Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things? — Athena

The Great Man Theory assumes that world-changing leaders are born, not socialized. In fact, most of them --- Alexander the Great, Napoleon, (Trump???) --- were ass-holes in social interactions, and dictatorial in their governance. Their fervid followers followed them, not because they were nice guys, but because they were perceived to have the "right-stuff" to change the world from the unsatisfactory status quo. It's the job of collectivist-socialist nerds to counteract the immoral excesses of the world-conquerors.

But even the bureaucratic leaders of the masses sometimes turn-out to be ass-holes ; perhaps due to the absolute power corrupts principle. The rest of us have to choose which band-wagon to jump on. Or to arduously make our own path. Fortunately, Democracy allows us the freedom to choose neither King nor Communism. But even that option is an uphill struggle without a clear path to follow. :smile:



Essentially, according to the Great Man Theory, people in positions of power deserve to lead because of characteristics granted to them at birth, which ultimately help them become heroes. No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/anthropology/great-man-theory

Chinese room or not - and I am familar with the thought-experiment - I found this a much clearer expression of 'the nature of the forms' than is commonly encountered on, say, philosophy forums — Wayfarer

Maybe ChatGPT could serve as a moderator on this forum. :joke:

↪wonderer1
I think that's a few years off, although Boston Dynamics continues to impress. I would hope that they're embedded with something like Asimov's 'laws of robotics': — Wayfarer

Although Elon Musk was a founder of the Open AI organization tasked with creating ChatGPT, he seems to be almost paranoid about computers colonizing the world, with dumb humans as their slaves. So, he insisted on including safe-guards in the programming. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop them from picking-up immoral attitudes from their intake of meat-brain-human opinions. Twitter (X) is a case-in point of human ethical faults embedded in online data. :worry:

A VFT would have no sentience, but would have consciousness. — AmadeusD
Well, how can it perceive flies? — Alkis Piskas

The Venus Fly Trap is a brainless living organism, so it seems to "sense" the intrusive fly via a mechanism similar in principle to a Mouse Trap. I'm not aware of any evidence that it forms a mental image of a potential juicy meal prior to springing the trap. It doesn't seem to be able to distinguish a nutritious fly from a dry leaf.

However, a fly is a sentient creature with a simple brain and constrained lifestyle, so its behavior is mostly automatic, with little need to imagine alternative scenarios. But a mouse, with a much more complex brain & behavior, does seem to be able to think & plan to some degree, and to learn from experience.

Yet, where do you draw the line between mechanical Sentience and imaginative Consciousness? My answer is that human-like Consciousness is a late-blooming emergence from 14B years of gradual evolution. It's an upward-trending continuum of information processing. :smile:

Fly Brain :
We therefore mapped the synaptic-resolution connectome of an entire insect brain (Drosophila larva) with rich behavior, including learning, value computation, and action selection, comprising 3016 neurons and 548,000 synapses
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add9330

↪Gnomon
I think the basic problem is that people want to define consiciousness as a clear division between the sentient and the non-sentient. Proto-consciousness just shows clearly this problem. I think there's simply a) an accurate model for the way consciousness emerges THAT WE DON'T YET KNOW and b) no direct division just what is conscious and what isn't as sentient can be more or less conscious. — ssu

Yes. Since the universe itself is still evolving, it and everything-in-it is an open-ended continuum. So, I doubt that Consciousness has reached its final form. The early stages of universal evolution were full of Potential, but little Actual. Protoconsciousness is simply another name for the Potential to evolve future states of Information Computation with enhanced Awareness. Besides, Consciousness is a process, not a thing ; emergent, not static. :smile:

Can you visualize for us a model of the structure of the something_nothing interweave; It might be in the mode of a blueprint drawn by an architect who visualizes a plan for construction of a building. For example, if you were to say "The something_nothing interweave is like a möbius strip, then elaborate the structural mathematics of the something_nothing interweave. If it's not a known configuration, your blueprint would be something for mathematicians to chew on. Of course, the lotus in the garden would be a geometric for "appears to be Dualistic." — ucarr

Yes. I am a retired Architect. So I am familiar with imagining things that are not yet real. I use geometry to translate my idea of the future thing into the graphic language of a "blueprint". If you will suggest a specific topic-of-interest (a possibility), I will attempt to construct a mental model to represent the "something-nothing interweave". Perhaps, what Terrence Deacon calls an "Interface". However, I think Deacon has already done a better job --- than I could ever do --- of modeling the something-nothing tapestry, in his Incomplete Nature book. :smile:

INTENTIONAL ACTION TRANSFORMS NOTHING INTO SOMETHING

I only need to hear and discuss about another member'sown opinion and views. See, I don't care about nor do I have the time to read what other persons think about the subject, even if these persons are considered "experts". (Notice the quotation marks, they mean something.) I can read about them, in my own time, if needed. — Alkis Piskas

Of course. This is basically an opinion-sharing forum. But it's different from a gossip forum like Twitter (X) in that opinionated people are expected to support their personal beliefs with public facts or plausible reasons. So, I provide both : a> my own ideas on a topic ; plus b> supporting information that you can read at your leisure. I typically provide a brief excerpt so you can decide if you want to waste time on that particular link. :smile:

I know. But if you want to build a comprehensive worldview, don't you think it's a good idea to leave for a while the "West" space within which your philosophical quest is usually confined, as large as that space may be, and look also to the "East"? — Alkis Piskas

If you had looked at my thesis, you would know that it is intended to be "comprehensive", and inclusive of a variety of philosophical views. For example, Holism is an essential element of my worldview, and Taoism is very similar to my own Weltanschauung. But those non-reductive notions are often dismissed on this forum as New Age nonsense, or Eastern mysticism. I'm not a hippie or a mystic, but I give props to the ancient philosophies of the East, and non-Western societies. :nerd:

The idea is that the proto-consciousness of all the particles of an entity in which enough different things are happening, particularly (according to my hypothesis) processes involving information, actual consciousness comes about. The potential of what I might call the "raw material" is realized. — Patterner

Sorry to butt-in here. But, the term "proto-consciousness" caught my eye. I assume you are defending Panpsychism from a Materialistic challenge. And I happen to agree with the general trend of what you're saying. Except that I express the concept of "proto-consciousness" in terms of Information theory, which I trace back to Plato's Theory of Forms*1. And I update the ancient notion of Panpsychism in terms of modern Quantum & Information theories. Both of which have added new terminology into the old controversies about the nature of Consciousness.

I can't encapsulate the complexities of my thesis in a single post. But I find a lot of parallels with your parry & thrust in my own defense of Enformationism. For example, I make a philosophical distinction between Real & Ideal ; Potential & Actual ; Mind & Matter ; and Perception & Conception in which all are aspects of our common world, but viewed from different perspectives : the physical eye, and the eye of the mind. For example, we can see Actual things with our perceptual (neural) systems, but we only imagine Potential possibilities with our conceptual (rational) systems. Causal & structural EnFormAction*2 (power to enform & power to know) underlies all of those aspects, including material and metaphysical. :smile:


*1. Protoconsciousness is a theory suggested by quantum physicist J.A. Wheeler, whose "it from bit" postulation inspired my own Enformationism thesis. However, I typically substitute the more general & abstract term "Information" in order to indicate that I'm talking about the essence of everything, not just human sentience. Panpsychism is most often criticized for implying that rocks are conscious. But Protoconsciousness could be used in an evolutionary sense to mean "not yet conscious".

*2. EnFormAction :
Ententional Energy or Directional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change. Just as Einstein equated Energy with Matter, this causal principle equates Energy with Mind, by analogy with the Energy, Matter, Information Equivalence Principle.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy


DON'T STEP ON THAT SENTIENT STONE!

How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? — Gnomon
I have absolutely no problem with that. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Shortly after our dialog in this thread, on the distinction between "Perception" & "Conception", I came across the Quora article linked below*1. The author takes an "enactivist approach" to such contentious questions. I was not previously aware of that particular philosophy of Consciousness, but it may agree with my thesis in principle, if not in detail. Enactivism seems to be an attempt to bypass the implicit Dualism of the notion that they are two incompatible entities, as in Brain/Mind and Body/Soul or Oil & Water doctrines, while avoiding the implication problems of Panpsychism.

Enformationism is monistic, but in a different sense. It says that physical Perception and mental (metaphysical) Conception are merely different forms of the same universal substance/essence : Generic Information (power to enform ; programmed causation/energy). The Quora article doesn't mention Holism specifically, but that is how I unify two apparently isolated things, that are integral parts of the same system.

If you are not inclined to click on an external reference, stay tuned. As I become more familiar with Enactivism*2, I may eventually offer my personal opinion on the notion that Perception and Conception are merely two phases of the same thing, that we know via different channels : a> neural senses or b> sixth sense of Reason/Inference. For now, all I can say is that I agree with the monistic conclusion. :smile:



*1. What is the difference between conception & perception? :
The question is essentially dualistic, that is, it implies the two are implicitly divided, are different; a case of body and mind dualistic reductionism.
www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-conception-perception/answer/Geoff-Lawson-4
Note --- The author seems to dismiss the traditional dualism as a linguistic quirk. But I think our common languages may reflect important philosophical discriminations made over the years by important thinkers.

*2. Enactivism rejects mainstream conceptions of mind that strongly demarcate minds from bodies and environments. It holds that such conceptions are not justified and should be rethought. Enactivism aims to eradicate misleading dualisms that continue to dominate analytic philosophy of mind and much cognitive science. It aims to dissolve the mind-body problem by asking us to abandon our attachment to traditional dichotomies and to come to see that minds are not ultimately separate from bodies, environments, or others.
https://iep.utm.edu/enactivism/

↪Gnomon

Of course I like to know what you say. I keep coming back. Things turn up here that I wouldn't think up on my own. — Mark Nyquist

I'm glad that my posts challenge you to consider ideas that may not have occurred to you independently. That's the basic purpose of this forum. :smile:

↪Wayfarer
Your brain is projecting "information" on DNA.
It'snot real. — Mark Nyquist

Speaking of challenges : You would be smart to consider what says about Information & Consciousness. He's one of the wisest & best-informed posters on this forum. Since his background in Philosophy is different from mine, I am often challenged to see the world from a different perspective. :nerd:

PS___ The genetic information in DNA chemistry is not real & physical, it's ideal & metaphysical. But its processing has real physical consequences, such as little hybrid clones of oneself and one's partner, with a life & mind of its own.

Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". — Gnomon

Not glad about it, but I can accept it.

See, the reason why I'm often asking about more personal views and less external references, is because 1) I believe that if someone's reality on a subject is well established, independently of where one has built it from or how, one does not need to refer to external sources in a discussion. Otherwise, it may be considered even "appeal to authority", which used to persuade the intended others of one's statements or views. 2) In the majority of the cases in which I do read external references proposed by someone in a discusstion, the result is wasted time. — Alkis Piskas

Have you noticed that my posts usually have two or more parts? The first part is my abbreviated "personal view", and the second part is other people's views (often experts & professionals). If you're not interested in the views of those who are more qualified than yours truly, no one forces you to click on the links. The third part is to provide a path to deeper discussions and technical data. If you are not interested in that expanded view of the topic, you are free to pass over the links without clicking.

Some people would consider all posts on this forum "wasted time", because they have little or no interest in Philosophy or Science. Yet, they have no qualms about "spending valuable time" playing adolescent-fantasy video games. Others collect stamps or cabbage-patch dolls in their quest to "waste time" with little or no remuneration. To each his own.

Personally, the Enformationism thesis is not a save-the-world mission, or a save-my-soul religion ; It's more like a hobby that exercises my aging brain, and "wastes time" with ideas that pique my curiosity. The science & technical stuff is not my primary interest, but it serves as support structures for the worldview that I am building in my brain. If you are content with superficially sampling philosophical gossip, perhaps Twitter (X) is more your style. :cool:

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

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

Do you consider Philosophy --- "contrived solutions" --- a waste of time? Should we all just accept our personal intuition, without making any attempt to resolve differences of opinion on such questions? Should we all just play video games instead of posting on opinion-swapping forums? :smile:

How do I know what I think until I see what I say?”
― E.M. Forster

In the above quote do you express a binary view of physical/non-physical, which is to ask, do you see them as discrete polarities? — ucarr

Yes, my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile:

Substance Monism. The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists. His argument for this monism is his first argument in Part I of the Ethics.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

Above I asked about you possibly owning a binary physical/non-physical view because I suspect Deacon is propounding a view that might be characterized as absential-materialism, or absential-existentialism. As such, his theory is, in my understanding, non-binary materialism. — ucarr

I can't speak for Deacon, but I'd interpret his Mind/Matter ; Presence/Absence ; Potential/Actual ; Real/Ideal duality as merely the appearance to our physical senses and pondering minds. Yet philosophically, I suspect that he would accept a "non-binary" fundamentally Monistic view, but I can't see it as a form of Materialism in any sense. :cool:

Incomplete Nature :
Starting with substance monism, we see that as a result of the three levels of dynamics, namely thermodynamics, morphodynamics, and teleodynamics that ...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24761945

Your overview of Incomplete Nature is instructive and useful. Can you contrast Incomplete Nature and Enformationism? — ucarr

I have already compared & contrasted bits & pieces of his Incompleteness theorem in my blog, as noted in posts above. But, while similar, they are not really parallel concepts. His is professional & scientific and mine is amateur & philosophical. I have merely adopted some of his evocative terminology --- Absence & Aboutness --- for my own purposes. :nerd:

Deacon outlines an ambitious goal: understanding the emergence of consciousness from insensate matter https://axispraxis.wordpress.com/2020/08/25/intrinsic-incompleteness-deacon-on-ententional-processes/

Why, is there an "Unconscious Experience"? :smile:
Yes, I know about panpsychism. And I'm totally against it. Simply, I cannot imagine how a stone can have a "mind". Of course, it depends how one defines "mind". Some even define it in QM terms. I have heard a lot of such a stuff and they are just unreal for me. I 'm, closer to Science view that the mind is a product of the brain or even is identified with the brain --something that is already unreal to me-- than matter having a mind. — Alkis Piskas

"Conscious Experience" is a form of repetition of a concept in different words, for emphasis.

