So I think a name change would be appropriate. — NOS4A2

Nosferatu : What would you call this new kind of economics --- The Golden Rule? :joke:

Why does a quantity of invalid information indicate the whereabouts of valid information? Is there some intelligence to this behaviour of maths and statistics or is it all simply a product of intelligence? — Benj96

The phenomenon of many guesses centered on the right answer may be called "The Bell Curve" or The "Wisdom of Crowds". Chaotic randomness has been found to have an intrinsic hidden core of Order. Chaotic systems are unpredictable, but deterministic. Opinions vary on an explanation for the ultimate cause of that emergent order within chaos, but without it our world would have decayed into dust long ago. I call that anti-entropy organizing force "Enformy". And it seems to be a sign of intelligence & intention underlying the laws of Nature. :smile:

Wisdom of Crowds : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

Chaos Theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Enformy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

In summary, the thesis is that neoliberal economic theory is objectively false, and that we can do better.. — Banno

Howard Bloom reached a similar conclusion in his 2010 book, The Genius Of The Beast : A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism. In contrast to pure Capitalism, he refers to an impure mixed economy as the "Western System". :smile:

I have been reading and enjoying Paul Davies' recent book, Demon in the Machine. — Wayfarer

The Program in the Machine : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page6.html

So - I'm totally open to the notion that 'information is fundamental', but it seems to me to leave an awful lot of very large, open questions, about what 'information' is or means or where it originates. — Wayfarer

Information is my thing. It's the subject of my thesis website Enformationism. The thesis touches on all of your questions, and the BothAnd Blog goes into more detail on specific applications of the Information concept beyond computers. :nerd:

Information is : the Universal Substance of Spinoza. It's both physical (material, Quanta) and metaphysical (mental, Qualia). It's abstract meaningless Shannon data, and Bayesian statistical truth, and Bateson's meaningful "difference that makes a difference". It's Ideal Platonic Forms, and Real enformed Things.

Information means : According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest historical meaning of the word information in English was the act of informing, or giving form or shape to the mind, as in education, instruction, or training.
The English word was apparently derived by adding the common "noun of action" ending "-ation" [Hence, En-Form-Action]

Information originates : in the creative power to be, and to become (BEING). In our universe, Information is the power to enform matter & mind. You can think of its ultimate origin as The Enformer, The Creator, or The Programmer. If those names don't work for you, perhaps Einstein's "pantheistic god of Spinoza". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Information -- Shannon vs Deacon : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

BothAnd Blog : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

One starts off the general conception of the Cosmos as case of "there is nothing, so build me something". The other says "anything and everything is possible, but that in itself is going to result in aself-selecting competition". As in a quantum sum-over-histories, reality is what is left over once all the possible alternatives have cancelled each other out to leave a single sharp outcome remaining. — apokrisis

Actually, I have discussed both sides of the something vs nothing dichotomy. In unlimited Eternity-Infinity all things are possible, but in our constrained space-time Reality, only some things are actual. That's how I conceive of Natural Selection : random evolutionary change (including mutations) produces a variety of possible options, but the Selection process "chooses" which will go on to the next stage of evolution. Presumably, "unfit" options are the ones that "cancel each other out", via direct competition for niches. In that sense, evolution is a win-lose game. But ultimately the world as a whole is a winner, it progresses in quality. :smile:

I buy this. Slight edit: Yes. In practical Reality, what you see is what exists. But in Reality, what you see is a mentally constructed image. Yes? No? — tim wood

Yes. That mental image is what Hoffman calls an "icon", by analogy with the symbols on your computer or phone screen that represent the low-level functions of abstract mathematical processes in the processor. We don't need to know the nitty-gritty details, just what to expect from what we "see". :smile:

When definitions change at a certain point in time, there will by definition be multiple definitions in use as some people have picked up the new definition and others haven't (yet) — Tomseltje

Some people think Wittgenstein invalidated the concept of definitions, by noting how definitions vary depending on context. But that's all the more reason to specify your meaning in the current context, and not to just leave the meaning open to all interpretations. :smile:

You may be right. I've spoken someone rejecting any form of rationality claiming that only strictly empirical science is valid. As if any of the empirical sciences could exist without the rational approach of logic as in math. — Tomseltje

Empirical science is indeed validated by its pragmatic results in the real world. But Theoretical Science (philosophy) can only be validated if & when it produces practical specific real-world results. Unfortunately, that may be a long time coming. But in the meantime, the theory may be useful as a component of our general understanding of the world. Newton's solar system cosmology was our best theory, until Einstein came along and generalized it --- via math, not experiment --- to the whole universe. :smile:

Theoretical Science : The data serve to suggest the theory, to confirm the theory, to disconfirm the theory, to prove the theory wrong. But these are the tools we use. What interests us is the content of the theory. What interests us is what the theory says about the world.
https://newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certainty

The key insight is that reality is the evolving product of top-down constraints interacting with bottom-up constructive degrees of freedom — apokrisis

That is also a "key insight" of my Enformationism thesis. :up:

Creativity -- Freedom with Constraints : The process of evolution can be construed as an ongoing reckoning of Cause & Effect events. Another way to put it is to say that Natural Selection is the product of freedom-of-action (randomness) and constraints-on-action (selection).
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html

1. What is "absolute infinity"?
2. Give a rational explanation of how that implies anything. — jgill

Here's a link to a mathematician's concept of Absolute Infinity. What that limitless notion implies is usually posited, in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions, as an eternal deity : the supernatural "ground of being", God, Allah . In my personal worldview, Enfernity (eternity-infinity) implies a non-humanoid Creative Principle from which space-time, matter-energy and natural laws emerged. It's not knowable empirically, but infer-able rationally. :cool:

Absolute Infinity : The Absolute Infinite (symbol: Ω) is an extension of the idea of infinity proposed by mathematician Georg Cantor.
It can be thought as a number which is bigger than any conceivable or inconceivable quantity, either finite or transfinite.
Cantor linked the Absolute Infinite with God,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinite

↪Gnomon
Practical knowledge tells us it is what you think it is. — tim wood

Yes. In practical Reality, what you see is what exists. But in theoretical Reality, what you see is a mentally constructed image (icon) of abstract energy patterns. Hoffman is not an experimental (biological or neurological) scientist looking through microscopes. He is a theoretical (cognitive) scientist, using metaphors to describe things we can't see, such as Ideas. :smile:

So let's play this game and assume we have an infinite Mega/Multi-verse: — Eugen

Absolute Infinity does indeed imply that all things are possible, and all possible things are actual. But the Multiverse is not timeless or changeless, hence not absolute. Instead, it is a dynamic directional process with no known beginning and an unknowable ending. Only spaceless-timeless Infinity-Eternity (Enfernity) is absolute. And the powers of being & causation exist necessarily in Enfernity.

Sorry to intrude with such a strange out-of-this-world comment. But your post triggered a train of thought relevant to my own little game of knowns. :chin:

The presence of a pattern implies a pattern generator. A finality. There is some larger process that is placing constraints on irregularity or uncertainty. — apokrisis

Yes. Patterns are not random, they are caused. And the "finality" is the First or Final or Ultimate Cause. The "larger process" is a Teleological System with Laws (constraints) and just enough freedom from determinism to allow for the creativity of "uncertainty". Do you have a more specific name for your "Pattern Generator"? :smile:

Teilhard de Chardin’s writings are forgotten in name only. . . . Don't read him; he's naughty. The Pope says so. — Banno

Oh, but the naughty parts are the best parts. :wink:

Anyway, some 21st century scientists are finding (non-biblical) evidence for Teleology (directed evolution, downward causation) in the emerging complexity of the universe. For them, Evolution is viewed, not as a random flux of atoms, but as a self-directing "cybernetic system", otherwise known as a "complex adaptive system" or a "living organism". :nerd:


Downward Causation : cybernetic evolution by "information selection and control".
From Matter To Life : Living Through Downward Causation by Farnsworth, Ellis, & Jaeger of Santa Fe Institute. A think tank for cutting edge science.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=from+matter+to+life&link_code=qs&qid=1595179211&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-2&tag=mozilla-20

Worlds Hidden in Plain Sight : The Evolving Idea of Complexity at the Santa Fe Institute
https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Hidden-Plain-Sight-Complexity/dp/1947864149/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Any information can be encoded as a string of bits. We can then calculate the entropy of that string. No 'icons' would be involved - unless bits are considered icons. — Banno

Are you familiar with "black hole" physicist John Archibald Wheeler's "It From Bit" hypothesis? In Hoffman's theory, Icons are what we believe to be real. Is a "bit" of information real? In what sense? :smile:

It From Bit : “All things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe… Observer-participancy gives rise to information.”
"“Reality is what we take to be true,” pioneering physicist David Bohm asserted in 1977. “What we take to be true is what we believe… What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality.”
https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/

I hope he is a bit clearer that that in his explanations. — Banno

Have you read any of his argument against reality? If you don't want to read the book, there are several videos on related topics. But you may not like what he's implying. His theory is a form of Idealism, in which what you see as real is a mental model, not the underlying essence of reality. His argument makes sense to me, but then I am not a committed Materialist. :smile:

Hoffman TED talk : https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is/transcript?language=en

Would you accept a correction: No. That which underlies patterns of information are the same for everyone. — tim wood

OK. But what is "that which underlies patterns"?

