Claiming that art is an expression of consciousness in no way contradicts aestheticism. — praxis

I don't wish to say that art is not aesthetic, plainly it is. However all experience is aesthetic, so to focus on aesthetics as the defining feature that separates art from everything else is an error. Before something can be an experience, we first need information about it ( see my reply to Constance above ) So firstly art is information, and it can only be information about the artist's state of mind whilst making it. So art is information about the artist's consciousness ( hopefully you understand consciousness a little more broadly by now ). This is definitely the case for all art for all time, and there is nothing more that is definite that can be said about art - for all art, for all time. Yes art is aesthetic, but there is nothing definite that can be said about its aesthetic quality - what is beautiful to one person, can be ugly to another. You can not, and you have not put forward any arguments or propositions that define art in terms of aesthetics - don't forget we are talking about all art for all time across all cultures, no matter it's form, including unpredictable art of the future.

It seems to me that you’re problem isn’t with aestheticism but simply a general lack of art appreciation in society, assuming the concern were honest. Defining art as an expression of consciousness doesn’t help, and I don’t think it’s designed to help. It’s designed to exploit the lack of art appreciation in order to influence. — praxis

It doesn't really matter what you or I personally think. Our intentions are entirely irrelevant. What matters is that art can be defined - to this extent and no further. If this is the case, then this is the central, and most pertinent element of all art - that it is information about consciousness. This makes all art meaningful, as an expression of consciousness, regardless of anybody's personal preferences or motives, or understanding.

But the reductive direction of this for a human being is appalling — Constance

Ha, ha, You mean this is far different to the ingratiating and romantic philosophy of the likes of Dewey and co. Yes it is. The thing to remember is that this is just the barebones underlying logic. It still need to be interpreted in terms of daily life and aspirations, and so on. So there is plenty of room to romanticize it if that is what you wish, and any sensible philosopher wishing to be popular would be wise to do this to some extent. :grin:

But then, the aesthetic of art, which I claim is essential, indeed, the most essential, defining, dimension of art, is subordinated to information, hence, the trouble with the direction of this reduction, and it is the same as calling food information or a sprained ankle information: such a reductive tendency leads to a foolish loss of MEANING. Meaning must be front and center, and information is just a dimension of meaning. — Constance

I'm afraid you misunderstand, and I can not see a simple way to redirect you. I will be doing a few more information threads in the near future, so If you are interested perhaps take it up then.

Instead I'll say: Meaning only exists as integrated information - when information is unified and integrated it becomes meaningful, and not before.

And: In an experience you are inFormed, and you have an experience in relation to how you are informed. So information is the fundamental observable - the fundamental interaction that gives rise to experience, in all situations, including art.

It’s not clear how this will change anything. Could you enlighten us? Also, those with power and influence will have power and influence regardless of how art is defined. They’ll still be able to influence culture and speculate on the value of art. — praxis

I did say it was a long shot - Indeed! Flat earthers can believe that the Earth is flat despite all the evidence against it, but not with credibility in the eyes of most people. One can ignore this definition, but not with credibility, imo. It is a thorn in the side of those who think art is for art's sake, as it proves art is an expression of consciousness - regardless of the art's form.

then this would be a real stretch from the way we think of information, and you would have to be an idealist of sorts.

Well, I am an idealist of sorts. So my only gripe is that you have defined information by the limits of its meaning. — Constance

I was an idealist, but am now an enactivist. It is a slightly better understanding, imo.

Yes, it is a different understanding of information, compared to what generally prevails. It fits the following theories: Integrated Information Theory tells us that consciousness exists as moments of integrated information. Systems Theory tells us that interaction is information, and nothing exists outside of interaction. Enactivism tells us that we are enacted / interacted in the world informationally, and Constructivism tells us that it is a body of integrated information that becomes knowledge, in an evolving and idiosyncratic fashion and what we are is a product of this.

Inconcistency detected. Art, by the first sentence, is arbitrary. Then the second sentence mentions there's got to be something "...extra..." (art information). — TheMadFool

This is what distinguishes art from ordinary objects - art has this extra deemed art information. ( Duchamp's urinal ) ( readymade art ).
No there is no inconsistency - an artist can bite his patron on the leg, and deem it to be art. An artist can do anything and deem it to be art.

I'm not answering any more questions of this nature. If you wish to focus on how art reflects the consciousness of an artist, through an examination of various art works, then I would be happy to oblige, but this type of questioning, now 17 pages long, has been done to death, imo.

