This is a continuation of my comments on your essay : What is consciousness? :Below is an extract from my theory of consciousness. The whole theory can be read here. It tackles the hard problem, so you might find it interesting. Any comments would be appreciated. — Pop
Thanks for your comments. yes they are very similar understandings in many ways. Similar to me, you have taken the information route and that results in a particular understanding. I feel a little embarrassed about my theory as its only six months old but I have found a better understanding. Not that what I've said is necessarily wrong, but it can be understood much better from a process , rather then information perspective. Be warned, I will try to interest you in it. :smile:— Gnomon
Q. "Consciousness can be described as a process of self organisation"
C. Actually, human consciousness is the current state-of-the-art of the evolutionary process of enforming that has been going-on for billions of years. Consciousness is not the process itself, but an expression of that process. "To Enform" is to create a new organization of an older pattern. — Gnomon
Q. "Consciousness is an evolving process of self-organisation that has at its root a bias to resist the zero point energy state."
C. Yes. I call that "bias" a ratio -- as in the definition of "energy" as a thermodynamic ratio between polarized states, such as Hot / Cold or Positive / Negative. The bias flows from excess to deficit. — Gnomon
Q. "Consciousness and life arose together, as without consciousness there can be no life"
C. In my thesis, Life arose from non-conscious in-organic matter, and consciousness emerged much later in evolution. So the "force" that caused Life & Mind to evolve was not Consciousness, but the power of EnFormAction --- one phase of which is Shannon's meaningless data, and another form is the meaningful contents of highly-evolved minds.
If you assume that only living organisms are sentient, Life must emerge prior to Consciousness. Your life-giving notion of Consciousness seems to be something like a Vital Force, or Chi, or Prana. And I agree that EnFormAction is similar, but I prefer to avoid those ancient pre-scientific terms based on the assumption of Spiritualism. — Gnomon
C. Even human consciousness can be reduced to quantitative Information via the scientific method of Reductionism. But we tend to feel that human Consciousness is much more than just mathematical information. It has holistic implications of higher values. such as morality.
* External to human consciousness though, we can no longer have two-way dialogues. We still can't read the minds of single-celled organisms, except to infer automatic responses to inputs via behavior. Yet, Information is still functional in inorganic matter as a chain of Cause & Effect — Gnomon
Q. "A mind empty of integrated information is unconscious and ineffable"
C. I agree that Consciousness is a form of Integrated Information, in the sense that it arises as a function of the Whole, not the Part --- of the Mind not the Neurons. — Gnomon
Q. "A bias is an emotion."
C. Yes. Human consciousness is experienced in part via pre-verbal emotions, and expressed via verbal concepts.
However, by assuming that such Consciousness is fundamental, some New Agers believe that inorganic and non-living Crystals are Conscious in some sense. If so, then we should be able to communicate with them, if not in words, then in feelings. I can only say, I'm skeptical. — Gnomon
But do atoms have emotions and experiences that are meaningful to them? We may imagine so, but we can never know, until they communicate their feelings to us. — Gnomon
Q. "6: A feeling is located as a point on a pain / pleasure spectrum ( PPS)"
C. Yes but, some people -- such as followers of the Jain religion -- carry that notion too far. For example, if I inadvertently step on an ant, does it feel the (human) emotion of Pain? If so, am I guilty of causing pain to a sentient organism? At what "point" can we draw a line on the "spectrum" between Living Beings and Moral Agents? — Gnomon
Q. "This cognizes the instance of consciousness - the point on the pain / pleasure spectrum tells
you what this instance of consciousness means for you."
C. Perhaps we can draw a meaningful & moral distinction between a> Rational Consciousness (humans) and b> Emotional Consciousness (animals) and c> Mechanical Information exchange (atoms) — Gnomon
Q. "What does it feel like to be conscious?"
C. Feeling is the subjective emotional experience that can't be expressed in words or in terms of neurons — Gnomon
Hold-on now. You were on a reasonable path. So don't go off on an irrational tangent. :joke:Yes originally I also began with information as the first step, and it still figures prominently in there, but now I understand self organization is the overriding process. — Pop
Self-organization is indeed a function of the ubiquity of Information. Yet I doubt that spontaneous organization can occur prior to the existence of a "Self" with the power to "organize" (to create order). The physical universe is indeed in the midst of a process of self-organization. It's like a computer program that runs on the system's inherent energy, and is guided by an operating system of rules for self-organization. In the terms of my thesis, the universal program is described as a process of En-Form-Action. But nothing in our real world experience is completely spontaneous, without precedent. Instead, just as every program has a Programmer, every causal process has a First Cause. Unless it is Self-Existent of course, which is a necessary quality of a First Cause, or Creator. So, I question the conclusion to the quote above.Information assumes a big bang / beginning, whilst self organization dose not need it. — Pop
Self-organization is indeed a function of the ubiquity of Information. Yet I doubt that spontaneous organization can occur prior to the existence of a "Self" with the power to "organize" (to create order). — Gnomon
Instead, just as every program has a Programmer, every causal process has a First Cause. Unless it is Self-Existent of course, which is a necessary quality of a First Cause, or Creator. — Gnomon
Recent theories of Cosmology have proposed that our universe did not begin with a "bang", but with a spontaneous (un-caused) Fluctuation in a pre-existing energy field. I assume that this was another attempt to avoid the inadvertent religious implications of the Big Bang as a creation event, requiring some kind of "external agent". Yes, in the real rational world, "spontaneous events" may appear out-of-nowhere, like an "immaculate conception", but logically & physically, there is always some necessary-but-unknown prior Cause -- perhaps an absentee baby-daddy, or maybe the Initial Link in the unbroken chain of causation that can be inferentially tracked back to a First Cause, or at least a Higher Context. — Gnomon
What I'm saying here is that the hypothetical Original Cause, of apparently-spontaneous-organization, is necessarily an "external agent" combining explosive Power with teleological Direction (energy + order). Even Hawking's "No Boundary" theory was based on the hypothetical assumption of an eternal realm of unlimited Possibility : — Gnomon
Therefore, a process without a beginning just doesn't make sense, logically or physically. And Hawking's retort to "what came before the Big Bang" was open-ended and ambiguous. From the perspective of his isolated (no context) mathematical model, he said, "it's like asking what's north of the North Pole". But in our real world, what's north of the North Pole, is a whole universe in the process of becoming. My thesis did not begin with the assumption of a particular First Cause. But as the concept of Creative Information evolved, it became obvious that some kind of Enformer was logically unavoidable. :cool: — Gnomon
Self-organization, in the real world, is not a problem for me. We see it happen all around us. I once saw a time-lapse video -- to illustrate Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphogenesis -- of a seedling growing into a plant. The various elements of the plant somehow found their way to their final location as-if they knew where to go. Most scientists assumed the necessary "knowledge" was encoded in the DNA of the original seed. But Sheldrake postulated a Morphogenetic Field that guides each element to its correct place in the whole system. I don't think a literal external field is necessary though. That's because each element of the growing plant "communicates" with other elements via chemical signals (information). That exchange of self-organizing information is internal to the system, not an outside force.Yes I thought this would be a problem for you, but it may also be a solution. I find you have an intelligent conception of God, not an anthropocentric biblical God, but a creative force like element, and " self organization " is just such an element? :smile: God would have to self create? No. So god may have arose from self organization? — Pop
I suspect that your definition of "Organization" might be similar to my notion of EnFormAction. EFA is the causal force in the world. It causes random matter to become ordered into organisms. So, EFA is the power to organize. :nerd:I am only beginning to understand self organization, but my first impression is that it is organization that causes a self. — Pop
Yes. Even Hawking's atheistic "No-Boundary" hypothesis of world creation assumes the eternal existence of Energy & Natural Laws (Organization or Information). Logically, those prerequisites must be external to the world system that began, either with a bang, or from a fluctuation. :chin:Yes I agree, as far as I can logically figure it, there has to be an external cause. — Pop
Yes. I think what you call "Organization" is the same thing that I call "Information" or "EnFormAction". They all have a bias or inclination toward order rather than disorder. I like Plato's story of how our Cosmos (organized matter) emerged from primordial Chaos (unformed potential). We seem to be talking about the same concept, but using different terminology. :grin:Creative information: Yes, but I think the creativity results from a bias ( emotional information ) towards order. — Pop
Sheldrake postulated a Morphogenetic Field that guides each element to its correct place in the whole system. — Gnomon
To say that that organisation exists on many levels - inorganic, organic, sentient - doesn't explain anything, it's just an observation. — Wayfarer
How does that account for cancer, or any other disease? Is that ‘self disorganization’? — Wayfarer
In the Enformationism thesis, side-notes are mostly quotes from the Bibliography listed under the "Information" tab.Have you thought about hyperlinking the texts on the side of the pages to the main document? — Pop
I no longer have a religious belief in the Bible God. So, I had to re-construct my personal worldview from scratch. My current notion of a Nature G*D is the "god of the philosophers", which is always debatable. It's also not a matter of faith, but merely an unprovable Axiom for my thesis. Unfortunately, that Deist axiom is not accepted by Theists or Atheists. :naughty:What I don't understand is why do you need to postulate a theory when you have a belief in God? — Pop
Since my thesis is primarily based on the cutting-edge concept of Information as the "substance" of both Mind & Matter, I followed that logic to conclude that a First Cause or Enformer was necessary for the thesis to make sense. Speaking of Logic, one of the philosophical terms I use to characterize my non-traditional notion of G*D is "LOGOS". According to Plato, it was the rational self-organizing force permeating the universe. But, he distinguished Logos from Mythos, which was his name for the anthro-morphic gods of the Greeks. :halo:The reason I ask is because " self organization" is looking to be a God like concept to me. — Pop
I don't normally define G*D as "self-organization", because I view Logos as the eternal power to organize, which was imparted to the temporal world in the Big Bang act of creation. Hence, the specific instances of self-organization we observe in the world are secondary to the universal power to create organized organisms. :nerd:Do you have a definition of God? The reason I ask is because " self organization" is looking to be a God like concept to me. — Pop
In Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory, phi (ф) is a measure of the system's integrated information, its degree of wholeness. And "wholeness" is another name for Synergy, as in "the whole is more than the sum of its parts". On that basis, neuroscientist Christof Koch now equates Consciousness with Synergy. Going out on a professional limb, he says, "So consciousness is a property not only of brains, but of all matter". However, as usual, I prefer to save the term "consciousness" for the most highly-evolved forms of Generic Information. :nerd:Or put another way; the synergy is a function of self organization. — Pop
Yes. I think Sheldrake was on the right track in his theory of Morphogenesis. But his presentation of the ideas sounds a lot like New Age mysticism. That's why I prefer to use the more prosaic terminology of Enformationism. Of course, for those not familiar with the cutting-edge physics that equates Information with both Mass and Energy, my own theory is often dismissed as Mysticism -- despite my assertion that no Magic is required beyond that of Quantum queerness. However, I can't deny that it is heretical to the outdated paradigm of Materialism. :cool:Sheldrake (whom I most admire) is a scientiific maverick whose views are almost universally rejected by mainstream science. John Maddox, editor of Nature magazine, famously titled his scornful review of Sheldrake's first book 'A Book for Burning', saying it should be scorned by scientists for the same reason Galileo was scorned by the Church - that it was heresy, and magical thinking. — Wayfarer
Synergy does imply a direction, if not a specific goal, that a multi-part machine works toward. But it does not necessarily imply a self-conscious Purpose. For example, a thermostat is composed of several different components that, when working in cooperation, produce a specific result. But we can't say that the thermostat "wants" to keep warm. That purpose must be supplied from outside the system, by a conscious programmer. Likewise, our evolving world seems to be working toward producing sub-systems of greater complexity and synergy. But, for what purpose?I do wonder if your notion of 'synergy' actually accounts for anything. It simply says - 'look, all these things work together' - which is what 'synegy' means.
What is lacking is a sense of telos, of purpose - that things work together for a common goal or end. — Wayfarer
Oh no! I'm not a New Ager, but a New Paradigmer. :yum:Oh, you're at least as New Age as Sheldrake. — Wayfarer
That purpose must be supplied from outside the system, by a conscious programmer. Likewise, our evolving world seems to be working toward producing sub-systems of greater complexity and synergy. But, for what purpose? — Gnomon
I no longer have a religious belief in the Bible God. So, I had to re-construct my personal worldview from scratch. My current notion of a Nature G*D is the "god of the philosophers", — Gnomon
Therefore, although I see signs of Synergy & Teleology in the world, I can't predict how the story ends, — Gnomon
I think your concept of nature's ability to organize new systems from local interactions -- as the route to consciousness -- is on the right track. But I still maintain that the system we call Nature could not organize itself from nothing. And that talent for creating order from chaos is not an accident. It's what I call EnFormAction. Both the local elements and the causal force originate outside the Self.The effect of "self organization" is inherently to create a self from elements entirely outside of self. So there is no need for external causation ( creator ) at all. — Pop
Your description of the “cognizing” process is correct, as far as it goes. Yet again, it omits the requirement for an external Cognizer or Creator to design the cosmic “mechanism” in such a way that it produces the output we call “Consciousness”. That output is not a physical product, but the ongoing process of Knowing. It's the "intelligent design" of the machine that imparts the Potential for actualization of Mind from Matter. Like Paley's Watch in a field, our experience with reality makes the spontaneous appearance of such a functional machine unlikely. (Note : Yes, it's the old Intelligent Design argument, which only works for a Deist-god, not a Bible-god)It is cognizing (via disturbance to its integrity) and reintegrating the disturbance via the bias to self organize. This last sentence describes the mechanism of consciousness as best I can resolve it. — Pop
Both the local elements and the causal force originate outside the Self. — Gnomon
it omits the requirement for an external Cognizer or Creator to design the cosmic “mechanism” in such a way that it produces the output we call “Consciousness”. — Gnomon
Again, we are using different terminology to describe the same phenomenon. What you call "Universal Bias", I call Enformy. It's a natural inclination or tendency toward complexity & progress, which counteracts the disorganizing & destructive effects of Entropy, allowing such highly-organized phenomena as Life & Mind to emerge from the randomized mechanical procedures of Evolution. As described in mathematical terms, it's a ratio or relationship between two things. When that ratio is balanced (1 : 1), nothing happens. When it's biased toward one pole (2 : 1), it tips the balance in a positive direction. But when it's biased toward the opposite pole (1 : 2), it shifts the balance in a negative direction.Yes they originate from the universal Bias to self organize, and from elements external to self. The self is caused initially, and then takes on a momentum of its own. — Pop
That is also how I view Evolution. Many scientists emphasize the "random element" to conclude that it has no direction, no teleology. But Natural Selection seems to apply specific criteria to define fitness for each fork in the chain of causation. That specification is a result of what I call "EnFormAction", Pure randomness would have no direction or pattern. But enformed randomness provides a degree of freedom within the constraints of cause & effect determinism. :wink:Self organization fits beautifully as the cause of evolution where the main thrust is determined, but with a slight random element. — Pop
When that ratio is balanced (1 : 1), nothing happens. When it's biased toward one pole (2 : 1), it tips the balance in a positive direction. But when it's biased toward the opposite pole (1 : 2), it shifts the balance in a negative direction. — Gnomon
What you call "Universal Bias", I call Enformy. It's a natural inclination or tendency toward complexity & progress — Gnomon
:up:But enformed randomness provides a degree of freedom within the constraints of cause & effect determinism. :wink: — Gnomon
Unfortunately, he seemed to assume that everything in the world is conscious to some degree. — Gnomon
- an emotion! Can an emotion be fundamental? Can an emotion explain the why of gravity, and physical laws? Does it underpin Enformy?Bias : A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. — Gnomon
If it feels good – you continue
If it feels bad – you think again, or initiate a plan of action to avert the potential pain. — Pop
For the sadist or masochist — Benj96
It is possible the existence of a state of consciousness that wishes to not be conscious (ie wishes to be dead) — Benj96
I suspect that what you call "emotional information" is what I'm calling "intention". Repeated signs of intention (directional ; goal-oriented ; teleological) is what we call a "Trend" or "Tendency". In humans, an inclination toward some effect has an internal cause, which we call "Motivation" or "Emotion". In my thesis, I call the ultimate motivator, the Enformer : the source of both Momentum (inertial energy) and Direction (regulation, laws). Metaphorically, it's the Pool Shooter, who wants to put the eight-ball into the corner pocket. :joke:How do you resolve the bias, or natural tendency or inclination towards order. As far as I can reason it, it is emotional information. — Pop
To say that the universe chose its "own way of being" implies that it is conscious and teleological : already a sentient being, who chooses a career. But, I see no evidence that the Temporal Universe As A Whole -- which contains sentient beings -- has reached the point of sentience.So again, I think the impetus that set this physical system on a certain path must have come from outside the system : from an eternal Multiverse, or an eternal Mind. Hence, the "way of being" of our world seems to have been set in the initial conditions (program) of the Big Bang. :nerd:The universe could have been an infinite number of different ways, but it chose just one way of being - a being towards order. — Pop
Again, I make a distinction between the highly-evolved Consciousness (information processing) of humans, and the simpler exchanges of energy (EnFormAction) at the lowest levels of the world system. This cosmic hierarchy is enformed by EnFormAction at all levels, but only the peak of the pyramid is fully self-conscious. Pure Information is Mathematical & Logical (1 : 2 & one is related to two as . . .), but in its "higher functioning form", the information is Mental : conceptual & self-referential. Hence, Information (energy + laws) seems to be the "singular quality" that everything in the universe possesses. :chin:It seems frustratingly stupid to me, to think we can posses a singular quality nothing else in the universe possesses, although it is the prevalent dogma. We have a higher functioning form of consciousness, but everything possesses it to some degree. — Pop
Yes. In Chaos Theory, a "strange attractor" seems to organize an otherwise random system into a relatively stable form, like a whirlpool in a calm pond. The proximate cause is not obvious within the random background. But the seeds of order (bias) are always lurking even within seeming chaos.Central to the self organizing system is an attractor, rather then a causal element, that is not to say causation can be excluded . — Pop
That's why my thesis is a Monism : the single Universal Substance (Spinoza) is Generic Information, or EnFormAction (the power to create novel forms). Hence, the Mind/Body knot unravels after you realize that both Mind & Matter are constructs of Energy + Laws.The hard problem of consciousness is only hard from a dualists perspective, from a monists - its hard to see there is a problem! — Pop
Emotions are the motivating force of human behavior. But I don't know what would motivate a World Creator to devise an evolving system of Energy + Laws, that cause such things as Gravity and Humanity to emerge from the random swirling of atoms. :cool:- an emotion! Can an emotion be fundamental? Can an emotion explain the why of gravity, and physical laws? Does it underpin Enformy? — 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.