keeping my fingers crossed that consciousness turns out to be a mathematical pattern — TheMadFool

How on Earth can mathematical patterns be consciousness? Why should someone take that as a serious possibility? Also, if that's the case, there should have been evidence of it by now. Consciousness and mathematical patterns have existed for a very long time. Why has there not been any proof the two are causally connected (or the same thing)? I don't think any proof will be forthcoming and this problem is just going to get more and more acute.

How on Earth can mathematical patterns be consciousness? Why should someone take that as a serious possibility? Also, if that's the case, there should have been evidence of it by now. Consciousness and mathematical patterns have existed for a very long time. Why has there not been any proof the two are causally connected (or the same thing)? I don't think any proof will be forthcoming and this problem is just going to get more and more acute. — RogueAI

The short answer (to your questions): I don't know.

The long answer: I'm working with the hypothesis that consciousness is some kind of pattern, to take a physicalist stance, in matter-energy. We already have a pretty good idea that matter-energy and mathematical patterns are connected in a very initmate way (physics, chemistry). I then just put two and two together and came to the conclusion that consciousness could one day be expressed as a formula. Speculation of course, nothing definitive.

The short answer (to your questions): I don't know.

The long answer: I'm working with the hypothesis that consciousness is some kind of pattern, to take a physicalist stance, in matter-energy. We already have a pretty good idea that matter-energy and mathematical patterns are connected in a very initmate way (physics, chemistry). I then just put two and two together and came to the conclusion that consciousness could one day be expressed as a formula. Speculation of course, nothing definitive. — TheMadFool

Personal incredulity aside, I think this runs into a Mary's Room problem. If an experience can be expressed mathematically, then if a blind person knew the right maths/numbers, they could deduce, from the math alone, what it's like to see (and also what it's like to be a bat, if they know the right math). Doesn't that seem wrong? I don't see someone blind can know what it's like to see without having the experience of seeing.

And then of course, there's the issue of what kind of substrate the pattern is being run on, and how would you go about verifying if it's substrate-dependent or not? How would you test that mathematical pattern X,Y,Z is a conscious moment? I can see how you can claim that a conscious moment has a mathematical correlate, because we can express the physical brain state assosciated with the conscious brain state mathematically, but then you're back to the causal problem.

But I will grant you that you can correlate mental states with numbers. That is significant.

Personal incredulity aside, I think this runs into a Mary's Room problem. If an experience can be expressed mathematically, then if a blind person knew the right maths/numbers, they could deduce, from the math alone, what it's like to see (and also what it's like to be a bat, if they know the right math). Doesn't that seem wrong? I don't see someone blind can know what it's like to see without having the experience of seeing. — RogueAI

I did consider that angle. Maybe we're missing something very important. Suppose we do manage to discover the mathematical formula for consciousness but then what does that mean? Does it relate the state of consciousness with the variables energy, charge, etc.? My understanding of science gives me the impression that, yes, the mathematical formula for consciousness is going to be as general as that. The upside is consciousness will no longer have to be organic i.e. it can be replicated on other kinds of media. The downside is specific, particular consciousnesses won't be possible. I guess this all squares with my intuition that specific/particular consciousnesses, like yours or mine, are a function of what consciousness is processing. So, while consciounsess itself maybe generic, common to all, an individual one can be created by feeding it specific thoughts.

Mary's room issue plays a central role in my personal view regarding all things mind. I recall mentioning in another conext the difference between comprehension and realization. I don't know how true this is but geniuses are supposed to feel equations, arguments, whatnot i.e. they're capable of getting a very personal, subjective experience when they encounter objective but profound arguments and elegant equations - the words, "profound" and "elegant" reflect that aspect of realization as opposed to mere comprehension. So, yeah, although Mary's Room argument suggests that getting an objective account of the color red is missing the subjective experience of red, my take on it is, a person who's in the habit of realizing instead of just comprehending will, by my reckoning, be able to experience red just by reading up all the information available on red. I hope all this makes sense at some level.