I'm not emotionally "against" Panpsychism ; it serves a purpose. I just consider it a primitive way of understanding how immaterial Life/ Consciousness*1 could exist in a material world. The other ancient worldview, Materialism (Atomism), had no answer for that metaphysical question. Panpsychism (all sentient) is similar to Spiritualism (all divine), in that it assumes that matter emerged from a mind-like or life-like progenitor, instead of the other way around. Enformationism updates all of those pre-scientific postulations, with inputs from Quantum & Information Theories.The material world is still built upon an immaterial foundation of novelty-creating (surprise) power-to-enform, which is no more Spiritual than Mathematics ; except that some kind of Great Mathematician may be implicit in Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture*2. :smile:


*1. Both are "functions" of material organisms, but functions themselves are mental/mathematical.

*2. It from Bit :
Wheeler categorised his long and productive life in physics into three periods: "Everything is Particles", "Everything is Fields", and "Everything is Information".
https://plus.maths.org/content/it-bit

Gnomon, I have an idea: Tell me about or give me a link to your thesis. I will be glad to read it, on the condition that there are no references to external sources in it that I will have to read in order to undestand or confirm your points. — Alkis Piskas

Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". If you want a bare bones summary of the Enformationism, look at Wheeler's scientific thesis*3.

But, if you are willing to slog through an amateur philosophical thesis, which is intended to broaden the application of Wheeler's quantum physics inference to a more general approach toward understanding "God, the Universe, and Everything", have a go at my own plodding exploration of the topic*4. It has lots of footnotes & references, but only for those who are genuinely interested in the immaterial subject matter. :nerd:


*3. John Archibald Wheeler :
In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

*4. Enformationism :
A worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be an update to the 17th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient ideologies of Spiritualism. It's a "substance" in the sense of Aristotle's definition as Essence.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

I just thought you might be able to elaborate enformationism within the context of Deacon's three-stage hierarchy. From Deacon I understand, in the simple manner of a layperson, that both information and sentience are situated within the hierarchy as emergent-yet-dependent properties. — ucarr

Other than reading his book, Incomplete Nature, I have not gotten deeply into Deacon's scientific & philosophical system. So, anything I might say may be based on a superficial understanding. My main takeaway from the book was the notion that the "absent" feature of nature is Potential : that which is not yet, but has the power to be. A secondary concept is that of "constraints", which I interpret as natural Laws --- begging the question of a Lawmaker.

I haven't made any systematic attempt to describe Enformationism in terms of his "three stage hierarchy", but I do occasionally refer to those aspects of Nature in other contexts. The excerpt below, from post 68, briefly summarizes how I viewed those "stages" at the time (2019). Each of the stages is a particular form of Causation (dynamics) with specific applications to Evolution. Enformationism is coming from a different direction, but seeking answers to similar questions.

For example, Thermodynamics is what we typically call Energy, which usually flows downhill, from Hot to Cold, and from Potential to Entropy. Morphodynamics focuses on the physical form (superficial shape or topology) of things that have been transformed from one configuration to another, or one species to another. The process of metamorphosis is guided by the constraints of natural Laws. On top of those low-level physical procedures, Teleodynamics focuses on the general & universal changes wrought by the advancement of Causation in the world --- including the Purposes of late-blooming humans.

The "teleo" prefix implies that an apparently purposeful process is aimed at some future state, as-if it is a computer program seeking an answer to Douglas Adam's computer-stumping riddle : "what is God, the Universe, and Everything?" That's a philosophical question, not suitable for digital computers, or even AI-chatbots.

The Big Bang theory didn't answer The Ultimate Question, but it did give us a model of how the physical world evolves, with novel "emergent-yet-dependent" properties that did not exist in previous stages. That's why Emergence is an essential concept for us to think about how Generic Information (EnFormAction ; directed Energy) could eventually produce such non-physical non-things as organic Life & sentient Mind.

Regarding the long-delayed evolution of Self-Conscious beings, an associate of Deacon's, Jeremy Sherman wrote Neither Ghost Nor Machine : The emergence and nature of Selves. He expands on Deacon's hypothetical "AutoGens", as the missing link between physical and biological evolution. "Deacon suggests the autogen as a minimal Kantian Whole where the parts exist for and by means of the whole". So, you might add Holism (metaphysical system-building) to the list of dynamic powers of a maturing universe. :smile:




Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Life adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. The Life force is not a physical substance though ─ as some envision Spirit, Soul, Chi, Prana, or elan vital, but merely the process of recycling successful patterns of organization. So, what is the ultimate attractor4 toward which all change is directed?
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

What Is The Power of Absence?
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms. — Post 68
Did you write the section of Post 68 quoted above? — ucarr

I plead the fifth! What if I did? Do you have philosophical issues with these fanastic & unproven ideas? For the record, I am not now, nor ever have been a member of any science-subversive New Age conspiracy. :joke:

I may-or-may-not-have also written a post on the strange notion of Morphogenesis, as postulated by rogue biologist Rupert Sheldrake, "to support his idea that biological evolution is not just a mechanism of particles in motion, but also a product of organizing fields". Personally, I don't find that idea any weirder than spooky Quantum Field physics, which postulates a universal "field" (cosmic set) of abstract (metaphysical) mathematical information. :cool:

Form Fields :
Sheldrake’s theory of morphogenetic fields has been enthusiastically accepted by New Agers, who believe in Chakras and Etheric Bodies. But staid old scientists are not impressed by imagery and fantasy. They patiently and stubbornly wait for empirical data.
Without hard evidence, it’s “just a theory”. Actually, it’s a hypothesis, which will remain unproven until a mathematical formulation is found to integrate it into the accepted canon of scientific facts, such as the standard model of physics.
Likewise, Enformationism is “just a theory”, with a possible “why” explanation for “how” observations. So it will remain in limbo until a formal logical and physical formulation is developed.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html
Note --- The language of Quantum Fields and Morphic Fields sound like New Age nonsense, until you look deeper into the reasoning underlying it. But, what does all this gobbledygook have to do with Consciousness?
"The “Morphic Resonance” that actually causes new things to emerge from the evolutionary chain of cause & effect can be envisioned as a pattern of vibrations (energy) that carry information like radio waves." https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page55.html
"Quantum fields are made up of quantum oscillators, an infinity-of-infinities of them" https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/658788/what-are-quantum-fields-made-up-of
"In quantum field theory, the universe's truly elementary entities are fields that fill all space. Particles are localized,resonant excitations of these fields,vibrating like springs in an infinite mattress." https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-physics-of-resonance-shapes-reality-20220126/

