Thus cognition is constrained, enabled and structured by a background of emotion-perception correlations, that manifest themselves as a changing background of implicit representations of body states.”(Ratcliffe 2002) — Joshs

Yes that's more like it.
I am focused on the idea that consciousness = self organization, and am exploring the idea that self organizing systems share the same mechanics. So when a system becomes a self, does it then work like all other selves? The disintegration of perception, met by a bias to integrate seems to fit as a mechanism for a self, for consciousness and all self organizing systems, within a monistic / panpsychic understanding.

My feeling is that the original self organizing system that led to life is still embedded in the system we have become. It would be the foundational element that later structure is built on, and so can not be displaced lest the whole structure would fail. So it seems there should be a correlation between our system of consciousness and other self organizing systems as I assume in the beginning they were the same thing. But its early days yet, and this is little more then an idea.

The mechanism described above would roughly fit with Radcliffe's description, I believe. The body states (emotion) drive integrity, whilst perception would be a disintegrative force, met again by an emotional integrative force, and so on, and on. Of course there are multiple streams occurring simultaneously, and enormous functional complexity and subjectivity is being driven by this mechanism.

It seems simplistic, but fundamental elements are simplistic.

Ironically, the world model of Physics seems to be primarily biased toward disorder (entropy) — Gnomon

There is so much focus on the second law of thermodynamics, when natural systems are open / dissipative systems. The second law of thermodynamics fails in the case of a rectangular closed environment, disorder levels of and no longer increases - Heat death would not occur!

So, it's not physically true that "all parts are biased towards order". — Gnomon

I did say in the local universe in local time, but yes you have a point if the universe is a closed system, and If it falls to equilibrium, which it is not going to do any time soon. :yikes:

So, there must have been some "Why", some "Purpose" that broke the static symmetry of equally balanced possibilities, to allow a bias toward Order & Life & Mind & yes . . . emotions. :cool: — Gnomon

:up: Its a hard thing to say, and we say it for slightly different reasons, but it seems logical and true.

as psychological phenomena, fall under what Piaget calls the "point of view of conscious-ness — Joshs

This is an interesting point that I've been considering in regard to introspection - is it a disassociation, or is it an engagement with a constructed model? I suspect it is a comparison of a constructed model to observed psychology, so a little of both.

Finally, when Piaget deals with needs, interest, and other affects, he explicitly rules out consideration of their physiologicul conditions (Piaget, 1954a, p. 30) and focuses instead on their "functional Significance. " And "from such a functional point of view, need is essentially an awareness of momentary disequilibrium, and the satisfaction of need, that is , awareness of re-equilibration.” (Theodore Mischel). — Joshs

This is a very truncated understanding.
The full cascade of elements belonging to a thought are missing from this sentence. The emotions, which are feelings which are painful or pleasurable, which cause affect, are missing. What has been focused on is the computational aspects - the first thought of - disequilibrium, and the second thought - equilibrium. The mechanics in between have not been considered. The unanswered question within the sentence is what drives a system to reintegrate?
The only answer I can see is that the system is biased to integrate - biased towards order ( this is to be expected in a universe biased towards order ). The emotions we feel are an expression of the bias towards order. The more disordered the state - the greater the emotional feeling, the greater the impetus to recreate order.

Its been 40 years since I read Piaget. That we construe rather then perceive has remained foundational in my understanding, but not much else stuck. I think he did well to remain very scientific, materialistic, and functional. Clearly in this area he is a genius. Unfortunately it is not a complete understanding, in my view. Every thought has a feeling which is either painful or pleasurable - this has to be accounted for in any understanding.

It tells the oyster story, and specifically how the scientist was initially shunned, and then goes into how today there is better understanding about how enmashed living organisms are with the earths magnetic field and sun and moon cycles, etc. It is very relevant to this thread.

Figure that out. — Wayfarer

There is quite a good explanation here for anybody caring to read about it.

EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. — Gnomon

Very much like self organization. Just needs a tiny bit of emotion to give it impetus :razz:

:100:

Piaget would answer that motivation and cognitive structures are indissociable. Pleasure-pain no more ‘drives’ cognition than cognition drives pleasure-pain. — Joshs

Its been a long time since I read Piaget. I don't recall him dealing with the issue of experience.

How would he account for love?

"For Piaget, emotion is the motivating force of action emanating from outside the individual in the form of sensations emitted by objects. ... His abstract concept of emotion as force fails to explain the relationship between bodily feelings, emotions, and higher forms of consciousness in human beings." - Springer Link.

I have a lot of respect for his cognitive development theory, however.

What is your interpretation?

I don't think it could be reengineered, but its an interesting idea. :chin:

If bonding was painful, we would be averse to it, so there would be no bonding, or love. Well its something for a mad geneticist to think about. :smile:

Even a seemingly self-creating Strange Attractor requires a system already programmed with the potential for new forms to arise from a patternless background — Gnomon

We cant see the beginning, there is not enough information. What we can observe though, is that the attractor is itself the program ( self organization ), in my opinion.

Everything is made from three self organizing things - electrons, neutrons, and protons.

I suspect that what you call "emotional information" is what I'm calling "intention". Repeated signs of intention (directional ; goal-oriented ; teleological) is what we call a "Trend" or "Tendency". In humans, an inclination toward some effect has an internal cause, which we call "Motivation" or "Emotion". In my thesis, I call the ultimate motivator, the Enformer : the source of both Momentum (inertial energy) and Direction (regulation, laws). Metaphorically, it's the Pool Shooter. :joke: — Gnomon

The way I understand it is that in a universe biased towards order, all of its component parts must also be biased towards order. As a monist, I then look to my own emotional bias, and can confirm I too am biased ( emotionally driven ) towards order, and then I try to see how this bias is expressed in less complicated systems.

Your understanding seems largely grounded in physics which blocks out the emotion and bias, and so cannot answer the why of cause, and so the body and all things non mind remain cartesian mechanisms. If a true monist understanding was applied to all things then an understanding that the universe was emotional would result. Such an understanding is desirable to me as I believe it would result in a better world, via a sense of universal relatedness.

In my view, your Enformer ( energy + information ) lacks the impetus provided by emotion. A philosophical Zombie has energy and information, but is inert without emotion. If your Enformer also possessed emotion, then with energy, information, and emotion would be equal to consciousness, which is equal to self organization. I have noticed that Donald Hoffman has recently received tenure, so it seems there is some momentum in this direction.

As I see it, humanity is a complex system something like the school of fish pictured above. The fish in the middle of the school are the safest, they are in a good spot and will not cause the school to move. Its the fish on the edge that can cause movement. They are in the riskiest position, but perhaps their movement might just cause the whole school to follow. Its the reward for being on the edge, they might just lead for a moment. The same dynamic exists in art and philosophy, in my view.

I love the things and people that give me pleasure!

Interpersonal love is the feeling that results from the experience of being willingly bonded to someone as a result of the pleasure they give you. This extends to doing non pleasurable things for the benefit of the bonded partner, in the interest of maintaining the bond, and its accompanying pleasure.

Love is a feeling. A feeling resolves to a felt quality that is either pleasurable or painful (non pleasurable).

For the sadist or masochist — Benj96

This is a form of pleasure for some people. It improves their climax!

It is possible the existence of a state of consciousness that wishes to not be conscious (ie wishes to be dead) — Benj96

This too would be a function of self organization - it would be a way to resolve a currently perceived irresolvable situation - "I'd rather die then live with this". Living with this would be a life of miserable pain - within some belief systems. It is the miserable pain, and the perception that there is no resolution to it, which also has its own momentum, thus an anticipation of still worse misery that leads people to end it all. They decide they have had enough suffering, there is no hope of joy, and so they decide no feeling is preferable to a life of painful suffering.

The pain pleasure spectrum is personally constructed and quite convoluted - needing to accommodate the personal subjectivity ( belief system ) of individuals. What is pain to one person, can be a pleasure to another. Not only mentally but also physically, some people just don't feel much pain, whilst others feel the slightest.

When that ratio is balanced (1 : 1), nothing happens. When it's biased toward one pole (2 : 1), it tips the balance in a positive direction. But when it's biased toward the opposite pole (1 : 2), it shifts the balance in a negative direction. — Gnomon

:up: In complexity theory , the 1:1 situation is called an equilibrium state, whilst a 2: 1 is a far from equilibrium state. 1: 2 would be a disintegration.

What you call "Universal Bias", I call Enformy. It's a natural inclination or tendency toward complexity & progress — Gnomon

Yes our constructions are similar for sure. How do you resolve the bias, or natural tendency or inclination towards order. As far as I can reason it, it is emotional information. The universe could have been an infinite number of different ways, but it chose just one way of being - a being towards order. At least in the local universe, and in local time. It suggests a bias, or inclination as you say, is also fundamental, or at least in the local vicinity it is fundamental. As a result we have this bias within us. It is how I understand emotions. They incline the system towards order. Have you thought about this?

Teleology is also used by complexity theory. Central to the self organizing system is an attractor, rather then a causal element, that is not to say causation can be excluded . But the system forms a swarm for some reason, and that reason is the attractor. In space, gravity would be the attractor that elements find themselves captured by, and forced to self organize. It is a similar situation for a being finding themselves thrown into and captured by life and being forced to self organize, both mind and body - totally. This seems like a god starting point to me, for a narrative of what I think it is all about - a first person perspective.

But enformed randomness provides a degree of freedom within the constraints of cause & effect determinism. :wink: — Gnomon

:up:

Unfortunately, he seemed to assume that everything in the world is conscious to some degree. — Gnomon

This is the correct view, but it requires careful expression. It seems frustratingly stupid to me, to think we can posses a singular quality nothing else in the universe possesses, although it is the prevalent dogma. We have a higher functioning form of consciousness, but everything possesses it to some degree. Finding the right way to express this is the trick. Biology focused on cellular complexity and quantum biology are making great strides in this direction.

The hard problem of consciousness is only hard from a dualists perspective, from a monists - its hard to see there is a problem! :cool:

Bias : A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. — Gnomon

- an emotion! Can an emotion be fundamental? Can an emotion explain the why of gravity, and physical laws? Does it underpin Enformy?

Both the local elements and the causal force originate outside the Self. — Gnomon

Yes they originate from the universal Bias to self organize, and from elements external to self. The self is caused initially, and then takes on a momentum of its own.

it omits the requirement for an external Cognizer or Creator to design the cosmic “mechanism” in such a way that it produces the output we call “Consciousness”. — Gnomon

There is a mechanism to self organization that is equivalent to the mechanism of consciousness, as I see it. But its early days yet, and I'm still working on the details.

Turtles all the way. Yeah, I don't see a way around it. :smile:

But thanks for your input. :up:

And POP - I cannot see where I made any reference to prions, yet you launched into a diatribe on this matter claiming that it was a point that I made. Can you please explain? — Gary Enfield

I did not claim that it was a point that you made. I stated it was a variation on the theme.

You have not provided any examples which challenge my assertion that : any natural self organization would only build structure, and not do anything to resolve dynamic conceptual problems — Gary Enfield

You have provided such an example yourself. Reverse transcription in a DNA virus like HIV would be another example. A newly infecting virus must navigate an unexperienced environment

self organisation builds structures over time. It is not a factor that resolves dynamic problems quickly in the moment. — Gary Enfield

Do you have proof or is this an unfounded assumption?


Kinesin and dynein bypass synthetic obstacles in their path. When an obstacle is encountered they have several choices. They can recruit more motors, they can move to a neighboring filament, they can move to the opposite side of the microtubule. Who / what makes the choice? :smile: They do.

**There is more to it. In order to move say a mitochondria, they have to estimate how many motors to use, as one motor may not be enough. They can use 1 to n number of motors and the choice they make has to correspond to the distance travelled. So there is calculation going on, not only dynamic immediate problem solving, but also anticipation, dare we say reasoning? As far as I know there are thousands of such dynein and kinesin motors operating simultaneously in a cell.


That something is moved from one place to another - is that not intention? Why would a mitochondria be moved from one part of the cell to another? The obvious answer would be to create more ATP in a particular part of the cell. However that assumes an understanding that a part of a cell is lacking in ATP, which means sensing and communication is occurring.

You ought to be able to see now, that the "world of causes" which you refer to is the future world. — Metaphysician Undercover

You present valid and interesting third person perspectives of time. I wonder if you would be able to illustrate a first person perspective of time as experienced , and then compare it to your third person perspectives, and elaborate on the differences and your conclusions?

Therefore, although I see signs of Synergy & Teleology in the world, I can't predict how the story ends, — Gnomon

The story currently doesn't have an ending. We create the story through self organization, where the story continually emerges.

Self organization fits beautifully as the cause of evolution where the main thrust is determined, but with a slight random element. This is not philosophical conjecture but observation of evolving systems like Covid19, which has a main thrust but slight variation to the left and right thus taking into account the probabilistic horizon it is venturing into. We do the same. There is a main thrust to humanity ( as a self organizing system ) with slight variation to the left and right - the synergy of this variability within the earths ecology is the story.

Does it have an ending? It looks to me we are, foot to the floor, heading toward a climatic and ecological cliff. It would not be a full stop ending of course, but there will be some very substantial rationalization heading into the future.

I no longer have a religious belief in the Bible God. So, I had to re-construct my personal worldview from scratch. My current notion of a Nature G*D is the "god of the philosophers", — Gnomon

This simple explanation puts a whole different light on things for me. I mistook G*D for "we mustn't speak his name", so this clouded my whole attitude. In going over your website I find your understanding broad and reasonable - very similar to my own. I could pick a few bones as you also have, but I don't see the point, we both know what we are doing.

As to whether our understanding is cutting edge though, I wonder. I tend to feel our understanding is still a little Newtonian and linear. I feel it is a complicated system we are describing, and a better understanding seems to be in reach from the complexity perspective.

Anyway - well done, and keep up the good work. :up:

That purpose must be supplied from outside the system, by a conscious programmer. Likewise, our evolving world seems to be working toward producing sub-systems of greater complexity and synergy. But, for what purpose? — Gnomon

According to complexity theory the result of the greater system ( the synergized self ) is a product of the local interaction of its component parts. There is a domino like causation occurring , and spreading wavelike across the synergized system, resulting in emergent behavior. The effect of "self organization" is inherently to create a self from elements entirely outside of self. So there is no need for external causation ( creator ) at all. The ungrounded decentralized self, still has to weave its way through the possibilities and constraints of its external environment whilst maintaining its integrity . This is difficult enough. It is purpose enough. It is an amazing achievement. It should be appreciated and valued. The life we have is a gift

At the same time, the self whilst possessing its own emergent internal self organized order, is entirely reacting to external circumstances. It is cognizing (via disturbance to its integrity) and reintegrating the disturbance via the bias to self organize. This last sentence describes the mechanism of consciousness as best I can resolve it. It applies to all layers of the cascade as previously described. The self is well characterized by a cyclone / hurricane.

but the question is what causes the elements to organize in this way. — Metaphysician Undercover

When the qualities of disparate elements are combined, they may form a synergy. When they do form a synergy then the disparate elements start acting as a unit as a consequence of the synergy they share.

What causes the elements to organize in this way is the self organizing universe that we are in. Gravity forces elements together and they must self organize. At the higher levels of organizational complexity, such as amino acids forming cellular proteins animate matter emerges. Different combinations of amino acids give rise to different functioning proteins. It might be said that different patterns of amino acids forming proteins are synergized differently, resulting in different function.

The point relevant to this thread is that at the cellular level there is knowledge of this. The probability of randomly creating functional proteins is astronomically low.


A school of fish or a flock of birds is a good illustration of this phenomenon. But for something easy to relate to, think of a couple in love - how they are synergized, or a family, or perhaps a team of footballers, or a crowd of people ( if you have ever been to a demonstration and been swept along with the crowd ).

The crowd, the mob, can take on a life of its own.

How does that account for cancer, or any other disease? Is that ‘self disorganization’? — Wayfarer

Ha, there is a description of Prions in the awareness of molecules thread. My understanding is cancer evolves along a similar path. Things go wrong, and ultimately we die and disintegrate - no longer self organized. Our components become part of something else's self organization. Our genetic code however usually gets past on and remains immortal. :smile:

If I'm not mistaken, a chemical reaction is a change in substance, where substance is determined by the molecules. So a chemical reaction would change a bunch of molecules into other molecules. This usually is associated with the various types of bonding between atoms, through the positioning of electrons. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes , you are correct, and so is Capra. The whole cascade is effected as below, and then it self organizes .

1.The synergy of atoms combined forms molecules
2. The synergy of molecules combined forms amino acids
3. the synergy of amino acids combined forms proteins: (100% confidence level)
— Pop[/quote]
(Yes these are all molecules, but in this case they form specific emergent properties, amino acids, and proteins.)

From a systems perspective, we are an amalgam of elements, very much like a school of fish. It is organization that creates a self ( self organization ). The school of fish becomes a self. The synergy of the school forms a self. The self of the school of fish is an emergent self driven property.

Along these lines an understanding can form, in my opinion. It is the broad thrust of complexity theory, as I understand it.

From a systems perspective, we are an amalgam of elements, very much like a school of fish. It is organization that creates a self ( self organization ). The school of fish becomes a self. The synergy of the school forms a self. Theself of the school of fish is an emergent self driven property.

Along these lines an understanding can form, in my opinion. It is the broad thrust of complexity theory, as I understand it.

To say that that organisation exists on many levels - inorganic, organic, sentient - doesn't explain anything, it's just an observation. — Wayfarer

It is self organization that exists, not just organization.

You need to reflect upon the fact and link it back to your own consciousness, via the assertion that every moment of human consciousness is a moment of self organization - absolutely!

We might ask why. What purpose does it serve to have a more complicated molecule? The answer might be that it allows for a greater variety of possibilities, those being possible chemical reactions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes the synergy at all of those levels creates an emergent property not found at lower levels of complexity. Such as in a school of fish:



What do you mean by chemical reactions?

Fritjof Capra defines the basic unit of cognition as a reaction to a disturbance in a state. Such as a chemical reaction.

What is lacking is a sense of telos, of purpose - that things work together for a common goal or end. — Wayfarer

Its difficult to relate to the idium of a cellular existence, but consider the synergy of a school of fish

I found your website well written and interesting, you have an easy to read style, and there was lots of good information. I found navigating the site a little awkward. There were lots of interesting snippets on the side of the pages that I would have liked to read more of, but couldn't easily navigate to. Have you thought about hyperlinking the texts on the side of the pages to the main document?

I find you have a broad understanding, and we make fairly similar observations, and as you state often its only the terminology that differs. Of course we are going to differ on the issue of God.

What I don't understand is why do you need to postulate a theory when you have a belief in God? It seems what you are saying is , hey look I understand all this stuff, but God still makes more sense? Would this be correct?

I feel when people speak of God, it is a little like speaking about art, in that it is a different thing in everybody's mind - it is a variable mental construct. Do you have a definition of God? The reason I ask is because " self organization" is looking to be a God like concept to me. Every theory relies on some concept to tie off loose ends, and to unify the theory, and normally it is the fundamental element, and self organization dose this for me, whilst God dose it for you. :smile:

Yes the only alternative to a self organizing god is a self existent one, just as the only alternative to a big bang / beginning, is an infinite loop universe. :smile: It is amusing.

I am finding complexity theory quite helpful in making new connections. I have posted the below in another part of the forum. I wonder if you would mind scrutinizing it for me?

In accordance with complexity theory:

The qualia ( or quality ) of disparate elements, when combined, may form a synergy. The synergy is an emergent quality not found in any of the elements individually.. The form of the synergy is a random property, depending upon the qualities of the elements combined.

1.The synergy of atoms combined forms molecules
2. The synergy of molecules combined forms amino acids
3. the synergy of amino acids combined forms proteins: (100% confidence level)
4. the synergy of proteins combined forms cells: 100%
5. The synergy of cells combined forms organs: 100%
6. The synergy of organs combined forms bodies: 100%
7. The synergy of bodies combined forms families, communities, a nation, etc

Each layer of the system is caused by self organization, which is a "fundamental" universal quality, in a universe biased to self organize. Or put another way; the synergy is a function of self organization.

Each layer of the system is its own idiomatic milieu, where the problems of the milieu are cognized and resolved collectively.

Every moment of human consciousness is a moment of self organization. Many people can relate to this assertion intuitively in that consciousness is in some way self organization, but I mean it absolutely! :smile:

2. The past does not exist — Garth

The past exists as a memory in our imagination.

In accordance with complexity theory:

The qualia ( or quality ) of disparate elements, when combined, may form a synergy. The synergy is an emergent quality not found in any of the elements individually.. The form of the synergy is a random property, depending upon the qualities of the elements combined.

1.The synergy of atoms combined forms molecules
2. The synergy of molecules combined forms amino acids
3. the synergy of amino acids combined forms proteins: (100% confidence level)
4. the synergy of proteins combined forms cells: 100%
5. The synergy of cells combined forms organs: 100%
6. The synergy of organs combined forms bodies: 100%
7. The synergy of bodies combined forms families, communities, a nation, etc

Each layer of the system is caused by self organization, which is a "fundamental" universal quality, in a universe biased to self organize. Or put another way; the synergy is a function of self organization.

Each layer of the system is its own idiomatic milieu, where the problems of the milieu are cognized and resolved collectively.

Every moment of human consciousness is a moment of self organization. Many people can relate to this assertion intuitively in that consciousness is in some way self organization, but I mean it absolutely! :smile:

If we can identify the principles involved it may help us to explain consciousness. If that is via chemical means then fine, but as we're not even close to doing that, isn't it fair to consider other possibilities? — Gary Enfield

Self organization seems the best bet, in my view.

Self-organization is indeed a function of the ubiquity of Information. Yet I doubt that spontaneous organization can occur prior to the existence of a "Self" with the power to "organize" (to create order). — Gnomon

Yes I thought this would be a problem for you, but it may also be a solution. I find you have an intelligent conception of God, not an anthropocentric biblical God, but a creative force like element, and " self organization " is just such an element? :smile: God would have to self create? No. So god may have arose from self organization? :chin:

Instead, just as every program has a Programmer, every causal process has a First Cause. Unless it is Self-Existent of course, which is a necessary quality of a First Cause, or Creator. — Gnomon

Again, If god self created, then he is not the causal element, self organization is. But might God be self organization? Its just a thought. :smile:

I am only beginning to understand self organization, but my first impression is that it is organization that causes a self.

Recent theories of Cosmology have proposed that our universe did not begin with a "bang", but with a spontaneous (un-caused) Fluctuation in a pre-existing energy field. I assume that this was another attempt to avoid the inadvertent religious implications of the Big Bang as a creation event, requiring some kind of "external agent". Yes, in the real rational world, "spontaneous events" may appear out-of-nowhere, like an "immaculate conception", but logically & physically, there is always some necessary-but-unknown prior Cause -- perhaps an absentee baby-daddy, or maybe the Initial Link in the unbroken chain of causation that can be inferentially tracked back to a First Cause, or at least a Higher Context. — Gnomon

Yeah, its all a bit unreliable to my mind. I tend to favor the infinite loop universe conception, but it is so far from where we are and so little reliable information to go on. So I'm blocking it out of consideration and starting from when the universe settled in on itself and started to self organize.

What I'm saying here is that the hypothetical Original Cause, of apparently-spontaneous-organization, is necessarily an "external agent" combining explosive Power with teleological Direction (energy + order). Even Hawking's "No Boundary" theory was based on the hypothetical assumption of an eternal realm of unlimited Possibility : — Gnomon

Yes I agree, as far as I can logically figure it, there has to be an external cause. "Nothing" is an incoherent concept. If it fluctuates its not nothing, and so the causal chain recedes ever further back.

Therefore, a process without a beginning just doesn't make sense, logically or physically. And Hawking's retort to "what came before the Big Bang" was open-ended and ambiguous. From the perspective of his isolated (no context) mathematical model, he said, "it's like asking what's north of the North Pole". But in our real world, what's north of the North Pole, is a whole universe in the process of becoming. My thesis did not begin with the assumption of a particular First Cause. But as the concept of Creative Information evolved, it became obvious that some kind of Enformer was logically unavoidable. :cool: — Gnomon

Given the lack of certain information about the beginning, I'm inclined to start my narrative as the universe began to self organize. As order came into being it had all the hallmarks of consciousness - the cognition and bias ( emotional information ) to organize . It organized the energy into matter, and ever more complex permutations of information energy and matter ensue.

Creative information: Yes, but I think the creativity results from a bias ( emotional information ) towards order. The ordered state is a creation. The form of what is created is endlessly variable and open ended, but is always an expression of self organization.

Thanks for the links. I'm out of time today, but will check them out and give you some feedback tomorrow. Cheers :smile:

C. Even human consciousness can be reduced to quantitative Information via the scientific method of Reductionism. But we tend to feel that human Consciousness is much more than just mathematical information. It has holistic implications of higher values. such as morality.
* External to human consciousness though, we can no longer have two-way dialogues. We still can't read the minds of single-celled organisms, except to infer automatic responses to inputs via behavior. Yet, Information is still functional in inorganic matter as a chain of Cause & Effect — Gnomon

Yes, human consciousness is waist deep in subjectivity. Ultimately an understanding has to be framed from the first person perspective, but for now I tend to use third person models, so avoid issues such as morality, although my personal bias helps me to frame an understanding within a unifying singularity such as self organization.

We also cannot read each others minds, but we would not deny each other consciousness. Its not that single celled creatures do not possess consciousness, its that they do not possess our particular expression of it. They are expressing self organization, just like we are.

Q. "A mind empty of integrated information is unconscious and ineffable"
C. I agree that Consciousness is a form of Integrated Information, in the sense that it arises as a function of the Whole, not the Part --- of the Mind not the Neurons. — Gnomon

Yes , Its a holistic thing that runs through the all the layers of the system.

Q. "A bias is an emotion."
C. Yes. Human consciousness is experienced in part via pre-verbal emotions, and expressed via verbal concepts.
However, by assuming that such Consciousness is fundamental, some New Agers believe that inorganic and non-living Crystals are Conscious in some sense. If so, then we should be able to communicate with them, if not in words, then in feelings. I can only say, I'm skeptical. — Gnomon

Communication is part verbal ( quantitative ) and part qualia ( qualitative ). We are interpreting the qualia of the object, as we do the animal, as we once ( pre verbally ) would have communicated with each other quite possibly. It is one way communication with solid objects, but jump into a puddle of water and there is two way communication occurring. It requires an open mind.

It is not only a new age thing, but is also the view from a systems perspective.

But do atoms have emotions and experiences that are meaningful to them? We may imagine so, but we can never know, until they communicate their feelings to us. — Gnomon

That is the issue - meaningful to them, it is unlikely to be meaningful to us. "Self organization" is innately meaningful, in that cognition is a reaction to a disturbance of a state, and then a bias to self organize kicks in to integrate the state. Its perfect! - how does this sit with your model of the mechanism of consciousness?

Q. "6: A feeling is located as a point on a pain / pleasure spectrum ( PPS)"
C. Yes but, some people -- such as followers of the Jain religion -- carry that notion too far. For example, if I inadvertently step on an ant, does it feel the (human) emotion of Pain? If so, am I guilty of causing pain to a sentient organism? At what "point" can we draw a line on the "spectrum" between Living Beings and Moral Agents? — Gnomon

I don't think we can draw a line, but have to accept that by virtue of taking up space on this planet we will deny space to other life forms, so the trick is to minimize the harm, and maximize the good. A concept of universal interrelatedness as a foundational notion would help achieve this end.

Q. "This cognizes the instance of consciousness - the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum tells
you what this instance of consciousness means for you."
C. Perhaps we can draw a meaningful & moral distinction between a> Rational Consciousness (humans) and b> Emotional Consciousness (animals) and c> Mechanical Information exchange (atoms) — Gnomon

I tend to think meaning and moral issues can be rationalized back to the pain or pleasure they cause. Self organization is "self" interested. It creates and maintains a self in the best possible way. We open up a Pandora's box if we investigate how this manifests itself in human subjectivity.

Morality is steeped in human subjectivity. It is based on various beliefs. Nevertheless in society the various belief systems at play "self organize" to a commonly understood standard of behavior.

Q. "What does it feel like to be conscious?"
C. Feeling is the subjective emotional experience that can't be expressed in words or in terms of neurons — Gnomon

I agree, feeling cannot be conceptualized. This is what leads me to believe it is a force. One that is understood by all the layers of the system creating us. Thus it is also attributable to all self organizing systems.


Thanks for having a look and providing some feedback. I have to work for the next few months, but after that hope to revise and expand it. I will check out your theory again and provide some comments. Is there a relevant thread open?

— Gnomon

Thanks for your comments. yes they are very similar understandings in many ways. Similar to me, you have taken the information route and that results in a particular understanding. I feel a little embarrassed about my theory as its only six months old but I have found a better understanding. Not that what I've said is necessarily wrong, but it can be understood much better from a process , rather then information perspective. Be warned, I will try to interest you in it. :smile:

Q. "Consciousness can be described as a process of self organisation"
C. Actually, human consciousness is the current state-of-the-art of the evolutionary process of enforming that has been going-on for billions of years. Consciousness is not the process itself, but an expression of that process. "To Enform" is to create a new organization of an older pattern. — Gnomon

Yes originally I also began with information as the first step, and it still figures prominently in there, but now I understand self organization is the overriding process. Information assumes a big bang / beginning, whilst self organization dose not need it. What fundamentally occurred, occurred in motion. As elements settled upon themselves in motion, they were forced to self organize, and order results out of this process. According to Fritjof Capra, the fundamental unit of cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state. So cognition occurs fundamentally as a result of a universebiased to self organize. You agree, a bias is emotional information, and this is the fundamental element, causing self organization. This describes the cognition and emotion necessary for consciousness, at the fundamental level, long before life.

Your Informational construction is only a whisker away from my original view. My original view suffered from being a static conception. Once I started to understand it as an evolving process in motion / time, and started to think of myself as a system or process, then it made better sense, in a more abstract way.
The beauty of self organization is that it is the singular process everything is involved in and arises out of, so a solution within this framework might be a total solution. So much to learn though - complexity theory is not very intuitive. :cry:

Q. "Consciousness is an evolving process of self-organisation that has at its root a bias to resist the zero point energy state."
C. Yes. I call that "bias" a ratio -- as in the definition of "energy" as a thermodynamic ratio between polarized states, such as Hot / Cold or Positive / Negative. The bias flows from excess to deficit. — Gnomon

This is my biggest embarrassment. The separation of animate and inanimate matter is not at zero point energy, but at equilibrium and non equilibrium states. Yes energy is at issue, non equilibrium states store energy for a future time.

Q. "Consciousness and life arose together, as without consciousness there can be no life"
C. In my thesis, Life arose from non-conscious in-organic matter, and consciousness emerged much later in evolution. So the "force" that caused Life & Mind to evolve was not Consciousness, but the power of EnFormAction --- one phase of which is Shannon's meaningless data, and another form is the meaningful contents of highly-evolved minds.
If you assume that only living organisms are sentient, Life must emerge prior to Consciousness. Your life-giving notion of Consciousness seems to be something like a Vital Force, or Chi, or Prana. And I agree that EnFormAction is similar, but I prefer to avoid those ancient pre-scientific terms based on the assumption of Spiritualism. — Gnomon

Historically there is a dualist assumption, and this results in different treatment of equilibrium and non equilibrium systems. Everything evolves and so did self organization. I agree there is emergence, and what we experience as consciousness is different to what other organisms experience, but everything seems to be linked through the process of "self organization", and it exhibits all the elements of consciousness..

You are faster at this then I am. Thanks for your patience.

Another interesting variant of this theme are Prions.

"Prions are misfolded proteins with the ability to transmit their misfolded shape onto normal variants of the same protein. They characterize several fatal and transmissible neurodegenerative diseases in humans and many other animals." - Wikipedia

"The prion hypothesis, also known as the protein only hypothesis, states that protein, rather than virus or bacteria, is the infectious agent of the prion disease." - Wikipedia

The hypothesis suggests that the prion leaves the cell and infects other cells, and takes on a life of its own as a virus like organism, spreading amongst living creatures through the food chain.

A Prion has its own integrity and momentum as a living organism. A prion evolves from a chance variation in the folding of a protein, and then proliferates along its own independent and self created pathway, much the same as any living organism.

**What often seems to get missed is that enzymes are proteins, and that proteins are the building blocks of a cell. The Prion shows us how even the basic building block of a cell, with slight mutation, has the ability for an independent existence - weaving its way through the possibilities and constraints of a cellular environment whilst maintaining a distinctive self.

How different is this to what humanity does?

they clearly operate just on their own. — Gary Enfield

In another example what happens is DNA via RNA creates the enzymes, which then go on to repair a section of DNA - self awareness!

So, how can molecules correctly work out each complex step without some crude form of awareness? — Gary Enfield

Indeed, how can this possibly happen? But is this a crude form of awareness? DNA is about 750 mb of data, or roughly the equivalent of 100 encyclopedia volumes . What you have described is equivalent to sifting through 100 encyclopedia volumes, finding the wrong word and replacing it with the right one.

I would say our cartesian estimate of what is going on at that level might be a tad faulty. :smile:

" Nothing" stays the same. It is unchanging and dose not evolve.
But the universe and all of its components are constantly changing and evolving. :chin:

:up: I wasn't referring to you specifically but to the world in general. I feel it would be a better world if universal interconnectedness was an all pervasive foundational notion, rather then just something a few fringe dwellers latch upon.

But why only one way of accumulation? — Janus

Its the knowledge accumulated that constructs the system, The constructed system then becomes the prism through which we interpret the world. It becomes a world view. Every self only has one world view through which to see the world. No?

Further, the constructed system is not just a world view, it is everything we know about the world, so effectively is the world. This explains why there are different interpretations of reality, because there are different constructions of it.