The reason why I ask is because I cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy. — DoppyTheElv

Perhaps you'd appreciate a more straightforward account of the God Concept. Robert Wright, science writer & philosopher, has written a book --- The Evolution of God --- examining how human ideas about spirits & gods have evolved over millennia. It's not presented as a philosophical argument, but as a historical and psychological account of evolving human moral imagination.

He says that he is writing from a Materialist perspective. But he does not identify as an Atheist. Instead, while he believes that "God" is a "figment of human imagination", he also says, " I don't think that precludes the possibility that as ideas about God have evolved people have moved closer to something that may be the truth about ultimate purpose and ultimate meaning... " That is very close to my own understanding, since I too see signs of Teleology in Evolution --- along with Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and Michael Shermer, The Moral Arc. The ancient First Cause argument is compatible with my own notion of how our world came to be, but I add some modern scientific information to my Enformationism worldview. :smile:

Robert Wright : . . . has a strictly materialist conception of natural selection; however, he does not deny the possibility of some larger purpose unfolding, that natural selection could itself be the product of design, in the context of teleology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wright_(journalist)

Is Hoffman claiming that the way a bird sees the world could not be translated into a form that we could understand? — Banno

No. The underlying patterns of information are the same for everyone. It's the "icons", mental constructs, that differ among observers. That's why Science is an attempt to remove the personal bias from our observations. And mathematical models (equations) are about as close as we can get to the fundamental Information patterns of reality. Unfortunately, bird concepts, translated into abstract math, would not mean much to the average human. :smile:

I'd need more information to understand this properly. Do you think consciousness is identical with a certain kind of information processing? — bert1

Yes & no. It's not that simple. In order to understand my theory of Consciousness, you'd need to start with a fundamental "fact" discovered by Quantum theorists : that matter, energy, & mind are all emergent forms of mathematical Information. That's my summation of the concept, but few scientists have made that connection. Paul Davies, physicist & cosmologist, is one of those few, who conceive a new paradigm of Science based on expanded Information theory. As for my personal worldview, it is expressed as a non-academic thesis in my website : Enformationism. As a new paradigm, though, it will puzzle or offend both Materialists and Spiritualists. :joke:

Paul Davies : What is Information? "the primary stuff, out of which the physical world is built".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7EjwUp5krY

What is physical Information? : "photons & Information are the same thing"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or8Rktj_HA4

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

If I understand correctly, the 'consciousness' you're talking about (assumptions based on neural activity) is not the same as the philosophical sense of consciousness (as in the 'hard problem' and p-zombies). — ChrisH

Yes. The links I referred to are talking about scientifically observable signs of consciousness. Philosophical Consciousness is not observable via the senses, but hypothetical via reasoning. The basic concept of Consciousness is simply awareness of the environment : Sentience. But theologians & philosophers have posited a variety of shades of mental activity --- sensation, thought, feelings, inner-source-of-truth, conscience, etc --- with Self-consciousness at the top of the hierarchy. But, at this moment, no one is certain of what makes the difference between Conscious and Non-conscious beings. My own theory is that Consciousness is an emergent property of energized matter (living organisms), and that abstract Information is common to all phases of sensing & knowing. :smile:


Consciousness : The problem of consciousness is arguably the central issue in current theorizing about the mind. Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory of consciousness, there is a widespread, if less than universal, consensus that an adequate account of mind requires a clear understanding of it and its place in nature. We need to understand both what consciousness is and how it relates to other, nonconscious, aspects of reality.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

Sentience : the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel.
https://speakingofresearch.com/2019/08/26/what-is-sentience/

I'm intrigued. What are the "signs" that "modern science" has discovered with regard to consciousness in non-human organisms? — ChrisH

As I said before, in physical Science, the "signs" of consciousness are limited to overt behavior, which must be interpreted by analogy to the activities of conscious humans. For example, in mice, intentional behavior must be discriminated from automatic or reflexive actions. But some minimal level of consciousness has been assumed in vegetative or comatose humans, even when they are unable to make voluntary movements.

