Acting as just believing something as compared to genuine cases of believing in something i assume. It is not the weird behaviorist way but the weird "information universe" way of looking a things. Anything that can be observed or in any other way deduced through any information gathering method, means or device is simply information identified.

There is no reason a person might not have an internal language that the individual uses to manage and process information. Of course externalizing would or does require translation to a.language/format that can be understood by the target audience.

When a person adopts any set of internal values what they are actually doing is determining a structure for identifying and using information (especially how to use this information)- and particularly information that fits within the structure and confines of that determining value set. Morals as being referred to in this discussion are no more then a variation on the same basic concept, and can be created or adopted through any number of information gathering means...IE internalizing from information received directly like reading or information received that initiates a response from the earlier emotional information management system, among many others. The universe does not discriminate between "good or bad, right or wrong information" it is just information. Conscious beings however tend to seek out information in a way and that fits in or supports the ways and means of information gathering that has been successful to that point in time. Often expressed as belief systems. Information received or being received by genetic information sources all the way to the confines of a morality structure influence this, as well as continuing feedback from the universe including the feedback of other conscious beings. Even the scientific method is an example of this...
information gathering through the use of the scientific method has been very successful at finding or determining and therefore predicting to a very high degree information relating to our universe. It is still limiting in that it only accepts information that fits within its structure, confines and format. Does the scientist truly believe in the scientific method or does he just portray it?

My point is that it does not matter, and that as we all inhabit our own separate realities, impossible to determine anyway. What does matter is the behaviors, methods, even the info being search/offered are successful and can be provided in a format acceptable to the society the person is a part of.

So the second part as in understand your post is that a person professing an adherence to a set of morals, religion, ect. that internally the person does not accept itself. This presumably then allows the person to access information in a way that otherwise would be confined or not be acceptable or could cause a threat that person. Since i believe a primary function of life is to find and use information, the mere threat of a loss/constriction of information is a powerful inducement to externalize the behaviors most conducive for that to not occur. It is impossible to know what exactly Galileo believed or what his internal information management tools were or what role symbolic interactionism could have played out in his survival. What is clear is that the information he was trying to communicate threatened his existence and threatened his ability to continue to gather/manage information in a way that had been successful for him to that point. Regardless of his internal belief system Galileo spent the rest of his life exhibiting the behaviors and presenting information in a format that fit the expectations and confines of the larger society he was part of. Ultimately to the detriment of the society as its own confines made it unable to readily assimilate and use the info Galileo was providing. In the end though the information Galileo was presenting changed the society.

The weird Information Universe.

From my viewpoint;

"So can a person have private morals?"
No, although the internal morals may be a way of managing information in response to and for the earlier emotive system, the inevitable result is behaviors exhibited. Often they are displayed through a series social interactions.

"Morals are rules to live by; but if rules cannot be private, morality cannot be private."
Morals and rules are not synonymous, Rules are often a codification of morals.However if any behaviors are the result any of the above then it is not private.

So could Nietzsche follow a rule that was understood only by himself? well perhaps theoretically yes, as a internal management categorization of information in response to the emotive mechanism.. The behaviors exhibited may result in no one else knowing what his morals are.

Kinda wondering what the puppy did? :wink: no, your rule was not private when you did not kick the puppy and it became an external behavior. morals and rules are internal in that they are unique to that individual reality but exhibited by behavior externally.

The sparrow in my front yard has a brain and is conscious, yet for my part I would hesitate to say it has a mind.
So although I agree in general w/ your critique I wonder? Can you can reduce your own consciousness
to the same level and still account for "you"?

Without sarcasm not really, :smile: Although between you and Terrapin I spent the day in the library. Always a good day no matter the reason. I am trying to use information from diverse sources. I will compile more data and get back at ya. Or change my model to reflect. Information that I am amassing seems to be that some type of fractured or multi(verse) is scientifically sound as a possibility. Not being an astrophysicist I do not want to try and argue that it "is" or "is not" so much as is possible. Never the less you both surely indicated where i needed research and I thany you.

Absolutely agree, the bricks I am trotting out for critiques and reduction are just that bricks. The philosophy i am attempting to reflect and represent w/ comments to others is an "in work " effort. Where I hope to go with this, eventually, is a consciousness theory that is, sometimes unfortunately, a bit more than machine learning. As well it should be to begin to even hope to grasp the depth of you or I.

Your second reply point brings out something i have thought might be for a new thread. If the universe is a giant enormously complex and multi level information engine/machine and life's function to detect and use information.( Just an idea) Than ALL structures of human thought are by their own nature information limiting in total. For instance the scientific method is a wonder structure for investigating the universe, ordering thought, and determining a more reliably consistent cause effect relationship. Far better than the Theology led structure of the catholic church. Yet, it limits information to that which fits its format. I have said before that science does not care how you feel about something, but how you feel is part of the information of the universe. Anyway... :smile: As far as your first part I understand now that my original interpretation was not complete, but we do agree it's information.

Coming right out of left field.....

IMO Dreams, dreaming is a way to allow at least some of the information being detected and used in very similar multiverse versions of ourselves to be transferred. Not overly effective but some is better than none from natures point of view.

If you don't mind i would like to try to build on this.

Animals, at least mammals dream. Dreaming is simply another information management effect. Imagine an antelope living its normal linear existence. Near the habitat the antelope normally occupies is a hill. Nothing unusual just a hill with exposed rocky outcrops, and partially covered by vegetation. Near this hill on the surrounding plains the life time environment for this antelope. One day the antelope has a dream, no language necessary. In this dream the hill appears dark and foreboding, the vegetation threatening. The dream elicits an emotional response. Next day as the herd grazes closer the hill, but within their normal range, dreaming antelope finds itself once again filled by the fear his dream spawned. Therefore dreaming antelope remains as far as possible away from scary hill, and is not near the hill when a lion burst from the cover and drags down one of dreaming antelopes herd mates.
Information has been passed from one universe to another and used.

"the idea of the multiverse. As you can see, it's based on two independent, well-established, and widely-accepted aspects of theoretical physics: the quantum nature of everything and the properties of cosmic inflation. There's no known way to measure it, just as there's no way to measure the unobservable part of our Universe. But the two theories that underlie it, inflation and quantum physics, have been demonstrated to be valid. If they're right, then the multiverse is an inescapable consequence of that, and we're living in it."...Ethan Siegel

Everyone lives their own reality. Thanks for sharing yours. IMO the universe and all within it exist independent of any observer.

"1. The observed moon: the moon as it appears to an actual observer."
Is the moon as we are able to observe within the our own limits.

2. The mental moon: the moon as a thought or mental concept.
The conscious represented internal version/vision of the moon including emotional, and even extremely low probability reality versions. This represents all the information we (as each separate realty, or we as an agreed upon structure for transfer of info between our realities) have detected about "the Moon". Although the use of scientific disciplines is by far the best way we have come to detect and manage information, they should still be understood to be limiting. The whole point of structure is to limit information transfer to that within the standard. In other words the science does not give a darn how you "feel" about the moon, but how you feel about the moon is encompassed within everything you "know" about the moon.

3. The physical moon: the result of the physical laws that predict the probabilities of the moon being observed by any possible observer at any given point in spacetime.
IMO the physical moon is a result of the physical rules defining existence in the universe it occupies.
Laws of probability this way should be read as the probability that "the moon" occupies a universe that also contains us or a observer by your definition. Actually a suprisingly high probability of the quantum function say it is overwhelmingly more likely that "the moon" occupies a universe with us then it does not. That however does not limit our conscious efforts to know more about "the moon". So does not sum up the information about "the moon" available in the universe, that you or i as separate realities have detected and collected about "the moon" or with increasing complexity and density in time of information management/transfer what all the above will know about "the moon" in the future.

Yet I agree with you in general. The best sign symbol word language is the one that potentially allows for the most information to be encompassed by that sign, symbol,word or language and that for transfer can also be understood by at least one other consciousness.

With a universe of information all queries have to be contained. Otherwise the answer to everything is "everything".

In the Information Universe the answer is that the variations of the games do exist.
All information is available it is only our ability to detect or use it that limits us. So infinity does not exist. The universe is self contained therefore all answers to all queries are within it. That mean that the variations are in fact finite.

Time: the great and mighty ruler of our existence is the defining factor by which we are able to detect and use information.

"4. Intentional realities are information based. What we know, will, desire, etc. is specified by actual, not potential, information. By definition, information is the reduction of (logical) possibility. If a message is transmitted, but not yet fully received, then it is not physical possibility that is reduced in the course of its reception, but logical possibility. As each bit is received, the logical possibility that it could be other than it is, is reduced."

Reality is information based. Intentions-what we will and desire are conscious efforts to detect information. Information exists regardless of our ability to detect or use it. If a message is transmitted but not fully received means only a more contained unit of information was either transmitted or received than was requested or offered. Logic and semantics are simply the agreed upon structure with which information exchange can occur. Paraphrasing Einstein "without time everything would happen at once". In this case the answer to every question would be "everything"

I understand the limit that you are communicating for information transfer, therefore it is valid. :wink:

There are words and word strings that demonstrate the increasing complexity and density of information exchange and MindForged are great "Excluded Middle and Bivalence" not only do they establish structure and limit information transfer but they also increase the density of potential information transfer in time. All logic and semantics are really just a way to manage and transfer information. As long as the structure of that information management is understood by at least one consciousness then it is valid.

.
There is no black and white- only the standards by which we determine what black or white are and are to be communicated. The answer is always grey to the original query. From this potential of universal knowledge available a commonly understood structure, density rate and limit in time are required in order to make that information useful.

From my point of view the transfer of information is valid in any way that allows that information to be received or recorded. Signs or symbols of any sort, as well as any way we have not yet formulated can fill this need. I could imagine a conscious life form in the position of an octopus or squid could transfer information vary efficiently with light for instance. Of course we may not have any idea what they are saying-but that does not mean the method is not sound and perhaps more efficient then audible or written language.

Second, is not every word,(rather written or audible) already a sign. Under the terms you are establishing? Language is like life always progressing in complexity and complexity of meaning.
Is there a more efficient word? Always it seems to be.

And I am not a fan of the "simulation universe". Patterns can indeed be deceiving especially when perspective changes. I understand the original posting was choppy. Sorry for that, perhaps my reply to Tim in the thread helps?

Is all on me. I am trying to scratch out some parts of a bigger idea. And not doing a very good job of it i'm afraid. This is where I'm staking a claim, so to speak. below with more declaratory statements:

1. Everything in any universe exists independent of humanity or even a mind to create or appreciate it.

2. There is no unavailable knowledge, only the ability to detect or use it.

3. Given the opportunity, life exists and is a result of both external, environmental and quantum influences.

4. Life exists to detect and gather information about the universe it inhabits and in some way use and transmit it.

5. If given the opportunity life will always develop towards increasing complexity. With better and more effective ways of accessing and/or using information.

6. If given the opportunity increasing complexity will always result in consciousness of some sort.

Thankyou for your feedback. I see your point. the overall idea that I am just beginning flesh out is already difficult. I do not wish drag in arguments that are about issue's, (such as existence of God), that are not central to what I am building. The word purpose does that.

With even just the example of life on earth it would seem the only purpose of life is to be alive.

So would it seem.
Is it what life does or what life is?

One central tenet of life is change, the way change is accomplished is with information. Either imposed or realized.

It is possible to have life that is unchanging and very nearly immortal or capable of extreme stasis.
Why then is not all life like this. It is alive and it survives.

THE INFORMATION (VIEWER) UNIVERSE


Each/any 4 dimensional universe is self defining and self contained. Rather like a constantly progressing simulation has been noted. All the information about the universe and its process are available to any consciousness that has the ability to detect, identify and use it.

Life, all life's, primary purpose is to identify, use, and transmit this information. Transmission methods are not required to be conscious, for example...DNA.

Ever increasing complexity in life forms in order to better manage information is the result. If allowed to develop- consciousness of some type will always emerge. There does not seem to be a limit on what kind of consciousness that can emerge, only that it is more effective than not conscious or purely reactive. Even the stimuli response in its most basic form is simply a way to detect information available in the universe and use it.

In order to use information it has to be detected/identified. To become knowledge it must recorded and moved through time.

To be transmitted, the receiving consciousness' must understand the form of transmission.
As long there is at least one consciousness left that understands or could understand what the word/sound or whatever contains as information about the universe then the identifier exists as a self contained portion of information.
Perhaps an example to demonstrate would be from the digital world. All the information is available in bit form. Bytes and any other groupings of bit information still contain or can be identified to contain this original bit information.

At least from my point of view. :)

Apologies, was just a poor attempt at a joke.

From my perspective no knowledge is unobtainable.
Any system, biological or otherwise that is able to detect and/or extend the senses of an observer is valid.

The better a life form is able to capture and use information the more successful it will be. Advance can be in any of many ways including the detection manipulation storage and use of information. Biological entities develop towards ever increasing complexity in order to better access or use information which then results in better survival for themselves. Different unique and novel ways will always be developing that constantly increase the reach of existing senses and information management. This then results in ever increasingly complexity and results in better information management in a four dimension universe. All the data in the universe is available to any conscious being who is capable of retrieving it.

Energy/matter are transcendental in that they/it exist independent of a conscious mind or its ability to detect it in our 4 dimensional universe.

Transcendent implies or suggests that there is unavailable information in the universe. I reject this.

Only the ability to identify and/or use it.

It is like a logic problem.

If the universe is transcendent to human consciousness
then does this mean the universe must be transcendent to human consciousness?

Each Conscious reality is their own. Communicating information to each other and society is the goal.
Therefore any identity or social construct that increases information transfer between individual realities is supported. As long as it does not distress the sender and result in information loss.

Per part one: Everything in any universe exists independent of humanity or even a mind to create or appreciate it.

Per part two: "Rock" as a sound or any other way delineated or detected is information attempting to be transmitted. The sound or word has meaning and existence as long as their is a least one conscious being left to understand it.