I found a little more background on the Donald M. MacKay that you referenced. The 'Ratio Club' can be checked on Wikipedia and you will see both Donald MacKay and Alan Tuning were members, so they knew each other. Some of Turing's work was covered by the Official Secrets Act so my speculation that MacKay's might be also is a good guess.
What I think is posible is there are advanced mathematics models (published or classified) of a different type than the Shannon model. It might be what you are discussing - a type of information with meaning.

You're new here. Welcome to the jungle!

My view is brain supports mental content and mental content is a sort of virtual world that you might call mind. So if psychosis is brain based then a physical treatment might work. However, if psychosis is mental content based, then the brain could be perfectly healthy and you could only suppress symptoms and damage the brain/body by the use of antipsychotic medications. These often are prescribed for long time spans or for life. An example would be the belief in conspiracy theories which are likely a mind disorder not a brain disorder.

It's very posible that MacKay's work was covered by the Official Secrets Act.
Maybe that's why Roger Penrose's books seem a little off. They can't publish the good stuff for the public.

I dunno, I'm still on MacKay. He could have been in early matter to mind programs. Alan Turing, Marvin Minski AI stuff.

I don't know. He was well connected and he fits a profile. His best stuff is probably in a vault. To bad he died young.

You know if he did anything really interesting it might be classified. You know, black bag, black op.

That makes sense, that's the man.

A question for you. Is the Donald Mckay you refered to the same as Donald MacCrimmon MacKay?
A british physicist, 1922 to 1987.
He's in Wikipedia. Do you know more on the web? I'll keep looking...an interesting background similar to Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon in some ways.

deleted

A static state is not a dynamic state and a dynamic state is not a static state. Both exist and both are states. What would be incoherent?
Going from state 1 to state 2 is a stepped approach and lacks continuity. It's a calculus thing.

I didn't say anything about being unsupported. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry, I can't always read endless threads to know everyone's positionn so sometimes I just ask. Thanks for your effort in explaining.

I've used the term brain state as both static and dynamic. Physical brains will always be in a dynamic state and information linked with brains will always be in a dynamic state. I agree, any theory of information that uses a static state is suspect.

Try this:

A dynamic brain holding mental content is physically equal to a dynamic brain state, as a definition.
Or; BRAIN(mental content) = brain state

And this, brain state = information, also BRAIN(mental content) = information

Equivalent states are BRAIN(specific mental content) = BRAIN(mental content) = brain state

The idea is to map observed specific mental content to a specific brain state. Static or dynamic.

If you define information in this way you have defined information as physical and the answer to 'Is "information" physical?' is 'Yes'.

So an observation is that how you answer the question depends on how you define information.

I read some Roger Penrose years ago and couldn't believe how bad it was. It wasn't well received but sold some books. Maybe he just needed some spending money and did his best work elsewere. Not recommended and if you have a copy (multiple titles) get rid of it (them) so your kids don't read it.

I can't provide a single link. Everyone I've read is really screwing it up. It's a start from scratch problem. The Shannon approach is application specific, not universal.
Mckay, Don't Know, I'll look.
In the end everything needs to fit together. Matter, brains, information, communication.

In the act of observing the form of an object will cause a change to the form of the neural patterning of an observer. The change in the neural patterning in the observer is the information, and this is distinct against the patterning previous to the observation. The neural patterning of one moment of consciousness, is disturbed by the patterning of the next moment of consciousness, this forms the distinction of one part to another that is information. New information overlaps old information in a continuous process — Pop

As written here, I would agree with this entire section. For most people, defining information will follow their personal use and opinion, but this linking of information to neural patterning and neuroplasticity in a dynamic environment gets at a fundamental that gives a universal definition.

This type of brain held dynamic information matches well with a communication model that uses strict encoding and decoding of physical matter for brain to brain communication.

I really hope that doesn't ruin things for you because I really think you're on track with a good model.

I hope I am not giving the impression that I know precisely how neuroplasticity works. — Pop

Well, no one does, but the science seems to be moving in this direction.

Pop, Hi,
I'm so glad I checked in and am so surprised at your last post. We are back in agreement but I suspect it won't last long.
I'll check this more often.

We have material brain states and these brain states have the ability to hold abstract ideas, so you can have material brain states in a causal relationship with material things. Why would that be a delusion?

dispelling the materialist delusion — Metaphysician Undercover

The view that abstract ideas can exist unsupported and can affect physical matter...?