So, in recent years, neurologists have been using a variety of brain scans looking for indications of consciousness in the electrical activity of the brain. That still requires a lot of guessing and interpretation. So they are using artificial intelligence to spot consistent patterns that signify subliminal awareness. That is a big step toward detecting Consciously directly. But in my thesis, Mind is a highly-evolved intentional form of physical Energy (EnFormAction), which we still can only detect by its effects on physical objects. EnFormAction is the power to Inform, to Transform, to cause Change in both Matter and Minds. :nerd:


Signs of Consciousness : https://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/searching-for-signs-of-consciousness/

Coma Consciousness : https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/new-test-can-detect-hidden-consciousness-in-coma-patients

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Cool! I'm clearly out of date. What are the latest findings on which things are conscious? — bert1

Descartes expressed his opinion that only humans are conscious, while animals only appeared to be sentient. But modern science has discovered signs of consciousness in almost all animate (self-moving) organisms. Unfortunately, we still have no way to detect consciousness directly, so we rely on inference from behavior. Even primitive bacteria seem to interact with their environment as-if they are sentient beings. But, since inanimate objects have no observable self-propelled behavior, they are presumed to be non-conscious. Therefore, it appears that Life is a necessary precursor to Mind.

I don't know why some Panpsychists believe that crystals are conscious. I suspect their beliefs are based on the common ancient notion of universal "Psychic Energy", such as Western Spirit, Chinese Chi (Qi), and Hindu Prana. Those are pre-scientific hypotheses to explain the mysteries of Life & Mind & Animation & Causation. Ironically, some modern proponents of "Vital Energy" claim that Chi is a form of electromagnetic energy, but sadly it is not detectable with EM instruments --- even though ghost hunters claim to find spurious signals on their EM devices.

Consequently, my Enformationism thesis assumes that Sentience is not a fixed property of the universe, but instead an emergent evolutionary process. My guess is that It began as something like a mathematical algorithm (information) in the pre-big-bang Singularity, and has gradually complexified over the eons into Energy, Matter, Life & MInd. If so, then we can assume that Self-Consciousness, as found in humans, is the current pinnacle of Evolution. Who knows what comes next --- artificial consciousness? Of course, this is a philosophical hypothesis, not a proven scientific theory. :nerd:

Animal Consciousness : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

Bacteria Consciousness : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29254105/

Psychic (Vital) Energy : Qi is a pseudoscientific, unverified concept, which has never been directly observed, and is unrelated to the concept of energy used in science (vital energy itself being an abandoned scientific notion).

Chi : https://universalenergyarts.com/chi/

I call it the 'dictionary' notion of consciousness. — bert1

Conscious Crystals : It's the dictionary definition of human consciousness that is metaphorically attributed to non-human and inanimate objects. We seem to enjoy our metaphors, without regard for facts, such as cartoons with talking animals. Sponge Bob is obviously conscious and sentient.

I think the ancient metaphors of Animism were good guesses in pre-scientific times, but we now have a better understanding of how the world works, and how unique Consciousness is to living things, and Self-consciousness to reasoning things. :cool:

I can anticipate that your objection to this is that science is locked into a materialistic paradigm and thus is incapable of performing any such inquiries. If this is the case, then it is up to you and your fellow panpsychists to lead them in a new direction. — EricH

That is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis and the BothAnd philosophy. Panpsychism probably evolved from the ancient "superstition" of Animism. The shamen & sages, who tried to explain mysterious signs of Causation in the material world, used their own personal experience of Intentional Action (agency) as a metaphor for whatever was causing inanimate things to move and change (spirits, gods).

Eventually, in the 19th century, scientists coined the impersonal term "Energy" (work; capacity for activity) to explain such abstract physical causation. Now though, in the 21st century, we have become familiar with a new usage of traditional "Information" (mind contents) to describe the even more abstract concept of Shannon Data in terms of pure mathematics. Yet, few us us are aware that Quantum Theory has applied the same word to describe natural forms of Energy, as in E = MC^2 (see below).

So, I have merely taken the term for "Mind Stuff" and "Causal Force" literally, to say that Matter, Energy & MInd are all forms of basic Information. It's that fundamental stuff (ultimately : Mathematics, Numbers or Logic) that I propose as a modern version of Panpsychism (all mind) : Enformationism means All Information. The original Singularity is envisioned as pure mathematics (algorithm, program), which evolved into generic Energy, then into Matter, and finally into Life & Mind. In which case, atoms & rocks exchange energy (numerical values; ratios), but not ideas (personal values; reasons). Consciousness is a late emergence on the cosmic scene in the form of animals with agency, and humans with moral agency. This proposed paradigm combines ancient mental models of Physics (Materialism) and Metaphysics (Spiritualism) into a comprehensive 21st century worldview. :smile:

Animism :
1. the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.
2. the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe.

