As for 'non-physical' representations, it would be hard for us to function without them and we all use them all the time...try never doing math. It's just better to understand than not.
This mental ability is also unique to us(humans) on planet earth and we don't know of it anywhere else in the universe. That is a stark contrast to the everything is information definition of information. — Mark Nyquist

I think it’s even better to understand that all representations are only partial structures of reality: they represent the difference between inner and outer systems. So maths is eventually applied by an inner system to an outer system according to qualitative-quantitative distribution of energy.

is a wavefunction of affect:
— Possibility
Did you miss that mental content (as contained) is unaffected by physical matter? — Mark Nyquist

Must have. In expanding ‘brain state’ to ‘BRAIN(mental content)’, what would you say is the process? By ‘mental content’, are you referring to a four or five-dimensional structure?

Did you miss that mental content (as contained) is unaffected by physical matter? — Mark Nyquist

Huh? Mental content unaffected by physical matters? Dont think so.

I maybe painted myself into a corner. Brain state is entirely physical and the subject matter of mental content can be affected and based on physical matter. I was referring to mental content the way you would think of thought or ideas as non-physical.

As an example I could show how mental content can flash into existence in a way physical matter can not. Let's say you are driving along a dark road and a deer jumps in front of your headlights. The physics would play out as expected but the outcome could be determined by how you manage mental content.

The entropy of you and me is about the same — Prishon

Nevertheless, we are completely different forms. — Prishon

:up: Between any two humans, the amount of genetic variation—biochemical individuality—is about . 1 percent. This means that about one base pair out of every 1,000 will be different between any two individuals. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20363/

Not much difference genetically, but experience then plays its part in furthering the divide due to the information we encounter ( information changes us in the act of experiencing ). Still not much difference, but enough to heat up discussion in a philosophy forum, and, of course, the wider world. :lol:

** In terms of being a self organizing system, shaped by information, there is no difference between us, and all other systems.

I see determinism as the momentum of informational structure, at all scales - but there is a slight element of randomness at the intersection of every transaction, such that it makes it a determinism with a slight element of randomness. This would seem to be the case in the natural world. This would seem to be entropy playing its part - the domino must fall, but can fall with a slight twist to the left or right thus changing its path slightly in the process, such that you ultimately can only probabilistically predict it's final location. This creates emergent novel form. Would you agree?

Would you agree? — Pop

Hi Pop! I read this contribution with delight. My answer is almost certainly yes. I want to say something more but I got a sudden ache in mt stomach. Damned! "Pain no like!" says Prishon... I must rest a while... I will certainly elaborate later!

"Still not much difference, but enough to heat up discussion in a philosophy forum, and, of course, the wider world"

:lol:

...what is your theory of everything? — Pop

Are they compulsory now?

There's a line of thought that holds that having a theory of everything is better than admitting to ignorance. I don't agree with it.

I distrust theories of everything. They are too easy to construct.

Are they compulsory now? — Banno

We all posses a theory of everything. Everybody takes an epistemic stance. It is just that for some people that stance is that there can be no understanding. Their understanding is that there can be no understanding, so when they come across an understanding, the immediate response is to dismiss it based on an assumption of no understanding.

You have a theory of everything - nobody gets to sit this one out. You understand yourself within your theory of everything. What is its form?

So you really think they are compulsory.

If you are interested in my view, you are welcome to read my posts.

If you are interested in my view, you are welcome to read my posts. — Banno

Yes, I'm familiar with your posts. You subscribe to the prevailing popular dogma, where most people gather and concur. It is not a bad strategy. Good luck with it, but it seems to me an odd place for a philosopher and enquiring mind.

You subscribe to the prevailing popular dogma, where most people gather and concur. — Pop

That got a laugh. I doubt many here would agree with you.

I maybe painted myself into a corner. Brain state is entirely physical and the subject matter of mental content can be affected and based on physical matter. I was referring to mental content the way you would think of thought or ideas as non-physical. — Mark Nyquist

As an example I could show how mental content can flash into existence in a way physical matter can not. Let's say you are driving along a dark road and a deer jumps in front of your headlights. The physics would play out as expected but the outcome could be determined by how you manage mental content. — Mark Nyquist

Flash into existence? Or come to your attention?

The way I understand it, five-dimensional conceptual structure isn’t organised according to time, but according to value/potential/significance in a ‘block universe’ type structure. So, as a deer jumps in front of your headlights, your most affected value structures determine what you pay the most attention to, and time can seem to have moved slower than normal when you recall the event and realise just how much you ‘noticed’. Most of that detail would come from existing conceptual structures, though, and after the event. In that moment, the new information is only what’s unpredictably changing in the areas you predict will count in how to act - all coded as affect. Pretty much everything else is filled in later and consolidated as you would expect. This is how the brain makes the most effective and efficient use of attention, effort and time. It’s also compatible with on-the-spot expressions regarding moments like these, such as “I didn’t have time to think”, or “instinct just took over”. Later, you will have formed a clearer, more rational explanation, including why you acted the way you did.

The way I understand it, five-dimensional conceptual structure isn’t organised according to time — Possibility

I wish you would do a thread on dimensionality so that slow pokes like myself could understand it?