the principle of biosemiosis broadens the notion of 'intepretation' to include the way in which living cells inter-operate. — Wayfarer

So it brings "meaning" into areas of existence where it doesn't belong.

It treats chemicals as if they were persons, with minds. In DNA.

As I understand it, the principle of biosemiosis broadens the notion of 'intepretation' to include the way in which living cells inter-operate. — Wayfarer

So it's the anthropomorphism I mentioned. It treats cells as if they were persons, with minds. Have you figured out if they take the other common misstep and treat persons as if they were unconscious?

And the idea of 'pure information' seems nonsensical to me, as it has to exist in relationship to an agent or interpretive act. — Wayfarer

My questions from yesterday:

That is a different matter. I don't know if the optic nerve 'carries information' - in that context, I'd agree that the use of the term 'information' is metaphorical. It's not 'information' until a subject interprets it. What is transmitted are electro-chemical reactions across cellular pathways. — Wayfarer


Why is it a different matter? If the neural impulses are not information until interpreted, why isn't it the same for DNA?

And where is the interpreting subject in each of these cases? Interpretation is something carried out by minds. Instructions, information and interpretation are metaphors when we are talking about DNA. The genetic process is carried out mindlessly. — Daemon

I'm not sure what ism I fall under Joshs. I might be a biological naturalist.

In its simplest form , any physical causal interaction between objects is a ‘communicating’. — Joshs

Information is communicated between persons, not objects. You're doing the anthropomorphising I cautioned against.

No Joshs: to inform someone is to provide them with facts, the facts are information. The term information is also used in a technical sense in communications theory, which is where all the trouble started.

During discussions like this one, people are continually switching between the technical sense and the everyday sense of the word. This results in a misguided anthropomorphism. So when chemicals pass between trees through the fungal network, it's reported that the trees are talking to one another, conveying information.

Once you muddle up the two meanings of the word in this way, anything goes, and you end up with nutty ideas like "everything is made of information" or "information drives the universe" or "the brain works by processing information".

I'm not a physicalist.

An immediate response Joshs is that the concept of information adds a great deal to our understanding of DNA, but information doesn't play a role in genetics itself.

And similarly with perception and the brain. And computers. And tree rings.

When you look at the Mona Lisa (or wonder what Eugene could mean by the shape of a thought) your brain adopts a particular configuration, populations of neurons fire, and so on, and that is what allows you to see and wonder.

Neurons firing etc is what causes perceptual recognition.

Does that answer your question?

Ok, I'll tell you then:

Studies have found that trees can send help to their neighbours via the fungal network. For example, when a tree is attacked, it will release certain chemicals that travel through the fungal network and warn other trees of the danger.

So chemicals travel through the fungal network: can you say what the information does, in addition to what the chemicals do?

Paywall. Just tell me.

How is the information transmitted?

Yes, that's another example of the position I am arguing against.

When mycorrhizae are present, plants are less susceptible to water stress. Not only do the fungal threads help to bring water and nutrition into the plant, but they also can store them for use when rainfall is sparse and temperatures are high.

So can you say what the "information" does there, in addition to what the water and nutrition do?

Yes, I do. As I said, it's an example of the position I'm arguing against.

Information isn't everywhere in the universe, it's in minds. It isn't in the tree stump. Your own example partly acknowledges that, in the way you have the observer come along and look at the tree rings. The information is in the mind of the observer. In the tree, there are only the rings.

If you think the information is doing something in the tree, tell us what it is.

So you don't understand my argument?

Yes, that's an example of the mistaken thinking I'm arguing against. Do you understand my argument against it? Could you state my argument?

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a polymer composed of two polynucleotide chains that coil around each other to form a double helix carrying genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms'. So how are 'instructions' not 'information'? — Wayfarer

We say the optic nerve carries information to the brain, but what it actually carries is electrochemical impulses. — Daemon


That is a different matter. I don't know if the optic nerve 'carries information' - in that context, I'd agree that the use of the term 'information' is metaphorical. It's not 'information' until a subject interprets it. What is transmitted are electro-chemical reactions across cellular pathways. — Wayfarer

Why is it a different matter? If the neural impulses are not information until interpreted, why isn't it the same for DNA?

And where is the interpreting subject in each of these cases? Interpretation is something carried out by minds. Instructions, information and interpretation are metaphors when we are talking about DNA. The genetic process is carried out mindlessly.

How could information NOT play an actual role in all of those subjects? — Wayfarer

I find it a little difficult to understand why you can't understand my argument.

In genetics, DNA and RNA do the work. You can describe the whole process without mentioning information.

In a PC, electrical and mechanical processes do the work.

We say the optic nerve carries information to the brain, but what it actually carries is electrochemical impulses.

Providing and receiving information is, in the literal, non-metaphorical sense, something that takes place in the minds of persons. It's metaphorical or figurative when applied to DNA, a PC or the optic nerve.

So it's a category error to believe that information plays an actual role there.

Similarly, the meaning of the marks on the toast (Jesus) is not in the toast. — Daemon


No, it is in both. — Joshs

If it were, we would be able to decipher the writing systems discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeciphered_writing_systems

Galuchat explains:

I reject the notion that physical code is intrinsically semantic (contains meaning), because meaning can only be assigned by a mind (interpretation), and acquired by a mind (comprehension).

For example, after the end of ancient Egyptian civilisation, and before the translation of the Rosetta Stone, nobody knew what Egyptian hieroglyphs meant.

Communication requires that informer and informee have an intersubjective knowledge of the code used in a message.

But Galuchat, since we see eye to eye on this, and the two topics are related, I can't see why you don't agree with me about "information". Information is not in (for example) DNA in the same way that the meaning "me" is not in this vertical line: I

Giving and receiving information is done by minds in the same way that meaning is assigned and acquired.

It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!’

There's nothing there I'd disagree with, the term "information" is used in that way, in the same way a heating engineer will talk about a thermostat feeling a temperature of 25 degrees.

But information doesn't do the work, in genetics. I imagine Ernst Mayr knew that. He's using the word in a figurative way. My issue is with those who claim that information plays an actual role, in genetics, in computation, and in consciousness.

The question of whether and to what extent there is awareness in comotose patients or those in non-rem sleep has not been settled. I would argue that there is a dome of implicit consciousness , but it is so rudimentary inbrelation to what we typically demand of the term ‘conscious’ that we see my claim a complete lack of awareness is involved. — Joshs

Could you rewrite this please?

↪Daemon

Can you explain then how we can ever become unconscious? Digestion continues in comatose patients. Can you explain that? — Daemon


This is how I conceive it. Consciousness for a human being is associated with highly complex forms of awareness(memory and recognition, affectivity, etc). But if one believes as I do that consciousness occurs within living things as a spectrum of complexity, ranging from the simplest proto-consciousness up through social behavior among humans, then one has to imagine how the ‘subjective’ experience of awareness changes as one moves up or down this spectrum of complexity. — Joshs

I was asking you to explain unconsciousness.

But you still can't tell us what role information plays, eh?

Tell us the zoom level at which "information" plays a role in genetics. Describe what role it plays.

As such, we could not replace sciences like biology or cognitive science with chemistry. — Theorem

I don't want to replace biology with chemistry. I want to replace "information" with biology and chemistry and physics, because I think biology and chemistry and physics are the explanation.

If you think "information" explains something in addition to biology, chemistry and physics, then please tell us what it is. Give an example.

Try DNA. I say DNA works through biology, chemistry and physics. Chemical reactions taking place in living organisms, which could be described in terms of electron shells and all that.

That's unfair. I'm interested in protecting my position because I think it's correct. I don't think the alternatives that have been presented are correct, and I've said why.

Notably, I've repeatedly asked what it is that information does in addition to electromechanical or biological processes, and nobody has been able to say.

I do accept the fact that different levels of abstraction require different descriptions. I don't accept that information plays an active role in the processes we have been discussing, for example computation and genetics. If you think it does, please tell us what that role is.

What exactly is wrong with my mouse example? You asked for an explanation of sign evaluation in terms of electrochemical impulses: the moving line on the screen is taken as a sign by the mouse, and we can literally see the electrochemical impulses associated with the mouse's perception of the line, as well as the impulses associated with the response to the sign, namely the pressing of the lever to get a reward.

The difference, as has already been pointed out, is that 'information' is an indispensable theoretical tool used across multiple disciplines, whereas we can get along just fine without the face of Christ in our toast. — Theorem

It's not indispensable. We can describe everything a computer does in terms of electrical and mechanical processes, without mentioning "information". We can describe everything DNA does in terms of chemistry, without mentioning "information".

Talking about information helps us understand the process, but it's not required when describing the process.

The "information" part is something in our minds, it's extrinsic to the thing we are describing.

↪Daemon

We might usefully think about this vertical line:

I

Do you see what I'm getting at Joshs? — Daemon


Yes, I do. — Joshs

I don't think you do get it Joshs. I'm making the same point as our friend Galuchat: the meaning of

I

is not in the line, it's in our minds.

Similarly, the meaning of the paint splodges (Mona Lisa) is not in the painting, it's in our minds.

Similarly, the meaning of the marks on the toast (Jesus) is not in the toast.

The key to understanding consciousness is that the functioning of a living system is a unified totality. Our digestive system isn’t a closed system, it is an aspect of the total functioning of our organism , which inseparably interweaves body, mind and environment as a single system. — Joshs

Can you explain then how we can ever become unconscious? Digestion continues in comatose patients. Can you explain that?

I wouldnt say much of what we do is unconscious in the sense of subsystems operating completely independently of awareness. — Joshs

Well then, there's a learning opportunity for you. I'm currently reading The Hidden Spring: a Journey to the Source of Consciousness by Mark Solms. He writes:

It is generally accepted in neuroscience today that the brain performs a wide range of mental functions that do not enter consciousness. The title of a famous review of the relevant literature by the modern cognitive scientist John Kihlstrom says it all: there is indeed 'Perception without awareness of what is perceived, learning without awareness of what is learned'".

I reject the notion that physical code is intrinsically semantic (contains meaning), because meaning can only be assigned by a mind (interpretation), and acquired by a mind (comprehension). — Galuchat

Hi Galuchat,

I'm very much in agreement with what you say here, but did I satisfactorily respond to your challenge to "explain sign evaluation in terms of electrochemical impulses"?

Is the Mona Lisa the result of constraints on the part of the artist or a change in perspectival attitude of both artist and viewer, a kind of gestalt shift that transforms the sense of what one is perceiving? — Joshs

We might usefully think about this vertical line:

I

Do you see what I'm getting at Joshs?

Your critique is analogous to looking at a painting through a high-powered microscope and saying, 'there's no Mona Lisa here, just a bunch of organic compounds'. — Theorem

Whereas I'd say your approach is analogous to looking at a piece of burned toast and saying "there is the face of Jesus Christ".

The interpretation of the marks in both cases is a mental activity. Christ is not in the toast, he's in your mind.

I would argue that the unified functioning of the bacterium is a kind of proto-consciousness. It involves sense-making, affective valence and intentional purposiveness. — Joshs

The point of the example was to show that the bacterium's behaviour does not involve sense-making, affective valence and intentional purposiveness.

Sense-making is a conscious activity. The bacterium is not conscious. We know in intricate detail how it moves towards attractants, and it doesn't involve consciousness.

Much of what we do ourselves is also unconscious. If you want to say the bacterium is conscious, then you'll also have to say that say our digestive system is conscious, that it makes sense of the food we eat and acts with intentional purposiveness.

Consciousness is about feeling, experience. There's no reason to think the bacterium feels anything, that it has any conscious experience. We know how it does what it does, we can describe that down to the finest detail, and we know that it's an unconscious process (like our digestion).

Thank you Count Timothy, that is sort of interesting but I recently watched this Royal Institute lecture by David Tong, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cambridge and he says that everything is fields and not particles at all.

https://youtu.be/zNVQfWC_evg

He didn't say that under the fields there is information.

The model of a normatively based dynamical non-linear reciprocal feedback system is precisely how many are now conceiving of consciousness. — Joshs

So consciousness is a feedback system? I'm afraid I don't get it. I know the brain has many feedback systems, but there's a lot more to it than that.

I see that Evan Thompson argues that "Where there is life, there is mind."

Bacteria direct their movements according to the level of noxious or beneficial chemicals in their environment. In order to swim in the right direction (let's say towards an attractive chemical) it seems that the bacterium must be able to track the change in concentration of the chemical over time. That would seem to require a memory, which is an aspect of mind.

However, we know exactly how this process, chemotaxis, works in bacteria, down to an astounding level of detail. Here's a snippet from a really interesting and detailed article on the topic, little of which I understand:

Increased concentrations of attractants act via their MCP receptors to cause an immediate inhibition of CheA kinase activity. The same changes in MCP conformation that inhibit CheA lead to relatively slow increases in MCP methylation by CheR, so that despite the continued presence of attractant, CheA activity is eventually restored to the same value it had in the absence of attractant. Conversely, CheB acts to demethylate the MCPs under conditions that cause elevated CheA activity. Methylation and demethylation occur much more slowly than phosphorylation of CheA and CheY. The methylation state of the MCPs can thereby provide a memory mechanism that allows a cell to compare its present situation to its recent past.

There's much, much more of this, but the end result is that the bacterium's swimming behaviour is modified so that it swims towards nice things.

I don't doubt that our minds ultimately developed from similar foundations, but we can see that the bacterium achieves what it does without consciousness. So I don't agree with Thompson when he says where there is life there is mind.

So, when you say: "the information going through the optic nerve is just electrical impulses," you are correct (if we simplify how sight works considerably). The pattern of action potentials in the optic nerve is a signal. What information ontology is saying is that, when you look very closely, at the most basic level, you will not find electrons. What you will find is information representing electrons; information is the basement of ontological entities, it doesn't go any deeper. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What does the information do in addition to what the electrons do?

What’s crucial in these examples are the concepts of complexity , pattern, scheme, thematics, normativity. I think they imply a non-linear, reciprocal feedback idea of interaction between physical entities that is a more sophisticated understanding of causality than linear causal dynamics allows for. — Joshs

What's the relevance to consciousness or the mind?

Now, in all quantum theories I know of, particles lack haecceity. That is, they an essential thisness of identity unique to them; — Count Timothy von Icarus

There's an error in this Tim, could you correct it so I can understand?

How do bioelectrochemical processes express increases in complexity of neural
organization as opposed to just arbitrary differences? — Joshs

I'm not sure why you're asking these interesting questions.

I don't think those processes do "express" increases in complexity. A little more explanation perhaps?

You'll understand that "electrochemical impulses" is shorthand for all the brain processes.

In my son's lab they were able to identify individual neurons firing when a mouse saw a line moving on a screen. The mouse would press a button when it saw the line, to get a reward. Is that close enough to "sign evaluation" for you? It all takes place thanks to the bioelectrochemical processes (and not "information").

And how does perception take place? It's those electrochemical impulses (not information) travelling along the optic nerve, for example. And what causes any resulting behaviour? More electrochemical impulses.

HEADRICK: The concept of information is very general. When we're talking about computers, we think of bits and bytes and megabytes and so on.

Yes, we do think about those. That is to say, they are something in our minds. Not something in the computer.

If the information about the object is the only thing you can show to exist — Count Timothy von Icarus

But it isn't. It's something you can't show to exist. Wikipedia says the optic nerve carries visual information to the brain. But what it really does is conduct electrochemical impulses. What does the information do in addition to what the electrochemical impulses do?

How does the semantic information reach our minds?