Energy - Information Equivalence : https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5123794

Information = Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

What Are Numbers? : https://science.howstuffworks.com/math-concepts/math1.htm

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

I part company with you there Gnomon. I think everything is conscious in exactly the same way, according one sense of the word. — bert1

That is what I call the "New Age" notion of Consciousness, which it seems to equate with Spiritualism and with magical powers (e.g healing). It's essentially a religious belief system with myths about the spiritual powers of stones, that would formerly be attributed to conscious agents (shaman) in ancient religions. They sometimes adopt technical sounding terminology, like "energy", to make their myths sound scientific. I have a pretty crystal on a shelf, but I don't try to communicate with it.

My own unconventional worldview is intended to stay closer to a pragmatic scientific understanding. Which is why I prefer to use the more technical term "Information" (power to enform, to give meaning) instead of emotion-laden "consciousness" (power to know, awareness). I sometimes concede that stones --- metaphorically, not literally --- "know" their environment by exchanging energy, but that's a far cry from the kind of knowledge that humans gain by exchanging Information. So, I have to spend a lot of time trying to differentiate my own notion of Panpyschism --- which I call Enformationism --- from the New Age notion of Universal Consciousness. It's a philosophical, not religious, attitude toward the world we know & love. :nerd:


Alternative Theory of Reality : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html

Universal Mind : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page12.html

Panspiritualism : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page32.html

I might be an idealist, but it's more informative to say I'm a panpsychist. — bert1

My worldview is also related to ancient Idealism and Panpsychism, but I try to express those valid concepts in more modern terminology. That's because they retain a lot of historical baggage, which doesn't hold-up in light of modern science. Here's a note from my blog.

Panpsychism :
In popular usage, this term is taken to mean that even stones and atoms are conscious in the same sense that humans are. But that’s nonsense. In my theory it only means that the potential for emergent consciousness is included in the energy & information that constitutes those elementary Objects. The elementary mind-stuff eventually adds-up to self-consciousness in holistic Selves.
https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-are-conscious-is-gaining-academic-credibility/

I was wondering if anyone had any arguments that patterns are objective — Gregory

I'd say that objective patterns (interrelationships) are all we see in the world. The personal meaning of those patterns is subjective. We perceive abstract patterns out there, then conceive them as-if concrete objects in the mind. For example, a sinuous movement on the ground is quickly interpreted as a snake, even it is a dragging hose. :smile:

Real Patterns : The central concept of the philosophy presented is the concept of "pattern": Minds and the world they live in and co-create are viewed as patterned systems of patterns, evolving over time,
https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Pattern-Patternist-Philosophy-Mind/dp/1581129890

Patternity : https://www.patternity.org/philosophy/

Patterns without meaning : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page36.html

Does anyone know any good resources which talk about what a theory of music is in connection to what a theory in math is or a theory in science is? — Halley

No. But Aristotle included a Theory of Music in his Metaphysics, based on the science of his day. Yet, I doubt that we will make much headway in explaining the "power" of music in terms of Newtonian Physics --- maybe Quantum Physics??? Ari used the metaphysical concept of a Soul in his rationale. Music is definitely mathematical, as indicated by Pythagoras, but its aesthetic power seems to be due in some sense to a "harmony" between the mathematical structure of the world, and the logical structure of the Soul (Consciousness). Is there a theory of Harmonics between Matter & Mind?

I've recently seen a variety of videos on YouTube, showing animals, large & small, responding emotionally to music. What's going on in the "savage breast" might be related to the math of physical vibrations, but beyond that, empirical science seems to be at a loss to explain the aesthetics of oscillations --- without introducing some metaphysical notions. :smile:

Theory of Music : https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/MuzikoloskiZbornik/article/view/5437

Since we've known that brains produce consciousness for a long time now, shouldn't we be closer to an actual explanation? — RogueAI

This may not count as an actual explanation, but I have a hypothesis based on physics, but also including a role for metaphysics (non-physical Information). Without an understanding of the Enformationism thesis though --- that Mind & Matter are both emergent forms of Generic Information --- this brief synopsis may sound like speculative non-sense. Yet, it's a combination of sensable Realism & knowable Idealism, of Physics & Metaphysics.

I begin with the assumption that Matter, Energy, & Mind are emergent forms of a universal fundamental creative "power to enform". If you find that hard to believe, I have lots of supporting evidence & arguments. In the original Singularity, that cosmic Potential was generic, not specific (no instances), and not physical (no real stuff). But after the Big Bang, infinite Potential was transformed into finite Actuality (the stuff of reality). Over time, that proto-energy gradually caused new forms to emerge in what scientists call "phase transitions". Energy, in the amorphous state of Plasma, evolved (condensed) into a field or fog of free particles (ions), then into the various forms of matter that we know today. Those phase changes are merely new forms of the same underlying Potential for creation of novelty.

