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. :joke: — Gnomon

The way I understand it is that in a universe biased towards order, all of its component parts must also be biased towards order. As a monist, I then look to my own emotional bias, and can confirm I too am biased ( emotionally driven ) towards order, and then I try to see how this bias is expressed in less complicated systems.

Your understanding seems largely grounded in physics which blocks out the emotion and bias, and so cannot answer the why of cause, and so the body and all things non mind remain cartesian mechanisms. If a true monist understanding was applied to all things then an understanding that the universe was emotional would result. Such an understanding is desirable to me as I believe it would result in a better world, via a sense of universal relatedness.

In my view, your Enformer ( energy + information ) lacks the impetus provided by emotion. A philosophical Zombie has energy and information, but is inert without emotion. If your Enformer also possessed emotion, then with energy, information, and emotion would be equal to consciousness, which is equal to self organization. I have noticed that Donald Hoffman has recently received tenure, so it seems there is some momentum in this direction.

As I see it, humanity is a complex system something like the school of fish pictured above. The fish in the middle of the school are the safest, they are in a good spot and will not cause the school to move. Its the fish on the edge that can cause movement. They are in the riskiest position, but perhaps their movement might just cause the whole school to follow. Its the reward for being on the edge, they might just lead for a moment. The same dynamic exists in art and philosophy, in my view.

Even a seemingly self-creating Strange Attractor requires a system already programmed with the potential for new forms to arise from a patternless background — Gnomon

We cant see the beginning, there is not enough information. What we can observe though, is that the attractor is itself the program ( self organization ), in my opinion.

Everything is made from three self organizing things - electrons, neutrons, and protons.

Central to the self organizing system is an attractor, rather then a causal element, that is not to say causation can be excluded . — Pop

FWIW, here's a quote from my blog post explaining the neologism of "EnFormAction".

Attractor :
EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005LW5JAS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Deacon sees opportunities for unification by reintegrating “absence-based causality into science”

Note : Deacon's "Absence" is similar to Aristotle's "Potential".

EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. — Gnomon

Very much like self organization. Just needs a tiny bit of emotion to give it impetus :razz:

The way I understand it is that in a universe biased towards order, all of its component parts must also be biased towards order. — Pop

Ironically, the world model of Physics seems to be primarily biased toward disorder (entropy), so like an explosion of fireworks, it's all downhill after the Big Bang. However, physics also has discovered pockets of order within this dying cosmos, such as galaxies & stars & solar systems. And within our own local system, as far as we know, only Earth has fostered the emergence of Life & Mind. But physics has no good explanation for how or why those small pockets of negentropy could emerge, if the universe is a one-way street to "heat death". So, it's not physically true that "all parts are biased towards order".

In my thesis though, I have proposed a natural phenomenon that reverses that trend toward disorder, allowing Life & Mind & Culture to emerge from the random roiling of atoms. I call that bias toward order, "Enformy". It causes order within a context of disorder. It allows Life to arise from non-living matter. And it facilitated the emergence of Mind from mindless matter. Matter is indeed a form of Information, but only minds are conscious. Information (like energy) can be both positive and negative. But Life & Mind & Awareness are positive results of a mostly negative trend toward a cold dark end. Therefore, Consciousness seems to be the exception rather than the rule in our Universe. :chin:

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, [or bias] that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.

Your understanding seems largely grounded in physics which blocks out the emotion and bias, and so cannot answer the why of cause . . . . In my view, your Enformer ( energy + information ) lacks the impetus provided by emotion. — Pop

Yes. My worldview is indeed based on discoveries of Science, and especially Physics, that indicate the ubiquitous workings of Information (EnFormAction) in the world. But my thesis followed the physical evidence back to a metaphysical explanation for Life & Mind & Emotion & Bias.

But physics gives us no information about the Prime Mover that lit the fire leading to human Emotions. So I don't pretend to know what motivated the original Enformer to create an imperfect world that was already dying from the word "go". Unlike most Theists, I don't attribute human emotions to the abstract First Cause. Yet, logically that Source of all things must have possessed the Potential for such messy motivators as fear, love, hate, happiness, sadness, disgust & anger. Those are all variations on a single dichotomy : Positive vs Negative. Which are also the fundamental elements of Generic Information : (1 / 0), (+ / -), (yes / no), (hot / cold), etc. So, there must have been some "Why", some "Purpose" that broke the static symmetry of equally balanced possibilities, to allow a bias toward Order & Life & Mind & yes . . . emotions. :cool:

Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

If your Enformer also possessed emotion, then with energy, information, and emotion would be equal to consciousness, which is equal to self organization. I have noticed that Donald Hoffman has recently received tenure, so it seems there is some momentum in this direction. — Pop

If my Enformer possessed human-like emotions, S/he would have to also possess a humanoid body -- the generator of visceral feelings -- like most of the god-models of human civilizations. But, since I have no revelation from G*D, I can't say with any authority what G*D is like. That's why I assume that G*D has no Actual attributes, but only infinite Potential for all possible qualities. :smile:

S/he : a contraction of the gender pronouns to indicate that G*D is neither male nor female, but has the potential for creating both male & female beings, with positive & negative bodies (i.e. innies & outies).

Donald Hoffman : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Ironically, the world model of Physics seems to be primarily biased toward disorder (entropy) — Gnomon

There is so much focus on the second law of thermodynamics, when natural systems are open / dissipative systems. The second law of thermodynamics fails in the case of a rectangular closed environment, disorder levels of and no longer increases - Heat death would not occur!

So, it's not physically true that "all parts are biased towards order". — Gnomon

I did say in the local universe in local time, but yes you have a point if the universe is a closed system, and If it falls to equilibrium, which it is not going to do any time soon. :yikes:

So, there must have been some "Why", some "Purpose" that broke the static symmetry of equally balanced possibilities, to allow a bias toward Order & Life & Mind & yes . . . emotions. :cool: — Gnomon

:up: Its a hard thing to say, and we say it for slightly different reasons, but it seems logical and true.

Everything is made from three self organizing things - electrons, neutrons, and protons. — Pop

In what sense are those particles "self-organizing"? Don't they require pre-existing natural laws and energy to organize Potential Matter into specific measurable arrangements (patterns) of energy & mass? The currently accepted theory of matter says that invisible formless fields, not particles, are fundamental. The emergent particles are imagined as Virtual Particles that exist only in statistical Potential until some mysterious perturbation goads them into physical Actual existence. Before that actualization event they exist only as unreal in-commensurable mathematical probabilities in an algebraic equation. Anyway, those ghostly virtual particles don't voluntarily self-organize into real physical particles. Instead, they only jump like a frog when poked with a stick. :joke:

Virtual Particles : We often hear the word ‘virtual particle’ in physics and pop-sci explanations of quantum field theory. But, in reality, there are no such things as virtual particles. Today we will explore why (and how) virtual particles are needed, and also why they don’t exist.
https://medium.com/einsteins-cup-of-tea/virtual-particles-do-not-exist-ce82de3c1627

The second law of thermodynamics fails in the case of a rectangular closed environment, disorder levels of and no longer increases - Heat death would not occur! — Pop

Then that would be an exception to the rule. In fact, even your example would require Maxwell's imaginary "demon" -- a spiritual entity -- to sort-out hot from cold particles. The Thermodynamic Law still prevails, until magic is used to overcome physics. :joke:

Maxwell's Demon : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

but yes you have a point if the universe is a closed system, and If it falls to equilibrium, which it is not going to do any time soon. — Pop

The Law of Thermodynamics assumes, as an axiom, that our universe is a closed system, with no divine (or demonic) interventions. But, scientists still admit that the world is open-ended at both ends : a> in the Big Bang, inputs of laws & energy ; b> at the Final Freeze, the heat death of the whole system. Admittedly, some physicists conjecture that some of the energy & laws could leak-out of the system via Black Hole tunnels into the infinite world outside our little verse. But, they are still searching for evidence --- along with persistent UFO believers. :yum:

Its a hard thing to say, -- why? -- and we say it for slightly different reasons, but it seems logical and true. — Pop

Yes. The human mind understands the world in terms of logic & meaning. Logic implies a chain of cause & effect, but what was the First Cause? And meaning implies Purpose, but whose teleological intention could be invoked to explain the temporary existence of our running-down world, with pockets of anti-themodynamic Enformy? Whether my thesis is True or not, is too soon to say. :nerd:

Cosmic Progression Path : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

The currently accepted theory of matter says that invisible formless fields, not particles, are fundamental. The emergent particles are imagined as Virtual Particles that exist only in statistical Potential until some mysterious perturbation goads them into physical Actual existence. — Gnomon

Yes that is true, but like "the beginning" one needs to find firm footing. At least atoms are not in dispute / theoretical. Unlike string theory, which seems headed for the can.

The Law of Thermodynamics "assumes", as an axiom, that our universe is a closed system, — Gnomon

But, scientists still admit that the world is open-ended at both ends : a> in the Big Bang, inputs of laws & energy ; b> at the Final Whisper, the heat death of the whole system. — Gnomon

What about the black holes? What is dark matter and energy? How would things change if we understood the other 85%??

Cosmic Progression Path — Gnomon

I like it. It seems the rate of change is ever increasing. But in complexity theory the curve progresses and then suddenly collapses, like the Bronze Age , Roman empire, etc.

What about the black holes? What is dark matter and energy? How would things change if we understood the other 85%?? — Pop

Originally, Black Holes were assumed to permanently remove Information (energy + matter) from circulation in the universe. Now, some physicists speculate that black holes may be tunnels from our known universe out into the speculative Multiverse. Until they find some evidence to support that possibility, I won't attempt to fit those Information Leaks into my Enformationism thesis.

Black hole information paradox : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Likewise with Dark Matter, which is postulated to be composed of Non-Baryonic matter. Like the mythical Unicorn, I won't include such stuff into my worldview, until a real specimen has been captured and examined, to see if the horn is glued on. Like all forms of EnFormAction and Energy, we only know of its existence by inferring from its effects on the material world. What it actually is (consists of), remains unknown. Gravity is no longer assumed to be a pulling Force, but merely the geometric shape (form) of empty enformed space. So, maybe "Dark Matter" is also immaterial, and merely an aberration in the geometry of space. By that, I mean, it's an unknown form of Information/EnFormAction/Energy.

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I have my own speculation about the Dark Energy that is supposedly causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. I don't know enough about the inertia from the Big Bang that is propelling all matter away from the original pinpoint Singularity. But, if the energy of Inertia is affected by "friction", I'm guessing that the speed of expansion would increase as the mutual gravitational pull of galaxies diminished as the square of the increasing distance. The result might appear to be due to added energy, but could instead be due to subtraction of gravitational "drag". :nerd:

Newtonian Inertia Law Number One: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
https://insights.ltadvisors.com/blog/the-big-bang-theory-meets-sap-the-physics-of-erp-selection
But, what if the "external force" (gravity) is diminished due to increasing distance? Would the mass of the universe fly apart even faster? If so, as the drag of mutual gravity lessens, the inertial energy of expansion might increase, causing the original motion to speed up.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its velocity.

I like it. It seems the rate of change is ever increasing. But in complexity theory the curve progresses and then suddenly collapses, like the Bronze Age , Roman empire, etc. — Pop

Complexity Theory applies to isolated chaotic systems, which have a limited lifespan. But the Cosmos seems to be gradually organizing itself (self-organization) despite the pull (bias) of Entropy back into a chaotic state.

So, the lifespan of the organic universe may be limited only by the supply of Energy/Information that remains in circulation, after eons of Entropy have wasted it away. However, notice that, in the Cosmic Progression Graph, the curve remains Asymptotic to the vertical line defining the complete exhaustion of Energy/Information. Hence, the lifespan of the physical universe is finite, and will never cross the finish line at Infinity. :worry:

Asymptote : a line that a curve approaches, but never touches, as it heads towards infinity

PS__A more optimistic (imaginative) version of the graph could show a new curve springing off from the Omega Point. That would be a new universe, and a new world, powered by the recycled Enformation/Energy from the original cycle of world creation. But that fantasy is so far-out, that my puny mind can't make sense of how it would work. Unless of course, the Programmer chooses to plug the data from the first calculation into a new program, for another pass at achieving perfection. Objection, your honor! Pure speculation! :yikes:

Complexity Theory applies to isolated chaotic systems, which have a limited lifespan. But the Cosmos seems to be gradually organizing itself (self-organization) despite the pull (bias) of Entropy back into a chaotic state — Gnomon

There are quite a few objectors to the heat death hypothesis:


From Wikipedia:

"
Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.[27][28] More recently, Walter Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence."[29] According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it."[30] Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system".[31] According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state."[32] Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way."[33] In Landsberg's opinion: "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book."[34]

A 2010 analysis of entropy states, "The entropy of a general gravitational field is still not known", and "gravitational entropy is difficult to quantify". The analysis considers several possible assumptions that would be needed for estimates and suggests that the observable universe has more entropy than previously thought. This is because the analysis concludes that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor.[35] Lee Smolin goes further: "It has long been known that gravity is important for keeping the universe out of thermal equilibrium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative specific heat—that is, the velocities of their components increase when energy is removed. ... Such a system does not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. Instead it becomes increasingly structured and heterogeneous as it fragments into subsystems."[36] This point of view is also supported by the fact of a recent experimental discovery of a stable non-equilibrium steady state in a relatively simple closed system. It should be expected that an isolated system fragmented into subsystems does not necessarily come to thermodynamic equilibrium and remain in non-equilibrium steady state. Entropy will be transmitted from one subsystem to another, but its production will be zero, which does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics.[37][38]"

A think it is fair enough to say that the universe is biased towars order. It is true at least for the local observed universe, in local time. This is the relevent consideration. Things may have been different in the past, and may be different in the future, but currently and locally there is a bias towards order.

Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter. — Gnomon

- I like this very much.

We cannot conceptualize emotions we can only feel them. :100:
We cannot conceptualize energy, we can only feel it. 80% - any thoughts?
Therefore emotion is a form of energy / enformation ?? - a force?

I mentioned this before, and I'm sure it's been touched on directly if not indirectly.. but something critical to consciousness is awareness of time (past, present, future).

You noticed a seed that has fallen onto the ground. You notice it begins to take root. You later notice another plant begins to grow where said seed has fallen.

Etc. Though, many animals exhibit this form of consciousness as well. An animal learns it can either get food by cracking open nuts, or that if you witness a fellow member of your species being killed or injured by something, if you don't react (fight or flight) it can happen to you, or some even say something along the lines of a squirrel storing nuts for the winter or a bear gathering up on fat for hibernation, though it is commonly argued the latter are more habitual/instinctual (genetic memory?) than conscious willpower. Who knows?

You need to be aware of a before state to be aware of a present state, and both are required to have any notion of a future state, which is where planning/decisions derive from, which is probably where invention and innovation comes from ie. you notice two objects that seem unrelated to each other say a fallen tree branch and a heavy object, than perhaps put two and two together, then you have a lever. But how deep is this really? Beavers build dams, birds can solve puzzles, and yes as mentioned squirrels know to store away nuts for the winter. Are these all forms of consciousness or merely habitual instincts or behaviors learned through generations? What is human consciousness, as in consciousness that is allocated/available solely to humans? A mere advanced form of this or something much greater we've yet to understand?

But how deep is this really? Beavers build dams, birds can solve puzzles, and yes as mentioned squirrels know to store away nuts for the winter. Are these all forms of consciousness or merely habitual instincts or behaviors learned through generations? What is human consciousness, as in consciousness that is allocated/available solely to humans?A mere advanced form of this or something much greater we've yet to understand? — Outlander

Time is an important element. Far from equilibrium states store energy for a future time.So they are cognizant of time from the word GO! The self organizing system is entirely attuned to its environment, and evolves within the environments constraints and possibilities, in a relational fashion, through its interaction with it.
The system is entirely determined / caused, with a slight randomness attached to each causal transaction, such that emergent properties arise from the randomness acting upon a multiplicity of causal factors. Eventually the system evolves in this way already aware and interacting with its environment, "as this is the only way that it has to develop", into humanity.

A think it is fair enough to say that the universe is biased towars order. It is true at least for the local observed universe, in local time. — Pop

Cosmologists, looking at the universe as a whole system, conclude that it began in a hot & dense state, and is inexorably moving toward a cold & diffuse state. A rather dismal outlook. But, on a brighter note, they also observe that there is at least one pocket of organization that is like Goldilock's porridge : "just right" for Life & Mind. Our little planet happens to be in the habitable zone of not too hot & not too cold. To them, that rare coincidence looks like a random accident. So, even those, who are looking for habitable planets outside our solar system, would conclude that the universe as-a-whole is biased toward disorder. And that conclusion confirms their disbelief in a benevolent intelligent creator.

But I take a different angle on the Design-versus-Accident question. In my theory of Intelligent Evolution, I postulate that our world was not designed from the top-down, as in Genesis. Instead, it is designing itself (self-organizing) from the bottom-up via Evolutionary Programming. The metamorphosis program relies on randomness (accidents) to scramble existing forms, thereby allowing novel patterns to emerge -- not by accident, but by intention. Those viable emergent forms then compete among themselves to gain merit (fitness) with the Programmer, who established the criteria for passing-on to the next generation. Therefore, the universe is generally chaotic, but contains a seed of EnFormAction, which is indeed biased toward order. :smile:

Intelligent Evolution :
The Enformationism world-view and the BothAnd philosophy are based on a composite personal under-standing of how the world works. It’s a blend of both empirical scientific facts and theoretical religious myths. It accepts the general concept of natural evolution, but offers a detailed hypothesis to explain how that cause & effect process began from a primordial act of causation. The thesis developed from that kernel will seem un-scientific to some, and blasphemous to others. But it’s intended to be a reasonable theory derived from commonly accepted facts, plus a few notions from the cutting-edge of 21st century knowledge.
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page2.html

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

We cannot conceptualize emotions we can only feel them. :100:
We cannot conceptualize energy, we can only feel it. 80% - any thoughts?
Therefore emotion is a form of energy / enformation ?? - a force? — Pop

Yes. Human emotions are hormonal effects that produce the feelings we crudely categorize as happiness, sadness, disgust, fear, surprise, and anger. But, in various contexts, those basic feelings interact to form more complex sensations that also have names, but are still too complex to define succinctly in words.

Those hormones & neurotransmitters are chemical causes of neural changes that result in outward bodily behaviors. So, in that sense, they are motivating forms of physical Energy. And physical Energy is one form of what I call Generic Information or EnFormAction : the power to cause changes in form. Another type of Generic Information is the non-physical Vital Force that ancient sages observed in living organisms, but modern science has not pinned-down to a particular physical substance. Ironically, the ordinary Energy, that physicists take for granted, is also an invisible, intangible, immaterial causal force. And it's obvious that one of its many forms is the visceral motivations that we call Emotions. :joke:

uman emotions are hormonal effects that produce the feelings we crudely categorize as happiness, sadness, disgust, fear, surprise, and anger. — Gnomon

You're almost there but I think Damasio is more successful describing emotions and feelings (they re not the same thing).

motivating forms of physical Energy — Gnomon

Ufff... here you lost me.

Generic Information or EnFormAction — Gnomon

Lost again, your theory of consciousness is too long to digest but I'm curious on what you think about the Phi of Tononi and his IIT. Thanks.

but something critical to consciousness is awareness of time (past, present, future). — Outlander

Yes. Human consciousness has always been assumed to be awareness of the immediate present. But recent studies have shown that our awareness is always a beat behind the actual event. Part of that delay is the split-second it takes for processing of incoming information. But another part seems to be due to the necessity to compare the new information with memory, in order to assign it to a meaningful category of our worldview -- to make sense of it. So, our Present is always in the recent Past, and our projections into the future are mostly extrapolations from memory. :smile:

What is human consciousness, as in consciousness that is allocated/available solely to humans? A mere advanced form of this or something much greater we've yet to understand? — Outlander

I'm not aware of any evidence to indicate that human consciousness is significantly different from animal consciousness, or even from that of single-cell organisms. So it seem to be just a higher degree of general awareness (integrated information) of the internal milieu & external environment. Some have proposed that a moral conscience is added to animal consciousness along with the human soul. But almost all animated creatures appear to have some degree of social awareness & altruism. Yet, only humans seem to generalize that Me & You concept into abstract symbols & shareable words & viral memes. :nerd:

Therefore, the universe is generally chaotic, but contains a seed of EnFormAction, which is indeed biased toward order. :smile: — Gnomon

:up: That fits with my view of Determinism with a slight element of randomness causing emergent properties into its progress, met by natural selection culling unviable variants, thus causing better ordered states. This big picture seems to be a form of self organization. The big picture seems to be a teleological one, creating layers of smaller pictures subsuming the same form, as it is the only game in town! So its only possible to progress towards order. Human consciousness sits on top of this pile, but is not separate to it. Indeed it is entirely a teleological / self ordering mechanism, whose purpose is to self organize the entire system in relation to external elements / information. There is no possibility to step outside of this function in ordinary states of consciousness, because the very nature of a thought is a self organizing mechanism.

So the top down causation seems to be a big bucket where self order is the only possibility, with gradual layers of smaller buckets subsuming the same form all the way down to Planck length. Though it might be easier to understand as a bottom up causation.

Energy, that physicists take for granted, is also an invisible, intangible, immaterial causal force. And it's obvious that one of its many forms is the visceral motivations that we call Emotions. :joke: — Gnomon

YES! :up: It is obvious to me also, unfortunately not so for everybody. I think this is our ontological base - experience, that is a feeling, that is painful or pleasurable, that creates the "what it feels like" to be in the present moment. This is the thing that we have always trusted, and must trust, as it is the basis of our self organization, which is the basis of our personal reality, and everything that matters to us. And it seems it is a force emanating from a universe biased toward order.
At certain times of the universe there are certain forces at play, and this is what we are fundamentally grounded in - at the moment, in local time, it is the force toward order, which we arise out of, which we feel as emotions, that grounds us in the universe.

EnFormAction : I can see your mind ticking as it grapples with the logic of it all. I can certainly relate to that. :smile:
In consciousness, it is emotion that gives rise to the energy that enables action. The emotion is itself information, so if Enformation also contains emotion, then I can agree with it. EnFormAction is the result.
The mechanism described would be the integrative pole of consciousness, whilst perception would be the disintegrative pole (the disordering of the state).

Cartesianism excludes the "force of emotion" from all things non mind. So there is no answer to the hard problem from that paradigm. To shift the paradigm, and answer the hard problem, emotion has to become a force, or the universe has to become emotional. The effect is the same. Its a big job! :lol:

Thanks for the "pocket of order". I agree, to say it is a universe biased toward order is overreach. It needs rephrasing.

You're almost there but I think Damasio is more successful describing emotions and feelings (they re not the same thing). — Raul

Yes. I was not trying to provide a complete analysis of the difference between visceral Emotions and mental Feelings. :smile:

Feeling our Emotions : For centuries, the fleeting and highly subjective world of feelings was the purview of philosophers. But during the past 30 years, Antonio R. Damasio has strived to show that feelings are what arise as the brain interprets emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/

motivating forms of physical Energy — Gnomon
Ufff... here you lost me. — Raul

I was making an obscure reference to Damasio's distinction between physical Emotions and metaphysical Feelings, as abbreviated in the previous post. :nerd:

Generic Information or EnFormAction — Gnomon
Lost again, your theory of consciousness is too long to digest but I'm curious on what you think about the Phi of Tononi and his IIT. Thanks. — Raul

Sorry. My Enformationism Thesis proposes a new paradigm of empirical physical Science & theoretical metaphysical Philosophy. So, it uses a lot of neologisms that combine some modern reductive materialistic concepts with ancient holistic incorporeal notions. You'd have to be really motivated to expend the mental energy to completely comprehend that novel worldview. In this forum, I'm only giving glimpses of that strange new world. The concept of Integrated Information is a highly technical version of the old idea of Holism : that a whole integrated system (such as a human brain) has new properties/qualities (self-consciousness) that are not evident in its component parts (neurons). :cool:

Universal Consciousness :
* Because the problem of consciousness is a problem of definitions, some neuroscientists have decided to stick their necks out and define it. A popular recent definition is contained in integrated information theory, proposed by Guilio Tononi and Cristoph Koch. An apparent consequence of their definition is that pretty much anything can be conscious if it has the right sort of "information integratedness". A philosopher named Eric Schwitzgebel ran with this line of thinking, and attempted to show that If Materialism Is True, the United States Is Probably Conscious.
* To their credit, Tononi and Koch seem to have bitten the bullet and accepted a form of panpsychism — the idea that everything is conscious. Some philosophers dislike it when definitions are too broad : they call the process "bloating". But, it's a useful concept in my opinion. If everything from electrons to galaxies is somewhat conscious (by virtue of being somewhere on the "information integratedness" scale) then the concept of Consciousness becomes less useful as a descriptor of observable phenomena. (But then again, perhaps we never actually observe consciousness anyway. We observe with consciousness. Consciousness itself seems to have no material attributes: it is only the objects or targets of consciousness that have attributes. )
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html

Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility -- the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note -- this use of "Generic" is not based on the common dictionary definition, but on the root meaning : "to generate novelty" or "to produce offspring".

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

You're almost there but I think Damasio is more successful describing emotions and feelings (they re not the same thing). — Raul

They may originate as feelings of hunger or thirst, or as emotions due to cognitive process, but they resolve to feelings that are either painful or pleasant, that provide the felt sensation that becomes a causal force. - the question is why should that happen? and I think the answer is that it facilitates self organization.** Why? - because living systems can do nothing other then self organize. Everything they do is within the framework of self organization, punctuated by a feeling of "what it feels like" in the present moment.

because living systems can do nothing other then self organize. — Pop

Spontaneous self-organization as spontaneous decrease of entropy ? I'm not sure "self-organization" is an exhaustive enough word. I like Damasio's argument much more that says the purpose of emotions is to maintain homeostasis, survival.

Feeling our Emotions : — Gnomon

:up:

metaphysical Feelings — Gnomon

Why metaphysical feelings? What does a feeling be metaphysical? I personally would not attribute to feelings to be metaphysical but I would try to understand them better. I think any meta-something is for me a form of dualism, laziness to understand things, that I do not accept as a valid epistemic argument.
I know the implications of my claim, basically this claim destroys an important part of continental philosophy but it is what it is, this is how I see it.
I see that this implies as well that I do not agree with your Enformationism because as you say it contains metaphysical aspects. So I don't think it is worth I invest a lot of energy in understanding it in depth.

Tononi and Koch seem to have bitten the bullet and accepted a form of panpsychism — Gnomon

Searle says that as well. I disagree, I do not understand IIT as a form of panpsychism but I understand why many people think this way. IIT measures a foundational property of consciousness, it implies consciousness being a measurable attribute of any physical system like, for example, temperature. But accepting this implies accepting a different concept of consciousness, with completely different connotations. It does mean that IIT consciousness does not always contain a psyque and this implies we have to start talking about types of consciousness, like mammifere's or human's consciousness (types of consciousness that do contain a psyche because of emotions, feelings, social behaviours, etc.). I personally like IIT this very much because it has many practical consequences like that we can measure if a patient in lock-in syndrome is conscious or not looking at its IIT Phi coefficient, what is amazing!

Consciousness itself seems to have no material attributes: — Gnomon

Right, it is like the liquidity of water or any other substance. It is an attribute of the systems but the consciousness coefficient, IIT Phi, has to be beyond certain thresholds for human-like consciousness to arise. Below that threshold the consciousness is more and more "solid"... it cannot contain a psyche because it is not complex enough. I mean low conscious Phi means that consciousness is not the way we see it in living matter or mamifers but just a low level of integrated information we very low potential to develop even any kind of intelligent behaviour. Low-Phi's can be for example systems of particles that (i.e., molecules) interact between them but following physical laws and without "willingness", etc...

Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility — Gnomon

I read you Enformation concept in your link. It is amazing your effort of putting all this together and I envy you capacity to do it.
I'll be honest and sorry if I'm maybe too sharp but is a risk we all run when we expose our ideas.
Yes, we like unifying theories, einstein dreamed about a unified theory of the universe and you try to unify dualism and monism, but your Enformation is descriptive of things is not even a theory. What is the novelty and the implications of your Enformation? I can create my own concept as well, religions create their own systems of believes, Heidegger created his own concepts as well but what are the implications? Sounds like intellectual massage, a potpourri. Where is the epistemic value. Aren't you hiding all the important questions again behind a G*D. You can call it God or G*D or Dieu or Dios, it is always the same dualist story.
Let me put it differently, is your Enformation or your theory of consciousness able to do any kind of prediction? Like general relativity does or like quantum mechanics does? I mean a kind of "test" to proof your theory is adding epistemic value. I think the answer is not, this is why I say it is just descrptive.

Net, it is always attractive aesthetically to link up our intuitions (intuitions are more or less the same since our brain is like it is, from Plato and before him, only scientific discoveries create novelty) with new scientific concepts but I think what is important is to stop calling science "materialist" or "reductive" and put things the other way around: science is what is augmenting (not reducing) the concepts of nature like matter, energy, space, time.

By the way, in your Enformation concept I think you're missing implications of quantistic theories to our naif-intuitions on time and space, cause-effect,... once you understand some of quantum theories you start grasping that God, the initial cause, is maybe not needed if time is relative to the properties of our universe based on a mix of astronomic constants or maybe it was God to set them up? :-)

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/some-useful-constants-for-astronomy/

Spontaneous self-organization as spontaneous decrease of entropy ? I'm not sure "self-organization" is an exhaustive enough word. I like Damasio's argument much more that says the purpose of emotions is to maintain homeostasis, survival. — Raul

Spontaneous would not be logical. Initially they are caused. The fundamental cause would be the ordered state of the universe. They could not occur in disordered pockets.

Damasio's argument is not at odds with my understanding, my preferred wording is "far from equilibrium", rather then homeostasis. Far from equilibrium implies homeostasis, but also far in excess of homeostasis.
Organisms live at far-from thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings. They import exergy, export entropy and maintain constancy of their vital internal physiological constituents via homeostasis.

Why metaphysical feelings? What does a feeling be metaphysical? — Raul

Perhaps you interpret "metaphysics" as the study of unreality, or of the supernatural. But that's not what I'm saying.

I have a unique definition of Meta-Physics that was derived from Aristotle's second volume of his Physics, and is tailored to fit my personal worldview of Enformationism. Basically, the natural, but immaterial, phenomenon that we call "Mind" or "Consciousness", is what I call Meta-Physics : the non-physical aspect of our world. Another term for this category is "Subjective Reality" Since we can't study the Mind empirically, we must investigate it philosophically. :smile:

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Physics and metaphysics :
Aristotle divided the theoretical sciences into three groups: physics, mathematics, and theology. Physics as he understood it was equivalent to what would now be called “natural philosophy,” or the study of nature (physis); in this sense it encompasses not only the modern field of physics but also biology, chemistry, geology, psychology, and even meteorology. Metaphysics, however, is notably absent from Aristotle’s classification; indeed, he never uses the word, which first appears in the posthumous catalog of his writings as a name for the works listed after the Physics. He does, however, recognize the branch of philosophy now called metaphysics: he calls it “first philosophy” and defines it as the discipline that studies “being as being.”
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Physics-and-metaphysics

Science and metaphysics must work together :
https://aeon.co/essays/science-and-metaphysics-must-work-together-to-answer-lifes-deepest-questions

Searle says that as well. I disagree, I do not understand IIT as a form of panpsychism but I understand why many people think this way. — Raul

Even Christof Koch, a major proponent of IIT, refers to it as a modern form of Panpsychism. I understand why they use that common-but-outdated term. Yet, I think it has been misused by New Agers to imply all sorts of spooky notions. So, my own version of an all-mind world would be "PanEnformationism". Information is universal, but Consciousness & Subjectivity are limited to a few brainy animals at the top of the food chain.

Unlike PP, PE doesn't imply that everything in the world has a spiritual or mental or magical aspect. Instead, Enformationism is all natural, no magical. It explains how subjective Minds, and other Meta-Physical aspects of the world could arise from a kernel of EnFormAction (creative energy) in the Big Bang, by means of Darwinian evolution, and with no supernatural intervention beyond that initial setup. :cool:

Panspiritualism : Enformationism vs Panpsychism
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page32.html

What is the novelty and the implications of your Enformation? — Raul

Enformationism is merely my coinage for the cutting-edge concept in Physics & Cosmology, that everything in the world is a form of Information : Energy, Matter & Mind. The novelty that I have added is to make it a topic for study in Philosophy, specifically in Metaphysics : the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

The Cosmic implications of Enformationism are what I am exploring in my blog and in these Forum posts. Perhaps the primary significance of that novel worldview is as a replacement for the ancient outdated paradigms of Materialism and Spiritualism. Modern Science has weakened the hold of Spiritualism on the mind of the masses. And Quantum Theory has undermined the once-solid foundation of Materialism, with amorphous Fields and Virtual particles. But Enformationism is a way to put the Meta-Physical puzzle back together again.

Hey, it works for me. But, I'm not holding my breath, waiting for the next momentous Paradigm Shift, that was prophesied by New Age heralds, and fringey physicists steeped in Eastern philosophy. For me, it's just a personal worldview. :yum:

Everything is Information : Physicist John Wheeler coined the term black hole. ... Wheeler said the universe had three parts: First, “Everything is Particles,” second, “Everything is Fields,” and third, “Everything is information"
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

we can't study the Mind empirically, we must investigate it philosophically — Gnomon

While you're right, I consider metaphysics unreal :-) , it is not that I think it studies unreality, it is just that it is counter productive to use the term metaphysics as it implies a reality beyond physics, it connotates a dualism view of the world.
Metaphysics and meta-smthg terms are feeding what I think is a false intuition that is, as you mention, that mind cannot be studied empirically. I think heterophenomenology works and studying subjectivity empirically with the help of neuroscientific techniques and technologies is not only possible, it is what we do since a long time (not only Dennett but contemporary psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience do it).
Another story is us accepting that We, our Self, is not within our brain and its biology. I claim we should stop using the term mind as I think it is as well misleading and we should extend, instead, the use of the word brain and its relationship with the world (as Georg Northoff claims as well and as weìre doing with the concept of information).
Looks like Aristotle never used the word "metaphysics" and the etymology of the word itself is full of misunderstandings. Since then, and fed by dualistic intuitions as well as the fact that physics and science as we know it today was not very powerful and extended in the past 2 millenials, this concept got "viral" and each philosopher has tried to build its own metaphysics, trying to justify the existence of a kind of discipline superior to science. This "supremacy" of metaphysics is for me just sterile epistemologically.

I don't think you will grasp the fundamental revolution of nowadays understanding of our brain if you keep saying that there is any kind of physics vs metaphysics like being 2 sides of the same coin.

mental flip is required to view the other side. — Gnomon

I think the mental flip is needed to stop talking metaphysics.

I understand why they use that common-but-outdated term — Gnomon

Yeap, I do as well, and I personally don't like they use it. If you read their work I think using the word panpsychism induces to confusion.

Enformationism is all natural, no magical. — Gnomon

This is interesting, so for you the mind is inside nature?, then you're and maybe you don't know :smirk: , a natural cognitivist as I do (Sandro Nannini, Daniel Andler, etc.)

cutting-edge concept in Physics & Cosmology, that everything in the world is a form of Information : Energy, Matter & Mind. — Gnomon

Ufff, here I think you've gone too far. Everything? Are you sure you're not repeating philosophical mistakes history shows we use to do? basically that we exaggerate and extrapolate too much concepts created by the contemporary discoveries?
I agree the concept of information has become very powerful and I agree it helps articulate better how the world works. It has become such a powerful term because we all are experiencing a reality full of information technologies but saying that energy, matter and mind are a form of information I think is wrong.
Forgetting about mind, that is misplaced here as it is a different category, energy and matter can be in a chaotic, uncertain state with high entropic so containing low amounts of information. I think information's ontology has to be understood as a property and/or attribute of a certain state of energy/matter. More similar to "temperature" for example, you can measure temperature of any system so the same way you can measure the level of certainty, the amount of "information" it has.

Hey, it works for me. But, I'm not holding my breath, waiting for the next momentous Paradigm Shift, that was prophesied by New Age heralds, and fringey physicists steeped in Eastern philosophy. For me, it's just a personal worldview. — Gnomon

Right, and I really appreciate your view, it is estimulating to exchange ideas here :wink: :up:
I invite you to listen some of these videos, and you will feel how the concept of mind and metaphysics will little by little dissolve:

http://www.georgnorthoff.com/
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dehaene+perception

By the way, in your Enformation concept I think you're missing implications of quantistic theories to our naif-intuitions on time and space, cause-effect,... once you understand some of quantum theories you start grasping that God, the initial cause, is maybe not needed if time is relative to the properties of our universe based on a mix of astronomic constants or maybe it was God to set them up? — Raul

What "missing implications" are you referring to? What do those cosmic constants have to do with the First Cause inference? In my thesis, I merely assume that all constants were established in the Initial Conditions encoded in the Big Bang Singularity. They may seem arbitrary to physicists, but as Einstein discovered in his "biggest blunder", those seemingly random numbers do play a significant role in defining the particular path that evolution takes. Just as the random numbers of PI are essential to the creation of perfect circles, random constants my be essential to the creation of a "perfect" world --- from the Programmer's perspective, not necessarily from yours or mine.

Are you implying that Einstein's Theory of Relativity implies that our Earth-time perspective is not absolute, because the constants are calculated based on Earth's frame of reference? Actually, most of the 26 constants were intentionally adjusted to be local-time independent, by using the absolute speed limit of light as the common denominator. So, either those constants were arbitrary & accidental, in which case the precise organization of nature is an astronomical coincidence, or they were "set up" by G*D, because they were necessary to guide the computation of evolution in the intended direction. The latter makes more sense to me. :nerd:

Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' : https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html

Time-variation of fundamental constants : The term physical constant expresses the notion of a physical quantity subject to experimental measurement which is independent of the time or location of the experiment. . . . The immutability of these fundamental constants is an important cornerstone of the laws of physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-variation_of_fundamental_constants

Synchronicity : astronomical coincidence?