In that article, the application to ‘information’ is mainly in respect of using entanglement to provide secure communications a.k.a. ‘quantum cryptography’. Nowhere does it say that information is a constituent of matter, unless I missed it. — Wayfarer
Noise was a known problem before Shannon because their technology was analog. — frank
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, — Pop
I'm quite surprised by your attitude. Lately you have provided some great links to the Royal Society, on how biology was going down the informational route. — Pop
It's not a vague claim about 'everything being information'. — Wayfarer
A digital understanding of information turned both noise and signal into definite countable bits - binary degrees of freedom — apokrisis
So here I think the attempt is to avoid a dualism of mind and matter by saying that this modeling perspective doesn't exist separately from the material domain - ' The information a gene, quantum process etc. contains is not ontologically distinguishable from the structure of its components.' — Wayfarer
But I think underlying this attempt is the assumption that material substance, or the domain of objects presented in everyday experience, is fundamentally real. — Wayfarer
He doesn't seem to want to go full idealist, but it's hard to avoid. — Wayfarer
Zeilinger thinks not: "No, we [need] both concepts. But the distinction between the two is very difficult on a rigorous basis, and maybe that tells us something." Instead, we need to think of reality and information together, with one influencing the other, both remaining consistent with each other.
Sounds an awful lot like 'mind' to me. — Wayfarer
And I also agree Pop is doing the opposite of conflating everything that ought to be kept separate. He is using the folk confusions over both quantum theory and information theory to make a simple-minded monist claim where information states = conscious states ... because "information integration", or "information parallelism", or whatever monist hand-waving confusion seems to serve the purpose. — apokrisis
Very familiar. — apokrisis
He is using the folk confusions over both quantum theory and information theory to make a simple-minded monist claim where information states = conscious states ... because "information integration", or "information parallelism", or whatever monist hand-waving confusion seems to serve the purpose. — apokrisis
The statement “everything is information” is also applicable to you. If you cannot provide something that is not information, It follows, everything is information, including consciousness. Note the information in consciousness is integrated. — Pop
So (Matter-Information)? That seems like a new kind of dualism. Are brains even required?It follows information is a co-element of any substance. — Pop
So (Matter-Information)? That seems like a new kind of dualism. Are brains even required?
This is better:
Matter--->Brain(Information; the perception of matter). — Mark Nyquist
What on earth are you talking about? — frank
↪Pop The Carl Popper method of negating an argument is dependent on how you define information and your definition is clearly untestable. Your perception of (Matter-Information) is a hallucination of your mind. — Mark Nyquist
Yep.IIT is panpsychist — Pop
Mass - energy - information is the new way forward. — Pop
That particular equivalence applies at the Planck scale. So it has nothing to do with the equivalence scale that actually matters for life and mind. — apokrisis
All you are demonstrating is that you don't understand your own sources.
Consciousness as a neural process is as much about differentiation as integration. So any simple claim about "quantities of information" is entirely missing the point.
That is why I prefer architectural approaches like Friston, Grossberg and Freeman (to name a few) that positively emphasise the brain's ability to ignore the world - to limit its "information". They get into what is going on at a deeper conceptual level.
Tononi isn't wrong. He just offers the shallow end of the pool story. ITT builds in the faulty psychology of Cartesian representationalism. And that is the bit you have picked up on and presented here. — apokrisis
Straw man followed by plain silliness. Yet you seem to want to be taken seriously. — apokrisis
IIT is panpsychist. Mass - energy - information is the new way forward. — Pop
And why does every 'thing' need to irreducibly contain information? So would you say something elementary like a hydrogen atom has some information pixies hanging about. How does that work. Why not make it easy on yourself and identify it as a hydrogen atom, period. — Mark Nyquist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.