could be the first evidence of that missing factor to explain everything we have been talking about! — Pop
Other authors may find different ways to sub-divide consciousness, but ultimately an explanation must be found in the basic processes of nature.... and I don't see you focusing-in on what the necessary base-level requirements might be. — Gary Enfield
If information preservation is fundamental, then everything is integrating information. — Pop
Almost everyone accepts evolution as a process of change and increasing complexity, once the first cell existed - but things must be very different before life - without an alternate evolutionary mechanism - just basic chemistry (with lightning or without it). — Gary Enfield
I think it needs to be understood that everything exists in a relation to something else. Indeed everything exists in a relation to a multiplicity of externalities. It is not a static relationship, but an evolving one. So everything exists in a process of interrelational evolution - both the living and nonliving evolve through a process of interrelational evolution. If this is true for everything, then it is also true for the first living cell. This gives me the confidence to state that the first living cell arose through a process of interrelational evolution - simply because no alternative of being exists! — Pop
f information preservation is fundamental, then everything is integrating information. This is consistent with the modern definition of consciousness ( information integration ). It occurs through self organization. Self organization is caused by external elements. Self organization creates a self, entirely from elements external to self. The only thing that belongs innately to the self is the information it preserves. The information is stored as a pattern of materials. Simply put, the information is the arrangement or pattern of materials. In the case of living things it is an animated pattern of materials. The animation is itself an emergent pattern. Life is an animated pattern. An animated pattern is a process.
Does this make sense? — Pop
The scientific method is always to try and break processes down into their fundamental components, and people have, in their different ways, distinguished between factors that might combine to generate consciousness. I felt that your discussion was weakened by treating consciousness as a single thing.
Finipolscie talks of 3 components - Awareness, Control, and Thought.
I think he settled on these three because they are all scalable, and seem to reflect different properties that could potentially be attempted by mechanical/chemical processes.
Other authors may find different ways to sub-divide consciousness, but ultimately an explanation must be found in the basic processes of nature.... and I don't see you focusing-in on what the necessary base-level requirements might be. — Gary Enfield
The last phrase might be a little confusing "An animated pattern is a process" ? maybe you can say more details about the process. — Adughep
but i thought you wanted to add a little more to make it clear for everyone. :up: — Adughep
I am still unclear about what you are saying. Perhaps you are trying to say that information is a distinct thing in its own right and that consciousness is merely an expression of this underlying information. — Gary Enfield
Put another way, there is nothing to suggest that physical existence is dependent on such an information base - and if Matter/Energy can exist independently then there is no basic requirement for an information layer to existence. — Gary Enfield
I was not familiar with the concept, before you mentioned it, but self-organization theory appears to convey the idea that a system without innate orderliness will attain order by virtue of the constant influence of factors from the environment. Or, as you said, the internal organization will reflect exterior factors. Note that this is recognized by abiogenesists. That is, they recognize that life emerged due to the availability of factors, such as energy and overabundance of carbon and radiation, among others. Certain supporters go even so far as to conjecture that it was inevitable development to produce life, whatever the contingent initial conditions of the chemical substances were, although I am not sure that I would go that far.Everything is information, and everything is self organizing, so everything is self organizing information! This is the underlying element that materialism does not generally recognize.
I imagine impressions like this is what led people like Planck, and Schrodinger, and others to believe that consciousness is fundamental, and Fritjof Capra to state that "the basic unit of cognition is a disturbance in a state." — Pop
I don't want to butt into the discussion. I took a peek and realized that what you describe as consciousness is very similar to how I would describe it in panpsychic and pantheistic terms. That is how I should convey their idea, if I were to elaborate it today. I even wrote a post some days after yours, where I summarized my position. I am merely entertaining the idea as a hypothesis, not a claim. Not even a conjecture. — simeonz
Note that what you called information here, if I have understood you correctly, is probably better termed state. It is a small concern, but I think that conventionally information is considered a relation. And in information theory, there are two related terms, mutual information, and conditional entropy. — simeonz
Your leap to an information layer of existence, (plus some factor that can rationalise and shape it), may be true - but it is a big leap none-the-less, given the level of evidence available. — Gary Enfield
Our views differ, in the sense that I do not postulate any new empirical relations. I haven't elaborated much either way, because the point was to defend naturalistically compatible emergence of phenomenological experience. I would concur with you that dynamic systems in nature have attractor points that are more organized then their initial conditions, but I think that this is accepted by contemporary science. As I said, I believe that for the case of the first biological systems, abiogenesis is relying on this idea, when hoping to prove the arrival of organics from pre-biotic chemistry. On the other hand, it is well known that thermodynamic entropy is bound to increase globally. Therefore conditional entropy between systems will increase, and information expressiveness, or order is to be lost. Terrestrial life sustains order, because we still have low entropy energy sources. For biological systems, it is predominantly from solar radiation, and for our technology, it is predominantly fossil fuel and atomic energy.Please feel free to add to the discussion, and please provide a link to your description of consciousness.
In my understanding, self organization = consciousness. Self organization is a god like term, as far as I can see, in that it can fill all of the explanatory gaps traditionally filled by god. — Pop
... — simeonz
Interjecting in again, but I should disagree. The distinction between pantheism/panpsychism and metaphysical idealism, the way I see it, is that that the former conjectures mental state articulated by immutable or quasi-immutable constraints, acting on the relations between its constituents, whereas the latter considers these constraints as just cognitive elaborations of ephemeral experiences. Dualism proposes that the immutable constraints exist objectively and permanently, but are not between the constituents of the mind, but between the constituents of another substance that the mind supervenes. Idealism and pantheism/panpsychism are both substance monism indeed, but their treatment of natural law differs. It is epistemic in essence for the former, and ontological for the latterIf the 2 main monist views are either that :-
a) there is only physical Matter/Energy (Materialism) or
b) there is only Thought (Idealism) which can fashion our imaginings and give a perception of solidity,
then an' information layer' as you describe it, which shapes everything, is either close to the Idealist view, or a full embodiment of the Dualist perspective. — Gary Enfield
I think there is a misunderstanding about Dualism here. — Gary Enfield
I haven't elaborated much either way, because the point was to defend naturalistically compatible emergence of phenomenological experience. — simeonz
I do not postulate any new empirical relations — simeonz
On the other hand, it is well known that thermodynamic entropy is bound to increase globally. Therefore conditional entropy between systems will increase, and information expressiveness, or order is to be lost. Terrestrial life sustains order, because we still have low entropy energy sources. For biological systems, it is predominantly from solar radiation, and for our technology, it is predominantly fossil fuel and atomic energy. — simeonz
That is why I was excited by the recent preliminary findings from CERN, about a 5th force in nature that was previously unknown. — Gary Enfield
In a broad sense, I am OK with the general notion of Pantheism, but for my particular worldview, I call it PanEnDeism. :cool:↪simeonz
Thanks for the link. You are a little difficult to follow once you get going, but on the whole I was quite impressed. We agree on a systems / embodied approach. I would disagree on pantheism, but I think Gnomon would agree with you. — Pop
That is why I was excited by the recent preliminary findings from CERN, about a 5th force in nature that was previously unknown.
— Gary Enfield
Can you provide a link or summary please? — Pop
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.