What these games have in common is the desire to influence rather than the desire experience the aesthetic. This disparity is worlds apart. — praxis

Who is trying to influence now?

If you want to be a player in the consciousness guru game — praxis

I don't want to be a player in the consciousness guru game. I want to be a player in the art definition game. :lol: I also would like to understand myself, and the world that I live in, and consciousness and information are absolutely pertinent considerations to that end, imo.

Summary
Art is important because it is aesthetic form of representative content. The aesthetic is important because it is an innate foundational ability of sentient life to discover patterns in a seemingly chaotic world. Art is therefore an outward expression of the innate character of the brain and conscious mind — RussellA

:100:

** I think this video, where Van Gogh visits a gallery in the future, and how his work is interpreted by the gallerist is a really good illustration of this.

How exactly do you know that? — praxis

Read the linked studies. Brush up on phenomenology. Produce something that exists for you outside of consciousness of it. I think you will find it is impossible.

Your definition does not include the elements of choice and belief that something is art and if it did, then we're in territories that seem alien to art (choice) and arbitrary (if I deem this :point: * is art then it is). — TheMadFool

Proof of the definition:

​1.    Art is an ungrounded variable mental construct: Objects are arbitrarily deemed to be art. Art’s only necessary distinction from ordinary objects is the extra deemed art information. Art can be anything the artist thinks of, but this is limited by their consciousness. — Pop

something of a pop * C O N S C I O U S N E S S * guru — praxis

Consciousness has nothing to do with religion or Gurus. In phenomenology and neuroscience consciousness can be broken down into moments of consciousness lasting 1-400ms according to these studies. From this point of view life is a procession of moments of consciousness - nothing exists outside of moments of consciousness, and everything that you do , you do in response to these moments, including make art.

Enactivism? If a person wants to examine at the basic level the interface between things and their subjective counterparts, one will NEVER be able to distinguish the two. — Constance

:100:

So the information bearing object has no status at all until it is received. I would call this a qualified information bearing transcendental object (hermeneutically defined AS art upon arrival. This "AS" of course, puts art back in the hands of the aesthetic and its nature. This is inherently affective); but information has to be redefined in a way that defies its essential meaning. — Constance

:up: Yes information needs to be redefined, or perhaps better put - it's original meaning needs to be reinstated - which is to inForm - literally change the shape of, including changing the shape of mind.

Information and consciousness are related and enormous topics in information philosophy which is the way of the future, imo. I think we are near enough in our understanding. I will do more information threads in the future, so perhaps we can discuss in more detail later. This relates to your previous post.

2. Is something wrong with your definition Pop? — TheMadFool

We have already been through this. Whilst an Ai can be programmed , and an elephant taught to create a repetitive picture, they neither choose to do so, nor do they deem it to be art in the human tradition. An artist chooses to make something and deems it to be art – in the tradition of art. You may find Chimpanzees might choose to make paintings if left with paint and they have been shown how to, but they do not, cannot deem what they make to be art. The definition is watertight and I am tired of repeating why.

You can not invalidate the definition for obvious self evident reasons. Instead why not choose two different art works and compare them, and ask yourself why are they different? What are the elements that make them different? Ask yourself will an Australian aboriginal make the same art as an 18th century Russian peasant, and then answer why. Perhaps then we can take this conversation out of mid high school, to perhaps upper high school level, and maybe beyond.

In any case I am otherwise occupied with three Kidney stones, in the midst of school holidays , and lockdown, and no relief in sight, so wont be around much.

Your goofy plan isn't a challenge to anything. You can't even convince some randos on an internet philosophy forum, some of whom might be quite gullible. — praxis

Ideally the definition should be seen as conceptual art. An art piece depicting a scientific and irreducible definition of art. It is logically unassailable, so this makes it interesting. It is a challenge to the status quo, of art for art's sake, so anybody wishing to challenge the status quo can use it if they wish. Will anybody use it? "hard to see the future is" - Yoda. :smile: — Pop

How is claiming that consciousness is a constant feature of art scientific? — praxis

I give up on you. Good luck with it.

Suggesting that the definition of art can be so readily shifted only underscores its nature of being a social construct and subject to the whims of culture and speculative value. — praxis

I would agree that the future prospects of the definition are uncertain. It's strength is, I believe, that it identifies in scientific terms something that is a constant feature of art. It is not so much that this is something new that causes a change, but rather is something that highlights the main element of art, which in general has been denied by postmodernism.

