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. — Raul

Actually, the notion of "Meta-Physics" in the Enformationism thesis was specifically intended to fit into a monistic view of the world. Notice all the "&" conjunctions in the definition below. The ultimate unity of all dualisms is what I call The BothAnd Principle. It connotes a Holistic view of the world, as symbolized in the Yin/Yang concept. Personally, I think that my definition of Meta-Physics should be productive for reconciling the dueling dualities (metaphysical memes) that are dividing our polarized world. :cool:

Monism : a theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world. . . . the doctrine that only one supreme being exists.
NOTE : The worldview of PanEnDeism says that G*D is immanent in the world, but not limited to this physical sphere of space-time. Hence, G*D is BothAnd.

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind & matter, substance & attribute, fact & value.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

The BothAnd Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

PS___The "unreality" I referred to was the view from the standpoint of Materialism. But what I call "Ideality" is merely the viewpoint of a world with immaterial conscious Minds.

Ideality : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

makes more sense to me. :nerd: — Gnomon

I see, you work on your intuitions that tell you that a G*D is needed and I understand you're not a scientist, right? basically you have put together a good movie.

The BothAnd Principle — Gnomon

Ok, so this just confirms what I said, Your theory is a potpourri of ideas very descriptive of your own pop-movie.
No epistemic value, no consequences or implications for anything. I'm sorry Gnomon, I'm being intellectually honest, don't get too attached to this theory. Try to get new sources and new perspectives, not trying just to be right in what you say but listening to the novelties, the epistemic progress.
Contemporary times are great for this, you never get bored :nerd:

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. — Raul

No. The Enformationism thesis is not a Scientific Theory; it's a Philosophical Thesis. On the other hand, it is a sort of Theory of Everything, which retro-dicts that, given an intentional First Cause, the evolution of the world would be essentially just as scientists have found it to be, via their empirical investigations.

However, it also implies that if the "tape" of evolution was rewound and run again, the current state of the world would be somewhat different. That's because the linear Determinism of the evolutionary program is scrambled by the element of Randomness. That's why I don't attempt to make long-term predictions about the future of our incredibly complex world, driven by the heuristic method of Evolution.

My thesis is not intended to provide empirical value to scientific knowledge of the material world. Yet, it is intended to add some "epistemic" value to the philosophical understanding of immaterial Mind. The "proof" of that added value may not be known, until a new generation of philosophers grows-up without the weight of ancient materialistic or spiritualistic dogma. :joke:

Retro-dict : to state a fact about the past based on inference or deduction, rather than evidence.

Replay the Tape : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderful_life_theory

Heuristic :
1. any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational.
2. In mathematical optimization and computer science, heuristic is a trial & error technique designed for solving a problem more quickly when classic methods are too slow.

Epistemic : cognitive, conscious, knowing, cerebral, inner, intellectual, interior, internal, mental, psychological, noetic

I see, you work on your intuitions that tell you that a G*D is needed and I understand you're not a scientist, right? basically you have put together a good movie. — Raul

Many years ago, I lost faith in the Bible. But I still couldn't dispense with the logical necessity for what I later learned was the philosophical First Cause. Since then, all I've learned about Science and Philosophy has confirmed that early intuition.

I am not a scientist, and don't pretend to be. And the Enformationism thesis is not a fictional movie, it's my personal factual worldview. If you don't like it, you are welcome to create one of your own. :cool:

Ok, so this just confirms what I said, Your theory is a potpourri of ideas very descriptive of your own pop-movie.
No epistemic value, no consequences or implications for anything. I'm sorry Gnomon, I'm being intellectually honest, don't get too attached to this theory. Try to get new sources and new perspectives, not trying just to be right in what you say but listening to the novelties,the epistemic progress.
Contemporary times are great for this, you never get bored — Raul

Thanks for offering your "honest" opinion of my personal worldview. But, if you were interested enough to actually read the Enformationism thesis, you would find that it is anything but a "potpouri" of random ideas. Instead it is a carefully reasoned step-by-step hypothesis based on a cutting-edge scientific concept --- that everything in the world is a form of Information --- leading to the logical conclusion that the world itself must have had an Enformer. It is not presented as an empirical scientific fact. And it's not pretending to be an academic philosophical theory. As the website says, "it's not something to believe, it's something to think". If you don't like the way I think, think-up a thesis of your own. :cool:

PS___What is your definition of "the epistemic process"?