Yeah, that made sense. Perhaps an objective math formula can bring about a state of synesthesia in a blind person so that their processing of the equation brings about a mental state that is similar enough to seeing so that they know what seeing is like. Although, in that case, some kind of experience is still necessary for knowing what seeing is like- the formula, if there is one, would simply act as a bridge allowing the blind person to make a "what is it like" realization about seeing without ever seeing. I don't know how much sense that made.

Yeah, that made sense. Perhaps an objective math formula can bring about a state of synesthesia in a blind person so that their processing of the equation brings about a mental state that is similar enough to seeing so that they know what seeing is like. Although, in that case, some kind of experience is still necessary for knowing what seeing is like- the formula, if there is one, would simply act as a bridge allowing the blind person to make a "what is it like" realization about seeing without ever seeing. I don't know how much sense that made. — RogueAI

You read my mind! :up:

If I may be allowed some further speculation, the mind seems to be capable of so much more than we give it credit for. The "...bridge..." you mentioned in re a vision-impaired person is exactly the metaphor I'm looking for. The mind can, if we allow it to, bridge the gap between objective knowledge and the subjective knowledge that it allegedly lacks. Reminds me of phenomenology whose goal is, if memory serves, to bring descriptions up to the level of experience

:up:

keeping my fingers crossed that consciousness turns out to be a mathematical pattern — TheMadFool
How on Earth can mathematical patterns be consciousness? — RogueAI

The technical mathematical calculations of IIT are way over my head. But, I think 's wording of the relationship -- seeming to identify Consciousness with Mathematical patterns -- has the direction of perception backward. Patterns (forms), mathematical or otherwise, are what we are conscious of. Patterns are the external "objects" that our subjective Consciousness interprets as meaningful, including mathematical values & social relationships.

IIT is a novel way of thinking about Consciousness, which gives the impression of scientific validity in its use of mathematics. But it still doesn't tell us what Consciousness is, in an ontological sense. Since Consciousness as a computative process is meta-physical, we can only define it with metaphors -- comparisons to physical stuff. And Mathematical Logic may be as good an analogy as we can hope for. But the big C is not simply a pattern itself, it's the power (ability) to decipher encoded patterns (think Morse code). That's why I say it's a form of generic Enformation (EnFormAction) : the epistemological power to create and to decode Forms into Meaning. :smile:

Can Integrated Information Theory Explain Consciousness? :
So, although IIT is a useful theory for understanding “C” for scientific purposes, it doesn’t really answer the “hard” philosophical questions, such as “how and why do we experience subjective qualia?”
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page80.html

Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

↪TheMadFool's wording of the relationship -- seeming to identify Consciousness with Mathematical patterns -- has the direction of perception backward. Patterns (forms), mathematical or otherwise, are what we are conscious of. Patterns are the external "objects" that our subjective Consciousness interprets as meaningful, including mathematical values & social relationships. — Gnomon

Excuse me! In my defense, the current mathematical, scientific and neuroscientific paradigms can't seem to be able to get the study of consciousness off the ground sans a plausible model one of which is consciousness, thoughts to precise, are so-called brain states. To my knowledge brain states are generally construed to be patterns in the neural network. It remains a matter of debate whether such neural network patterns can be captured in a mathematical formula or not but I'm sure there's a neat little math trick you can employ as a workaround. I'm fairly confident, based on the history of Newton' & Leibniz's calculus, that if the aforementioned task seems impossible, all that would be needed is a brand new mathematical tool that'll do the job in a manner of speaking.

all that would be needed is a brand new mathematical tool that'll do the job in a manner of speaking. — TheMadFool

Some mathematicians & physicists, have advocated the "new science" of Cellular Automata, as a way to go beyond Analytic and Algorithmic methods in the search for knowledge. Unfortunately, as a path to new knowledge, CA may not appeal to analytical and reductive thinkers, because it is ultimately "undecidable". Stephen Wolfram, in his book, A new Kind of Science, advocates CA as a way to study complex systems, such as Minds, that are resistant to reductive methods. In other words, the new methods, including IIT, take a more holistic approach to undecidable and non-computable questions, such as "what is it like to be a bat?". :smile:


Penrose argues that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine, which includes a digital computer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

Cellular Automata :
The Game of Life is undecidable, which means that given an initial pattern and a later pattern, no algorithm exists that can tell whether the later pattern is ever going to appear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

A New Kind of Science :
Wolfram argues that one of his achievements is in providing a coherent system of ideas that justifies computation as an organizing principle of science. For instance, he argues that the concept of computational irreducibility (that some complex computations are not amenable to short-cuts and cannot be "reduced"), is ultimately the reason why computational models of nature must be considered in addition to traditional mathematical models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science

Maybe we're missing something very important. Suppose we do manage to discover the mathematical formula for consciousness but then what does that mean? Does it relate the state of consciousness with the variables energy, charge, etc.? My understanding of science gives me the impression that, yes, the mathematical formula for consciousness is going to be as general as that. The upside is consciousness will no longer have to be organic i.e. it can be replicated on other kinds of media. The downside is specific, particular consciousnesses won't be possible. I guess this all squares with my intuition that specific/particular consciousnesses, like yours or mine, are a function of what consciousness is processing. So, while consciounsess itself maybe generic, common to all, an individual one can be created by feeding it specific thoughts.

Mary's room issue plays a central role in my personal view regarding all things mind. I recall mentioning in another conext the difference between comprehension and realization. I don't know how true this is but geniuses are supposed to feel equations, arguments, whatnot i.e. they're capable of getting a very personal, subjective experience when they encounter objective but profound arguments and elegant equations - the words, "profound" and "elegant" reflect that aspect of realization as opposed to mere comprehension. So, yeah, although Mary's Room argument suggests that getting an objective account of the color red is missing the subjective experience of red, my take on it is, a person who's in the habit of realizing instead of just comprehending will, by my reckoning, be able to experience red just by reading up all the information available on red. I hope all this makes sense at some level. — TheMadFool

I think maybe you are missing something important: quality. We tend to split quality into:
- what we can isolate from affect (that is, what we can consolidate into quantised concepts) and
- the affected quality of experience - what we attempt to quantise as emotions, feelings or ‘qualia’.

The ‘profound’ or ‘elegant’ quality of certain equations is an affected relation to their structural quality beyond logical or mathematical concepts. It’s an aesthetic quality, irreducible to concepts but nevertheless entirely reasonable, rational.

I understand quality to be pure relational or organisational structure: an existence of relation without substance. In language, we can’t really make sense of quality until we attribute it as a property of. We talk about the ‘qualities’ of an object, of an experience, or the ‘quality’ of a relationship, or an idea. This is because quality is highly variable phenomenologically - it appears differently, according to the relative positions of everything, including ourselves.

So, an objective account of the colour red is complex and uncertain. In my experience there is a qualitative structure of logic and energy I call ‘red’ and a qualitative structure of logic and energy (attention and effort) I embody in relation to it. As another experiencing subject you can relate to this structure I embody and adjust your predictive distribution of attention and effort to account for our relative difference in position, so that you can predict how you might have related to this ‘red’ in my position, and how I might relate to ‘red’ in your position. When you reduce this complex relational structure to a concept, for efficiency you would ignore overlap and exclude variability (noise), similar to digital sampling. So the concept ‘red’ that we share is not an actual structure, but a typical qualitative pattern of logic and energy, relative to a predictive logic and distribution of attention and effort that you or I can embody in relation to it. And we can actualise this concept in a variety of structural forms, according to available energy and common system logic.

So, for Mary to predict an experience of ‘red’, she would need to work backwards. In reading available information on red, she would need to find a way to relate all that information to a predictive logic and distribution of attention and effort that she can embody in relation to the information. To do that, she would need to be aware of the differences in relative position between the embodied relation that generated the information (the observer/measuring device), and her potential embodied relation. So it’s not just the information on red that she needs, but how that relative position might be similar and/or differ from her own.

