Are you accusing me of lying, or of just being ambiguous? — Gnomon

I'm accusing you of willful ignorance.

If you think my definitions of Information gave Too Much Information (TMI). please don't look at the Information Philosopher website. It will boggle your mind. — Gnomon

Besides being presumptuous, that comment would be a case of psychological projection.
But I'm beginning to tire of such entertainment, so we are done here.

Aether has structure and dynamics — Zelebg

As a field, Aether has mathematical structure and dynamics, but no material structure. Math is pure immaterial Information. So any physical field exists by definition, not in terms of matter. I can call the universe an Information Field, which, like a Quantum Field, has the power to convert Virtual Potential into Actual Matter. I know this way of looking at reality is counter-intuitive, but so is queer Quantum Theory, which is the foundation of modern science, and we'll have to get used to it

Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist :
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html.

Electric and magnetic fields can be touched, that's all you ever touch. — Zelebg

You can't touch the immaterial field, but the atoms in your finger are affected by the spooky-action-at-a-distance of force fields. As I mentioned before, scientists often resort to metaphors of the macro world to describe the strangeness of the quantum realm.

Why Physics Says You Can Never Actually Touch Anything :
https://futurism.com/why-you-can-never-actually-touch-anything

But I'm beginning to tire of such entertainment, so we are done here. — Galuchat

Thanks for the "chat". :smile:

Phantasies are ok if they give you predictive power, but what do you do with a theory which gives you nothing to measure and no way to confirm? — Zelebg

Quantum Theory has proven to give scientists amazing predictive power. But measurement is a problem, as illustrated by Schrodinger's Cat. What they do, when faced with the Uncertainty Principle, is to run thought experiments (fantasies), where you manipulate Information (ideas) instead of Matter.

Measurement Problem : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

As a field, Aether has mathematical structure and dynamics, but no material structure.

Maxwell got his equations based on fluid dynamic of Aether. There is no discussion here, you either do not believe this statement is true or you do not understand what it means.

You can't touch the immaterial field, but the atoms in your finger are affected by the spooky-action-at-a-distance of force fields.

Dear god! You confused transparent with immaterial and then just hallucinated total nonsense out of thin air. Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with attractive and repulsive forces of the magnetic and electric field. Clearly you lack basic knowledge in both classical and quantum physics. I'm out of here.

Maxwell got his equations based on fluid dynamic of Aether. There is no discussion here, you either do not believe this statement is true or you do not understand what it means. — Zelebg

I don't doubt that Maxwell used the ancient metaphor of Aether, as did Einstein. But searches for tangible evidence have come up empty. Mathematically, the Aether may be as real as PI ( 3.14159 ) which has real world applications, despite being an abstract irrational number.

Apparently I don't know what you mean by "aether". A quick Google review of Aether articles finds that it is typically referred to as a "hypothesis", "theory", "proposal", "postulate", "conjecture", but not as a proven fact, that is "beyond discussion"..

"From the 16th until the late 19th century, gravitational phenomena had also been modelled utilizing an aether. The most well-known formulation is Le Sage's theory of gravitation, although other models were proposed by Isaac Newton, Bernhard Riemann, and Lord Kelvin. None of those concepts are considered to be viable by the scientific community today"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

"Also known as ether, the definition of the aether from dictionary.com is… “a hypothetical substance supposed to occupy all space, postulated to account for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through space”".
http://energywavetheory.com/explanations/aether/
This article also says "the aether exists", and has a video to prove it. It even claims that Aether "consists of tiny granules", as in the ancient theory of Atomism. But this seems to be a minority position among scientists.

"The term “aether” (or “ether”) lives on as a colloquial expression in the West, an abstract idea of the intangible void. Certain traditional cultures still consider aether the fifth element, and it plays prominently in the esoteric worlds of magic, mysticism, and the supernatural."
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a23895030/aether/

is consciousness a type of feeling at all, and if not, then what in the world is it? — Zelebg

This thread has strayed off-topic, from defining Consciousness to arguing about the existence of Aether, and other peripheral issues. But, I'd like to play around with the original question about Feelings.

I'll begin by observing that "Consciousness" seems to be a necessary function of living organisms. Or as Christoph Koch put it : "the feeling of life itself". Awareness begins as "feeling" in its literal, physical form, as a sense of touch or taste. Put out “feelers”, and receive feedback. That physical literal response is then transformed*1 into metaphysical metaphorical "feelings" (representations, symbols), that in turn stimulate physical emotions. Which is how touching is experienced*2 by the toucher. For example, a barely-alive bacterium or paramecium blindly gropes around in its environment as a means to stay alive, to find food and to avoid predators. Its sense of touch is mostly chemical (taste), and the representation of whatever is touched is probably evaluated by analogy : sugar good, acid bad. Without that minimal awareness of its milieu, the cell wouldn't achieve its "purpose" : to live. So, consciousness facilitates a teleological intention : to survive long enough to reproduce.

In effect, consciousness is an extension of Self out into the world. And self-consciousness is like the feedback of touching yourself. So, Consciousness is how living agents achieve their basic purpose. And Self-consciousness is how they achieve a higher purpose : to represent Self as an agent in its sensory model of the world. Hence, the process of conscious feeling is an inherent function of the process of living, not an option. You might say that consciousness is what Organism does, and Mind is what Brain does. What they do is create abstract analogous ideal images from information about the concrete real world. Those images are not physical or real, but they are useful and functional. The difference between Life and Non-life is awareness of energy inputs and outputs that motivate and guide the organism toward intrinsic goals, rather than, like billiard balls, by direct action & reaction. Consciousness is how we reach-out and touch the world in imagination.


*1 Transformed : this is the "hard problem" that is addressed by the Enformationism thesis.

*2 Experience : Latin, ex- "out";-peril "trial, test, danger". Living things "try, attempt, reach out" in order to "test" for danger or opportunity.

Is there nothing we can say about it? Is it process, succession of separate events? Is it feeling, sensation? Can we not even say yes or no to those questions? — Zelebg

In my hypothesis/theory/model under development, it is energy

patterns as an entity in-and of itself. That is, in my model, consciousness, esp. the qualia kind, is pure energy create as a sort of new, and separate entity within the physical entity, yet part the system as a whole. In my model, the 'consciousness' entity is pure energy, being in a resonant whole with the cognitive and sensory/motor systems such that they are effectively a whole, unified entity with all parts in tune and sensing all other parts all at once. This is a physical 'thing' not a process b/c it is an instantaneous resonant wave system inseparable from the physical boundary and propagating media properties/constraints.

The closest analogy I can think of is a macro version of a Bose-Einstein condensate, so maybe a 6th state of matter. Can't say with confidence yet, but I currently see this, along with many other frameworks/mechanics, as a promising framework for me to achieve the qualia aspect of consciousness. For the access aspects of consciousness, I'm modeling that under a sophisticated non-verbal linguistic framework, which are mostly data-structures and processes and I do not expect those will be part of the 'qualia' experience.

The only “I” that is present as you think about and pose your question is completely related to your conscious self. Under the cognitive framework that I am developing, the ‘I’ is not much more than a qualia resonant condition that takes form and flows within a cognitive architecture that requires a closed loop (potentially virtual) sensory-motor experience that grounds and shapes the metes and bounds of the cognitive agent into an embodied agent experience. Under my model the “I” starts from a random or ground state and starts extending itself into whatever has the highest degree of spacio-temporal correlation with the cognitive agent’s intentions. In this way, while the embodied experience is an illusion, it is an integral part of what you have grown to call “I”, even if embodied parts of ‘you’ become physically removed; e.g., much like the phantom limb phenomenon, or how a prosthetic limb becomes part of ‘you’. Hence, this “I” that has come to be in the integrated qualia state as an embodied agent cannot be one and the same with that soul-like concept which is thought to be in a non-physical, energy state, existing in another dimension, possibly (highly speculative) linked/synchronized quantum mechanically. That is, the only connection between the two that I can (wildly) imagine are purposeful patterns of non-random quantum fluctuations in your brain that could come from your ‘soul’ in another dimension, which may bias your embodied agent’s behavior in important yet very general, qualitative ways, but such a ‘soul’ (or non-local) connection cannot be directly part of your conscious ‘I’ as they operate in different dimensions.

I have been entertaining a hypothesis on the qualia of pain for many years, and I still hold it possible, if not plausible, if not actual. That is, in my model of consciousness as quasi-stable, dynamic standing wave resonance w/in our brains, anything that disrupts the stability of the resonant condition may be experienced as a qualia pain. One evidence for this hypothesis includes the fact that pain forces (consumes) ones conscious to focus on and experience nothing but the (discord) pain. Another evidence I have for this hypothesis is the actual pain people suffering from Epilepsy experience during an Epileptic seizure (discord in brain waves), which pain can be removed by electric shock to the brain like a defibrillator restoring the resonant heart beat condition. Also, the mental pain of a 'broken heart' causes a discord in consciousness thought.

As for the qualia of colors (like how we 'see'/experience 'red', seems to me such experiences boils down to 3 main factors:
1. The frequencies of light that (most) humans are pre-wired to call red, do indeed exist in the physical world. So, the verbal linguistic 'red' does exist as an analog symbol of that.

2. The 'red' category of color that (most) humans are pre-wired to have the qualia sense of red color, do mayexist in the person's cognitive world as a visual object. There are color blind people who see no red. There are also synesthesia people who experience other senses as (e.g., red) color. So, I figure if we had research evidence of color blind people who later gained color vision, saying they experience the qualia of 'red' color prior to gaining color vision, then that might evidence that the cognitive 'red' category does exist at birth. Or if a color blind synesthete 'saw' qualia colors that would also be strong evidence. I've never come across of such experiments or lines of investigations, but if anyone knows anything about that, please post it here b/c it should be quite instructive metaphysically as well.

3. The internal qualia projection of 'red' color is what we intuitively consider 'red' and that almost certainly exists only in our qualia projected internal reality, which is likely commonly shared b/c of common visual/mental systems genetic coding.

I'm starting to build a coherent hypothesis that qualia and emotive phenomenon are logically needed to optimally create and convey wisdom, but not at all needed to create data, info, or knowledge.

So, under my above hypothesis, experiencing a qualia and emotive phenomenon for the color 'red' might be needed to create and convey wisdom concerning the data value of red.

For the past 15+ years I’ve been, on and off (mostly off), developing various simulation models for all aspects of the human condition. I’ve put off consciousness for the backed of my work b/c it is the hardest area to make progress upon, but, realizing it could affect my global architecture, I recently (starting ~6yrs ago, and more seriously past 6mo) put in some preliminary effort to work out a first order model.
I am avoiding any direct quantum mechanics as being part of my consciousness simulation model. I that way I’m thinking differently than the mainstream ideas often mentioned (including Penrose, et. al). However, I do find the need to use macro-quantum mechanic like systems theories to help establish a framework enabling the kind of flowing resonant conditions I’m looking for. As of now, the ingredients of my first order consciousness simulation model include the following:
• Holographic phase space as the main cognitive fabric
• Meaningfully manipulating confinement Boundary conditions to perform calculations and selective state phase changes.
• Employing pilot-wave theory to achieve the macroscopic wave-particle duality I need to achieve a sort of global “I” (particle) state resonating with the global phase-space milieu capturing the whole at a point and the path taken (maybe like a quantum knot) being like a unique qualia experience.
• I’m initially avoiding entanglement concepts in my model. Instead, thinking to use soliton wave theory to transmit unique wave packet signatures within this phase space to bridge distal parts of the system (possibly unifying a multiplicity of sub-module pilot waves) with a common, unified “I” ‘experience’.
• Thinking to model each cognitive sub-module, of the multiplicity, as Bose-Einstein condensate types of phase change particle systems where they can only achieve quantum-like abilities (e.g., cognitive resonance, cognitive interference, cognitive tunneling, particle/wave duality, etc.) when they have been trained/cooled to a ground state truth (e.g., maybe like Boltzmann kind of thermal annealing learning, etc.) . As the sub-modules phase change to the Bose-Einstein condensate state they may interfere and tunnel with/to each other to form a global Bose-Einstein condensate state comprised of a resonating subset of the cognitive sub-modules with a global pilot wave path (quantum knot) which may simulate the unified “I” access and qualia consciousness ‘experience’.
• A parallel linguistic framework.
• A parallel statistical framework.
• A parallel reasoning framework.
• A parallel emotive framework.
• A parallel sensory-motor framework.
• A parallel imagination framework.
• And much more…

In this way, I’m looking at macro-scale quantum mechanics analogues as the most fruitful way I can build a consciousness system. I have no doubt that actual quantum mechanical effects (as many ponder) would naturally work with, and or enhance the macroscopic version I’m thinking of.

Is it possible the universe is conscious?

As a field, Aether has mathematical structure and dynamics, but no material structure. Math is pure immaterial Information. So any physical field exists by definition, not in terms of matter. I can call the universe an Information Field, which, like a Quantum Field, has the power to convert Virtual Potential into Actual Matter. I know this way of looking at reality is counter-intuitive, but so is queer Quantum Theory, which is the foundation of modern science, and we'll have to get used to it — Gnomon

Exactly what is this consciousness conscience of? I think there is a connection that is matter, but not a connection that is thought. Sort of like God may know the number of hairs on my head, but not what I am thinking.

Phantasies are ok if they give you predictive power, but what do you do with a theory which gives you nothing to measure and no way to confirm? — Zelebg

Disneyland. I do not mean that after Disneyland is made manifest, it can not be measured and confirmed, but that it would never happen without free flowing fantasy. To deny free thought is to atrophy our ability to create and that is not a good thing. Not only would that atrophy thinking but it sucks all the fun out of life and that is deadly.

I'm accusing you of willful ignorance. — Galuchat

That is an offensive remark isn't it? What good can come out of offending people?

Some of you appear to take yourselves very seriously. This seems to have become a cultural problem as it was Nazi Germany and I no matter how important you all are, that is not a good thing.

Consciousness is a state of affairs with a simulation. What is this state? Retract.

Might be wrong but...
Consciousness is injected by the simulation but the vessel has it's own matter, it has become akin like a primal synthesis.

How I come to this conclusion is it's internal of external shape. How is it tucked in by the simulation?

Seems threaded.

Our consciousness can be very selective. I think it is unconsciousness of others that leads to serious social problems. Those who enjoy abundance have no understanding of the poor and the poor lack understanding of those who enjoy abundance. If the poor thought as the well off think, they would be well off too and visa versa. Males lack the experience of being females and females lack the experience of being males. We only know what it is like to be the race we are but we do not experience being different race or a different ethnicity. It is quite obvious Christians process thoughts differently from non believers or they wouldn't disagree so passionately. It would be wrong to speak of consciousness as something we share in common.

Or as a prisoner once wrote me, "You can think shit tastes bad, but you don't know how bad until you eat". We can have sympathy for others, but not empathy unless we have had the experience of the other.