PPS___ Do you have a personal worldview with "epistemic value, consequences
, or implications"?

PPPS ___What is your theory of Consciousness? Does it have as much "epistemic value" as Pop's theory?

new generation of philosophers grows-up without the weight of ancient materialistic or spiritualistic dogma. :joke: — Gnomon

The contemporary philosophy has to go in hand with science and it helps it making progress as well as sense explaining the cultural and epistemic implications of scientific discoveries.
You're basically dreaming on going back in history to the times when people were following the dictates of Asclepio?
Those times you mention without the "weight of ancient materialistic or spiritualistic" dogma are those of the beginning of civilization. Spirituality brought stability to societies and now science is the next leap ahead, no way back :nerd:

The contemporary philosophy has to go in hand with science and it helps it making progress as well as sense explaining the cultural and epistemic implications of scientific discoveries. — Raul

I agree. That's why I base my cutting-edge philosophical thesis on cutting-edge science, both Empirical and Theoretical. But I try to avoid the dogmatic stance that is known as Scientism.

"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

"Everything we perceive consists of matter or energy that “vibrates”. It now appears also to be an information system"
https://hagedoorn.org/en/everything-is-information/

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos : "The universe is a physical system that contains and processes information in a systematic fashion and that can do everything a computer can do"
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

Everything is information : Physicist Vlatko Vedral explains to Aleks Krotoski why he believes the fundamental stuff of the universe is information
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfQ2r0zvyoA

You're basically dreaming on going back in history to the times when people were following the dictates of Asclepio? — Raul

Where did you get that absurd idea? That assertion sounds like another baseless put-down of something not understood. I don't think you intend to be a Troll, but you're beginning to make wild accusations. Are you offended by the notion that everything in the world is a form of EnFormAction?

Asclepius was the Roman god of medicine. What does that have to do with my thesis that everything in the world is a form of universal Information. One of those forms is mundane Matter, and one is ordinary Energy, and another is common Consciousness. Nobody today has to pray to a god for healing. :cool:

SCIENTISM : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.


BTW, what is your personal worldview? Can you summarize it in a few words? :smile:

The qualia of life is consciousness — Pop

I like that analogy, and I take it literally. I suspect that the reason scientists and philosophers find Consciousness to be the "Hard Problem" is that they think in terms of physical Quanta, and ignore meta-physical Qualia. But Generic Information (EnFormAction = energy + intention) is both : Everything in the world is a form of Information. For example, the word "information" originally referred to the contents of a Mind : immaterial Ideas. But then Einstein equated amorphous "Energy" with the quality called "Mass", which is how we quantity Matter. Around the same time, Shannon showed how mental Ideas could be converted into physical changes in Energy ( 1 = positive ; 0 = negative ) in order to transmit ideas from one Mind to another. Hence, Information can take on a variety of manifest forms, from measurable Quantitative Matter to imaginary Qualitative Mind, known only via the sixth sense of Reason. Therefore, it seems that the invisible stuff we label "Energy", may be the same stuff that causes the Qualia we call "Life" and "Mind".
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

I'm currently reading a book by John Horgan, Mind Body Problems ; Science, Subjectivity, & Who We Really Are. In his interview with theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman, I noticed their use of terms & concepts similar to those we are using in this thread. For example, Kauffman said, "It didn't take something that was utterly, bizarrely, mysterious and improbable to make a self-reproducing system. . . . It's self-organized." Another term he used was "autocatalysis". And a catalyst is a causal agency that changes something else without itself being changed. It's usually a chemical, but that definition also sounds like Energy and EnFormAction. Both are invisible & intangible, but no longer "mysterious or bizarre".

