is this what you are thinking? — Pop
Yes. The physical "correlates" are visible & tangible. But what does the "meaning" look & feel like? Generic Information takes many different forms, some physical and some metaphysical (mental). I think it's important to emphasize that, in it's meaningful form, Information is immaterial. That's not woo-talk though, because Energy is the same. No-one has ever seen Energy, they only see its Effects on Matter. For example, light rays traveling in dark empty space are invisible, and only become visible when they interact with the chemical Rhodopsin in the eye, thence conveyed to the "neural correlates". If a spacewalker is looking perpendicular to the beam of photons, he will see nothing. Only by putting his eyes directly in the path of the ray does he "see the light".I would disagree that it is invisible and intangible, I would say information has its neural correlates. — Pop
I think it's important to emphasize that, in it's meaningful form, Information is immaterial. — Gnomon
When I said: I have no problem with the equivalence of matter and information I meant that I have no problem to call it information, the structure or form we perceive in an object. I would not recommend it, as it leads to confusion. — Mersi
Certainly, Information has physical effects, but like Energy it has no detectable physical properties (color, size, density). Energy was originally defined as the "ability" or "capacity" to do work, or to cause change in physical things. But Ability and Capacity are qualitative potentials, that have no Actual quantitative substance. However, in a philosophical (metaphysical) sense, Information is the "substance" (i.e. essence ; form) of reality. Aristotle was more of a "realist" than Plato, whose Ideal Forms existed in a non-physical Potential state, until realized into physical Actual things. Of course, that's an abstract philosophical distinction, which may not appeal to some folks.I wanted to emphasize that information is physical in the sense that it causes our brain patterning to change. — Pop
Yes. At the early stages of the Information Age and Computer Era, Cybernetics was a novel concept, which took a holistic approach to all processes. But, like computers themselves, that notion has become commonplace, and hence has lost its novelty, but not its utility. :nerd:Do you know much about Cybernetics? It seemed to start with a bang, but then fizzled out, any idea why? — Pop
Certainly, Information has physical effects, but like Energy it has no detectable physical properties — Gnomon
Yes. At the early stages of the Information Age and Computer Era, Cybernetics was a novel concept, which took a holistic approach to all processes. — Gnomon
What I have not understood yet: Do you believe that we influence (In what way ever) the structure of an object when we perceive it and process this perception as information in the way mentioned above? — Mersi
As I study information in the sense that it informs ( shapes ) its potential power is growing in my mind. — Pop
Information in the sense that it informs? What's the driving force of the sellf organizing structures? How do the patterns on insects or tigers, or giraffes come about? What makes them different? How do the wings of a butterfly and the figures on it come about? Is it a coincidence that some patterns have skull shapes? How does the body of the chameleon change color? — Platoon
Turing patterns are fascinating. What is the source of self organization - that is the 64billion dollar question - now billions due to inflation. :lol: — Pop
I agree with your first statement. But not with the second. Can you give an example of an Energy "property" that is not known by its secondary "effect" on matter? Effects are caused by an outside force. But Properties are inherent in the object observed.I don't agree. The electron and proton in formation have a physical effect. Energy has detectable properties. The frequency of a photon can be measured. Gravitons curve spacetime. — Rstotalloss
I was not familiar with the term "Enactivism", although I think you have referred to it before. To me, it seems to focus on the two-pronged Informative power of EnFormAction : the ability to create both physical (things) and meta-physical (ideas) Forms. Information is both the physical structure of Material objects and the rational structure of Meaningful ideas. :smile:concept of holism, self organization, and then later to the Enactivist view of subject / object, amongst many other things. — Pop
Yes. The intuitive understanding of objects is that of naive Realism. And normally, it "bears fruit". But optical Illusions and drug-provoked Hallucinations bear bad fruit. What you "see" ain't always what is out there. :cool:It's not that we form mental images of objects and that we don't have access to the objects themselves. That's a kind of logical empiricism that would make my loved ones very unreal indeed. The situation can be compared with that of math in physics. The "shut up and calculate" attitude says that we will never know the objects an Sich. But the math is merely descriptive. It describes some objective properties. Math is merely a mental construction that we project upon the physical universe. The formalist approach is untennable. The intuitive approach bears fruit. — Platoon
Yes. The intuitive understanding of objects is that of naive Realism. And normally, it "bears fruit". But optical Illusions and drug-provoked Hallucinations bear bad fruit. What you "see" ain't always what is out there. — Gnomon
Do you think that Idealists are uninformed, irrational, or biased? :smile:What's naive about it? — Jeunesocrate
What are the intrinsic physical properties of "pure energy" fields? As noted below, they are imaginary abstract models of hypothetical (immaterial) mathematical "structures". In Architecture school, I built models of buildings that were not-yet-real, and never became real. Their only reality was in their effects on the observer, who might decide to construct a full-scale model.Photons and gauge fields in general are pure energy. — Jeunesocrate
Turing patterns are fascinating. — Pop
My opinion, is this doesn't involve information but is an entirely physical process. — Mark Nyquist
I like the definition of brain state is information. It could be the case that brain function is so advanced that most people just think everything is information. — Mark Nyquist
BRAIN(I have an immaterial mind) = BRAIN(mental content) = brain state = specific information — Mark Nyquist
Brain state as immaterial mind, is pretty much the end of the road theoretically. — Pop
I agree. The example is just to show how someone could hold this view but in fact it would be held as a physical state...brain state. — Mark Nyquist
I agree. — Mark Nyquist
If brain state is a physical patterning however, then information is a change to this physical patterning, then a brain is a body of past information, just like everything else is, and this leads to a theory of everything as evolving bodies of information. — Pop
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.