree, but what is design, if not the manipulation of non-physicals?
The thing itself does not yet exist and isn't the state of neurons alone but the forming of a state of neurons to fulfill a design requirement. The process is best understood as the manipulation of the non-physical or the immaterial.

I'm saying things that do not physically exist (like the past or future) can exist in our brains. Do you or others have an alternative. Physical existence of the subject matter is not required for mental content to exist.
So physical non existence of the subject matter is my use of the word immaterial and it exists as brain state in an entirely physical form. What's the problem?

And identifying this mental ability should lead to the conclusion that mental content is universally immaterial. Identifying this ability gives a better understanding of how information physically exists. So information doesn't need to be defined as an abstract concept. Does that explain it? I'm surprised at the resistance to the idea.

It might be just word problems. For me the immaterial is something brains can assign parameters to but they don't exist other than as brain state.

Sorry for your confusion. Maybe I could explain it this way. Our brains do something like our hands would do to hold an imaginary tennis ball, or rubber duck, or pencil, or dish rag or almost any thing. Not a real thing but a gauging of parameters.

Don't know were the rubber duck came from???
1970's maybe.

Actually I get spread thin so just check in here mostly weekends so I miss a lot. I enjoy the back and forth.

I mostly just follow this forum.

Just interested if you have an occupation or training that gives you some insight on this issue?