The subject-object boundary is none other than the finite, discreet nature of time. Time is nothing outside of the experience of time , and the experience of time is that of my immediate past ( and by implication all of my prior history linked to it ) being changed by implying into a new event which occurs into that implying. The now is always a differential. It is what occurs to me by changing me. — Joshs

Yes. I agree. I would use different words. I would say in a moment of consciousness all the information in ones possession converges to a point. All of ones historical information ( biological and social ), bodily sensation, and environmental information is integrated to a point. And this point will be slightly different in successive moments of consciousness, and awareness of this difference creates the “change” that we experience as time.

The subject doesn’t decide to experience an object as outside. The outside imposes itself on the subject. The ‘subject’ here isn’t an entity but merely a pole of an interaction. — Joshs

All is half truths except for this sentence?[/quote]

That’s being in itself in a nutshell. Irreducible subject-object reciprocal relationality.
— Joshs
— frank

when you play so smoothly that there is no distinction between you and the guitar; when you cruise the corner perfectly, no distance between you and your chosen ride; when you look up to find that you've been coding for hours but it seems a few minutes. — Banno

How we conceive self and other is crucial metaphysically. @apokrisis is fond of evoking Howard Pattee's "epistemic cut". Pattee would say a cut ( a separation ) is necessary to separate the knower from the known, and thus maintain a subject object distinction. The counter argument is that a subject / object boundary has not been identified and so the cut is applied arbitrarily. Pattee acknowledges that the cut's location is arbitrary.

So the question becomes, what is the boundary of a subject ( self )?

In my understanding a self is a self organizing system identical to the body of knowledge (derived from information) that creates it, and this body of knowledge extends to a universe of some conception. So a boundary of self is related to the information a self possesses, which extends to the edge of a universe. This would mean that the object ( other ) is also contained within the boundary of self . The other thus becoming an object relative to self, within self, thus no separation possible. The other is understood entirely by a body of knowledge possessed by a self, so no separation is possible. No mind independent other can exist, so a self cannot be separated from other.


This conception of self has a central density of information then extends outward, similar to a hurricane, to wherever and whatever it has information of.

How would you conceive a self, and thus a boundary of "subject"?

I see but I meant to stress on the mind's ability to transcend the physical by being able to conceive of stuff (like unicorns) that don't exist in the physical world. — TheMadFool

You mean the mind can create a world beyond the world in itself? Yes indeed! And if you accept that every consciousness is unique in the absolute sense, then you might also accept that every world view is also unique in the absolute sense, which might make you wonder what the world is, given we live in slightly different ones, depending upon our consciousness. :chin: FYI

One very potent argument in favor of nonphysicalism is the mind can produce mental objects that aren't physically instantiated e.g. unicorns and that's just one example, there are numerous other objects that exist only in the mind. Is this a good reason to doubt the physicality of the mind? — TheMadFool

The Unicorn can exist physically as patterns of matter and energy ( information ) in your mind, just like all other thoughts, as neuroplasticity would suggest.

According to Alfred North Whitehead, “the basis of experience is emotional” — prothero

Thanks for the link, I'll read it in detail later.

Yes. The basis of experience is emotional. I think the philosophical zombie argument really brings this home, for me at least. Without emotion, there would be no experience, and without experience, there would be no consciousness.

So the question is what is emotion / feeling ?

Like forces, feelings can not be conceptualized, they can only be felt. In mind, reason and feelings are not miscible, they exist side by side like an emulsion (oil and water), where one cannot inhabit the other. The feeling causes affect, and thus affected, we reintegrate. We are always affected to reintegrate. And this way a self evolves as a body of information. A body of information integrating more and more information onto itself, in successive moments of consciousness.

Everything can be described as a body of information accumulating more information onto itself.

That is roughly how it has come together for me, how about yourself?

↪Pop Ok, I'll take that as a counter argument. But we shouldn't get so bogged down in theory that we forget we can examine its workings directly. — Mark Nyquist

I am very much a phenomenologist, but this is very tricky. What we can examine is a self concept. But, as a monist, what I try to describe is how all these unconscious processes create a body that eventually evolves a self concept.