So, I propose that the metaphysical phenomenon we call "Life" was also a phase transition from complex interactions of energy & matter. Once that cosmic novelty was established in one insignificant corner of the universe, it eventually transformed again into what we call "Mind" or "Consciousness". Hence, Mind is merely an emergent form of Energy. It's what eventually came to be known as "Information" (mind stuff), in the form of metaphysical concepts (ideas) generated by physical brains. In this process of successive phase changes, no new "stuff" was added, such as a Soul, because the Potential for Mind was already included in the Program we call The Singularity. If any of that makes sense, I can get much deeper into the hypothesis. :nerd:

Five (or 8) phases of Matter : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note : click note 2. Emergent Phases

Emergence of Mind : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

That's pretty odd usage of words. People don't usually refer to automobiles as "machines that produce metaphysical transportation". Really what you're doing is describing what the automobile does in terms of how it is used. — Echarmion

The "odd usage" is intentional, because it derives from an unconventional worldview. So it's true, that I am using the term "Metaphysical" in a sense closer to what Aristotle had in mind, not how it is commonly used today, to refer to ghosts, magic & spooky stuff. Like Information, Transportation is not a physical object, but an idea in a mind referring to the function of a thing that transports. It's like the difference between a noun and a verb.

In Vol 1 Physics, Ari was talking about things you know via physical senses, but in Vol 2 Metaphysics he was discussing our intangible ideas about those objects and experiences. So, yes, we sometimes refer to an automobile in terms of what it does for us instead of the material it is made of. (e.g. a truck is sometimes call a "transport") You know "transportation" when you experience it, not with your senses, but with your reason.

Metaphysical : referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

Aboutness : Aboutness and function, says Deacon, is not something added on top of things, but something that emerges from constraints on matter and process.
http://somatosphere.net/2014/terrence-deacons-incomplete-nature.html/

And of course the whole "brain produces mind" problem runs into the hard problem. — Echarmion

Actually, my theory is intended to be a solution to the "hard problem". It's obvious that what we call "Mind" or "Thought" are functions of physical brain processes. But the functions themselves are not material objects. Instead, Mind, Body, & Brain are all various forms of "Generic Information", which I call EnFormAction. When I said that "brain produces mind", my meaning was similar to the subtitle of Terrence Deacon's book : How Mind Emerged From Matter. But Matter, in turn, emerged from "Generic Information", which is mind-stuff.

Panpsychism : Another article in the Philosophy Now magazine attempts to find “a balance between two extreme views of consciousness. . . . Physicalism and panpsychism sit either end of a metaphysical seesaw, and when one is in the ascendancy it is only by bringing the other unduly low.” The author, Dr. Sam Coleman, proposes a different kind of stuff (essence) that is “neither mental nor physical in itself, but which possesses properties capable of generating both the mental and the physical.” The “one fundamental stuff” he's referring to is Consciousness, but for technical purposes I think that the scientific term “Information” fits the description better.

EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

What's specifically meta-physical about ideas? Aren't you just equating the terms "non-physical", "metaphysical" and "mental"? — Echarmion

Yes. In the Enformationism worldview they are all metaphysical & Ideal : (Forms (ideas, concepts, definitions, designs).

Forms : The metaphysical notion of form (eidos, morphe, Gr.; idea, forma, species, Lat.), as it emerged in the works of Plato, must be carefully distinguished from the everyday notion from which it derived, namely, the shape or outer appearance of a thing as it presents itself to the eyes.
https://science.jrank.org/pages/7706/Form-Metaphysical-in-Ancient-Medieval-Thought.html

I don't like this definition. It seems identical to mental. Metaphysics refers to physics and meta. The usage should reflect those component words to avoid confusion. — Echarmion

My usage does reflect both "Physics" (nature) and "Meta" (beyond). Literally, it means "super-natural". But in my theory, I try to avid the typical otherworldly connotations of that term. Instead, Metaphysics is the foundation & source of both Physics (matter, energy) and Mind (consciousness, information) as we know them in Nature. The Enformationism worldview turns the ancient incompatible worldviews of Materialism and Spiritualism into an integrated whole. If you find that hard to believe, we can explore further. :joke:

My unconventional definition of Information : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Brains are physical. If the mind is metaphysical, then how is it "what the brain does"? Is there a metaphysical brain? — Echarmion

In this context "metaphysical" simply means "non-physical". A process or function is not a tangible object, but a mental image of change over time. If you think of the Brain as a machine, the Mind is its product, its output. For example : a physical automobile produces non-physical Transportation. If the Brain is a physical computer, the information it produces is its function, its output, its reason for being. Ideas are not physical objects, but metaphysical symbols that represent things (nouns) and actions (verbs) that we experience in the world. So, you could say that the Mind concept is a metaphysical (unreal, ideal) brain. :nerd:

Function : the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role.