Oherwise, this is a good example too. In fact, not only plants are brainless: a lot of creatures or, better, organisms are too. Which can make one ask --but not me-- why does science negclet this fact and stiil tries to maintain that consciousness --an basic feature of all life-- is created and resides in the brain? Well, one answer is because they think of "consciousness" and "awareness" as something different than what they actually are. Another one is because they can't accept their ignorance on the subject. Still another one is that can't accept "experience" as a hard evidence. Still another ... — Alkis Piskas

Panpsychism*1 & Panexperientialism typically postulate that Conscious Experience is a fundamental element of nature, implying that it existed prior to the emergence of Brains. It also suggests that the Cosmos as a whole may be conscious of its own internal events. Such notions are similar to my own thesis of Enformationism, except that I replace anthro-morphic (personal) "Consciousness" with natural (abstract) "Information". As indicated in my Evolution of Consciousness tabulation in a previous post, I have come to think of Generic Information (causal Energy + limiting Law) as the fundamental force in nature. Also, I make no assumptions about a god-like sentient universe, which is way above my pay-grade.

Shannon took a word originally associated with human ideas (information), and applied it to physical processes characterized by Uncertainty (ignorance) & Entropy (dissipation). As a pragmatic engineer, he omitted the idealistic mental/metaphysical aspect of Information, which is more like Certainty (knowledge) & Negentropy*2 (organization). His definition works well for non-conscious machines, but not for humans with ideas & feelings of their own.

In my thesis, I coined the term "Enformationism" to serve as an alternative to older philosophical concepts of Panpsychism, Spiritualism & Materialism. The made-up word "Enformy"*3, was imagined as a philosophical opposite of scientific Entropy : Negentropy. Enformy is a positive & constructive force in the world, while Entropy is negative & destructive. It's based on the notion that EnFormAction (energy + order) is a causal force, and one of its effects was to construct (via gradual evolution) computer-like meat-brains capable of Conscious functions and Self-Awareness. Those neologisms are not scientific or religious terms, but hypothetical philosophical postulations.

The human brain provides command & control functions for the human body. And "experience" (history + memory) is necessary for precise control in the self-interest of the holistic human system in an impersonal world . But, I wouldn't call that necessity "hard evidence" for a super-personal function, such as Cosmic Mind. :smile:


*1. Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter. In other words, everything has consciousness.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are
Note --- my thesis is based on the notion that Consciousness did evolve from some a priori undeveloped Potential (seed) like mathematical Information (e.g. abstract geometrical relationships & ratios). Consciousness is the ability to interpret such abstract proportions into personal meaning. The unresolved question remains : who or what planted that seed?

*2. Negentropy is used to explain the presence of “order” within living beings and their tendency to oppose the chaos and disorganization that governs physical systems.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=99336

*3. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or causal force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [see post 63 for graph]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preternatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- I call Enformy "preternatural" because the Energy & Laws of Nature logically must have preceded the Big Bang, in order to allow for complexifying Evolution instead of dissipative Devolution. I postulate no religious doctrines from that philosophical conjecture into the void of ignorance before the beginning of space-time.

I'm perplexed by your apparent ignorance of what's posted on your own blog. — ucarr

Ha! I remember my blog posts in general, but give me a break, I'm old and I don't have a photographic memory. So, if I need to recall some technical details, I have to search through over a hundred articles over seven years. For example, I didn't recognize your reference to "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes" as something I had blogged about. If you want to know more about The Power of Absence, you can read Deacon's book, or ask me a specific question, and I'll look back at my blogs to see what my opinion was several years ago. :smile:

Just a question: When you are sitting confortably, with your thoughts reduced to minimum --ideally, totally absent-- can you just be aware of yourself, without thinking about it? If so, then you will have a proof for yourself that consciouness/awareness is indepenpent of thinking and thoughts, i.e. the creation of mental images.
This might take some time. I don't know you in person or enough from our exchanges in TPF. But I'm sure you can have this experience! — Alkis Piskas

You might get a better answer from , since he practices meditation. I tried it years ago, but my introverted mind is too ADhD for me to completely stop the flow of thought. When I'm on the verge of unconsciousness (e.g. sleep), and not focused on something external or specific internal ideas, I suppose I'm aware of Self, without thinking, in the sense of Proprioception. Does that qualify as "awareness independent of thinking" for you? How is it different from aVegetative State? :smile:


Proprioception, or kinesthesia, is the sense that lets us perceive the location, movement, and action of parts of the body.
Note --- Perception without Conception?

A vegetative state is absence of responsiveness and awareness due to overwhelming dysfunction of the cerebral hemispheres, . . .
Note --- Is a sentient-but-brainless Fly Trap aware of its unconventional eating habits? Does it think : "this fly is yummy?" Rhetorical question.

leads me to ask you: have you examined Bateson's quote as taken up by Terrence W. Deacon?
If so, what do you think of Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes as the environment housing both information and consciousness? — ucarr

I'm not sure which quote you are referring to. But if it's the "patterns that connect", I use the notion of Information as Pattern frequently in my exploration of Information in the world. Did you have something specific in mind?

I'm not familiar with "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes". But my blog has several articles that discuss some of Deacon's ideas, as they relate to the Enformationism thesis. :smile:

What Is The Power of Absence? :
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

The patterns which connect :
Gregory Bateson and Terrence Deacon as healers of the great divide between natural and human
science
https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/projects/anthropos-and-the-material/Intranet/sinding-larsen-the-patterns-which-connect.pdf

I believe you are referring to the etymology of C. Indeed, it's from Latin "con", which means "with", and scientia, which means "knowledge", i.e. "knowledge shared with others". However, this is far from what today we undestand as "consciousness". So, I don't think that is much of help. — Alkis Piskas

The etymology was merely intended to indicate the primitive origins of the concept of "Consciousness", in the evolved or learned ability to distinguish Self from Other*1. "C" then evolved from un-knowing disorder into more inclusive & discriminating forms of organized interactions. FWIW, here's a quick tabulation of how I imagine the evolution of un-Consciousness into the modern sophisticated human sense of "Knowing"*2. :smile:

*1. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Julian Jaynes
At the heart of this book is the revolutionary idea that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but is a learned process brought into being out of an earlier hallucinatory mentality by cataclysm and catastrophe only 3,000 years ago and still developing. The implications of this new scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion – and indeed, our future. In the words of one reviewer
https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/
Note --- I don't take his theory literally, or as authoritative . . . just suggestive of possibilities


*2. Evolution of Consciousness : based on the Enformationism thesis
0 --- Pre-Bang Singularity : Pure Potential = Power to Enform (create patterns & structures)
1 --- Big Bang : EnFormAction = Energy + Laws = power to evolve novel patterns from raw Potential
2 --- Plasma : boiling soup of quantum particles with little or no order (chaos)
3 --- Billions of years : Matter = Evolution of macro physical substance (stars) from quantum elements
4 --- Emergence of Earth : Habitat suitable for living organisms (warm pools of protoplasm)
5 --- Emergence of Life : Animation of Matter (single-cell food-seeking amoeba)
6 --- Emergence of Perception (Sentience) : Physical nerves & sensory organs, necessary for motion, foraging & evasion of predators (includes some plants)
7 --- Emergence of Consciousness : Brains capable of organizing sensory information, necessary for living in social groups (vision & sonar for extension of touch, and formation of concepts)
8 --- Emergence of Concepts : Brains capable of imagining unreal ideas (self concept)
9 --- Emergence of Language : Brains capable of communication (externalized concepts)
10 --- Emergence of Culture : Societies capable of organizing large groups for future goals (man on moon)
Note --- Don't take this table literally or as authoritative . . . . just suggestive of possibilities

For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. — Gnomon
Do you mean that "perception" and "conception" are actually --or even loosely considered as-- the same thing? That is, just seeing an object is the same with thinking about that object, what is its nature, what it means, etc.? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, but. That loose interpretation is not my meaning, for philosophical purposes. It's just common popular usage for general purposes. Philosophers have to make much finer discriminations of meaning. The simple Perception of an object --- forming an image on the retina, then storing in brain --- provides little knowledge of its nature or meaning. Such comprehension requires complex processing of raw data, in more comprehensive multi-channel brains.

"Loose lips terminology sinks ships inter-relationships"

3. Concepts of Consciousness
a> Creature Consciousness
b> State consciousness
c> Consciousness as an entity
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.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
Note --- I don't think of "Consciousness" as an entity (soul or ghost) but as a State or Process or Function of forming mental images in an imaginary Cartesian Theatre, not located in space or time, but in Erewhon.

Maybe ony that I didn't like seeing the words/terms "concepts" and "knowing" related again to consciouness. :smile:
Look it this way: Does perception alone, i.e. just using our senses, involve concepts and knowledge or are these created or do they appear later? — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps you have a broader definition of "Consciousness" and "Perception" than I do. The "C" word literally means "to know with/together", implying shared or shareable knowledge. For that reason, I tend to limit Consciousness to organisms that can share information verbally, symbolically, or by intentional physical interactions.

Perception is the intake of information, but Conception is the processing of raw data into shareable packages such as Ideas & Words, which can be exported to other conscious beings. So, I typically reserve "perception" to data inputs, and "conception" to the processing of information into knowledge (personally relevant meaning), then use "consciousness" for the highest level of information processing into inter-personal packages of Communication (words), as evidenced in human culture.

For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. But for philosophical analysis of the debatable term "consciousness", I try to make finer distinctions, to avoid the fuzzy boundaries that lead to confusion and acrimony. Materialist "don't like" to see Consciousness related to such immaterial things as Ideas & Imagination.

To answer your question : I think "perception alone" does not "involve concepts and knowledge", but merely the reception of raw data. "Conception" accepts the data inputs, and converts them into concepts, ideas, images, symbols, beliefs, etc. that are inter-related with other ideas into self-related significance (symbols). For my restrictive usage, Consciousness requires a sense of Self. From my post above : "Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception". :smile:

No. Plants are conscious. They have the ability to perceive. How else could they turn their leaves towards the sun? — Alkis Piskas

Again, I'll quibble with your terminology. Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols. Admittedly, some plants can "communicate information". But, as far as I can tell, the plants don't "know" what they are doing, because the chemical processes are automatic & genetically controlled, with no need for "awareness" in the human sense of "cognition" (knowing that you know). :nerd:

Plant communication :
Plant communication encompasses communication using volatile organic compounds, electrical signaling, and common mycorrhizal networks between plants and a host of other organisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_communication

How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? :
The purpose of perception is to convey correct information about our immediate surroundings. Cognition, on the other hand, involves forming beliefs, making decisions and solving problems, on the basis of already existing information. The role of cognition is therefore much more general than that of perception.
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/58422/Sydhagen.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Having the experience of consciousness, i.e. being aware, does not necessary involve meaningful mental images, or even mental images (i.e. thinking) at all. — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps, but I was thinking in terms of Blindsight*1, in which the physical senses seem to "Perceive" things in the world without forming conscious Concepts : sensing without knowing. Also, in the Vegetative State*2 a person processes sensory inputs (percepts ; data) but show no signs of conscious (concepts ; memory) awareness. For example, a Mimosa leaf will reflexively respond to a "perceived touch", by physically contracting the leaf, but presumably without forming any verbalizable concept, such as "something touched me". Ironically, some people "like" to think that Jade plants, Aloe, and Peace Lilies conceptually "like" to be touched (anthropomorphism?).

The vocabulary problem here is that our functionally materialistic language --- based on sensory impressions --- typically uses Perception & Conception interchangeably, without making the philosophical distinction that is important to distinguish Mind from Brain, as different concepts. Hence, in my dialogs with Physicalist/Materialists, who deny the metaphysical ideality of an immaterial Mind, I often make the distinction between personal Concepts and abstract Percepts. But it usually falls on deaf ears : that perceive, but do not conceive. :grin:

PS___ I found this definition on Quora, that seems pertinent to this discussion :
Conceive “ to form a mental representation of” involves an internal process of thinking that produces a new result.
Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception. That's because they may include emotional or poetic affects, in addition to factual or prosaic data, Concepts are more likely to be remembered, due to their Self-interest. :blush:

*1. Blindsight :
the ability to respond to visual stimuli without consciously perceiving them. This condition can occur after certain types of brain damage.
___Oxford dictionary

*2. Vegetative State of living person :
A vegetative state is when a person is awake but is showing no signs of awareness. A person in a vegetative state may: open their eyes. wake up and fall asleep at regular intervals. have basic reflexes (such as blinking when they're startled by a loud noise or withdrawing their hand when it's squeezed hard)
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-of-consciousness/#:~:text=A%20vegetative%20state%20is%20when,hand%20when%20it%27s%20squeezed%20hard)

Now, if we want to describe consciousness in more concrete terms, we have to think about its central element. Something with which it is always connected. Something that without it, it doesn't exist (as feeling, as experience, etc.) In other words, the presence of that element makes consciousness possible. And the opposite, its absence indicates also absence of consciousness. And this element is perception. — Alkis Piskas

I think you have the right idea, but I have one quibble : physical Perception is sub-conscious until metaphysical Conception. We only become consciously aware of sensory inputs when they are converted into meaningful mental images. Is there a word that combines the two aspects into a single central philosophical element of Consciousness? Perhaps "Apprehension" (concrete metaphor : to grasp) or "Comprehension (to seize & surround) or maybe even "to Grok" ? :smile:


"To perceive is to become aware of something directly through the senses. To conceive is to form something in the mind or to develop an understanding. So perceiving is merely seeing, and conceiving is deeper."

To Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
When you grok something, you just get it — in other words, you totally grasp its meaning.

I am wondering how the nature of emotions may be considered philosophically. It may lead to questions of phenomenology as well as the role of consciousness in thinking and its interpretation. I see this as an important area of philosophy, and for anyone else who sees its value, what do you think about emotion and its significance? — Jack Cummins

For Emotions to be considered philosophically, you might need to use a more appropriate term, such as "Feelings". Emotions are typically construed as the "passions" that motivate people to behave irrationally : anger, hate, excitement, etc. Although closely related to Emotions, Feelings are viewed as less physical and more psychological : love, sentiment, notion, opinion. Hopefully, you can think of a better term for philosophical treatment, to emphasize the mental over the physical foundations. :smile:

PS__ Ironically, I have to agree with , that you need to express your philosophical question in terms of psychological concepts.

PPS__FWIW, I think 's post above may be the most appropriate & succinct philosophical answer you'll get.


Emotions are psychological states that include subjective, physiological, and behavioral elements.

The feeling is a conscious experience created after the physical sensation or emotional experience, whereas emotions are felt through emotional experience

Hence in my opinion, those who believe in a "Hard Problem of Consciousness" misunderstand the purpose of science, and that this hard problem is better understood as being a "Hard Feature of applicable Physics" — sime

I doubt that Chalmers was talking about Physics when he coined the phrase "hard problem". Consciousness is not "hard" in a physical sense, but in the holistic philosophical sense of : not subject to simplistic reductionism. :smile:

Well, the word "feeling" has millions of meanings, and such a definition of conciousness is quite vague. — Alkis Piskas

I doubt that Koch was trying to provide a technical or dictionary definition of "Consciousness". But "feeling" encompasses how each of us experiences a unique interpretation of the world : a worldview. Likewise, Nagel's "what it's like" notion is vague, but comprehensive, in summarizing how sentient beings experience their world.

Both "feeling" and "what it's like" are referring to the essential characteristic of consciousness : a personal subjective perspective on the world. Presumably, each individual brain & sensory apparatus delivers a unique mind-picture of the world, constructed from processing various inputs of energy/information from the material environment. So, IMHO "consciousness" can't be specified ; it can only be generalized, as something that is not universal, but extraordinary in the near-infinity of the physical universe. :smile:

Nice. I rarily see people connecting consciousness with experience. (In the sense of human feeling, as you say.) — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I quoted Christof Koch in my post above : "consciousness is the feeling of life". :smile:

Do you understand that "materialist" is not a distinct category from "philosopher"?
Your writing frequently suggests that you don't understand this. — wonderer1

For me, it is. I view Philosophy as the study of the meta-physical (immaterial) aspects of nature, such as Consciousness. However, I do understand that Materialism is a metaphysical philosophical position ( a belief system), in that it is a non-empirical generalization from limited evidence.

For all practical purposes, I am a materialist. But for philosophical endeavors, I am not limited to the evidence of the 5 senses. And I don't deny such immaterial entities as "consciousness, mind, & psychic states". Besides, when scientists make theoretical postulations, they are doing Philosophy, not Science, as distinct categories --- distinguished by their range of evidence. :smile:

PS___ Philosophically, I don't categorize forum arguments into the traditional opposing dual divisions of Materialism vs Spiritualism. Instead, I propose a new, more comprehensive & inclusive category, that I call "Enformationism".


Materialism :
In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/materialism/v-1

We seem to be in a similar situation: no understanding of physical processes, however complete, explains consciousness. — Art48

Materialists like to belittle the "Hard Problem" by implying that philosophers deny the "obvious" fact that Consciousness is nothing-but a body-control function of material brains. Hence they --- the "un-grounded" thinkers --- complicate a simple situation by insisting on the contribution of immaterial metaphysical things or processes. Perhaps there's some truth to that assessment, but the OP implies that "C" is more-than "physical processes". If so, what is that "more-than"?

I can't deny that "C" seems to be a function of brain operations, just as program solutions are a function of computer operations. But then what is a Function? Is it a> a lump of matter, or b> a series of actions, or c> a mathematical relationship between variables? A Function is not a thing, or a sequence of events, it's an effective (purposeful) correlation of Input & Output. Therefore, I think Consciousness is a goal-oriented function of complex information-processing systems. Moreover, shape-shifting Information can take-on all of those function-facilitating forms --- matter, energy, ratios, etc. So philosophically, "C" is ultimately a function of cosmic operations from Big Bang initiation to the current continually complexifying situation.

For those interested in the relationship between Consciousness and Information, here's a research report from the Santa Fe Institute for the study of complexity. Among other things, it proposes A> that Mind emerges from Integrated Information systems. Also B> that Consciousness seems to be necessary for individuals in multilevel complex societies (e.g. herd & pack animals, not amoeba). Hence, it serves primarily a social function, not just coordination of body parts. One surprising postulation, though, is C> that it links the emergence of Consciousness to the unification of a dual-hemisphere brain. That's similar to the radical proposal of Julian Jaynes in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, as I referenced in a post above.

This technical paper seems to agree with the OP, that Consciousness is more-than a simple physical process. For a self-aware being it's infinitely more. As neuroscientist Christof Koch put it : "it's the feeling of life itself". :smile:


Information Theory and Consciousness :
We are not conscious simply because we have a large brain, but rather humans have evolved to become conscious when exposed to other conscious humans during a critical phase of their development. That is, first, consciousness is partly a social phenomenon, even though it seems that a main aspect of consciousness is to distinguish a self from others,and second, there were evolutionary reasons for the emergence of consciousness. . . . .
the two halves of the brain are separately conscious, even though only the left hemisphere can express itself verbally.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fams.2021.641239/full#h2
Note --- Frontiers is a peer-reviewed research publisher

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

Sorry, that was tongue-in-cheek. I didn't mean for it to be taken literally.
It's a verbal equation, not a mathematical equation. :smile:

However, since you asked : How about phi (Φ) for Information and psi (Ψ) for Mind?
{ Φ = E x M x Ψ } information is composed of Energy, Matter, and Mind.
All are non-dimensional values, hence metaphysical/mathematical concepts. So what do they add up to?

I believe i have seen Chalmers reference (perhaps in that 2022 Yale talk?) IIT as a framework for how you could have different 'levels' of consciousness essentially mirroring the functionality of the 'being'. Vague, but a hint at a direction. — AmadeusD

Yes. There seems to be a hierarchy of consciousness among living beings, from single-cell organisms to cetaceans. But personally, I would prefer to restrict the term "Consciousness" to living organisms, for which the notion of awareness seems appropriate. The general direction of the universe appears to begin with non-being stuff that evolves toward that which we now call Beings instead of Things. :smile:

In this Ted Talk, Chalmers says:
Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness. — Patterner

My only problem with Chalmer's philosophy of Panpsychism is in his word choice. He uses "consciousness" to label his fundamental element. But I prefer to give that prime role to a "primitive precursor to consciousness". I reserve "Consciousness" for the rare feature of the universe that only emerged from zillions of physical interactions (computations) after billions of Earth-year cycles. The big "C" is a recent innovation of evolution.

So, I propose that ubiquitous Generic Information (Platonic Form) was the essential element of everything at the inception of our universe. Atoms are indeed physical forms of Information, but Mind is a late-emerging meta-physical form of the universal Power to Enform (to create novel structures & patterns). In my thesis, physical Energy is a form of causal Information. But this is an unconventional & philosophical use of the term, that Shannon defined more narrowly, for a specific engineering problem. :smile:


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".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

I don't know that anyone believes an atom has awareness of it's environment, and I don't think Chalmers is implying it. — Patterner

Chalmers seems to think that "everything is conscious" in some sense of "thing" and "consciousness". But I doubt that he believes that atoms are little beings chatting amongst themselves about their feelings. It's that "some sense" that needs to be explained. In my own thesis, I use abstract "Information" instead of personal "Psyche", partly in order to avoid the absurdity of atomic awareness. :smile:

David Chalmers, Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism :
I present an argument for panpsychism: the thesis that everything is conscious, or at least that fundamental physical entities are conscious.
https://philpapers.org/rec/CHAPAP-17
Note --- I haven't read the article, so I don't know how he defines "fundamental physical entities". If you have time, please investigate and let me know.

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

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

In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information. If you don't understand, or agree with, that essential relationship, the Hard Problem will remain an apples & oranges conundrum.

I'm not sure how to interpret the assertion that "information has complete access to consciousness". But if bits of Information and holistic Consciousness are interrelated, like bricks and houses, then they are not just "accessible", but also intertwined, perhaps inseparable. And it's the part/whole relationship that will soften the "hard" problem, which is due to the assumption of fundamental difference.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "information . . . is just a projection of your mind". But, the thesis is based on the assumption that Information is much more than just an imaginary something. Just as Einstein equated Energy with Matter (E=MC^2), the thesis equates Information with Energy, Matter & Mind (I=EMM). If so, it is everywhere and everything.

Enformationism is a philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance*1 of everything in the universe. I know that sounds absurd from the perspective of Materialism, but quite a few scientists are beginning to find evidence of that equivalence*2. :smile:

PS___ Your assertion that Information has "complete access" to consciousness is coincidental, because I just read an article on The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Which postulates that, due to the divided brain, humans had to learn how to communicate between the verbal/rational brain and the intuitive/emotional brain. Julian Jaynes proposed that until the "EGO" (self) gained conscious control over the "ID" (non-self), people thought their subconscious urges were messages from gods. I don't know if it's literally true that before 3000BC humans were all schizophrenic, but metaphorically it makes sense. The rational linguistic part of the Mind is what we usually think of as Consciousness (Dr. Jekyll). But the emotional non-verbal half is what we call Sub-Conscious (Mr. Hyde). And, due to incomplete access, that inner beast is what we are always struggling to control.


*1. What did Aristotle mean by substance? ;
substance, in the history of Western philosophy, a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/substance-philosophy

*2. Is information the fifth state of matter? :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/
Note --- Vopson's "conjecture" is a physical hypothesis, while my thesis is meta-physical. Hence, my Information is not just a "state of matter", but also a "state of mind".

"An obvious question is whether all information has a phenomenal aspect. One possibility is that we need a further constraint on the fundamental theory, indicating just what sort of information has a phenomenal aspect. The other possibility is that there is no such constraint. If not, then
experience is much more widespread than we might have believed, as information is everywhere." ___Chalmers quote — Apustimelogist

This quote from Chalmer's essay on the "hard problem of consciousness" touches on a key issue of our philosophical debates. He asks whether Information is both phenomenal and noumenal. And my general answer is Yes. But, the phenomenal aspects are "easy", because our physical senses can detect them. So, it's the noumenal aspects that we argue about. My position is that Information is both Physical and Mental. But discussing mental stuff is like nailing jello to the wall, it's inherently squishy and hard to pin down.

Perhaps the most contentious feature of Consciousness is its experiential quality. He implies that "experience" --- as a form of generic information --- "is everywhere". And that sounds like Panpsychism, with the implication that even an atom has awareness of its environment. Hence, All-Mind-Everywhere-All-The-Time would be true. However, that notion implies that the world is not hierarchical, and that we cannot or should-not discriminate between one form of information and another.

So, if you define "experience" as a "feeling" in the human sense, I would have to disagree with Panpsychism, but not on materialistic grounds. That's because human interactions are infinitely more complex & multi-valent than atomic exchanges of positive/negative electron valences. So, although similar in one way, meaningful-feelings & energy-sharing are different in so many other ways. Electron bonding of atoms is phenomenal, hence observable by empirical methods. But sharing feelings is noumenal, and knowable only by the emotional inference that we call Empathy or Sympathy. Therefore, I would say that atoms are not sentient beings, and that Panpsychism is an over-generalization.

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

My post spelled the term "Generic", not "Genetic, Information*1. In my thesis, I use GI as a modern version of Plato's "World of Forms" to suggest a singular ideal origin, and shared heritage, for all of the various forms (configurations of matter, energy & mind) in the world. Genetic information, in the form of chemical genes, is one of those manifold offspring of the pre-Bang Progenitor Form. Another philosophical term for that concept is First Cause. It's merely a logical necessity to hypothetically account for Darwin's "forms most beautiful"*2.

I agree that Genetic Information "does not exist physically" in DNA . . . . except in the material form of bio-chemical interlinkage, which is meaningless until interpreted (template translation) by the fertilized cell. The functional metaphysical Information of Nucleic Acids takes the geometric form of a double helix. But even that is an over-simplification of the essential inter-relations that characterize fundamental Information. Bare-bones Information is mathematical Ratios (note the root of Rational). But a mind-boggling form of Information is the Life that emerges from holistic complexes of cells.

In my concept of Generic Information, everything in the world is a form --- chip off the old block --- of the creative Power to Enform. A physical form of that power is Energy, and a metaphysical form is human Intention or Will. As a meta-physical philosophical concept, EnFormAction*3 is difficult to explain in our conventional materialistic language, without giving the impression of religious motives. So, I am forced to use common -- sometimes religious -- metaphors to illustrate my meaning. :smile:

PS___ I have no religious beliefs, but I do share some philosophical concepts, such as Holism, that have been adopted by world religions to justify their own meta-physical beliefs. For those opposed to metaphysics-in-general it's all the same non-sense.


*1. Generic : relating to or shared by a whole group of similar things; not specific to any particular thing: .
Genetic : relating to origin, or arising from a common origin.

*2. “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

*3. EnFormAction :
*** Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
*** All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

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

Yes. I see Information & Consciousness as elements of the same cosmic continuum. But Information (power to enform ; to create meaningful & useful forms/patterns) is divergent, and often takes on physical forms, while Consciousness is emergent, and strictly meta-physical. Unfortunately, human languages are inherently based on sensory knowledge, hence "common usage" is fundamentally materialistic. That's why philosophical language was developed, in order to deal with concepts that go beyond the physical limitations of the senses, such as Potential vs Actual.

Creative Evolution is both divergent --- producing new species from old forms --- and emergent --- producing new wholes from old parts. I imagine the process of evolution as a computer Program. It begins as a meta-physical Idea in the mind of the Programmer, then is converted into a mathematical code (Singularity???), that is implemented in a physical system consisting of matter & energy (Big Bang). But all of those phases are sub-forms of Generic Information (GI), the generator of all forms, that Plato called the "World of Forms"*1.

One way to picture GI is as Aristotle's Potentiality Principle*2. He distinguished Potential from Actual in terms of Ontology, but platonic Epistemology might be "Real vs Ideal". Real/Actual things are physical & observable phenomena (appearances) via the human senses. But Ideal concepts are meta-physical and abstract noumena (concepts), hence knowable only via the sixth sense of Reason (Inference ; Imagination). Conceptually, GI is pure Potential, and exists only in a metaphysical sense as the Possibility of Actuality.

If the notion is not too repugnant to you, you could think of GI as the design for a Cosmos in the mind of G*D. Alternatively, and materialistically, you could imagine the GI as an eternally evolving Multiverse, which has experimented with an infinite number of novel forms, to serve as input to the Big Bang computation, for no apparent reason.

Again, yes, the "order of operations" in the evolution of our world, is similar to that of a computer calculating a> input data (facts) & b> mission statement into c> desired output (function or purpose). So, just as the order of mathematical or language-elements makes a difference in meaning or solution, the order of evolutionary operations will affect the end-state of the whole process. "Order" (vs disorder) is just another word for "Information". :smile:


*1. Plato’s Theory of Forms :
a foundational metaphysical concept suggesting that true reality is comprised of abstract, ideal entities (Forms) which differ from how things appear.
https://www.thecollector.com/what-is-plato-theory-of-forms/

*2. Potential vs Actual :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist; but, the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
Note --- Potential exists only metaphysically as statistical possibility, until it is Actualized by some creative power. We could debate the source of that "power", but we have no empirical evidence, so it currently remains a hypothesis, similar to the imaginary Dark Energy of physics.

Seems hard for me to rule out that there could be a mapping between experiences and all possible forms of information. — Apustimelogist

I was surprised to see this side-topic dialog still going-on, and even jumping from Evolution to Consciousness forums. Your original formulation --- "information is what it is like to be information" --- sounded odd to me at first. But I eventually came to see more-or-less what you were aiming at*1. The difficulty here may stem from the many Specific forms of Generic Information. Another hurdle may be that you are approaching the Information/Consciousness equation from a different background (technical vs philosophical) from & myself.

Here's a technical Neuroscience article on the topic of how Information is related to Qualia*2. It's over my head, but you may be better able to follow the argument. In my thesis, I refer to Information as a shapeshifter. For example : Generic Information (relationships, connections, associations, patterns) Information as physical Energy (hot/cold proportions) ; Information as material Structure (brain tissue organization) ; information as abstract Data (mathematical-statistical correlations) ; Information as Qualia (subjective experience or feeling) ; Information as Knowledge (personal meaning). In my own thesis, the "direct mechanism" is metaphysical instead of physical. I'd be interested to know if you are proposing another "shape" of Generic Information. :smile:



*1. Information (subjective experience) is what it's like (experience or feeling) to be information (knowledge). Please correct me, If I missed your intention. There are several possible ways to interpret the original phrase.

*2. Information and the Origin of Qualia :
This article argues that qualia are a likely outcome of the processing of information in local cortical networks. It uses an information-based approach and makes a distinction between information structures (the physical embodiment of information in the brain, primarily patterns of action potentials), and information messages (the meaning of those structures to the brain, and the basis of qualia). . . .
The really challenging problem in consciousness studies is to find an answer to the question of the origin of subjective experience itself. . . .
There have been some attempts to explore the origin of phenomenal experience. . . .
However, there is no theoretical account that shows a direct mechanism whereby certain neural activities should lead to a phenomenal outcome. This article is one attempt to link the purely physical with the phenomenal, and it builds on a previous article on the topic
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2017.00022/full

Yes, so would I. My own criteria for accepting any novel idea in this regard to me seems rather simple: does it manage to ontologically explain how life and its biological evolution evolved from nonlife and its here assumed cosmic evolution - this rather than merely supposing that it somehow did. If yes, then I'll bite. — javra

In my Enformationism thesis, life-from-non-life was the core mystery to be explained by any new Cosmology. Materialism has nothing to offer on that front. And Spiritualism is tainted with millennia of religious & philosophical debasement. So, my amateur proposal is based on the ubiquity of generic Information at all levels of cosmic ontology : Matter, Life, & Mind. In the thesis & blog, I have been exploring that angle for several years. But the diverse roles of Information, in the development of a simple Singularity into a complex Cosmos, are usually viewed in isolation, rather than in conjunction --- as a whole system.

My own journey of exploration of Information began with John A. Wheeler's*1 "it from bit" conjecture, back in 1989. Yet, that postulation wasn't taken very seriously by his fellow physicists. Except for Paul Davies*2, who has made a new career path from following that notion wherever it leads. Since then, I have been trailing the pioneers --- who are mostly physicists & mathematicians, along with a few philosophers --- in order to develop my own personal hypothesis of Enformationism*3. It postulates how a primitive Big Bang could create the amazing world --- of Matter, Life & Mind --- that we now observe, up close & personal, and through the far-seeing Webb space observatory.

A key concept of the thesis is that the word "Information" refers to the act of giving meaningful or functional Form to something : originally a human mind*4. But physicists now equate causal Information, not just with computer Data, but also with universal physical Energy. So, in the beginning, there was Information as the creative Energy of Big Bang, and as the informing algorithm of the Singularity. All together, those elementary forces have constructed a universe of Matter, Life & Mind. :smile:


*1. Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos :
What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions?
A new candidate is "information," which some scientists claim is the foundation of reality. The late distinguished physicist John Archibald Wheeler characterized the idea as "It from bit" — "it" referring to all the stuff of the universe and "bit" meaning information.
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

*2. The Search for Biogenesis :
Cosmologists, physicists, biologists—there is no shortage of scientists who have sought to explain how living things might have arisen on Earth and elsewhere in the universe. . . . .
Of those who have studied the origin of life, among the most prolific and influential is Paul Davies, an expert in each of the aforementioned fields. Now a professor at Arizona State University, Davies spent the first decades of his award-winning career studying quantum physics; in the 1990s, he started expanding his focus to astrobiology and cosmology, drawing on his background as a physicist to bring an uncommon perspective to the problem of biogenesis.
https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/paul-davies-the-search-for-biogenesis

*3. Enformationism :
A worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be an update to the 17th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient ideologies of Spiritualism. It's a "substance" in the sense of Aristotle's definition as metaphysical Essence.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

*4. Information :
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"
___Wikipedia
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
Note --- Hence, En-Form-Action --- my coinage for Programmed Energy.