Our self concept is an emergent quality, thought to occur after language. So, one needs to be vey careful here that one does not mistake ones self concept for the process that actually created it.

When we introspect initially, we introspect upon a self concept. However, central to the self concept is the same mechanism driving all self organization, imo.

every moment of consciousness has its feeling.
— Pop
Yes, we have direct access to it, which is better than any possible definition or theory. Would it be empirical verses a priori or some terms like that? — Mark Nyquist

What this feeling is precisely is very difficult to resolve. My thinking, very roughly, is that all systems self organize due to this feeling. That all systems self organize suggests they do so for a common reason. This reason might be the integration of the laws of the universe ( anthropic principle ). The laws of the universe in ordered pockets of the universe converge to cause self organization. I believe we may be feeling these converged forces.

"A process of integrating information for the purpose of self organization"
— Pop

Is that what you think an experience is? — bert1

This forum format is not ideal for conveying everything that one would like. I try to keep things brief and to the point, and no doubt some clarity, and humanity, is lost in the process.

In my understanding, every moment of consciousness has its feeling. It is the feeling that is responsible for causing us to resolve a moment of consciousness. I agree with Capra's assertion: " cognition is a disturbance in a state". And we are biased to resolve the disturbance, "due to the feeling", by reintegrating the state.

It is important to note, That a self is identical to a body of information, and in the process of cognition, it is disturbed, but we are intimately, and inextricably biased to reintegrate the information, in order to maintain the status quo of the system, as much as possible, and thus maintain self consistency.

It is not always possible to achieve this absolutely, and so potentially every moment of consciousness results in an incremental shift in the state of the system, and thus the self. In this way a self evolves in line with experience, as the result of experience. This is consistent with neuroplasticity.

Hopefully this conveys the gist of my thinking. Does it make sense?

Consciousness is a process not an material object.. — prothero

:up: Yes. "A process of integrating information for the purpose of self organization". I think this would capture everything in the same act. Can you think of an exception?

What should be clear is you will not find consciousness in an EEG or in Quantum states — prothero

Before even first base can be reached, a definition of consciousness is required. Consciousness is something different for a monist, dualist, idealist, realist, etc. One's intuition is not a definition.
One's intuition is something unique, that absolutely nobody else posses in exactly the same way.

My theory is that we are not free to think as we like. That we are a body of information ( as a self ). So in order to be self consistent we have to continue our historical narrative. What we thought yesterday causes our thoughts today, as todays thoughts cause tomorrows. In this way the body of information evolves. It can not tolerate a sudden change in thinking - there is no facility for this, such a thing could be traumatic , so only happens very rarely. Rather a change of thinking evolves slowly over time.

Would you roughly agree?

In a sense, we do not do the thinking, what we do actually is: we connect new information to existing informational structure.

I'm glad you provided the link. You have a dualistic understanding of information - you believe it can be abstracted from the material, like the information philosopher.
But there is no evidence of this,nor can there ever be - given we are dependent on form to provide the information encoded in it. There is no other way for information to exist other than in the form of a substance. Except for dualists, where it can exist formless as an immaterial mind? :chin:

Of course you are free to think as you like, but it would help my understanding if you could provide a reason?

'If you look at something mutable, you cannot grasp it either with the bodily senses or the consideration of the mind, unless it possesses some form…If this form is removed, the mutable dissolves into nothing… Through eternal Form every temporal thing can receive its form and, in accordance with its kind, can manifest and embody number in space and time…Everything that is changeable must also be formable…Nothing can give itself form, since nothing can give itself what it does not have.' ~ Augustine. — Wayfarer

Augustine of Hippo 430AD, describing information! Wonders will never cease!

I probably should make a thread - what is information?

The information philosopher has quite good info, but again he diverges to a dualistic understanding, whereas my understanding is monistic.