Metaphysics : 4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

But isn't the brain itself just a construction of the mind? Which would mean that the mind is basic, not the brain. — Echarmion

Yes. I view Metaphysics (mind, consciousness, ideas) as more fundamental than Physics (things, objects, particles). That's the point of Panpsychism (all is mind). But that's a whole other thread. :joke:

Panpsychism : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/433522

In fact it’s like there’s nothing there in the human mind at all. The idea, the fiction, is not the mind it’s a creation of the mind. So even the mind is a creation of the mind, another fiction. — Brett

Yes, Mind is a fiction that we take to be true. The Mind that we imagine is not a physical Thing, but the name for a metaphysical process --- it's what the brain does. And one creation of the brain is a symbolic concept (idea) to represent brain function as-if it were a tangible object --- a stable thing.

So the Mind concept is a self-reference. And if self-reference is itself reflected in thought, it becomes a hall-of-mirrors --- a paradox. Therefore, you are literally correct that "there's nothing there", it's only an intangible mental image. Ideas are not real things, but conceptual symbols about things and their operations. Oooops! This is beginning to sound like a hall-of-mirrors. :joke:

Aboutness : Information Philosopher on Terrence Deacon's notion of "aboutness" --- " He variously defines reference as "aboutness" or "re-presentation," the semiotic or semantic relation between a sign-vehicle and its object."
https://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

you're misconstruing the difference between my reality (the one I am experiencing, which is tangible in so far as I am capable of experiencing it) and base reality (the ultimate building block for all of existence, reality number one, first edition) — Lif3r

I think you may have misconstrued the point I was making : that your subjective "tangible" reality is different in essence from Objective or Ultimate Reality? But your feelings are indeed your reality, even though they are merely symbolic analogs of "Base Reality". Our Subjective sensory perceptions are the cause of tangible bodily experiences, but those feelings & experiences are mental constructs in the individual brain, not direct links to Ultimate Reality. So, I think we are in agreement about "reality number one" : that we are capable of experiencing it only indirectly, via non-sensory philosophical imagination.

Our physical senses are not capable of detecting Ultimate reality, yet for all practical purposes, they don't need to. Hoffman's interface theory of perception explains the difference by analogy with the icons we interact with on a computer screen, and the actual operations going on the computer processor. That's why I said that your Subjective reality is real for you, but it may not be the same as other people's perceived reality, because the "base reality" is extra-sensory, as in Idealism. Ultimate Reality is a philosophical concept, not a personal percept. Click on the link below, if you want to understand what I'm saying. :smile:

The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

All that's indubitable is that someone has some experience of something. All the details are up for grabs. — Pfhorrest

Fortunately, the scientific method of obtaining "objective" knowledge has dispelled some of the subjective uncertainty that led to mystical & magical worldviews, and to imaginative religious myths. So, I think it's safe to say that, in the 21st century, we have a deeper & broader understanding of Reality than the cave men. But we may have lost some of the visceral immediacy of knowing, as we gained more cerebral understanding.

I suspect that some on this forum would place the notion of Panpsychism in the cave man mystical category. But our Information-based inferences, although not yet complete, take some of the mystery out of it. We have reasonable theories that the potential for Mind is inherent in Matter & Energy, but the details are up for further exploration of our collective reality. :smile:

I think, therefore I am, and I am, therefore my reality is as well. — Lif3r

Yes. But reality may not be what you think it is. As TheMadFool said, "the very idea behind the cogito ergo sum argument is the possibility of reality being an illusion." And modern science is beginning to understand that evolution didn't design us to know the world as it really is : invisible and intangible. Cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman, in The Case Against Reality, argues that what we envision as the real world is actually a set of symbols created by each mind. Hoffman calls those mental symbols "icons" in reference to the little low-res pictures on your computer screen.

If so, then your subjective "reality" is merely an imaginary conception that bears only a vague resemblance to the ultimate objective world that Kant called ding an sich --- "a thing as it is in itself, not mediated through perception by the senses or conceptualization, and therefore unknowable". So, your "reality" definitely exists as an ideal concept, but not as the True Reality. And your extension of cogito ergo sum is what Buddhists call Maya (illusion). :smile:


The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Many modern scientists embrace pan-psychism — turkeyMan

Even one in the hard sciences would impress me. There are probably a few out there. — jgill

Yes, there are a few "hard" scientists out there who take the notion of Panpsychism seriously. It's not yet mainstream, but the "soft" sciences of Information Theory and Systems Theory are pioneering the study of Nature for clues to how & why Life & Mind emerged from the physical process of Evolution. Most of the research is based on Information & Computation theories. Hard physicists, who are still searching for the bottom line of physics by smashing particles, are not likely to encounter many signs of Life or Mind. But, softer Quantum Theorists, are dealing with much mushier aspects of reality, and may be more open to the idea that a potential for Life & Mind was inherent in the original Singularity program, in the form of non-physical Information. Since Life & Mind are not physical phenomena, but metaphysical functions, their study is often limited to "soft" Theory, rather than "hard" empirical Practice.