But she wouldn’t actually experience red until she embodies the relation - until the moment of interaction between available energy and qualitative patterns/structures in a common system logic. So the question is really whether Mary can predict and therefore recognise an experience of ‘red’ when she encounters one.

:up:

I understand quality to be pure relational or organisational structure: an existence of relation without substance. In language, we can’t really make sense of quality until we attribute it as a property of. — Possibility

IIT seems to be intended as a step toward computerizing Consciousness. If you can quantify mental qualities, then you can conceivably construct a Star Trek Transporter, which analyzes a human body & mind into 1s & 0s, then transmits that digital information across space to a receiver, which then interprets the abstract numbers back into a concrete living thinking feeling human. But some Star Trek episodes addressed the reluctance of some people to be transported. Not because they doubted the mathematical algorithms ability to quantify matter, but because they were afraid that the essence of their Self/Soul would be filtered-out in the process of turning Qualia into Quanta. Other Science-Fiction writers have expressed that same concern in personal terms : "will that reconstituted body still be me?"

Physicist Carlo Rovelli, in his latest book HELGOLAND, presents his "relational" interpretation of Quantum Theory. He says "properties do not reside in objects, they are bridges between objects". Those "bridges" are what we know in other contexts as "relationships". And the human mind interprets those patterns of relations as Qualitative Meaning. On a cosmic scale, it's what Rovelli calls : "the web of relations that weaves reality". And Reality is the "organizational structure" of the world. Ironically, this approach to physics places the emphasis on the mental links (relations, meanings) instead of the material nodes (substance). So, some of his fellow physicists will find that promotion of Mind above Matter to be tantamount to Panpsychism. Although, Rovelli doesn't go quite that far in his book. :smile:

IIT seems to be intended as a step toward computerizing Consciousness. — Gnomon

I think the main focus of IIT is more in predicting consciousness with greater accuracy.

And Reality is the "organizational structure" of the world. Ironically, this approach to physics places the emphasis on the mental links (relations, meanings) instead of the material nodes (substance). So, some of his fellow physicists will find that promotion of Mind above Matter to be tantamount to Panpsychism. Although, Rovelli doesn't go quite that far in his book. — Gnomon

I wasn’t aware that Rovelli had a new book - I’ll need to check it out, thanks. From what I understand of his previous work, it doesn’t surprise me that he was heading this way. He has shown previously that the organisational structure of reality is not based on ‘substance’, but on multi-dimensional relations between attention and effort in a particular system of logic. ‘The Order of Time’ described a four-dimensional structure of reality, and acknowledged that our capacity to describe it as such suggests at least another aspect of reality worth exploring - one in which the idea of ‘substance’ breaks down and the logic of grammar fails us.

Without reading his book, I think it’s important to note here that ‘Mind’ refers to a structure of relations between attention and effort in a system of logic. Mathematics as the system of logic in quantum physics would parse this structure clearly, dissolving the mind-matter barrier in a way that doesn’t even raise the question of panpsychism. I think it’s how we restructure this into concepts of language that raises the question.

Panpsychism simply refers to the notion that the organisational structure of reality is at least as (dimensionally) complex as the structure of the human mind. The relations between attention and effort which form ‘matter’ as we understand it are part of a larger structure of relations that extends both above and below our own capacity for attention and effort at any one time.

I think the main focus of IIT is more in predicting consciousness with greater accuracy. — Possibility

Yes. That too. IIT may be useful for the current application of computers in the search for hidden signs of consciousness in people that outwardly appear to be in a vegetative state (wakeful unawareness).

I doubt that Tononi had Star Trek technology in mind as he developed his theory. But the notion of quantifying consciousness would be a necessary step in that direction. The question remains though, if the quantitative values (objective numbers) would also include qualitative values (subjective feelings). Or would the holistic Self be filtered-out in the process of reducing a person to raw data? :smile:

PS__Rovelli's book focuses on the fundamental physical quantum-level inter-connectedness of the universe -- as the "web of relations that weaves reality". But, as a sober scientist, he avoids speculating on such meta-physical holistic notions as Cosmic Consciousness. He does, however, in a footnote, comment on Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos : "on a careful reading, I find that it doesn't offer any convincing arguments to sustain his thesis".

To my knowledge brain states are generally construed to be patterns in the neural network. — TheMadFool

Subjective experience as comprised of qualia is not a product of neural networks (by that I mean some sort of "wiring" itself), but rather the electromagnetic, more generally radiative fields of the brain etc. entangling with smaller scale entanglements amongst molecular complexes, creating a superposition contour analogous in its elemental structure to the additive wavelengths of visible light.

I doubt that Tononi had Star Trek technology in mind as he developed his theory. But the notion of quantifying consciousness would be a necessary step in that direction. The question remains though, if the quantitative values (objective numbers) would also include qualitative values (subjective feelings). Or would the holistic Self be filtered-out in the process of reducing a person to raw data? — Gnomon

An informational ‘bit’ is a consolidated binary event - a resultant spatio-temporal state of a system, reduced to the smallest identifiable interaction as energy (electricity) passes from one qualitatively static structure of matter in momentary contact with another. You can’t quantify information as a ‘bit’ outside the qualitative structure of an electronic system.

I don’t think Tononi can identify consciousness as a similar binary event, because there seems to be no way to control the qualitative variability of structure in a system complex enough for such an event to be identifiable amongst the noise. What he has identified is more like the least significant prediction of consciousness. Just as an informational ‘bit’ value depends on energy (electricity) flowing through a static system, I would argue that the ‘value’ of consciousness more accurately refers to non-commutative variables of attention and effort in an ongoing energy event.

From what I understand, the accuracy of Tononi’s ‘psi’ (ie. reduced to a single quantitative value) seems restricted to quantifying the probability of interaction changing an energy event in a particular way. But is that really ‘consciousness’? Any prediction assumes a particular qualitative structure of attention and effort, and loses accuracy in ‘predicting consciousness’ the further that qualitative structure differs from human. Like Shannon’s ‘bit’ in an electronic system, I’m yet to be convince that you can reliably quantify consciousness as a ‘psi’ value outside the qualitative structure of a human system.

Reducing a person to raw data isn’t the issue, though - it’s when we assume that the complexity of this raw data can be rendered as purely quantitative value (without qualitative structure) that we start to ignore contextuality. This is demonstrated in Heisenberg’s tables of data.

PS__Rovelli's book focuses on the fundamental physical quantum-level inter-connectedness of the universe -- as the "web of relations that weaves reality". But, as a sober scientist, he avoids speculating on such meta-physical holistic notions as Cosmic Consciousness. He does, however, in a footnote, comment on Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos : "on a careful reading, I find that it doesn't offer any convincing arguments to sustain his thesis". — Gnomon

Like Rovelli, I don’t believe there is any reason to posit a Cosmic Consciousness. But I would suggest that it’s more the self-justifying preference for consolidation that he objects to than any metaphysical aspects. Nagel’s book is pure speculation - a challenge to ‘do philosophy’ - and personally I don’t see it making any reasoned argument for Cosmic Consciousness. Nagel simply wasn’t prepared to dismiss the metaphysical sense of interconnected purposiveness harboured in teleological discourse. I think Rovelli shows that consolidation for its own sake isn’t necessary to include this metaphysical sense - that a collaborative and open-ended dialogue with our own ignorance is more conducive to scientific endeavour than tying it up in a comforting metaphorical bow. But perhaps it comes down to whether one is inspired by the question or the answer...

An informational ‘bit’ is a consolidated binary event — Possibility

Rovelli uses Planck's Proportionality Constant ( ħ ) as a symbol of quantum level "communication" in the form of Information or Energy. The constant defines a "quantum" of Energy and a "bit" of Information. As you say though, it always takes two to "entangle", to communicate. But he also makes a distinction between a Syntactic exchange (equivalent to a geometric relationship), and a Semantic interchange, which conveys Meaning between minds. That's my interpretation of course, He doesn't put it in exactly those terms. He does say, however, that "entanglement . . . is none other than the external perspective on the very relations that weave reality". (my emphasis) And you can define that third party to the exchange as a scientist's observation, or more generally as Berkeley's "God" who is "always about in the quad". That was the bishop's ontological argument for a universal Observer, who keeps the system up & running, even when there are no Quantum Physicists to measure the energy/information exchanges of minuscule particles. My own Enformationism thesis came to a similar conclusion. :nerd:

Queer quantum query in the quad :
https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg23130871-400-5-queer-quantum-query-in-the-quad/

Like Rovelli, I don’t believe there is any reason to posit a Cosmic Consciousness. — Possibility

Rovelli asks, "why is it that we are not able to describe where the electron is and what it is doing when we are not observing it? . . . . Observables! What does nature care whether there is anyone to observe or not?" Scientists don't have to worry about such questions, because Nature, or Spinoza's God, is always observing. But Rovelli has a different explanation : "the electron is a wave that spreads, and that is all. This is why it has no trajectory." When unobserved, there is no independent particles; there is only the hypothetical universal unitary non-quantized fluid or field in which a wave propagates. As I understand his point : the entangled system observes or tracks itself. Hence no third party is necessary. But what if G*D, or Cosmic Mind is the system? :chin:

But perhaps it comes down to whether one is inspired by the question or the answer... — Possibility

I suppose you could say that my Information-based worldview is what "inspired" me to assume, as an unprovable axiom, that a Cosmic Mind is necessary to imagine all the semantic information & causal energy in the world. :cool:

Rovelli uses Planck's Proportionality Constant ( ħ ) as a symbol of quantum level "communication" in the form of Information or Energy. The constant defines a "quantum" of Energy and a "bit" of Information. As you say though, it always takes two to "entangle", to communicate. But he also makes a distinction between a Syntactic exchange (equivalent to a geometric relationship), and a Semantic interchange, which conveys Meaning between minds. That's my interpretation of course, He doesn't put it in exactly those terms. He does say, however, that "entanglement . . . is none other than the external perspective on the very relations that weave reality". (my emphasis) And you can define that third party to the exchange as a scientist's observation, or more generally as Berkeley's "God" who is "always about in the quad". That was the bishop's ontological argument for a universal Observer, who keeps the system up & running, even when there are no Quantum Physicists to measure the energy/information exchanges of minuscule particles. My own Enformationism thesis came to a similar conclusion. — Gnomon

Rovelli’s use of the h-bar is not as a symbol of quantum level ‘communication’ - it acts as a qualitative limitation in any calculated prediction.

And it actually takes three to ‘entangle’ - and this is the point I think you’re missing with Rovelli. He makes it pretty clear in his criticism of alternative QM interpretations that to suggest such an unprovable axiom is grasping for certainty where there is none. Rovelli shows that a Cosmic Mind - just like a parallel universe or unobservable - isn’t necessary at all, but that it’s a source of comfort: to assume that someone is always observing, reassurance that the tree continues to be. This is where we have made errors in our descriptions of reality.

“We cannot rely upon the existence of something that only God can see.” - Rovelli

The way Rovelli sees it, it makes no sense to state that two systems S and S` are entangled if there is nothing with respect to which this can be determined. Consolidating an ‘entangled system’ only confuses the issue, because this entanglement does not necessarily exist for any system. It is determined as a joint property of the two systems only in relation to a third system S``, and cannot be assumed as a property of either system S or S` in relation to another system with which they might interact at any earlier or later time.

So we DO need to identify this third party for RQM. Your quote from Rovelli is incomplete: “Entanglement, in sum, is none other than the external perspective on the very relations that weave reality: the manifestation of one object to another, in the course of an interaction, in which the properties of the objects become actual.”

According to the relational interpretation of QM, there is no ‘Cosmic Mind’ or ‘universal Observer’, no privilege of subject over object. There are simply systems of information, and the two postulates:
- the maximal amount of relevant information about a system is finite;
- it is always possible to acquire new relevant information about any system.

Omniscience cannot be determined as a property of any system at this level. That’s not to say that either G*D or the notion of omniscience is necessarily impossible. Just that positing the ‘necessary’ existence of a Cosmic Mind as a system that is ‘always observing’ is not compatible with RQM. The notion of ‘Cosmic Mind’ refers to a qualitative infinite, an upper limitation or event horizon, while Planck’s constant refers to a lower limitation. They’re heuristic devices, not objects. That we consider the existence of a Cosmic Mind necessary to imagine all the semantic information and causal energy in the world speaks to the limitations of our own mind, not of reality.

Back to IIT, though - I think the above postulates highlight the limitations of a quantitative theory. Relevant information is that which counts for predicting future interaction with the system. Consciousness isn’t just about quantity, but about relevance: what counts for predicting future interaction.

Rovelli’s use of the h-bar is not as a symbol of quantum level ‘communication’ - it acts as a qualitative limitation in any calculated prediction. — Possibility

"Communication" was my term, not Rovelli's. And it was used deliberately, even though Rovelli specifically excludes the definition of "Information" that is relevant to my personal worldview. He says "the word 'information' . . . . is a word packed with ambiguity". That's exactly why I spend a lot of verbiage in my thesis & blog, to specify what I do and don't mean by "information", in the context of my un-orthodox understanding of how the world works -- not physically, but metaphysically. He goes on to say "'Information' is used here in an objective physical sense that has nothing to do with meaning". And that's OK for scientific descriptions of the physical world. But my concern is with the philosophical (semantic) meaning of metaphysical Information, as one human communicates subjective ideas to other humans.

In its most abstract and general sense, Information is simply mathematical ratios : relationships between one un-specified thing and another, (X : Y = 1 : 2). Those logical relations boil-down to yes/no, or true/false, or 1/0, as in digital computer code. And ratios or relationships have no meaning until they are interpreted by an observer : either a third party, or one of the communicants, who has a subjective perspective. And the "meaning" of an interchange is interpreted relative to the unique frame-of-reference of that third party. It is not an empirical fact of reality.

So, I take Rovelli's emphasis on the "relational" interpretation of quantum theory, as a pragmatic definition for physical scientific purposes. But my purpose is philosophical and metaphysical, in that it is concerned with how Conscious Minds, capable of knowing abstract Qualia, could evolve from a world of concrete Quanta. Therefore, for me, the relevant usage of "Information" is for qualitative concepts, not quantitative percepts. And the notion of a Prime Observer (third party), or holistic Cosmic Mind, has a qualitative meaning, that would not be of interest to a physicist attempting to reduce reality down to its fundamental granular quanta at the Planck scale. The holistic meaning of "reality" is continuous & non-finite, and exists only as a meaningful concept in a subjective mind. But then, as the "mind of god", that universal view would also be our objective reality. Yes? :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. . . . 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

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Back to IIT, though - I think the above postulates highlight the limitations of a quantitative theory. Relevant information is that which counts for predicting future interaction with the system. Consciousness isn’t just about quantity, but about relevance: what counts for predicting future interaction. — Possibility

That's why I think quantitative IIT is a step in the right direction for reductive Science, but still can't account for the holistic aspects of the world, that are relevant to all humans, not just empirical scientists. :smile:


Reply to RougueAI above "
IIT is a novel way of thinking about Consciousness, which gives the impression of scientific validity in its use of mathematics. But it still doesn't tell us what Consciousness is, in an ontological sense. Since Consciousness, as a computative process, is meta-physical, we can only define it with metaphors : comparisons to physical stuff. And Mathematical Logic may be as good an analogy as we can hope for. But the big C is not simply a pattern itself, it's the power (ability) to decipher encoded patterns (think Morse code). That's why I say it's a form of generic Enformation (EnFormAction) : the epistemological power to create and to decode Forms into Meaning.