The arrangement of these words and letters.
— Pop

I don't know if I agree. Consider that the same sentence can be conveyed in any kind of media whatever. It doesn't matter with it's written, engraved in metal, or converted into binary code. The media is different in every case while the information remains the same. — Wayfarer

Rather, consider a **substance that has no information - has no edges, shape, perturbations, surface, texture - nothing.
How will you know about it?

it could be possible that one must first consider itself a particular entity before one considers itself a special entity (in the evolution of consciousness, the conception of apartness must have appeared first than the conception of speciality - special is an adjective given to a process, object). — Daniel

Yes, it may be we initially identified with a group, or perhaps the environment we were in, or just didn't have these thoughts at all. Some native cultures identify with mother earth, etc.

There are no two rabbits the same either. :up:

In humans, no doubt. But not in rocks, because rocks don't have brains. — bert1

Nevertheless, they posses a state of integrated information!

"Information always travels over a substrate" - Shannon.
— Pop

Bearing in mind that Shannon was an electrical engineer, and that his work was specifically about transmission of data across a medium. — Wayfarer

Shannon's information theory is vey focused to that end, however that information always travels over a substrate is obvious. Information is the perturbations of a substrate. The patterns in materials. The arrangement of these words and letters.

It is interesting, though very difficult, to think about how we might have thought about this prior to the emergence of self awareness, which is thought to have emerged after language.
— Pop

Very interesting. But as Gnomon and @fishfry say, it might be the case that the conception of speciality is a feature that arose in ancestral species, and we might have never lived without this conception in our heads... who knows? — Daniel

Ha,ha, If we always had this sense of specialty, then we would have always had a sense of self, which would contradict the dominant view that what separates human consciousness from lesser forms is a sense of self awareness.

The prevalent view is that language emerged, then a sense of self, then a self centric world view.

Though, I must say, animals that I know who do not have language certainly seem to have a sense of self?

So neural networks produce the integrated field that is consciousness, and quantum biochemical pathways produce the particulars of sensation. Consciousness is exacted as a steady state holism because of the integrating EM field, but we partially sense and feel the world as dispersed in space due to the quantum processes. — Enrique

Neuroplasticity tells us that established information is memorized in physical structure somehow. This is consistent with Constructivism, which suggests information accumulation is how knowledge is built. The way we thought about things yesterday, determines how we think about them today, which determines how we think about them tomorrow, more or less. So there is a construction going on - a building onto established knowledge, which is memorized in physical structure - this past knowledge is also integrated in a moment of consciousness. See my reply to Bert1 above. Any idea how this might occur from your perspective?

However, the only true difference between Man and everything else that exists (living and non-living things) is the physical space Man occupies relative to every other existing thing (otherwise, the same basic laws that govern every object govern Man). — Daniel

There are those that would argue that they are not an element of the universe, that they are something set apart and special. As @Gnomon pointed out, this is one of the consequences of a self aware point of view. It is interesting, though very difficult, to think about how we might have thought about this prior to the emergence of self awareness, which is thought to have emerged after language. Would we have simply not thought about it and thus just merged into the background. Without language consciousness must have been very different.

By increasing our self awareness to encompass the universe, we can assume a more balanced understanding, imo.

Consciousness is a state of integrated information - is the most coherent definition that I have come across.
— Pop

That's really not a definition. Definitions are about what people mean and how words are used. People don't mean "I'm in a state of integrated information about this rose" when they say "I'm conscious of this rose". (Not that normal people would even say that to be fair.) The IIT is a theory, NOT a definition! — bert1

That consciousness is a state of integrated information is an idea that precedes IIT. It is the most coherent definition that I have encountered, as it brings home the idea that all the information in one's possession, body and mind and environment, is integrated to create any moment of consciousness.
All of one's historical information, all bodily sensations, and all environmental information, converges to a point in any moment of consciousness, thus creating it.

If the person is conceived as an energetic body and the matter is also, then information flows from like to like. No cut necessary.
— Pop

An entirely science-free response, — apokrisis

E=mc2, QM, Rutherford's experiments. String Theory.

In physics this is the distinction between the result of a measurement – a symbol – and what is being measured – a material object.

I call this the symbol-matter problem, but this is just a narrower case of the classic 2500-year-old epistemic problem of what our world image actually tells us about what we call the real world. — Howard Pattee, last quotation on page

If the person is conceived as an energetic body and the matter is also, then information flows from like to like. No cut necessary.

Systems evolve interrelationally. It makes no sense to think an organism could survive without the system it evolved in. A system's self organization is entirely relative to its environment. A system and it's environment evolve together.

Life requires an epistemic cut between rate independent information and rate dependent dynamics (Pattee). Life is thus a modelling relation (Rosen). — apokrisis

It does not require a cut, if the information flows from one system to another.

"Information always travels over a substrate" - Shannon.

Information in the form of vibrations and frequency flows from matter to human consciousness via the substance between them. There is no need for a cut, as there is a substance connecting matter and human consciousness, over which information can flow. If I am understanding you correctly.

So this ain't about me, friend. Dismiss me all you like. :smirk: — 180 Proof

This is your criteria for dismissing a theory? Consider yourself well and truly dismissed then. :cool:

To paraphrase The Killer: there's a whole lotta pseudo-scientistic confusing maps with the territory going on! So much so, that apokrisis' master class in actual sciences and science-respecting speculation are affecting the discussion like pearls cast before swine. This little piggie is grateful for the his/her edification and clarification of a number of my own vague, even confused, notions and intuitions. Y'all (@Pop & @Enrique especially) need to lift those snouts out of your dogmatic troughs of ill-informed slop while you snort-sqeal less and listen-reconsider more. :sweat: — 180 Proof

This is the sort of cheap shot I would expect from somebody who does not have the wit to partake in the discussion.

For a theory to be possible it needs to not violate any of the laws of physics, and if it is also supported by some , then it is a valid possibility. ( David Deutsch). What is your criteria for a theory to be possible?
Do you even posses such a thing?

Nature has no machines. — apokrisis

Everything that exists, exists as an evolving self organizing system - a self in the process of accumulating / integrating information. This is the machine.

We call it self organisation when it is physics being organised by its own boundary constraints, but there is no local selfhood involved. There is only local randomness and accident. Life adds mechanical order and that is another further trick which is quite novel. — apokrisis

Self organization entails self interest because a "self" is itself a body of information, trying to maintain its integrity in the face of a constant onslaught of disintegrative information.

I think you focus too much on entropy, when what is obvious is that self organization is progressing.

"It is now generally recognized that in many important fields of research a state of true thermodynamic equilibrium is only attained in exceptional conditions. Experiments with radioactive tracers, for example, have shown that the nucleic acids contained in living cells continuously exchange matter with their surroundings. It is also well known that the steady flow of energy which originates in the sun and the stars prevents the atmosphere of the earth or stars from reaching a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Obviously then, the majority of the phenomena studied in biology, meteorology, astrophysics and other subjects are irreversible processes which take place outside the equilibrium state.

These few examples may serve to illustrate the urgent need for an extension of the methods of thermodynamics so as to include irreversible processes."

Ilya Prigogine (Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes, 1955, p.v)

The bit I am focused on is how life inserts itself into the story as self interested information as opposed to the disinterested information that is holographically organising the whole show. — apokrisis

"Self organization" inserts life into the scene. Due to the fine tuning of the universe, in select pockets, order arises due to every point in such universal pockets, undertaking a process of self organization.

Hence everything that exists, exists as a self organizing system. And, ultimately we are a self organizing system. We posses a consciousness who's sole function is to integrate information for the purpose of our self organization.

Information integration ( consciousness ), both creates our physical structure, and mental structure ( how we think ). We are not able to perform a function outside the purpose of self organization.

Self organization entails self interest.

My point is that life is certainly founded in dissipative structure. Biology pays for its negentropic existence by constructing channels for accelerating the entropification of the universe. — apokrisis

There is so much misinformation and as a result confusion about entropy, when all natural systems are dissipative systems: dissipation is a necessary element of their self organization.

The rate of space creation in the universe is greater than the rate of entropy creation, so as a percentage of the total space, entropy is decreasing. This permits "order", where order is created by self organization, which relies on information integration.

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/information/entropy-expansion.gif

I guess my pet theory is that waves and wavicles throughout nature combine as readily as a body of water whether we directly witness this or not, — Enrique

You would then also be saying that information integrates on its own? This is a significant obstacle, as what we most deeply identify with is that which integrates the information.

In fact, pockets of the universe are fine tuned to integrate information, imo.

so my view is a form of monism. — Enrique

Good, so when you develop a theory of consciousness you also develop a theory of everything.

In monism, consciousness is the accumulation and evolution of a body of information. In Dualism, consciousness emerges coincidentally with the emergence of a self concept ( self awareness ), so is a psychological entity dependent on a self concept. Hence can logically be all sorts of weird stuff. Monism is more of an attempt to try to describe everything with a single concept, so less room for weird stuff.

This is what makes consciousness research so interesting. It is only possible to construct a coherent framework of understanding for a monist. It is impossible for a dualist, as understanding would entail a destruction of their emergent self concept.

Consciousness is a state of integrated information - is the most coherent definition that I have come across. QM at some stage created physical structure through a process of information integration. When one wavicle interacts with another wavicle, they integrate their information in the form of a resultant wavicle. This is the foundation of consciousness, imo. This being fundamental is present in everything subsequent to it, as it's only basis. Eventually the information density increases to form physical structure ( a fundamental particle ), and continues from there.

How a wavicle is turned into a symbol by neurobiology may be explained by simple neural networks. Have you considered this?

The surprising realisation is that life can only do this if that physics and chemistry is critical or unstable - poised on a knife edge. — apokrisis

Are you referring to the "fine tuning" of the universe - that forces all systems in ordered pockets of the universe to self organize by integrating information?

First of all, information is merely relations between physical entities viewed from our modeling perspective, a distinctly human formal causality. "Information" is a reifying of all the observed causal interactions between a given set of existents, and lacks independence from matter. The information a gene, quantum process etc. contains is not ontologically distinguishable from the structure of its components, so any realist account of biological occurrences must involve a substance, not a probability. — Enrique

Correct, but this also means your QM stuff has to ultimately resolve to physical structure - so has to interact and integrate with physical structure. How does it do that? How does a wavicle create biological structure and why?

Your theory lacks a definition of consciousness, and an overall plot. Simply stating QM is at the heart of consciousness in the brain is not enough. Are you describing a dualism? It seems to me you would need a monism / panpschism for your theory to be coherent?

My hypothesis is that the same process happens on a profound scale throughout Earth environments because all matter has entangled wavelength. — Enrique

I would say all matter "is" entangled wavelengths. But I would emphasize that it is informational structure that is evolving and becoming more complex, not necessarily the wave structure, in this I'm bearing in mind that consciousness is still receiving its information from the frequencies and vibrations that caused structure fundamentally.

In a sense, it is a situation of informational structure ( us ) integrating more informational structure ( wavicle ), so it is a like with like interaction, and a process of evolving and accumulating information.

The answer is you. It is self knowledge — Andrew4Handel

It is generally accepted that what makes human consciousness distinct from lesser forms of consciousness is self awareness. At some stage we evolved from this lesser form to a "self" aware form.

Skim the paper it is quite interesting. It is a mind bender for sure!

If something is truly unconscious no one knows about it and it is unavailable to consciousness — Andrew4Handel

Consciousness is information integration. Information integrates on its own everywhere.

If you insert -"Unless they get a laugh" at the end of Sina's quote, then I would agree with it. :smile: in this instance.

If you are going to make comments about other people, I think it is a good idea to do so directly to their face, otherwise it is slander. I wont sue this time, but you are on notice. :cool:

I don't take that expression seriously, obviously! But I think I made my point in regards to objective reality.

An example? What specifically, in your narrow vision, are you referring to?

If he is an omnipotent being, he can revive himself instantly. :) — Corvus

:up: I'm so glad to hear it!