Your definition of art is necessarily ambiguous because the basis of power in a pseudo-religious fantasy art world would be the same as that of religion, faith in the authority, and the authority dictates meaning that they have special access to and which others do not. — praxis

I think you misconstrue me entirely. Panpsychism is not religious, and neither is Yogic logic. I used Buddhism as it is generally more recognizable. I only had a superficial understanding of consciousness at the time of writing the definition. I have since spent almost two years gaining a better, more scientific, insight. It turns out information has a lot to do with consciousness - consciousness is a state of integrated information in IIT, and a reinterpretation of information as something fundamental is a current concern in all the disciplines. In respect to art, the only question that remains is - information about what? And what else can it be other then consciousness? Simply put consciousness is a state of mind about how we understand ourselves in the world that we live in. But it is a concept that spans everything, so way outside the scope of this post.

Ideally the definition should be seen as conceptual art. An art piece depicting a scientific and irreducible definition of art. It is logically unassailable, so this makes it interesting. It is a challenge to the status quo, of art for art's sake, so anybody wishing to challenge the status quo can use it if they wish. Will anybody use it? "hard to see the future is" - Yoda. :smile:

Hi, you come and go so infrequently?
You would be a good asset in discussions of the mass - energy - information equivalence principle, since you already have this insight. It seems to me, information is the way of the future. It leads to a theory of everything as evolving informational bodies, and we can be certain of this since we need an informational body about something in order to be able to understand it. So I hope you do join the conversation. The definition of information thread is fizzling out now, but I will make something new soon, and I hope to hear your views there. :smile:

Pop, this thread has been running a month now — Mark Nyquist

Time flies when you're having fun. :lol:

I think the old fashioned definition of information is the obvious definition to use: Information = to inForm - literally change the shape of, including neural shape?

Information is the evolutionary interaction of form is meaningful, to me at least, as it describes information in a systems setting, where systems are interacting with each other. This definition is a little more predictive, so useful, to me, in predicting the interaction of two or more systems. The definition is important as it becomes the basis of any information philosophy. Ideally a definition should be logically perfect and describe information in every respect, but given everything is information, this might be a little optimistic? :grin:

If you asked in your terms "Is neural patterning the basis of information?" some of us would agree and others would not but it would help focus the issue — Mark Nyquist

Yes I think the change in neural patterning is the basis of information for us. I'm trying to tie this to the accumulation of information, that creates an informational body. Where consciousness is the latest state of neural patterning, which is equal to the latest state of integrated information. Thus it becomes a general and panpsychist definition of information.

Might be time for a new thread ? :chin:

I like the idea of this but I can't yet see how it would work. Sorry. — Tom Storm

It may not work. In fact it is highly unlikely that it will work. However, what is there to lose?

Can you perhaps, using some brief dot points and a given work, step it out for us so we can see it in action? — Tom Storm

You are seeing it in action now. The logic of the definition prevails, despite widespread disapproval.

↪Pop Sorry man, it all seems empty of content. Taking a dump/painting = same thing. It adds nothing to our understanding of art. — Tom Storm

Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning

 The singular thing that life is concerned with is to maintain and continue itself, and consciousness facilitates this. It is the one thing we are always expressing. We express it when making art, and it seems art's function is to express our consciousness when we personally cannot - to express it at its best, express it to many, and into the future. — Pop

A definition of art,and I’m not saying my definition is necessarily it, has the potential to shift the power balance in the art world, back into the hands of the intellectuals and the artists. This is my primary goal. It is a long shot indeed! but what is there to loose? it is worth a try, imo.

The definition is useful in these potential ways rather then as something providing clarity about art, or the art world today - whose clarity, and integrity, at present, as you may know, was recently well represented by a banana nailed to the wall. — Pop

When someone asks if you’re awake (conscious) do you tell them your state of mind? — praxis

What else can you possibly do other then express your state of mind. An answer of affirmative = your state of mind!

Consciousness is not simply consciousness or unconsciousness.

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us.Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning — Pop

How about reading some of this before you pose another question?