Kauffman also proposed the existence of "a new creative force or law or something that counteracts entropy, the universal tendency of things to fall apart". That sound like your notion of "Self-organization" and my term "Enformy". At the Santa Fe Institute, Kauffman studies Complexity in nature, which is the opposite of decomposing Entropy. So, another term for "Self-Creation", may be "Complexification", which creates new things with novel Properties, or Qualia. :smile:

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Qualia :
Latin term for immaterial properties, such as color & shape, of physical objects. Usually contrasted with Quanta, referring to unique things that can be counted. Qualia are subjective aspects of sensory perceptions (e.g. redness), as contrasted with the presumed objective existence of material things. Yet, all we ever know of real things is the mental images created in the mind, in response to sensory stimuli, not the things-in-themselves.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html

Complexity : information-theoretic complexity measures such as integrated information have been proposed as measures of conscious awareness
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00424/full

"But Energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has". (a quality of Matter)
Likewise, Information is not matter, but it is something that all matter has. (a quality of Matter)
Moreover, Mind (consciousness) is not matter, but it is a quality of a material Brain.
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

Where did you get that absurd idea? — Gnomon

From the following paragraph you sent above:
" My thesis is not intended to provide empirical value to scientific knowledge of the material world. Yet, it is intended to add some "epistemic" value to the philosophical understanding of immaterial Mind. The "proof" of that added value may not be known, until a new generation of philosophers grows-up without the weight of ancient materialistic or spiritualistic dogma. :joke: "

Everything in the world is a form of Information. — Gnomon

Yes, that's how I see it. Information is inseparable from energy and matter. Metaphysics, for me, is the underlying logic of how things work - the logical causal mechanics. Information connects things by informing them, in a two way interrelation process. The formation of things is an expression of this information. If we could strip away the energy and matter from information, the world would be a field of interrelated, intertwined information. But significantly in a "pocket of order", the information would be integrated. All the information, and subsequently energy and matter would be in the right place ( stable state ) relationally. It would be integrated information! :nerd: Impressions like these lead me to a panpsychic understanding. I think this would be roughly consistent with how Koch, and Tononi would also see it.

Shannon showed how mental Ideas could be converted into physical changes in Energy ( 1 = positive ; 0 = negative ) in order to transmit ideas from one mind to another. Hence, Information can take on a variety of manifest forms, — Gnomon

The information at every stage of the process still exists in information + energy = matter form. To go from one mind to another it has to propagate across physical fields. So at this metaphysical level, there doesn't seem to be much difference between human information exchange and object information exchange. The main difference, it seems, is that we are a fast evolving system ( in absolute terms, we evolve from thought to thought), whilst objects are very slow evolving systems ( from our timeframe, possessing only one thought - one instance of integrated information). If we could slow down our evolution ( thought to thought ), to one thought an hour, then we might be on par to say a tree, at one thought a year perhaps a rock. :smile: This is not to say that human consciousness is any less then what we think it is, its more to say that the consciousness that exists all around us is worthy of more respect then it currently receives.

We all put it together differently. What we put together is a function of biology, experience, and point in space ( relativity ). It facilitates our self organization. It is, as you say, our world view, or an expression of our consciousness. Nobody's is perfect, and everybody's is their best current understanding. To put this down in stated form is an achievement I think. I think you have done well! In many respects you are better informed then I am (thanks for the pocket of order), and its been good to exchange notes. That philosophers will agree is a pipedream, that we have agreed on so many things is added affirmation that in those respects we are correct. :up:

Thanks for the self organization links. Neil Theise is also a good introductory source.

BTW, what is your personal worldview? Can you summarize it in a few words? :smile: — Gnomon

My worldview in few words? I consider myself a natural-cognitivist. Professionals on this have explained many things of the world better than me. I rely very much on philosophers like Daniel Dennett, Sandro Nannini, Daniel Andler, Gerog Northoff and of course on great neuroscientists and mathematicians like Stanislas Dehaene, Tononi, Koch, and alon etc. They have really interesting theories and discoveries that change the way we understand things ! You notice I rely on contemporary people, not people from past centuries and I do it on purpose, it proofs to be very efficient in avoiding sterile ideas.

So I read them and I try to understand what they discover. I'm not one of those that tries to create a theory and think it is the cutting-edge theory because I'm not a professional philosopher, I'm not a scientist so I don't have access to the latest technologies so it would be ridiculous and pretentious for me to build a theory of the world myself. Are you a philosopher or a scientist?

Information is inseparable from energy and matter. — Pop

Reading through this paragraph I have the impression you don't understand what information is. Do you have a definition of information? I'm curious because is clearly different from the one we find in wikipedia, so I'm curious. What is information for you and what is not information for you?

I like that analogy, and I take it literally. I suspect that the reason scientists and philosophers find Consciousness to be the "Hard Problem" is that they think in terms of physical Quanta, and ignore meta-physical Qualia. — Gnomon

Could you please mention some of those scientists or philosophers that think on consciousness as physical quanta? Maybe Chalmers? I can tell you not all the scientists and philosophers think on Consciousness in terms of Qualia. The cutting-edge theories on human consciousness are based on integrated information within the brain, not quanta anywhere.
I'm asking this because I think this is a wrong prejudice you have.

— Raul

SCIENTISM : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. — Gnomon

Enformationism : excessive belief in the enformation theories ( I couldn't find a good picture sorry) :lol:

Reading through this paragraph I have the impression you don't understand what information is. Do you have a definition of information? I'm curious because is clearly different from the one we find in wikipedia, so I'm curious. What is information for you and what is not information for you? — Raul

Information is the fundamental element informing energy and matter, thus informed energy and matter propagate the information that gave them form. Everything is composed of information, energy and matter, where E=m. To ask what is not information reveals your level of understanding.

Information is the fundamental element informing energy — Pop

You should not include the concept you're defining within the definition itself. :confused:
I think you better read the professional definition for example wikipedia's:
Information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty...

One example of a 0 information system would be a system full of uncertainty. :wink:

From the following paragraph you sent above:
" My thesis is not intended to provide empirical value to scientific knowledge of the material world. Yet, it is intended to add some "epistemic" value to the philosophical understanding of immaterial Mind. The "proof" of that added value may not be known, until a new generation of philosophers grows-up without the weight of ancient materialistic or spiritualistic dogma — Raul

Will you please explain to me how you interpreted that quote to mean that "You're basically dreaming on going back in history to the times when people were following the dictates of Asclepio?". I don't see the connection. Are you inferring an advocacy of Spiritualism?

I enjoy the give & take on this forum. And the reason I post here is a> to get feedback on my non-mainstream ideas, and b> to have those ideas intelligently challenged, so I can improve them. But I don't appreciate an "out of the blue" assertion that my worldview is advocating a return to ancient "dictates" on medicine. :smile:

Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enform-ationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information. — Gnomon

Since 19th many theories have come, materialism is an stereotyped word you keep using and that is the
proof that your Enformation comes late and adds not epistemic value.

So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world. — Gnomon

Infinite deity, God? It is evident you have missed exposure or understanding of XXth century onwards... Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Quine... analytic currents like epistemology, logical positivism. The use of "deity" is obsolete in philosophy.
Your claims are basically going backwards, traditional spiritualism disguised with a pseudo scientific approach (Asclepio's times).
Since 19th century many new theories have been raised by professionals in the field of philosophy and science already.
No need to invent new words-marketing-like concepts like your enformation and your G*D

It is clear for example you had no exposure to natural-cognitivism, or heterophenomenology. If you're posting in this forum to learn new things and to challenge yourself the only way is you check out those schools of thought as well as the links I shared with you in my previous posts. :nerd:

Give yourself a chance! :wink:

Impressions like these lead me to a panpsychic understanding. I think this would be roughly consistent with how Koch, and Tononi would also see it. — Pop

In John Horgan's interview with Koch, he summarized the IIT theory : "It depicts us as nodes in an infinite web of information, a cosmic consciousness that is pretty close to God, the God of Spinoza if not the Bible". That's similar to my worldview, but I insist on making a distinction between Information as the essence of Energy, and Information as the essence of Mind. As I see it, the Big Bang Singularity contained no mental phenomena, but only Potential for the eventual emergence of Consciousness. So, I disagree with the New Age notion of conscious Atoms. They do exchange Information in the form of electrons (energy) that are gained or lost or shared. But I don't see that as awareness in the human sense.

Again, Horgan quotes Koch, "You think only humans are truly conscious, and we're a lot less conscious than we think we are, whereas I think everything is at least a little conscious, including jellyfish, compact disk players and dark energy". Early on, I toyed with the Universal Consciousness concept, but eventually came to understand that Actual Mind is an emergent phenomenon, not an essential aspect of the world. However, the Potential for Mind is an essential element of reality.

This conclusion is based on my understanding of how Evolution operates, somewhat like a computer program. So, I think PanPsychism is based on a Spiritual worldview. But, what the ancients interpreted as intelligent & intentional Spirits operating in the world, is what we now know as mundane cause & effect Energy. Hence, Information per se is the potential for Change, and for Meaning. But, Energy is the actual cause of change. That may sound like nit-picking, but it's important to my worldview to make that key distinction between the Energy of Materialism, and the Ghosts of Spiritualism. :scream:


Potential :
Actuality and Potentiality are contrasting terms for that which has form, in Aristotle‘s sense, and that which has merely the possibility of having form. Actuality (energeia in Greek) is that mode of being in which a thing can bring other things about or be brought about by them, the realm of events and facts. . . . . By contrast, potentiality (dynamis in Greek) is not a mode in which a thing exists, but rather the power to effect change, the capacity of a thing to make transitions into different states.
https://www.the-philosophy.com/actuality-potentiality-aristotle

Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

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

PanSpiritualism : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page32.html

Mind-Body Problems: by John Horgan
https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Body-Problems-Science-Subjectivity-Really-ebook/dp/B07H4NZCSW/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=Mind-Body+Problems&link_code=qs&qid=1612115793&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-3&tag=mozilla-20

Since 19th many theories have come, materialism is an stereotyped word you keep using and that is the proof that your Enformation comes late and adds not epistemic value. — Raul

What word would you suggest in place of "Materialism", as the opposite of "Spiritualism"? Are you a Materialist or Spiritualist or Other?

I'm sorry the thesis of Enformationism doesn't add any "epistemic value" for you. Nevertheless, it was only intended to add epistemic value to my own personal worldview. :cool:

21st Century Materialism : Perhaps because modern developments in biochemistry and in physiological psychology greatly increased the plausibility of materialism, there was in the mid-20th century a resurgence of interest in the philosophical defense of central-state materialism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy/Twentieth-century-materialism

Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Your claims are basically going backwards, traditional spiritualism disguised with a pseudo scientific approach (Asclepio's times). — Raul

Obviously, you have completely missed the point of the Enformationism thesis. It is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. I do explore the wisdom of the past, such as Aristotle's categories. But I don't accept any pre-scientific notions about the physical world as authoritative. Yet, I do think that pre-scientific sages were not idiots, as you may assume, but merely doing their best to understand How & Why the world works as it does. Modern Science does a good job of the "How", but struggles with the "Why". Hence the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness remains unsolved to this day. At least, a few of us, like Pop and Gnomon, are trying novel approaches, rather than repeating the same old failures of the past. :wink:

PS___Does your worldview explain "not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love"?

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

My worldview in few words? I consider myself a natural-cognitivist. — Raul

I don't find that term in a Google search. Is that your own private personal worldview?

I'm not one of those that tries to create a theory and think it is the cutting-edge theory because I'm not a professional philosopher, I'm not a scientist so I don't have access to the latest technologies so it would be ridiculous and pretentious for me to build a theory of the world myself. Are you a philosopher or a scientist? — Raul

Apparently, you bow to the authority of the priests of Science, and don't trust your own reasoning ability. Yet, you claim to have a personal worldview. Did you just snatch it out of the air? On what authority was it based? What cognitive steps led to that personal belief system?

Since you are posting on a forum for amateur philosophers, why do you think it's "pretentious" to "build a theory of the world" yourself? The Enformationism thesis specifically denies that it is intended to serve as a new religion. Besides, what do philosophers do, it not build theories of the world? What's the point of this forum, if not to share specific opinions & general worldviews? :joke:

Heterophenomenology ("phenomenology of another, not oneself") is a term coined by Daniel Dennett to describe an explicitly third-person, scientific approach to the study of consciousness and other mental phenomena.

That objective perspective of Science is fine for studying the physical material world. But it's not adequate to understanding the subjective meta-physical mental world. The topic of this thread is : "a short theory of Consciousness". Has your natural-cognitivist approach contributed any "epistemic value" to the hard question of Consciousness -- of Subjectivity? Dennett thinks he has solved the problem, by merely dismissing it as a problem. He calls Consciousness an "illusion". Is your awareness a hallucination? Maybe that's why you don't trust your own reasoning ability. :nerd:

Information is thefundamental element informing energy and matter, thus informed energy and matter propagate the information that gave them form. Everything is composed of information, energy and matter, where E=m. To ask what is not information reveals your level of understanding. — Pop

You should not include the concept you're defining within the definition itself. :confused:
I think you better read the professional definition for example wikipedia's:
Information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty...

One example of a 0 information system would be a system full of uncertainty. :wink: — Raul

Note the highlighted "fundamental" in my answer. Most people would understand that information, being fundamental, is part of everything, and so cannot be defined in terms excluding itself.

@Gnomon and I are discussing the metaphysics of information. It requires a deeper insight then can be gained from a reading of wikipedia. Kindly avail yourself of such insight before posting more ignorant comments.

One example of a 0 information system would be a system full of uncertainty. :wink:[/quote]

A system full of uncertainty has information of its uncertainty. It is not 0 information.

Given your rudeness, it will please me to leave you chasing your tail by asking you to provide an example of something with 0 information. Good luck, and please don't reply until you have found such an example.


Why do people who do not know very much, think they know it all. Is it because they do not know enough to know any better? :chin:

Have you ever come across anything that has no information? - Tell me about it! :rofl:

I don't find that term in a Google search. Is that your own private personal worldview? — Gnomon

It is not one of those mainstream pop-schools of thought you'rejused to. But there is still hope, you tried to google it, :snicker: search for Naturalism and Andler or Nannini.

, it not build theories of the world? — Gnomon

You said before it is... contradictions? :joke:

Have you ever come across anything that has no information? - Tell me about it! :rofl: — Pop

You have so many things to learn. It is evident you guys don't even have a scientific education, and you have invested all this energy writing a theory of everything :rofl: :lol:

Read the Naturalism so you can learn something new. :snicker:

A system full of uncertainty has information of its uncertainty. It is not 0 information. — Pop

Yes, it has information because you say it has it. Good the mathematicians and physicist thinks differently.
As I just said to Gnomon, it is evident you guys have no scientific studies, at least at university levels.
It is not good you try to impose a view when you don't even have the basic education to understand concepts like information.
But keep in mind you're just cheating yourself guys.

It is not good you try to impose a view when you don't even have the basic education to understand concepts like information. — Raul

Given your rudeness, it will please me to leave you chasing your tail by asking you to provide an example of something with 0 information. Good luck, and please don't reply until you have found such an example. — Pop

I'm still waiting. Given you understand information so well, it should not be a problem to provide an instance of 0 information. :rofl: :rofl:

It costed me 5 years of master degree studies and 2 master degrees... but if you pay me well I can teach you :lol: :rofl: :lol:

They do exchange Information in the form of electrons (energy) that are gained or lost or shared. But I don't see that as awareness in the human sense. — Gnomon

In my understanding, this is the beginning of consciousness - the self ordering at the bottom level, leads to ordering in levels above. It is incredibly subtle, but without this ordering at the bottom, thoughts could not form. Ontologically we are grounded in the "pocket of order". We are a being in the universe.

Awareness in the human sense is being able to have thoughts and feelings about thoughts and feelings.
This, I suspect, is a function of communication. I suspect that before we could communicate we could have thoughts and feelings, but it is only since the collective consciousness that we could pool information into a collective bin that everybody can draw from, that a new consciousness arose, that allowed us to have thoughts and feelings about thoughts and feelings. Its the synergy of many minds that creates a collective consciousness, and this is the emergent consciousness that you are describing as human consciousness. What I'm getting at is that there is an evolving process at play always

So, I think PanPsychism is based on a Spiritual worldview — Gnomon

No there is nothing spiritual about my understanding. It is entirely logical. Rigorously logical.

Information per se is the potential for Change, and for Meaning. But, Energy is the actual cause of change. — Gnomon

But the proper form is Enformation, and we don't know what this bundle contains. We know consciousness consists of information + emotion. We know a philosophical zombie is inert with only energy and information ( enformation ). It needs emotion for consciousness. Why should this not work for all life?
The logic is that it should! That it is not so is an ancient religious assumption not based on any scientific proof. The proof that exists, in microbiology, cellular biology, plant neurobiology, quantum biology, is that these things are thinking (cognizing).

Its not something one can accept on the face of it. It requires a personal journey of research and discovery. It takes a long time to accept, so I don't expect any sudden change of heart on your part. But its something to think about in future research.

Lets not respond to trolls.

It costed me 5 years of master degree studies and 2 master degrees... but if you pay me well I can teach you :lol: :rofl: :lol: — Raul

What a waste of time and money, given the result. I'll be waiting on 0 information from you. :rofl: :rofl: