But since we're as ignorant as we are, could we be wrong that ChatGPT doesn't understand and isn't conscious? — RogueAI

Could be. Nobody can claim definite knowledge of the subject. There's no way to test any of the theories.

I don't suspect ChatGPT is conscious as a unit. The idea I've been discussing in this thread is that there must be information processing for something to be a unit in regards to consciousness. I don't think ChatGPT processes information. It does from our point of view, because we told it what to do. But is it processing information from its own point of view? I don't see how. When 110101101010001011010010100100 is input, it does what it is required to do with other 0s and 1s, based on it's programming. It doesn't know 001010001...001111101 means a flower. It doesn't know it is providing information for us. It doesn't know it is in communication with us. It doesn't even know it is manipulating 0s and 1s, any more than dominoes know that they are falling in particular patterns because of the way they were arranged, or that they are falling at all.

So I believe all the particles that make up all the parts of ChatGPT - all the wires, other physical parts, and electrons flowing, etc. - are having subjective experiences, because consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous. But chatGPT is no more a unit in regards to consciousness than a rock is, even if there is much more complicated activity within it than there is in a rock.

Your link has some great stuff. It's all way beyond me, so it's very possible things are far more than what I just posted in response to RogueAI. I'm generally talking about life forms that came about on Earth through natural processes. In Lights On, Eagleman says:

I think conscious experience only arises from things that are useful to you. You obtain a conscious experience once signals make sense. And making sense means it has correlations with other things. And, by the way, the most important correlation, I assert, is with our motor actions. Is what I do in the world. And that is what causes anything to have meaning. — David Eagleman

That goes along nicely with the quote I've posted so many times, including this thread, from Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam:

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind. — Ogas & Gaddam

The more a living thing moves, the more it comes to refine it's movements, and the more it learns to control it's environment. That goes for moving up the evolutionary tree, and for something like an infant human growing and learning.

But I guess that doesn't mean humans can't make something with real intelligence and understanding in a different way.

current LLMs convert inputs to outputs, just without muscles or physical sensation. Current LLMs make sense if signals - that chess gpt link demonstrates that well, we can see that they convert a series of chess notation into a chess board state. They do it without physical sensation, and without motor actions, sure, but they still do it.

I don't think they're conscious yet.

That's not the point of this conversation anyway. Rogue basically said, if everything is physical, then you should be able to understand the meaning of a book by just having physical access to it, even if you don't know the language it was written in. Which seems... absurd to me, to be honest. And we have what we could reasonably consider something not too far off from "physical understanding machines" in these LLMs - they display all possible outward signs of understanding. They're perfectly physical, and yet if you gave them access to a text written in a language they're not familiar with, they won't understand it. I consider that to be essentially tangible falsification of rogue's idea.

Could be. Nobody can claim definite knowledge of the subject. There's no way to test any of the theories. — Patterner

If the LLM's start making breakthroughs and displaying original thinking, that will imply maybe there's some emergent mentation happening. If they're incapable of doing that, that will imply it's nothing more than token prediction. I have a feeling there will be some LLM breakthroughs in the years to come.

That's not the point of this conversation anyway. Rogue basically said, if everything is physical, then you should be able to understand the meaning of a book by just having physical access to it. Which seems... absurd to me, to be honest. — flannel jesus

It's absurd because you know that knowledge of the physical facts of a book does not equate to knowing everything about the book. The book has to be read and the contents understood before someone can claim they know everything there is to know about a book. Therefore, physicalism is false.

And we have what we could reasonably consider something not too far off from "physical understanding machines" in these LLMs - they display all possible outward signs of understanding. They're perfectly physical, and yet if you gave them access to a text written in a language they're not familiar with, they won't understand it. I consider that to be essentially tangible falsification of rogue's idea. — flannel jesus

This is tricky because we're still not sure whether an LLM will ever be able to understand anything, the way we do, by having the idea in our minds. But even with LLM's I can construct a similar argument to the one I made about books and knowledge:
If physicalism is true, then an LLM that knows all the physical facts about a book knows everything there is to know about the book. An LLM knows all the physical facts of a copy of 1984, but has never read it. The LLM knows all the physical facts about the book, but does not know everything there is to know about the copy of 1984. Therefore, physicalism is false.

This is an awkward argument though, because can an LLM know anything? Is that possible?

This is tricky because we're still not at sure whether an LLM will ever be able to understand anything, — RogueAI

But you wouldn't be sure no matter what, period. There's no possible world where you would even admit the slightest possibility that it's understanding.

You can literally, right now, give it a text it's never seen before and ask it for a summary and it will do a damn good job. Even in the face of this you won't give any ground, meaning you're not the kind of person to give ground on this period, no matter what, in any particle world

If physicalism is true, then an LLM that knows all the physical facts about a book knows everything there is to know about the book. — RogueAI

And this still doesn't follow


There's no "if" when it comes to LLMs. Physicalism IS true for LLMs. They don't have souls. Everything they do and "know" and "understand" is all physical.

But you wouldn't be sure no matter what, period. There's no possible world where you would even admit the slightest possibility that it's understanding. — flannel jesus

Why would you say that? As an idealist, I think this is all a dream. There's only a cosmic mind and we're all conscious aspects of it. Think of a jigsaw puzzle. The whole puzzle is the one mind, and each of us is a piece of the puzzle. I have no problem with an LLM also being a conscious aspect of the one mind, a jigsaw puzzle piece, if you will. I kind of like the idea, actually.

You can literally, right now, give it a text it's never seen before and ask it for a summary and it will do a damn good job. Even in the face of this you won't give any ground, meaning you're not the kind of person to give ground on this period, no matter what, in any particle world — flannel jesus

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

interesting question for you:

Physicalism aside, if consciousness is fundamental, is there something it's like to be an LLM?

Physicalism aside, if consciousness is fundamental, is there something it's kind to be an LLM? — flannel jesus

That's to say is there something it's like to be a bunch of microchips in action? Maybe. There's something it's like to be a bunch of neurons in action, so I don't have a problem with LLM consciousness, but as an idealist, I have to believe there really aren't microchips and brains either. They're just parts of the dream. In this dream the one mind is dreaming, brains are associated with consciousness. I don't see why microchips can't be.

1) Consciousness is fundamental, not emergent from the physical.*

2) Therefore, something non-physical is also at work.

3) There's no reason to think matter everywhere in the universe that is arranged like us would not have the same subjective experience that we have.

4) The non-physical aspect of reality that gives us our subjective experience is doing the same everywhere in the universe. — Patterner

Haven't been on here for a few days, so I just now saw this. I'm looking at this argument, and I don't see how you can argue this while holding that consciousness is fundamental.

1) Okay.
2) What "therefore"? If consciousness is fundamental and not emergent then something non-physical is at work, sure. And that something... surely is consciousness? This seems circular?
3) That seems to be upside down to me. Again, it's true, but only because to have the experience we do is fundamental, and it involves being arranged like we are. Again circular?
4) I reality gives us our experience, then reality (whatever that is) is fundamental. I suppose I might have been implying from the beginning that - if consciounsess is fundamental - then reality isn't. It's consciousness that arranges reality.

That is, unless, you've rowed back on your definition, and consciouness isn't subjective experience, but something weird that gives us our experience. But then you have no definition.

What am I missing?

We don't have a clue as to how consciousness could emerge from the physical. It's like asking how we could build a house out of liquid water. Worse, in fact, because at least houses and water are both physical things. — Patterner

Yeah, we don't have a clue what consciousness even is apart from our experiences. In fact, even the "our" is an assumption here. I think it's at its very core a perspective problem, but I don't want to argue this here (as I'm not actually a panpsychist, just sympathetic to the idea.)

↪Patterner interesting question for you:

Physicalism aside, if consciousness is fundamental, is there something it's like to be an LLM? — flannel jesus

I really don't know enough about them to know if they are what I'm calling "units in regards to consciousness." They could be like dominoes, which are not processing information, regardless of the pattern they are in. Like squiggles in books, regardless of how they are arranged, dominoes, before during or after they fall, don't have any meaning other than what we perceive, which is because we arranged them so we could perceive that meaning. Is ChatGPT more than that? Is a calculator? Chat is obviously much more complex that a calculator, but do the moving patterns of electrons mean things? If not, then it's just a unit to our eyes. All its particles are having subjective experience. But what's the experience of a particle?

If it is processing information, if the moving patterns of electrons mean other things, the way DNA's codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins, the way certain impulses moving through our brains mean photons hitting our retina, then it is experiencing as a unit. Obviously, it's not experiencing all the mental processes we experience. But it's a start.

Is information processing possible without an observer to interpret the results? A person using an abacus is processing information with it. Let's say the abacus beads are moving in pattern xyz. What if that same abacus is now falling out of plane and the beads are moving back and forth from air currents also in pattern xyz? Is it processing information?

it seems fairly obvious to me it's processing information. No?

You accept that DNA is processing information - DNA is chemical dominos as much as anything computers do, including LLMs. If DNA is information processing dominos, LLMs can be too

and what is the point of the puzzle if even a LLM system is on there?

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. — Patterner

I really like this post btw. I would like to propose an alternative. "Everything has subjective experience, but consciousness is one aspect of subjective experience."

In other words, I'm going to give you the idea that everything has subjective experience. We can't prove it one way or the other currently anyway, so why not? But is all subjective experience consciousness? I don't think so.

Consciousness is more like a meta subjective experience. It is the subjective experience about experiences. Let me see if I can explain. Right now you're looking at these words, but there's still light from outside of the screen coming into your eye. Your brain is processing that light, but you aren't 'conscious' of it. Consciousness is the attention to the multiple subjective experiences your brain has, in a way that can sort it all out and decide what to do about it.

So while a rock could indeed have the subjective experience of being the atoms, it doesn't mean that there is an awareness of 'subjectively experiencing'. When I'm conscious I am aware I turn my head. When I'm not conscious off it, I'm not aware that I've turned my head. Thus consciousness is a level and intensity of meta awareness. I'm not conscious off my intestines digesting food, that's handled on its own. But I am conscious of what I decide to pay attention to within my vicinity.

↪Patterner Is information processing possible without an observer to interpret the results? — RogueAI

Yes. DNA is encoded information. The codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins. Using that information, things like the RNAs, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, and ribosomes assemble the amino acids and proteins. That's been happening since long before anything observed it.

But not everyone sees it that way. T Clark recently said it's "exactly the same" as the chemical reaction when you mix vinegar and baking soda, though much more complex.

A person using an abacus is processing information with it. Let's say the abacus beads are moving in pattern xyz. What if that same abacus is now falling out of plane and the beads are moving back and forth from air currents also in pattern xyz? Is it processing information? — RogueAI

I'm not comfortable answering this. :rofl: :rofl: I have too many half-baked ideas about information. (I use that phrase because I found a cookie shop in Buffalo today called Half-Baked. OMG.) I'm just throwing ideas around. Trying to make sense for myself. I'd appreciate any thoughts on it.

DNA is natural information. So are all biological information systems. Vision and the other senses. So many others in our bodies we aren't aware of, like our immune system, everything that helps with homeostasis, on and on. Natural information, in it's natural medium, does something. The information means something else, and something comes of it.

Natural information can be encoded in another medium. The information in DNA can be written on paper. But protein will not be synthesized. We can read that information. Most of us will never try to synthesize protein as a result of acquiring that information. Some people do. But nobody has to. Unlike when the information is in its natural form.

Some say the fundamental basis of reality is not matter, or energy, or space, or time. All of those things, and I suppose consciousness, are emergent properties. The true basis of everything is information. Probably mathematical information. In it's natural form, mathematics is certainly doing something. It's doing everything.

Let's just go with that, for the sake of argument. If all that is true, the beads on the abacus might be a human representation of (a veeeeeery^1,000,000,000 tiny bit of) the true basis of all reality. But the "processing of information" that I think is so important is, surely, taking place in the mind of the human manipulating the beads. The abacus isn't doing anything. Not the way DNA and all the biological information processing systems are. It's not the information in it's natural form, any more than DNA's information on paper is.

And I don't think beads that just happened to be blown around into particular patterns are processing information any more than an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters are. Things are going to happen from time to time that look like something significant, but it's not because information was processed. A Boltzmann Brain just happens to come together.

I'm with T Clark. It's just chemistry. DNA only becomes interesting and/or meaningful when a mind emerges from all that biochemistry and marvels at it. I ran my post by ChatGPT and it seems to lean towards computationalism. Not very surprising.



A Boltzmann Brain identical to mine that pops into existence (while it's alive and thinking) is processing information, don't you think?

↪Patterner it seems fairly obvious to me it's processing information. No?

You accept that DNA is processing information - DNA is chemical dominos as much as anything computers do, including LLMs. If DNA is information processing dominos, LLMs can be too — flannel jesus

I know what you mean, and I'm not sure I have an argument against it. But I still see a difference that feels important. DNA, I suspect all natural information, has an objective goal. Unless something prevents it, something specific will come of it. I wonder if natural information always produces or accomplished something.

Information we make never has a purpose in and of itself. It's always for our use. Possibly for the sake of understanding things, or sharing what we know. Well give it to me to me that give me that give it to me give it to me give me that give me that a camera dirty dog dirty dog George is a dirty dog give me give me joy joy you've had not come get it you bring it to me


That response applies to you, too.

argument against it. But I still see a difference that feels important. DNA, I suspect all natural information, has an objective goal. — Patterner

I would wager that you think it's special and different because it's part of you, and you think you're special and different

DNA is just chemicals. And no, it's not "Unless something prevents it, something specific will come of it" - that's not true of DNA. DNA requires a very specific environment, and very specific resources, to do what you are calling its "goal". It doesn't need to be actively prevented to fail - it needs to be actively enabled to succeed.

Take a bit of DNA outside of it's special little environment and watch it do nothing.

2) What "therefore"? If consciousness is fundamental and not emergent then something non-physical is at work, sure. And that something... surely is consciousness? This seems circular? — Dawnstorm

I don't know that everyone who thinks consciousness is not emergent thinks something non-physical is at work. Some may think consciousness is physical. Or maybe another explanation. I'm just saying this is what I think. Something non-physical - something that our sciences cannot deal with - is at work.

3) That seems to be upside down to me. Again, it's true, but only because to have the experience we do is fundamental, and it involves being arranged like we are. Again circular? — Dawnstorm

I'm just restating the old idea that we are not made of matter that is special or different in any way. Same stuff everywhere, same principles apply everywhere.

4) I reality gives us our experience, then reality (whatever that is) is fundamental. I suppose I might have been implying from the beginning that - if consciounsess is fundamental - then reality isn't. It's consciousness that arranges reality. — Dawnstorm

Possibly. It's also possible that consciousness is only one fundamental thing. The reason I think that is that I don't know why consciousness would, if it was the only thing going, develop a reality with properties that are so different from itself that it can't be found in, or explained by, them, and its very existence can be doubted.

That is, unless, you've rowed back on your definition — Dawnstorm

I don't think I have. However, I'm just exploring this whole idea, and I don't have reason to believe I'll come out the other end with exactly the same thoughts I went in with.

My intent with that post was to say, in at least this case, Fundamental is Omnipresent.

Take a bit of DNA outside of it's special little environment and watch it do nothing. — flannel jesus

DNA is never naturally found outside of its special little environment. Taking it out is doing something to prevent its natural function - synthesizing proteins for whatever species it is a part of, not just special humans - from taking place.

I really like this post btw. — Philosophim

Thank you.

I wouldn't fight you on your alternative proposal. I see the value in knowing that when someone uses the word "consciousness", they mean something specific. It won't be easy to get everyone to go along with this, because "consciousness" is often defined as "subjective experience". But I expect those who only define it as the mental properties humans have would be all in.

↪Patterner Is information processing possible without an observer to interpret the results?
— RogueAI
Yes. DNA is encoded information. The codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins. Using that information, things like the RNAs, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, and ribosomes assemble the amino acids and proteins. That's been happening since long before anything observed it. — Patterner

Already the RNA that transcribes is the "observer"- and more so, the resultant synthesised protein reactions in the cell are.

Though, in information theory we call the observer a "receiver", and info producer the "emitter".
There are concepts of entropy, validity, redundancy, loss and knowledge transmission related..

======
With due respect, this discussion misses some 75 years of prior research :P

"The English School of Information Theory emerged in the mid-20th century as a counterpoint to Claude Shannon’s mathematically driven theory of communication. Rather than focusing on signal transmission, this school emphasized the semantic, epistemic, and physical dimensions of information — especially how it relates to scientific measurement and observer knowledge.

Key Thinkers & Concepts

Dennis Gabor (1946): Introduced the idea of the logon — a minimal unit of information in wave signals — and explored how measurement itself is a form of information acquisition.

Donald MacKay (1950s): Argued that information is meaningful only in relation to the observer’s knowledge. He focused on how scientific measurements convey information about physical systems.

Léon Brillouin (1956): Bridged physics and information theory, showing how entropy and information are linked in thermodynamics. He emphasized that information reduces uncertainty for the observer.

Core Principles

Information is not just about transmission — it’s about meaning, context, and knowledge acquisition.

Scientific practices like measurement and observation are inherently informational.

The observer plays a central role: information is defined by how it changes the observer’s state of knowledge.

Historical Context

The English School gained traction in the UK during the 1940s–1950s, especially around the London Symposium on Information Theory in 1950.

It was later overshadowed by Shannon’s framework, but its ideas influenced fields like philosophy of science, statistical mechanics, and cognitive science."

Already the RNA that transcribes is the "observer — Ulthien

I assumed RogueAI meant an observer with some mental abilities, perhaps even humans. But if considering things your way, then perhaps the answer to the question "To whom do the codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins?" is RNA, or maybe the laws of physics.

With due respect, this discussion misses some 75 years of prior research :P — Ulthien

Darn, I was hoping nobody would notice. :rofl: I am not well read in much of this stuff.

To whom do the codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins?" is RNA, or maybe the laws of physics. — Patterner

they do seem to interact through shifting the possible states according to the key surfaces found in the environment. This IS already communication, and according to some Copenhagen and TIQM interpretations of quantum mechanics, it does mean that the "observation" of the surroundings leads to sensing, and afterwards to a determined outcome.

So yes, in lieu of my theory of consciousness, the proto-awareness is already there at this tiny level, BUT ONLY because it includes quantum wave collapse that in itself contains the measurement and, therefore, sensing aka "observation" of "what is" on the "outside".

=================
Here a bit of AI introduction to prof McFadden's thoughts on the subject:

Johnjoe McFadden, along with Jim Al-Khalili, proposed a provocative idea linking quantum mechanics to biological processes — particularly adaptive mutation and possibly protein behavior. While McFadden’s work doesn’t directly claim that proteins “unfold from a quantum indeterminate state,” he does explore how quantum coherence and decoherence might influence biological systems like DNA and mutation rates.

Key Concepts from McFadden’s Quantum Biology Work

Quantum Superposition in DNA: McFadden suggests that protons in DNA bases may exist in a superposition of states (e.g., shifted vs. unshifted), which could influence mutation outcomes.

Decoherence as a Trigger: Interaction with the environment — such as the presence of a substrate — could cause decoherence, collapsing the superposition and favoring certain mutations.

Adaptive Mutation Model: This framework implies that cells might “select” mutations based on environmental cues, challenging the classical view that mutations are entirely random.

Protein Folding & Quantum Effects While McFadden’s work focuses more on DNA and mutation, other studies — like those using variable-temperature ion mobility mass spectrometry — show that proteins can pass through intermediate states during unfolding, which may resemble quantum-like transitions in terms of unpredictability and complexity【6†7†8】. These states aren’t necessarily quantum indeterminate, but they do reflect non-classical behavior in how proteins transition between folded and unfolded forms.

You are absolutely on the right track:

"Our reality consist of systems:

1. Real systems - consisting of perceived, measurable mass or energy.
2. Abstract systems - consisting of neurons and neurotransmissions (a real system) - perceived by analysis of real systems.
3. Imaginary systems - consisting of neurons and neurotransmissions (still a real system) - that cannot be perceived by analysis of any real system." p178 How I Understand Things. The logic of Existence

Please observe that there is no consciousness necessary in this encompassing statement. "... consciousness is the ability of a functional brain, capable of abstract thought, to manage itself." p195 How I Understand Things. The logic of Existence

With due respect, this discussion misses some 75 years of prior research :P
"The English School of Information Theory emerged in the mid-20th century as a counterpoint to Claude Shannon’s mathematically driven theory of communication. Rather than focusing on signal transmission, this school emphasized the semantic, epistemic, and physical dimensions of information — especially how it relates to scientific measurement and observer knowledge. — Ulthien

Although Information Theory is an essential component of my Enformationism*1 thesis, I am not very familiar with the "English School". However, my thesis does not view Consciousness as fundamental. Instead, Awareness, and specifically self-awareness, seems to be an emergent property of material evolution. So, what is fundamental to physical reality is Causal Energy, which can transform into Matter. Moreover, cutting-edge science, has recently equated causal Energy with semantic Information*2. So, I have concluded that EnFormAction*3 (energy + form + action) is the causal power-to-transform. that is fundamental to our evolving material & mental world. Does, any of that make sense to you? :smile:


*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. The statement "energy is information" highlights a deep connection between these two fundamental concepts. While not a strict equivalence, it suggests that information, in its broadest sense, can be understood as a form of energy, and that energy plays a crucial role in the existence and manipulation of information.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+information

*3. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Schopenhauer's Will) of the axiomatic First Cause that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to transform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

PS___ For more info on Enformationism, see my reply to Danileo below.

just wanted to add a connection that could be found between information and and Dissipation-driven Adaptive Organization (DDAO) physical law.
Henceforth considering that information organizes dissipation and converts it again in an action (dissipation), humans are the most efficient beings on earth dissipating energy.


(DDAO) https://www.quora.com/Could-you-help-me-understand-Jeremy-Englands-theory-of-Dissipation-driven-Adaptive-Organization-Can-you-explain-it-so-a-layman-can-understand-it

↪Gnomon
just wanted to add a connection that could be found between information and and Dissipation-driven Adaptive Organization (DDAO) physical law. — Danileo

Yes. Living organisms exist in a state that is far from the equilibrium of Entropy, and successfully dissipate Energy, as they use it to generate their own Body, Life & Mind. Ironically, that un-numbered "physical law" is contrary to the the presumably universal Second Law of Thermodynamics. So some explanation for the "spontaneous" local violations of the dissipative law should be forthcoming from Science or Philosophy.

That anti-entropy process was labeled by Schrodinger as "negative entropy" (negentropy) in his essay What Is Life? In my own information-centric thesis of Enformationism, I call it "Enformy"*2. My amateur explanation of how Life & Mind emerged from a generally dissipative system assumes that : A> Information is fundamental, while Consciousness is emergent ; and B> Information (EnFormAction) is essentially Energy*3 (power to transform) ; and C> the anti-entropic Causal force (Enformy) weaves Actual Reality, including Matter & Mind, from a pre-Bang Pool of Potential.

Of course, that POP is a philosophical inference, not an empirical observation. But, if you accept the conjecture, then the OP could be reworded to say that "The precursor of Consciousness is fundamental". :smile:


*1. Dissipation-driven adaptive organization,as theorized by Jeremy England, proposes that systems, including living organisms, can spontaneously self-organize into more complex structures to efficiently absorb and dissipate energy from their environment. This process, driven by thermodynamic principles, suggests that the emergence of life and its complex structures can be understood as a consequence of systems optimizing their ability to dissipate heat.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+and+Dissipation-driven+Adaptive+Organization

*2. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
#. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
#. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
#. Destructive "Entropy" and Constructive "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preter-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. [ see ENTROPY at right ; Extropy ]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. The concept of "information is energy" suggests that information, like energy, is a fundamental aspect of reality with the capacity to cause change. While not universally accepted as a strict equivalence, several viewpoints highlight the close relationship between information and energy. Information can be seen as a form of energy, or at least closely intertwined with it, as it requires energy to be stored, transmitted, and processed.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+energy