* Some physicists are still trying to imagine an explanation for the beginning and expansion of the universe, which doesn't require a miraculous something-from-nothing beginning. But so far, all of those woo-ish proposals assume the eternal existence of The Potential for a new world. And like Voltage, Potential is the idea of a future something -- an imaginary state of mind ; a snap-shot of the future -- not necessarily a physical substance -- nor even a ghostly "weird probability field". "Potential" is merely probability with the power of Intention. :chin: — Gnomon

I'm thinking a start to a philosophy needs to be the interaction that is information. I'm not at all sure how to do it, but a start at the source and then work outwards as far as is reasonably possible.

This would be a start with consciousness, but with information being the main focus.

A fit of rage may be suppressed. — Tom Storm

So what is expressed - is it not the current state of mind?

You still have not answered why using the word consciousness matters and how this is different to an artist expressing their 'personality'. — Tom Storm

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us.Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning — Pop

It's a mental state where consciousness is absent. Also, many artists are inspired by dreams and intuition so you can't say that creative artistic work is entirely conscious. — praxis

Do you or anybody you know make art in your sleep? Whilst artists make work about dreams, they do not do so whilst they are asleep. These are conscious thoughts about states of unconsciousness.

Which is either conscious or unconscious when referring specifically to consciousness. — praxis

:roll: You are trolling - surely?

No, the unconscious may well direct artistic choices — Tom Storm

It means you can not separate mind and consciousness. That consciousness is a state of mind.
The subconscious likewise is always an aspect of consciousness, so is not something separate. — Pop

In a fit of rage, you are not going to express something peaceful and serene, are you?
— Pop

Wrong. You may well do just this as a wish fulfillment state. There are angry artists who paint or write mellow and gentle works. — Tom Storm

Sure angry people can be mellow and gentle at times, but In a fit of rage, all they will express is a fit of rage. :lol: In any case, what they express is their state of mind - which is their consciousness.

You mean it "informs" which is does. But you are bypassing the point: That thing out there is not nor ever was independent of what is "in here" — Constance

When information informs you, it changes your neural state such that you ultimately have an experience.

imagine music or a painting that is so compelling, so affectively stirring, and the "aesthetic" is unmistakable. Without this, the music would be nothing. The aesthetic makes music, music. The same with all else. Remove this dimension of the experience, and the is no art, just talk — Constance

Nobody is saying experience is not part of the equation, what I am saying is that it is indefinite.
Aesthetics and experience is endlessly variable and open ended! So art can not be defined in terms of it.
In any case the term consciousness already encompasses the experiential aspect of mind that it represents.

Art IS informed, transported from one to another through an information medium, most certainly. But the art work itself IS IN that which is informed. So the art object cannot be simply information. — Constance

Yes an art object IS simply information. This information then informs the viewer, and an experience is had. Information is something far more powerful then it is normally understood to be, a bit much to unload here, but there are other threads open, as previously mentioned.

As I have explained a number of times now - we cannot predict what art will be in its form, or what the experiential reaction to this form will be. These things are endlessly variable and open ended, so can not form part of any definition of art. — Pop

The object is supposed to be merely "information" about the goings on in consciousness. Are you saying the aesthetic lies in the evocative powers of the object? But evocative brings in a new dimension to information that don't really hold: is what "informs" that which is evocative? — Constance

The viewer experiences the art work in a Enactivist fashion, where the consciousness of the viewer and the form of the art work, interact to cause an experience. The experience is not entirely the result of the artwork, nor entirely the result of the viewer, but is an amalgam of the two - experienced by the viewer. In the best of cases, these two gel to cause a pleasant experience, rather than repel, which would be an unpleasant experience, or one that is bypassed altogether.

The state of one’s mind at any particular time is one’s consciousness.
— Pop

A meaningless statement since it’s only accounting for consciousness or whether a mind is conscious or unconscious. — praxis

It means you can not separate mind and consciousness. That consciousness is a state of mind.
The subconscious likewise is always an aspect of consciousness, so is not something separate.

A mind can be in a dream state, for example, in which case the state of one’s mind is unconscious or lacks consciousness. It doesn’t account for motivation, feelings, mental representations, or anything that a mind is comprised of, merely whether or not its conscious. — praxis

I fail to see how this is relevant, since you are not going to be making art in your sleep?
Whilst you are awake, you are conscious. Consciousness represents your current state of mind and this is what you express, no? Yes you have feelings, opinions, etc, and what you express is your current state of mind about these - which is your consciousness. In a fit of rage, you are not going to express something peaceful and serene, are you? Consciousness is not merely whether you are conscious or unconscious - it is the current state of one's mind.

You are not a bad artist, imo. Your philosophy could use a bit of work though :razz: Misunderstanding is hard to avoid in this setting. My expression needs work also. :sad:

The state of one’s mind at any particular time is one’s consciousness.

Nice work. You have some good ideas that I have seen here and there. I like the way you highlight the idea, rather than develop the aesthetic - the decorative aspect. Well done!

“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.” — Pop

Naturally, art is an expression of minds. — praxis

I'm glad we agree. Consciousness is a little more accurate, imo. As it relates to a state of mind. It is a state of mind that is expressed in art, or anywhere.

The Oxford Living Dictionary defines consciousness as "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.", "A person's awareness or perception of something." and "The fact of awareness by the "mind" of itself and the world." - wikipedia

Being conscious is being awake and aware. A mind is more than simply being conscious. A mind requires an internal model of its environment and a model of itself itself to navigate its environment. It needs to have motivations or drives, such as the drive to feed or reproduce. — praxis

Are you conscious of your mind, or are you mindful of your consciousness?

PS__Sorry, I got carried away with imaginary nonsense and speculative pseudo-woo. :cool: — Gnomon

Not at all, it is great to have another woo juggler to talk to. BTW I saw a video recently on developments in biology and science in 2020, and they were juggling the same woo that we are - understood in much the same way, in much the same terms - as interactive and evolving informational bodies. :lol:

Of course, this being a Real material world, the change in Ideal mental state we call "Consciousness" or "Meaning" is preceded by a change in the physical state of the brain — Gnomon

:up:

Panpsychism seems to center on 'mind' and you focus on consciousness. There's obviously a difference between being conscious and not being conscious, and you seem to accept this difference.A mind doesn't need to be conscious, does it? Naturally, art is an expression of minds. — praxis

How is mind different to consciousness?

What is consciousness?

According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning

The singular thing that life is concerned with is to maintain and continue itself, and consciousness facilitates this. It is the one thing we are always expressing. We express it when making art, and it seems art's function is to express our consciousness when we personally cannot - to express it at its best, express it to many, and into the future.
— Pop

Since this definition, and due to a wonder about what consciousness is, I came to define consciousness as an evolving process of self organization. But I don't know what the source of self organization is.

**In science, self organization caused life, In systems theory self organization caused order in the universe. That art also expresses consciousness / self organization is quite a big deal - I think anyway. — Pop

I'm not qualified to confirm or deny your concept that "information is the interaction of forms". But I tend to focus on information as meaning, which is something more than a simple collision of "forms". In the absence of an observer, the forms may simply annihilate, like matter/anti-matter. Any meaning of that "interaction" is enformed only in the mind of the independent observer. — Gnomon

That is excellent!! There is an asymmetry in the interaction of forms, otherwise they annihilate. Wow, this bears thinking about!

If so, it would imply that the slit effect is caused by a meaningless mechanical interaction of matter/energy (particles), with no input or output of meaning. — Gnomon

That is how I understand it also - purely an interaction of forms, where the immaterial / formless wave of energy is understood in terms understandable by the measuring device, and then in terms understandable by the observer, which would imply that "meaning" is the last information integrated by a body of information?

That "interaction of forms" I would liken to the mechanism of Evolution. For example, an existing species can mutate into a potentially viable or non-viable form. Such mutations are equivalent to the non-local un-certain waveform of the slit experiment. But when two or more of those different forms combine (via sexual or asexual pathways), the output of that "interaction" is a novel combination of the original genes (potentials). Then, statistical natural selection weeds-out (annihilates) the non-viable forms, and allows the viable forms to continue the process of evolution.In the slit analogy, the random formless potential of a light wave, when perturbed by interaction with a physical obstacle (the slit), is forced to materialize into specific enformed particles of energy. :smile: — Gnomon

Yes, so much comes to a head in the interaction of forms, which ultimately becomes a moment of consciousness. I'm not aware of any literature specifically describing this, are you?

Thanks for the answer, and for humoring my speculations.

Supposedly your "long story" can bridge this gap. Just as I predicted this epic tale has not materialized. — praxis

I gave you a link to panpsychism.

In panpsychism, consciousness is fundamental, and is the only thing anything ever expresses through it's form. Long story. So I know that if anything should ever be expressed, that it will be consciousness. — Pop

It seems, you just misunderstood what was stated. A refresher in panpsychism should fix this.

An object can only have value if first defined. An object defined as a ship that sinks on first entering the water can rightly be said to be no good as a ship. The same object defined as a submarine that sinks on first entering the water may rightly be said to be good as a submarine.

With postmodernism, where anything can be art, then there cannot be good art or bad art. Then the well-known artwork A mail box in a lake is equal to the most prominent postmodernist works in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (badly named, however)

But in modernism, where art has been defined (albeit in more than one way), there can be good and bad art. Then a child's crayon sketch of a dog can never be the equal of a Rembrandt or Matisse. — RussellA

I think this definition, such as it is, holds for all art. I think most people would understand art is something like this. Of course whether somebody uses it will depend on whether they find it useful. I find it most useful in reviewing a body of work over a lifetime - how the art work reflects a chronological growth in thinking and understanding - this also holds for progress in art historically. The definition's validity is quite certain and scientific, and so can be used to argue what is good art and what is not, even in post modernism, though of course some would disagree - however, no matter how much they disagree, they can not invalidate the definition logically. As well as utility, there is a certain beauty in this, from my perspective anyway. :smile:

:100: Worth several reads. The TPF education-in-a-paragraph.

As, for a simple example, with sonnets. There are - can be - good sonnets and bad, but before there can be good and bad, there has to be the thing itself as form, and it seems to be within the constraint of form that art arises. — tim wood

:up: Thank you. Thank god somebody understands and agrees.
It has been a very lonely thread otherwise. :lol:

Good luck with it. I feel the gulf in our understanding is too wide to bridge.

I will leave you with a link to panpsychism which I mistakenly thought you might be familiar with, and this quote:

"Today in the United States we have somewhere close to four or five thousand data points on every individual ... So we model the personality of every adult across the United States, some 230 million people".
— Alexander Nix, chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, October 2016.[1]

According to Sasha Issenberg, CA indicates that it can tell things about an individual he might not even know about himself.[17][79] - Wikipedia

BTW: The central element of a consciousness is that it is self organizing, and AI is not self organizing, at least not as yet!

No argument is required. I'm merely pointing out that you can only assume that I'm conscious, you can't know that I'm conscious, so I could not be expressing something that you cannot know even exists.The words and ideas that I express, on the other hand, are evident. — praxis

Even if you were an Ai, you would still be expressing a consciousness, but this time the consciousness of your programmer, until such a time as AI becomes conscious itself.

In panpsychism, consciousness is fundamental, and is the only thing anything ever expresses through it's form. Long story. So I know that if anything should ever be expressed, that it will be consciousness.

There is a theoretical basis for my assertions, so if you were not conscious panpsychism would fall down - so you had better be conscious. :lol:

I can only know my own consciousness, and I know that I can only express my consciousness - there is nothing I can do other than express my own consciousness. So I can know this is also the case for you, although I can not know your consciousness - other then through its expression. It is not necessary for me to know your consciousness in it's entirety, since through expression you provide me with glimpses of it.

If you are arguing epistemic solipsism, then I would disagree. My understanding is founded in systems theory, and solipsism is BS from this perspective.

there is no information before collapse.
— Pop
I would re-phrase that assertion, to say that "there is intrinsic information, but no meaning to the observer, until the collapse. Before the observation, the meaning of that information is merely Potential. But the act of measuring converts it into Actual (manifest) meaning (knowledge) in the mind of the observer. :cool: — Gnomon

Yeah. I would think of information as being the change in mental state, due to an interaction with an externality. So much the same thing.

Some have noted that it's not the dumb measuring instrument, but the intelligent scientist who looks at the abstract read-out, and realizes what just happened. — Gnomon

Yes, I understand, the information does not occur for any individual until the externality causes a change in neural state. However I am under the impression that an unattended measuring device collapses the wave, in the double slit experiment, upon measurement. Thereby collapsing it to a point particle - which is necessary to extract information out of it. This is important to the idea that information is an interaction of forms. It would be a helpful if you could confirm, or deny this?

The links below compare the notion of the "neural correlates of Mind" with the filamentous structure of the material universe. Some others have proposed that the universe is actually the brain of God. I don't take it too seriously, or literally. It's just philosophical candy for musing & chewing. :grin: — Gnomon

I don't think there is much in that either, except that that the laws governing one part of the universe are going to be similar to the laws governing another part, and a brain is one part of the universe, so there will be some similarities, but not necessarily the sorts of similarities suggested in the articles.

However I have only seen a little of the latest deep cellular imaging, and what I've seen does make me wonder. Need more information on this one for sure. :smile: