But 'information' is a polysemic word, that is, it has multiple meanings, so the phrase 'generic information' means precisely nothing.

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.

10 print "hello world!"
20 goto 10

I am forced, like many philosophers and scientists, to coin new words to express novel ideas.

In order to learn the meaning of my words, you'll have to look into my dictionary.

Mathematical objects only really exist if we objectify them, so I don’t see how they can be independent of our language, thoughts or practices.

Knowledge is just one form of Generic Information. In my thesis, Consciousness is a highly evolved form of Generic Information. Generic Information is essentially abstract mathematics, and is physically manifested as Energy. Mathematically, Energy is a proportion --- a ratio between Cold & Hot, for example. And metaphysical mathematical Energy, according to Einstein, is equivalent to Mass (ratio of inertia to acceleration) , which is the measurable property of physical Matter. But, Meaningful Information is in the relationship, not the things.

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.

Crystals are geometrical but they don’t contain information. Of course we can find information about a crystal but that is not the same as saying that it ‘contains information’.

I understand perfectly well.

It also seems to me the only naturally-occuring process it makes sense to speak in terms of 'information' is living organisms, as DNA encodes biological information.

But I am saying that not all matter contains or encodes information. Crystals are geometrical but they don’t contain information. Of course we can find information about a crystal but that is not the same as saying that it ‘contains information’.

What ‘arranges’ it? A pile of stones conveys no information. Algorithms and programs denote intelligible patterns of data which convey meaning.

This seem nonsense to me. Interactions between inorganic matter doesn't constitute information.

Sorry, but your 'definition' isn't in there

No, that just won't do it. Crystals don't convey or contain any information unless it is encoded in them intentionally. And information is not 'every atom'. Nor is water, nor anything else. intrinsically information-bearing, unless it is intepreted.

Crystals don't convey or contain any information unless it is encoded in them intentionally.

And information is not 'every atom'

The issue I have is that there is no information 'per se'. The word itself has many meanings, depending on the context; it's not as is there is an identifiable fundamental type called information. It also seems to me the only naturally-occuring process with reference it makes sense to speak in terms of 'information' is living organisms, as DNA encodes biological information. But there is no such information encoded in the vast majority of matter and energy found throughout the cosmos.

If I was to speculate about consciousness, I would say that consciousness unites everything. It's at the bottom of all reality. It creates all that we experience. There is nothing more fundamental than consciousness.

For example, its a headfuck to try and figure out how spatial stuff could emerge from non-spatial stuff. If you have a bunch of things that don't take up any space at all, what are they supposed to do to each other such that they end up with something that takes up space?

What I meant was the swarming effect reminds us of observing quantum mechanics/randomness, and EM moving particles associated with the conscious energy analogy.

There isn’t a “subject of experience”, per se, but only the representation of an inherent, dedicated, human capacity, which each your propositions have contained in it.

Such perception is the second to last major class of function in the larger function that I picture access consciousness to be, the last one being reflexive judgement of those perceptions and the formation of belief through one’s self-awareness and self-control. I suspect you are instead picturing the whole of access consciousness as just that last reflexive step, and so everything before it as “phenomenal consciousness”, but I don’t think that’s consistent with the original definitions of the terms.

Are you saying "self" is some kind of organism that eats qualia and shits memories?

When I say qualia gets "consumed" by the self, that "consumption" is the act of phenomenally experiencing the qualia. Access consciousness has to do with preparing the meal, or digesting it (from memory) after it has been consumed (experienced). One other thing we can say with no unsignificant confidence is that consumption of qualia leads to all the shit get stored in the memory.

So in that respect, my thinking is that the swarming as it were, has a strange parallel to a description of how conscious thoughts appear randomly (stream of consciousness). Meaning conscious and subconscience (EM fields of consciousness) seem to know how to interact as a whole system in our brain to produce thoughts. And, it may even have parallels to QM as we pick from these random fields/ thoughts that we apprehend through volitional existence, as we make choices everyday.

The point is not to solve the problem but to dissolve it. Saying phenomenal consciousness, not just access consciousness, arises from computation still leaves the question of how and why.

Chalmers, and others, have put it (awkwardly, in my opinion) as the 'what-it-is-like' to be something.

The contemporary panpsychist answer is that there isn't anything special that gives us subjective first-person experience, there just is a subjective first-person experience to everything.

I think that everything is "phenomenally conscious"

and ultimately with the ability to 'experience' oneself.

In it's most basic form, can one postulate that Anything that reacts to outward influence may be considered 'conscious' (of that influence)? Following that logic couldn't one consider all matter to be 'conscious'.

Explaining consciousness is like trying to explain vision to a blind person, sound to a deaf person and life to a dead person.

Subjective experience is the result of the phenomenal model of intentionality relationship (PMIR).

I'm saying that "subjective experience of consciousness" points to nothing that exists in it's entirety prior to naming and descriptive practices, and yet consciousness does. So...

There's nothing "absurd" about humans being mistaken about what seems like "first person experience" that's, in fact, merely an illusionary artifact (i.e. a verb mistaken as a noun) of an ecology-situated, strange looping, reflexive information processing system. Further elaboration I've referred to here.

What I was saying there is roughly that "to do is to be" and "to be is to do" (a thing's existence consists entirely in what it does, all of its properties are dispositions to act upon observers in certain ways) and "to be is to be perceive[able]" (a thing's existence consists entirely of its its observable properties) are different ways of phrasing the same statement, because for a thing to be "perceived" (more technically observed or sensed; perception is something more than that in contemporary terminology) is for it to act upon the observer. What's actually going on is an interaction between two things, and that same interaction constitutes both the behavior of the one thing upon the other, and the experience the other thing has of the first thing.

A subject's phenomenal experience of an object is the same event as that object's behavior upon the subject