If you're interested in some cutting edge research, I recommend the 2017 book by members of the Santa Fe Institute for interdisciplinary theoretical research (outside traditional boundaries). The collaborative book is From Matter to Life : Information and Causality, and it's editors include a Physicist, an Astrobiologist, and a Mathematical Cosmologist. Among the contributors are not one, but seven, physicists, along with Biologists, Chemists, Mathematicians, Philosophers, and Psychologists. This is cutting-edge stuff, so those whose knowledge of science remains in the 20th century may not be aware that the "soft" sciences are beginning to play a prominent role in the science of the Information Age.

For obvious reasons, the book does not mention the ancient term Panpsychism. But its core concept, that Life & Mind & Matter are all forms of metaphysical Information, is a modern formulation of the same notion. An early expression of that view was pioneering physicist John Archibald Wheeler ("it from bit"), who said : “All things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe… Observer-participancy gives rise to information.”. This book is not for the general public, but for those who have the scientific background to appreciate the implications of state-of-the-art research. :nerd:

Santa Fe Institute : . . . an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe (New Mexico, United States) and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems. The Institute is ranked 25th among the world's "Top Science and Technology Think Tanks" . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute

From Matter to Life : https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=from+matter+to+life&link_code=qs&qid=1594489873&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-2&tag=mozilla-20

The incredulous stare is still the appropriate response. — Banno

I agree that it's the appropriate response for a Physicalist. But for some of us the most important things in the world are non-physical. And Consciousness remains the "hard problem" for Physicalism : how does matter know anything?

However, if Mind is somehow intrinsic to the material world, then the emergence of Mind from Matter is not a problem. And that is the logically credible postulate of my Enformationism thesis. If Information is more fundamental than matter, then matter & mind are both forms of Information. But what is Information? It may not be what you think, or believe. :nerd:

Physicalism : "the Panpsychism problem"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Consciousness : "information integration theory"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

Is Information fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".

consciousness in some
shape must have been present at the very origins of things. — turkeyMan

Yes. I am open to Panpsychism. But you should expect that some on this forum will be prejudiced against the concept of universal consciousness, due to its prevalence in New Age mystical & magical notions. Yet, there is growing acceptance of a more scientific understanding that the potential for mind & consciousness was somehow inherent in the Big Bang. William James came to his conclusion, long before New Ageism emerged, and it was based on pragmatic logic, not on empirical evidence. Psyche (Mind) is a metaphysical concept, so its existence in physical objects is counter-intuitive, and inexplicable, to those committed to a Materialist worldview.

Since Consciousness is not physical, but metaphysical, direct empirical evidence is hard to come by. You can't X-ray a rock to see if it contains awareness of its environment. But many modern scientists have inferred that the emergence of Mental & Metaphysical phenomena was not an accident, but implicit in the constitution of the Singularity that gave birth to our world. Panpsychism is not yet the orthodox view of mainstream Science, but there seems to be a burgeoning "new paradigm" among younger scientists. :smile:


Panpsychism : And whilst physicalism offers a simple and unified vision of the world, this is arguably at the cost of being unable to give a satisfactory account of the emergence of human and animal consciousness. Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/


The Incredulous Stare : Many people, both philosophers and non-philosophers, find deeply counterintuitive the idea that fundamental constituents of the physical world, such as electrons, have conscious experience. And many take this to be a good reason not to take panpsychism seriously.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/#IncrStar

Panpsychism :
Literally, “all mind”. The belief that everything material, however small, has an element of Mind. Higher, more complex, forms of Mind are called “awareness” or “consciousness”. Lower & simpler forms are called “energy” or “information”.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

New Ageism :
An alternative religious movement that spread through the occult and metaphysical communities in the 1970s and 80s. It looked forward to a “New Age” of love and light and offered a foretaste of the coming era through personal transformation and healing. The movement’s strongest supporters were followers of modern esotericism, a religious perspective that is based on the acquisition of mystical knowledge and ritual magic. Its eclectic doctrines borrow from Eastern & Western occult traditions. Note : although some of its pandeistic & panpsychic cosmology may seem similar to Enformationism, its antiscience & irrational attitude is in opposition.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Physics of Consciousness : https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/55454