It's more like stress testing and you should welcome it. Anyway, I'll read what you write from now on.

I think that the first step in dispelling the materialist delusion is to understand that there is a causal relationship between abstract ideas and physical things. — Metaphysician Undercover

You moved on to the second step too soon. You may understand it, but could you offer a little more so I could too.

Being published doesn't change the question. Is an information conversion necessary?

The reference to Bishop Berkeley came up a while ago and Bartricks knows about it. I would expect Bartricks would like to pay his debts in Berkeley Dollars.

they then can be processed as (they become) "information". — 180 Proof

So encoding onto a physical system gives you encoded matter and that can be decoded and played back as music. Can you explain the necessity of the matter in its encoded state to become information? And how does that work or is it your perception?

I think this is on topic and a little study on how thoughts can go wrong.
Philosophy might have something to add as far as insights into troubleshooting psychosis. Maybe just a little off topic.

in a twist of fate, the patients are treating the doctors. — TheMadFool

It sounds like a modern version of the Haman's gallows story from the Bible. One of my favorites

Hallucination, mirage, optical/auditory/tactile Illusion, ... You can bring dozens of such states. They all have this in common: they are abnormal and refer to physical or mental sickness. — Alkis Piskas

TheMadFool makes a good point and they can all happen to an entirely healthy person. The most likely scenario would be environments that are at the limits of discernment such as chaotic, noisy, dirty, dark, time limited, physically constrained or unfamiliar conditions.

Anyone know the name of TheMadFool's short film? That would be tons of fun to watch.

This is another way that the state of the brain at any given moment isn’t the whole story. — apokrisis

My point in mentioning the physical present is that there can be no off board activity. Everything has to happen on the physical playing field in a present moment. As you model it mentally you should have no off board place holders.
If you want to make modeling easy, define information as brain state. That is how information is held, manipulated, originated and terminated. Communication takes place by encoding and decoding matter.

The medical profession uses some different definitions of brain state but if you follow the context as
I described it you should understand my useage.

I think I understand your view and agree with most of it.

By progression I meant an exact physical state of relevent matter changing through a duration of time. I was trying to explain it in dynamic terms rather than static terms if that makes it clearer.
I don't view it as completely analogous to computers and I don't go back far enough to know your view of brain information on this thread. I view brain information as embedded in brain state and you need to think of it as existing only in a physical present(time).

I get your point though and agree with it. Some parts only.

So in your view, the states of a computer are determined by its physics rather than its information? Complete measurement of its hardware state would let you back engineer whatever software routine it was handling? — apokrisis

No, I said what I said. If you want to make another point then make it and take credit for it. Don't take it personally. It's common around here.

There's no such thing as a 'brain state'. It is an empty rhetorical device pretending to be a theory. — Wayfarer

Sure there is. If you back engineered your brains exact physical states in the moments you composed these quoted sentences, you would have a progression of brain states. The quote is direct evidence that your brain has the ability to hold content by using brain states.

then that interaction demonstrates that the non physical can and does causally interact with the physical. — Bartricks

No, Bartricks, you are obviously wrong. The mind you identify as non-physical is clearly physical or it couldn't interact with the physical. So we are back to brain (and not mind) and the burden of proof for mind is still on you. Maybe more so since mind as you described appears to be a fallacy.

And why do you think I would want your references?

You've proven nothing but demonstrated how brains can support strange ideas. You have a brain that functions. What you call mind is the normal functioning of your brain. You and Bartricks are mezmerized by the word mind. No physical matter? Get real. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Certain: mind; Uncertain: matter & energy — TheMadFool

You know when you comment you self document your own ineptitude. It's just ridiculous.
And how did you and Bartricks get sucked into Bishop Berkeley's world of ass-backwardism? Maybe that was your wrong turn.

I didn't know, How horrible for you!

Just giving back what I'm getting.

Murk----->confused------>very — Bartricks

Yah, I should take a course in formal logic so I think straight like you.

I just modeled it. My brain.
Murk's brain( Murk's jumbled thoughts )

Brain ---> Brain state --->BRAIN(mental content) ---> BRAIN(specific mental content) --->BRAIN(I have a mind).
This model shows mind as an imagined thought.

Can you defend that?

I was just looking at the page. I embellished the rest.